Those who do not have the truth cannot argue against it. If they are opposed to the truth for some reason of their own, then they will try to counteract it by telling things that are not true. But the truth cannot be hidden for long if you are really interested in finding it. Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -MacMillan

Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Bryan R. v. Watchtower



Often times, when discussing the Candace Conti case with pro-Witnesses and anti-Witnesses alike, the Author will be asked the reason for the confidence in his words, for the reason why he does not worry about a possible loss in appeal. The answer is simple: precedent. 

The lower court decision cannot possibly be upheld in the higher courts, because decisions of higher courts, unlike the former, create precedent; and the precedent that upholding such a decision would establish, would be nothing short of catastrophic for California's legal system**. As the Maine Supreme Court stated in a 1999 decision:
There does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor.  "The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action."  Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965).  In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting others from the danger...

The creation of an amorphous common law duty on the part of a church or other voluntary organization requiring it to protect its members from each other would give rise to "both unlimited liability and liability out of all proportion to culpability."  Cameron v. Pepin, 610 A.2d 279, 283 (Me. 1992)
What follows a bit farther below is the Maine Supreme Court decision that the above quote was taken from, reproduced in full for this blog. Take note that the circumstances and claims of the Plaintiff are almost an exact replica, detail for detail, of the Candace Conti case. If the names and locations were removed from both cases, a casual reader would probably have great difficulty distinguishing between them. And yet, interestingly enough, despite the striking similarities, the Maine Supreme Court came to a very different decision on the Bryan case than did the Alameda Superior Court in handling the Conti Case.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Vicki Boer Abridged

As was promised, here is an abbreviated version of the Vicky Boer court transcript, containing the sections deemed most important by the Author. He hopes that you will find it a much brisker read than the full version (coming in a little under 5,500 words compared with over 30,000 in the original, or roughly 1/6 the size); however, if you do not particularly trust the Author (of if you are simply a glutten for punishment), then the full, unabridged version of the court transcript is available here:

http://www.tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2012/09/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html


Moving on with the case summary:

About Me

My photo
[Please follow fair quoting rules and ethics when using my posts as references. Do not reproduce large portions of my words (more than 300 words or 10% of a post) without first obtaining permission. I reserve all rights of distribution for original work.]