...I wonder if the judge rules for the City at the trial, will the CoS appeal it? Can they appeal it, and if so, would a higher court hear it?
It took the church's attorneys, apparently being paid by the word, seven pages to answer that simple question and another seven pages to explain why.
Quote from: skydog on October 28, 2011, 15:04It took the church's attorneys, apparently being paid by the word, seven pages to answer that simple question and another seven pages to explain why. Following in the old man's footsteps, are they?It has been a long-standing tradition of the "church" to try to bury the opponent and the court with paperwork. The judge was apparently wise to that tactic, whether from this case or from their reputation, and ordered the memos to be no more than 15 pages.
A new Motion by the "church":http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA\2011-10-28_MotionForReconsideration.pdf
Merely disagreeing with a court’s decision is not a basis for relief.
Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear errors of law and fact. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a single error of law or fact, much less one requiring correction. Plaintiff’s blatant repackaging of its summary judgment arguments cannot support its motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff chose to submit an incomplete parking study that did not reflect the anticipated parking demand for its facility operating at full capacity.
Plaintiff continues to “quibble” over the definition of a “church” in the Zoning Ordinance, repeating its arguments from summary judgment almost verbatim.
The Court, however, found that there was no evidence – direct or circumstantial – that permitted even an inference of discrimination on the part of the City. Plaintiff’s reiteration of its arguments from summary judgment do not support its motion for reconsideration.
No hostile or discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff’s religion lurks in the shadows of the City’s decision. The City approved Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Property as a church. Plaintiff’s attempts to impute a hostility into the quoted line questioning from Councilmember Paul at the December 15, 2011 hearing only demonstrate Plaintiff’s extreme paranoia.
Nothing like twisting the facts to justify one's position....The church's lawyers would make good scientologists, lol.Looking forward to the court's decision.
Judge Amy Totenburg has issued these Guidelines to Parties and Counsel:http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-12-19_GuidelinesToPartiesAndCounsel.pdfI wonder if this means this case is about to start wrapping up in court?
There has been a ruling in this case that the City properly administered its parking ordinance. At first, I thought this meant the City won the case, but an article in the AJC clarified that there is still a matter to be decided - whether the City violated the "Church" of the holy lawsuit Scientology's free exercise of their "religion". Here's hoping the judge will rule in favor of the City on that as well.http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/10/05/sandy-springs-prevails-in-scientology-lawsuit/http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/judge-backs-city-in-1195105.html
Author
Topic: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia (Read 101205 times)