johnd0857

This attorneys points of authority are wrong, and most of his citations are not applicable. The cases he cited are from federal courts, and not in the 9th district fed. He cites Catholic Charities which is not correct because it was not a charitable organization. He cites Mitchell which is a fed appls case on fed law, although his complaint is a cal case. Cortez although applicable to for-profit companies is not valid here. Prince v. Mass is possibly a valid point as it is a US supreme court case, but only relates to Massachusetts and selling books on public streets, here again is a very broad application of that case, there is no CA law against having children sell books. Alamo case is not on point because RTC does not compete with other RTC's or other business in the publishing and distribution of church materials. Calvig is not on point, it deals with a Jesuit priest being sexually harassed by homosexual priests, and then being fired. north coast is off point it is about someone who has insurance trying to sue to get infertility procedures. This case should be removed as many of these citations have no mandatory authority on a CA trial court as they are federal based or wrong states codes which don't apply.