The lawyer for the defense argued in vain that Knight was a giant corporation bent on crushing the little guy. That argument is certainly a stinker. And he constantly shot off ad hominems of no concern whatsoever.
"So there are people willing to believe that there's a 35,000-year-old man here to teach you?" he told the jury, itemizing hypothetical multimillion-dollar revenue streams at the Ramtha school. "It's a sales gimmick."
Co-counsel David Spellman of Seattle, in closing arguments, tried to discredit Knight's case by alleging that the lawsuit was filed by "Ramtha, the arrogant one," evoking an old science fiction TV show.
"You have now entered the Fourth Dimension," Spellman told the jury. "You're in the Twilight Zone in Thurston County."
Spellman said Weaver didn't channel Ramtha at her seminar, but focused on her own work called "Spherical Reality."
But Creatura said the jury was swayed by a series of side-by-side videotape clips comparing Knight teaching Ramtha school seminars with Weaver leading similar processes at her August 2006 event.
Spellman used the wrong defense. You don't argue that you didn't steal it and they are a big evil corporation. You claim that your client was told very similar information by Ramtha and given permission to use those teachings. If they actual come from Ramtha they are the intellectual property of Ramtha. If they are made-up bullshit from Knight herself, then they are the intellectual property of Knight. The contract signed forbids her from teaching the school's teaching. Ms. Weaver however received her information from Ramtha himself then the argument can be made that they are independent teachings and only similar because Ramtha is the same.
All Knight has to do is admit that she's lying through her lying teeth to win. And since that is far fetched it just might work. Then the whole crazy beliefs are working for you rather than for her. Any dislike the jury has for the crazy works in your favor because if both sides say it's real then they get to let Weaver off the hook. On the sheer merits of the case you clearly lose. You need to let the jury channel their dislike of hokum into letting your client go. The jury can't say it's fake because that's not their job, they can only decide the facts in contention as to whether or not independent teaching counts as a violation of a contract.