Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by pooks, Jun 24, 2009.
Lol win after win after win.
I gotta feeling its not over.
THIS IS WHY...
people think you are douche. For every decent, insightful or logical post you make, you make 3 others that are fucking useless.
Some people make jokes about david miscavige being short. Just think of it as my version of that.
Scientology gets closer to removing nemesis lawyer from wrongful death lawsuit
By Thomas C. Tobin, Times staff writer
DM's personal defender.
The issues are totally equivalent.
And because someone else does something wrong that makes it alright for you to do so.
I am feeling bad for Kyle's mom Victoria Britton. None of this would be an issue if the cult had not so thoroughly terrified lawyers that none of them will take a case that were the defendant not the Church of Scientology lawyers would I imagine be glad to take.
What an unending path of grief she has to tread. My heart and prayers are with you, Victoria.
I have a hard time feeling bad about this. Suing the Church over her son's suicide is bullshit. I understand why she's doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.
That's what OJ said.
Bullshit because you think the estate's claims are false? Or bullshit because you think it's acceptable that Church officials contributed to Kyle's death by ordering the father to withhold his meds?
Bullshit because she's trying to claim that the leaders of the church are responsible for ordering the father to withhold the meds. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that.
I discussed the evidence issue as it applies to Denise Miscavige here and here. The evidence you apparently seek would be elicited at trial, namely the testimony of Denise Miscavige--her denial of knowledge of Kyle being on Lexapro is not credible given that she specifically called Kyle's mother in an attempt to convince her to allow Kyle to be treated by Narconon.
none are so blind as those whom will not see
i haven't seen evidence of a lot of things
unless we know what evidence one has and hasn't seen its impossible to judge or argue how valid the conclusion is
and who has the time or desire to find out
what a waste
dancing on the head of pins and defending evil cult leaders
Clam are posting in the sp times comments.
Dumbass. The DM jokes are psyops.
The religions probably find The Age of Reason to be a Paine in the ass.
If someone was to superglue the evidence to your fugly face, you still wouldn't accept it. Useless troll.
Then why isn't Denise the only person named in the suit? And isn't the father the proximate source of harm in all of this? I'm going to assume you're right and I'm wrong, since you have the expertise, but this all just seems to me to be bogus.
Because the justice system recognizes that several persons can jointly share liability to varying proportionate degrees. The estate has named all potentially culpable parties. Scientology's liability derives from Denise having acted in her capacity as a Church official. The estate can collect damages from each party to the extent it can be shown they are liable in the proportion they are deemed to be liable.
But if the Church says "Denise acted on her own," how do you demonstrate otherwise? Just trying to understand here.
I find this comment very intriguing as "Ministeral Exception" is used in other cases whereby if someone is "paid/employed" by the organisation they are acting under that umbrella yes/no?
So in regards to any liability when does someone act on thier own or as part of an organisation that uses "Ministerial Exception"
Maybe this is where the distinction could be clarified...
By showing that it was the ordinary business practice for someone in Denise's position to act the way she did; and further that ordinary business practice dictates that no end of internal reports would have naturally been generated in a scenario such as this. The absence of those reports gives rise to permission of an "adverse inference" that what would have been contained on such reports is/was harmful to the Church of Scientology's case. The Lance Marcor declaration covers some of this territory but some of it would be covered by Denise's testimony.
If you know how Scientology works, there's simply no question as to whether a staff member could possibly act "on their own" in a scenario like this. Even if Denise somehow thought she was acting on her own (they're not contending this, btw--they're denying causal effect across the board with all defendants), the determining factor would likely instead be Kyle's father's perception of whether he sought Denise's advice because she was a friend or because she was a CoS official, and whether her position as an official had any bearing on how he proceeded. But these really aren't close questions because Denise's conduct is entirely consistent with her role as a CoS official.
But you do hint at something that hasn't really come up yet, but may yet--the defendants are at cross purposes to some extent. They all share the motivation to disprove all of the Estate's claims, but they also have a secondary motivation to prove that X and Y share a greater proportion of blame than me, Z.
11th Circuit Rescues Fla. Lawyer Caught in Conflicting Rulings, Says He Must Quit Scientology Case
So no other lawyers out there willing to take on the case?
That ought to tell you something about the legitimacy of the suit...
From a poster's mere inquiry as to whether other lawyers were willing to take the case, you were able to presume that there are not, from which it logically follows that this presumption is evidence of the suit's illegitimacy. Keep thinking.
One of these threads about this case was full of people saying that getting rid of this attorney would be the death of the case because nobody else would take it, even though the family tried to find someone else. Calm down cupcake.
Does not make it illegitimate, stupid.
Yeah, I'm familiar. Indeed, it was the basis for the estate's argument that it was difficult to find another attorney, but that difficulty arises from the dearth of attorneys interested in litigating against Scientology on a contingency basis... due to Scientology's particular litigious history, not because of the suit's legitimacy.
And yet people sue them all the time. Why are you so invested in this? It's a bullshit case.
Herro you should just quit before Tikk make look more foolish. seriously.
1) Nice broken english.
2) Tikk is too close to this for some reason. It's clouding his judgement.
3) You think I care about looking foolish on WWP talking about scientology? Child please.
He's serving a useful purpose in a thread that would otherwise be at risk for dissolving into mutual backpatting. Deal with it or handle him better.
EDIT: and before I run the risk of seeming too friendly, you're an asshole, Herro. I'll think of why later.
1 Herro you should just quit before Tikk makes you look more foolish. seriously. Fixed
2 Your tinfoil a little too tight?
3 Yes or you wouldn't be here.
1) Thank you
2) Perhaps. Something is just off about tikk in this thread.
3) That makes no sense silly.
And no, I ain't even mad.
You're an irritating little thing aren't you.
He is good at what he does.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!