Customize

Fed Judge ENJOINS FL judge in Kyle Brennan Litigation

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by pooks, Jun 24, 2009.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Dandaar would have probably been better off finding a lawyer for his client that could take her case, instead of violating his agreement he had made with Co$. He insisted nobody else would have but I think given the # of lawyers out there assisting in civil suits against Scientology, I think he was just being pessimistic. If he could take the case, then another lawyer could. If he overstepped his boundaries, regardless of his morals, he had this coming knowing it was a risk in the first place. Best thing he can do now is just get another lawyer for his client while he licks his wounds.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. anonymous612 Member

    My point is still valid.
  3. Herro Member

    If it helps I can make more couch jokes.
  4. anonymous612 Member

    Appreciate it, bby, that makes it easier to hate you. <3
  5. Herro Member

    Hey, it's only because I care about you enough to make sure you hate me.

    <3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. xenubarb Member

    Who the fuck are you to state Tikk is "too close to this."
    What's too close? Being well informed about it?

    Gawd, I wish someone would beat you to death in an alley sometimes...
    • Like Like x 3
  7. DeathHamster Member

    You're assuming that's what the sealed McPherson estate settlement says.

    So far, two judges have disagreed on that question.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/religi...dgment-against-lawyer-in-dispute-with/1119444
    Both judges are now out of the picture on that question, so it should be interesting to see how the next judge views it.
  8. Anonymous Member

    1. 1. Judge Beach and at least three judges of the 2nd DCA all agreed that Dandar violated the settlement agreement. (And of course the Florida Supreme Court recently gave its nod of approval to the 2nd DCA's decision.)

    2. 2. The reason Tikk appears to be "too close" to this case is because he briefly worked for Dandar on the McPherson case. (He has to stick up for his homey.)
  9. Anonymous Member

    Please excuse the double numbers, don't know how that happened. :)
  10. Anonymous Member

    No, so far, only Judge Beach has found that. The 2DCA only decided it wasn't going to take the issue up on interlocutory review and let Dandar attack the underlying order by a collateral attack on the finding of contempt. In doing so, it vacated the $50K contempt sanctions against Dandar. Remarkably, Scientology's lawyer agreed that the $50K sanctions were mistaken. Dandar has not appealed the underlying order, and may still do so in the ordinary course. No appeals court has ruled on the underlying order.

    Additionally, all the Florida Supreme Court was deny an extraordinary writ of prohibition, a relief which is only granted in the most unusual of circumstances. I think it should have been granted, rather than necessitating the even more extraordinary remedy Judge Merryday felt himself compelled to grant, but on which the Eleventh Circuit disagreed.

    So far, the only two judges actually to have ruled on the contract itself have disagreed. None of the appeals courts have even touched the issue of whether the contract is valid or binding, or even on what it says. If Ken wants to represent any clients against Scientology, though, as it seems he does from recent public statements, he'll have to sort this nonsense out in state court.
    • Like Like x 5
  11. tikk Member

    Whoever wrote this, thanks. I was just about to try and explain all this but the above is pretty much dead on.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. tikk Member

    I am friends with Ken Dandar and feel really bad for him with regard to what's happened in this case. That said, when I attempt to explain the law on this forum I try not to let my personal bias enter into what I write, and try to remember to disclaim where I speculate or analyze. I've only ever posted on my own behalf here, I've never discussed with anyone what I should or shouldn't post. But I figure my rooting interest is pretty obvious; I certainly don't think out loud as to how I think Scientology could best approach its legal strategy. They certainly don't need my help.

    So with regard to the Kyle Brennan suit, like every other case I discuss here, I don't hedge my opinion or post in defense of or on behalf of anyone; I only post my honest opinion or I don't bother posting at all. And it's hardly odd that I'd be posting about this case; I tend to post extensively on all the lawsuits/trials involving Scientology to which I have access to documents. There is no question as to the estate's suit's legitimacy; the case would've been dismissed if the claims had no legal merit (the estate survived the motion to dismiss). The only questions remaining (after this long detour as to whether Dandar can represent the estate) are evidentiary; whether the claims can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. My statements expressed in response to Herro's opinion that the suit was "bullshit" are hardly evidence of bias given these realities.
    • Like Like x 11
  13. Anonymous Member

    Anon, can you elaborate on (or clarify) your earlier post when you said, "The 2DCA only decided it wasn't going to take the issue up on interlocutory review and let Dandar attack the underlying order by a collateral attack on the finding of contempt."?

    When the state court originally ordered Dandar to comply with the settlement agreement (in 2009), Dandar appealed. The 2DCA affirmed the order.


    When Dandar failed to comply with the first order, the state court issued the contempt order. Yes, the 2DCA (in February 2011) reversed the $50K that had been entered in error, but it affirmed the circuit court's contempt order “in all other respects.”

    Why do you feel that the 2DCA has not ruled on the validity of the agreement? Wouldn't that have been the point of Dandar's first appeal?
  14. Smurf Member

  15. Anonymous Member

    Appeals courts don't exist to give people a do-over of a case, but only to correct legal errors and the most gross factual errors. Dandar was also seeking what is called a "writ of prohibition." This is a request that a higher court tell a lower court not only that it is wrong, but that it is entirely without jurisdiction and can't even try the case at all. This is only rarely granted.

    Further, when the trial court found Dandar in contempt, and to this day, actually, Judge Beach's order is in effect. Even if it's unconstitutional, violating the order is contempt. Therefore, if you violate a court order later found unconstitutional, and are held in contempt, that finding of contempt will still stand even if, later, an appeals court vacates the underlying order.

    The appeals court held only that the finding of contempt was valid for an order then in effect. It didn't say a word about whether that order was valid. The Florida Supreme Court, similarly, declined to issue a writ of prohibition. Not even having been asked whether the order itself was valid, it didn't rule on that issue.

    Nor will they unless Dandar files an appeal, and I don't know if he's done that. The issue won't become moot even if another lawyer agrees to take over the Brennan case, since apparently, Dandar wants to represent other clients against Scientology. I wish him luck, if the 2DCA in Florida has, without explicitly saying it, found the underlying order valid. If it hasn't, Dandar needs to jump on that quickly.

    I'll note that I haven't actually read the briefs in the state appeal. However, I think they would have addressed the underlying injunction if it had been raised.

    The mess which is the federal injunction case will probably make a textbook or two, though, because it's so rare a federal appeals court rules on the extremely rare issue of whether a federal court can enjoin a state court.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. tikk Member

    For what it's worth this article's title is misleading; it appears that whoever wrote the story wrongly presumed that Dandar wanted out of the case. It's an understandable error because the facts below are convoluted but it's an error nonetheless.
  17. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    If you want to be taken seriously, having integrity is the way to go. That takes being consistent, truthful, factual, and sticking to your own philosophy. Tikk has integrity.

    t
  18. Herro Member

    And you do a wonderful job. Seriously. But none of us are entirely immune to bias.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Anonymous Member



    You're referring to Dandar's second appeal where the 2DCA affirmed the contempt order but reversed the 50K. I'm referring to Dandar's first appeal.

    Several court documents refer to Judge Beach's original order in June 2009 (long before the order of contempt), which "applied the terms of the settlement agreement and ordered Dandar's general compliance." The 2DCA affirmed that order.


    Judge Hull of the 11th Circuit also referred to it in the denial of the stay of the permanent injunction. The judge dissented from the denial because Merryday "permanently enjoined a final state court judgment decided under state law and affirmed by the Florida appellate court."

    A few people here have commented that only two judges "ruled" on the contract and they both "disagreed." I just want to set the record straight.


    Four judges have "ruled" on the validity of the contract (Beach and the 2DCA panel) and they all agreed that Dandar violated the agreement.


    Merryday didn’t "rule" on the contract, he just expressed his opinion after reading the agreement (or a portion of it). The matter was not up for debate in his court. He had no jurisdiction in the matter so the validity of the contract was not officially argued in front of him.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Could you quote this and link to the 2DCA ruling you're talking about? I'm not saying I might not have missed something, but if so, I'd like to see it.

    All I see is this order in 2010, which states:

    Kennan G. Dandar, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Church Of Scientology Flag Service Org., Appellee/Respondent(s).

    CASE NO.: 2D10-2167

    COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT

    39 So. 3d 1270; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12099

    July 19, 2010, Decided

    NOTICE: DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

    PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
    L.T. No.: 00-005682-CI.

    OPINION

    BY ORDER OF THE COURT: AMENDED ORDER

    The petition for writ of prohibition is denied without prejudice. See Sumner v. Sumner, 707 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The petitioner may raise the jurisdictional issue in 2D10-2194.

    ---

    Before those in 2009, there are two per curiam orders saying simply "Affirmed" but the trial court decisions aren't available. Those could be upholding the order. Perhaps Ken Moxon can post them for us. If such orders exist, I'm clearly wrong, but I'm not going to go mucking with Pinellas's annoying and expensive online system.

    2D10-2194 btw is this: http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinio...2011/February/February 11, 2011/2D10-2194.pdf

    Which does make a couple pointed references to per curiam affirmations by appellate courts. Anyway I don't have the tea leaves to read, so I'll just clarify: if those per curiam affirmations were in fact of the order itself, then I was wrong in my previous post, and it's law of the case. I hope for Ken's sake future appeals aren't time-barred.
  21. Anonymous Member

    You have to think of why? Fail.
  22. Anonymous Member

    SO, he is on the case or off the case?
  23. Anonymous Member

    Unfortunately I don’t have a link to that ruling. As far as I can tell those records are sealed.

    In addition to my previously mentioned reference of an affirmance by Judge Hull, there is a mention in the church's motion for stay of proceedings in trial court (filed 10/25/2010):


    "The validity and enforceability of the contractual right has been thoroughly litigated in state court and was affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal on November 13, 2009."


    I believe this is the case docket for that appeal: http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket. It shows a per curiam affirmance on November 13, 2009.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Well, for some reason the docket link above (that I copied directly from the address bar when accessing the page) doesn't work when clicked. So if anyone wants to look up the docket, the 2DCA case number is 2D09-3055.

  25. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, but for the very reason that I'm not willing to assume from a one word order saying "affirmed" that there was actually an affirmation of an order I've never actually seen, I'm not willing to accept the word of Hull for something he similarly doesn't cite. I'm not a big fan of secret law. I've also seen that per curiam affirmance, which, IIRC, says "Affirmed." It doesn't say what it affirmed. It could have affirmed an order saying Mickey Mouse is God for all I know.

    I'll retract my original statement, though, and simply say that I don't know whether any judges other than Judge Beach have actually affirmed that a contract that blatantly breaks the law is enforceable.
  26. Anonymous Member



    The contract was created during confidential mediation. Dandar helped to put it together. It was agreed to by both sides and sealed at the request of both sides. If it "blatantly" breaks the law, that's something you'll have to take up with Dandar.


    Dandar has never once – in any of his motions – denied the church's argument that the contract was "thoroughly litigated in state court and was affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal on November 13, 2009." Based on that fact, and Judge Hull's remarks in her dissent, and the 2DCA docket showing a per curiam affirmance on November 13, 2009 in a case involving Dandar and Scientology, and a St. Pete Times article (dated 10/13/2010) stating that Beach's interpretation of the contract was "backed by an appellate court," I think it's safe to assume that yes, the 2DCA has ruled on the validity of the contract.


    Since Tikk is a friend of Dandar’s, he can confirm that this is correct.
  27. chuckbeatty77 Member

    Scientology's devil's bargain with the Lisa McPherson civil case settlement, was what Dandar should not have given in to. He set himself up for this.

    Tikk, thank you again for even taking an interest in this offensive legal shennanigans Scientology pulls.

    I always look forward to your comments and appreciate you even caring for all us idiots who tripped into the Scientology cult pit of crap.

    Hubbard's administrative rules of the Guardian's Office era (1968-1970s) are solidly still in the current organizational "Church of Scientology International" corporation, inside the Office of Special Affairs International.
    http://unchain.gr/scientology-frank-oliver-osa.pdf

    David Miscavige notwithstanding, and even when he's died of old age, or run off with his tiny stash of profits as cult leader if he runs off before he dies of old age, the setup left standing is a self running system that tells the upper staff ranks followers to follow the Hubbard rules and regulations, and those regulations tell the OSA staff what to do. Hubbard's the dead "Typewriter In The Sky" still running the members, from his grave, via his voluminous (and must be followed) writings!

    Homework assignment for those who want to see how BAD Scientology Guardian's Office and Office of Special Affairs will be for the years to come, and so as to predict what to expect from today's Office of Special Affairs:

    Best link to PDF listing of the OSA Docs in the Frank Oliver hat pack:
    http://unchain.gr/scientology-frank-oliver-osa.pdf


    Ex Guardian’s Office Mike McClaughry interviews by Stacy Young, filmed by Mark Bunker (thankyou Lisa McPherson Trust people!)
    talk 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eTLdUuxE54
    talk 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkjhZifrcfs&feature=related
    talk 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8uEPoaBwM&feature=related
    talk 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ySQAdnFII&feature=related
    talk 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpccSxB6Dwo&feature=related (watch this one first)
    talk 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFLnc8WouS4&feature=related
    talk 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJ6xwSX_Ww&feature=related
    talk 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NSX6VAWb4o&feature=related (NO CHANGE TODAY!)
    talk 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zUTtMvuqY&feature=related
    • Like Like x 4
  28. Anonymous Member



    Well, it's something Dandar will have to take up, since I don't really have a dog in the hunt. I also haven't seen the language of the actual contract. I also tend to view an Article III judge as having more expertise than Judge Beach, who I think is a senile incompetent (and long before this particular decision). I'd agree that whatever the 2DCA affirmed is now the law of the case, though.

    It's rarely safe to assume anything, and having made that mistake earlier in this thread, I'm not going to jump to assume the opposite just because I was originally incorrect. I also have very little faith in news media reports of legal matters, since they rarely get anything exactly right. There are actually two per curiam affirmances in 2009, as I mentioned earlier. I don't know, for a fact, what either of them say, other than "Affirmed." I do know the Florida Supreme Court denied a motion for a writ of prohibition.

    We'll know for sure if Ken tries to represent anyone else against the cult, because they certainly won't take that lying down.
  29. Anonymous Member

    How interesting that you would give more weight to Merryday's incorrect and informal opinion of the contract, in light of the fact that the validity of the contract was not argued in his court, he had no jurisdiction in the matter and no knowledge of the history or the facts of the settlement (other than what Dandar was feeding him). Also interesting is your opinion of Beach, who has a very good reputation in the legal community and who has been affirmed throughout this whole mess. It sounds like you have a personal issue here ...


    But back to the facts -- we can put this question to rest quickly as soon as Tikk weighs in.


    So … Tikk, how 'bout it? Please confirm that the 2DCA did in fact affirm Beach's ruling and agreed that Dandar violated the contract. We are anxiously awaiting your reply.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Yes, I'm probably prejudiced against Beach. I've seen him make numerous decisions that I think were completely idiotic, and I think his handling of the McPherson case was an abject botch job. Since I don't think he was incompetent at the time, I hold a very low opinion of his method of forcing a settlement in the Lisa McPherson case, which was basically to all but flat out state that the case would never go to trial as long as he had it in his courtroom. I could see no legal basis for his handling of the case, but a lot of politics. I could be wrong. He could just personally hate Ken.

    Now, I think he is actually well beyond where he should have retired. Perhaps he's a perfectly good judge in other cases. I don't know. I know he was right in the Schiavo matter, since he was upheld all the way, along with other Pinellas County judges for whom I care very little, like Judge Greer, who completely bungled the probate part of the McPherson case.

    Don't get me wrong. If you're right, you're right. I'd still agree with Merryday, and disagree with the Eleventh Circuit, but if I were in the Eleventh Circuit, I'd be wrong by definition since other than the Supreme Court, they have final say.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Not to beat a dead horse, but why would you blindly agree with Merryday when -- by your own admission in a previous post -- you "haven't seen the language of the actual contract"? Or maybe you HAVE seen the actual contract???

    BTW, Tikk, we're still waiting for you to respond.
  32. Anonymous Member

    I don't "blindly" agree with Merryday. Actually, before Merryday ruled, I had already expressed the opinion that this is the kind of case that justifies a federal court enjoining a state court. Therefore, I agreed with Merryday because he stated an opinion that I had already reached myself. The Eleventh Circuit, which is clearly a superior court to that of Judge Merryday, has disagreed with me.

    Again, I have also not seen the actual language of the contract. However, the contract, as interpreted by Judge Beach, limits Ken Dandar's representation of clients. Florida, as have 49 other states, has adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which binds attorneys to behave ethically. I don't need to see the agreement itself in order to interpret the rulings of various courts concerning the agreement. If the agreement means what Judge Beach, Judge Merryday, the 2DCA and the Eleventh Circuit say it does, it's illegal.

    One of those rules I was talking about is this.



    In other words, if the contract means what the cult says it does, and what Judge Merryday says it doesn't, then everyone involved in drafting or signing the contract has violated ethical rules and can be subject to discipline including disbarment. While I am quite fond of Ken Dandar, and think he has always nearly fanatically placed the interests of his clients above his own interests, that would include him.

    There is a rule that courts apply to interpreting contracts. If the contract is ambiguous, and one of the possible interpretations of the contract would result in an illegal contract, courts generally interpret the contract to be legal.

    I am rather confused as to why Judge Beach would deliberately construe a contract to break the law, and to put every party to the contract in jeopardy of disbarment. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why Judge Beach thinks Scientology's lawyers and Ken Dandar are presumptively disbarrable.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Like I haven't been wrong enough in this thread. Apparently, Judge Beach actually has nothing to do with the Schiavo case, either. Greer did, but not Beach, except possibly by being assignment judge. In any event, no major events in the Schiavo case feature Beach.
  34. Anonymous Member



    I’m confused by your question. Are you saying that Beach and the 2DCA should have ruled differently so as not to “put every party to the contract in jeopardy of disbarment”?


    Think about it. If Dandar illegally agreed not to sue Scientology, what is the remedy? Nullify the contract and make him and the McPherson estate give back all the money?
  35. Anonymous Member

    LOL... pre-law noobs are so cute when they think their being smart yet doing nothing more than talk themselves in circles of stupidity.

    Now which one of you nits are gonna realize first, just how moronic you look pissing in Tikk's cornflakes while insisting he has undocumented answers he can pull out his ass on demand just because he had a job in Dandar's office while you were still in gradeschool?
  36. DeathHamster Member

    With all the polygamous judge swapping on the McPherson civil case, I hadn't realized that Judge Beach was the one on the bench when the settlement was made. I do wonder if he was basing his decision on the settlement as it's written, or on his understanding of The Deal at the time it was made. He certainly hasn't been friendly towards Ken Dandar in the past.
    It sounds like they should have had a fresh judge determine what that agreement binds Dandar to, because Beach sounds way too involved to render an impartial decision.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Herro Member

    Meanwhile, the case is still a load of bullshit.
  38. Anonymous Member

    You have been told, more times than most people care to remember, that the case has merit otherwise it would have been dismissed when the opportunity for that arose. A lawyer has even taken the time to explain in detail directly to you precisely why it has legal merit. How hard is this for you to understand? Your repeated baaw and trolling doesn't change the facts. Get over yourself.

  39. Anonymous Member

    Find the provision void as against public policy and refuse to enforce it, then find it severable from the rest of the contract then, possibly, reprimand anyone who had anything to do with it. The first two may not be supported by case law, which I haven't looked at. Just because such contracts are considered unethical under the Rules of Professional Conduct doesn't necessarily mean they're unenforceable, though in my opinion, that would be the best way to serve the public policy behind the rule, which is to ensure the public counsel of their choice. In this case, the evil is far greater than simply limiting the choice of lawyers available to the public. It might have led to a complete denial of counsel, due to the cult's scorched earth terror tactics driving away other counsel.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Anonymous Member

    With all due respect to the WWP community, do your homework and form your own opinions instead of basing your life on information obtained from anonymous people on the internet.

    The settlement agreement came about during confidential mediation. With a mediator.

    Others may have seen it but I missed the detailed explanation by the lawyer. I think it's nice that you all have someone here who can explain things to you so you don't have to think for yourselves. I took a different route and read all of the evidence and formed my own opinion. The case has no merit.

    Since Scientology dropped several pending cases and money judgments against Dandar as a result of the agreement, if that portion of the agreement had been severed and made unenforceable, would the Scientologists have been able to refile those cases and collect payment for the judgments that had previously been imposed?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins