Yes, it did. Scientologists settle death suit May 29, 2004, Robert Farley, St. Petersburg Times The confidential mediation resulted in a confidential agreement. Judge Beach certainly seemed to want that case (and its many spawn) to disappear. Church settlement brings relief June 6, 2004, Robert Farley, St. Petersburg Times This certainly seemed to be a settlement ordered/forced by Judge Beach. He took "the unusual step of replacing Dandar" with Luke Lirot as lead attorney, apparently from pressure from the Church of Scientology who said that Dandar was a deal-breaker. (Well, isn't that special?) And now a new case pops up that threatens to tie up the courts just as much. (Up and down the legal chain many times, rotating judges, etc, etc. Decades.) Yeah, I can see why he doesn't want the courts gummed up with a case that'll take longer than his lifetime to complete. Still. I'd like to see the specific section of the agreement that restricts Ken Dandar from ever again being involved in a case involving Scientology. (How broad is that? If his client is involved in a fender-bender with someone that turns out to be a Scientologist, does that mean *BUZZ* he's off the case?)
Whoa, stop the presses! Do you mean to tell me that a judge actually urged the litigants of a 7-year-old lawsuit to settle? Unbelievable. Thanks for the laugh, Hamster. You amuse me. You forgot to include these quotes in your post: BTW, if you had done your homework like any responsible person you would already know why Dandar was removed as lead counsel on the McPherson case. You would also have seen that "specific section of the agreement." That information is contained in various court documents available to the public.
Beach's urges were to make the case go away, and when a judge gets strong urges like that, it's a lot like an order to settle. Did you think that Luke Lirot was really going to say "It was an okay deal, but nothing like what we could have gotten if Judge Beach hadn't been pressuring us. If we'd continued, it could have been much worse." You so funny!
I know, right?! I am funny! Trying to reason with illogical, crazy ex-cultists is just plain silly. What was I thinking?
After having the finer points of the case explained to me by tikk, I'm even more convinced that the case is bullshit. Just a grieving mother looking for a target for her understandable anguish. I'd probably do the same thing if I were in her shoes. It would still be a load of bullshit though.
View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUn5ynjOAywvsBMpLiJiFg1t9WKHkEu View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP69yHlz6CWiIrNhIsuuclnPV5jQTLO
You are correct. We know the allegation in the complaint that someone "placed, or provided access to, a loaded 357 Magnum pistol ... on or next to the bed of Kyle Brennan ..." was a lie. We also know that Kyle "hated" his medication, did not take it on a regular basis, and in the 72 days preceding his death he only took 19 pills, which basically negates the allegation that an "abrupt denial of his prescription Lexapro" caused his suicide. There are so many other flaws and inaccuracies in this suit -- too many to list.
I am rereading the Second Declaration of Lance Marcor. It reveals a lot about the procedures of a totalitarian bureaucracy. I do not understand the term "Privilege Log". Is this a cult log that lists dox that fall under so-called "priest penitent privilege"? It would appear so since Marcor states that Ethics Folders are never privileged in Scientology. Clarification appreciated.
Yeah basically. "Privilege" in the context of a "privilege log" covers much more than priest-penitent, such as work product, martial, etc. A privilege log is just a list of items which are responsive to the opposing party's discovery request (or subpoena) which the holding part is claiming is inadmissible due to a privilege. The judge determines whether the privilege applies or doesn't, and thus whether the item is admissible or not.
Just to quibble, and you certainly already know this, but the analysis for whether evidence is discoverable and whether it is admissible are separate. Something can be entirely relevant and admissible, and yet be covered by a privilege, so that it can't be discovered. Similarly, something can be discoverable, but not admissible (due to prejudicial effect like it turns out to be a picture of the defendant dressed as a furry screwing a Yoda doll which will make the jury hate him).
I have been re-reading Lance Marcor's Second Declaration and Victoria's Typed Chronology and Letter to Luke Lirot. Quite amazing. I have a question. In Marcor's declaration section 14 he writes: If Kyle was being considered as an Enemy/SP, Tom may have taken matters into his own hands, or others, and possibly expedited the disconnection by having "a hand" in his demise, since Torn Brennan stated in his answer filed in this case that his son died as a result of suicide or homicide. Can someone give me a ling to Tom Brennan's answer? In section 17 he writes: While in Clearwater in August and September 2006, Kyle hears Brennan's new wife call Kyle an "enemy." Kyle rapidly leaves Clearwater.(Per the declaration of Scott Brennan]. When Kyle comes to Clearwater for the last time in February 2007 to rest before returning to Virginia, Tom Brennan is in conflict with being a father to his son and being a dedicated Scientologist due to the above policies. Can someone give me a ling to Scott Brennan's declaration? Also, do we have a plain text version of Victoria's chronology? It is a key document and it would be good to be able to copy from it. Thx.
Not that Marty Mark is especially trustworthy: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/david-miscavige-the-cheater/ I'm guessing that ex parte contact and inculcating judges is hugely against the rules? Anyway, that's what Marty said. Interesting, about what I expected, but useless until someone holds his feet to the fire and makes him spill everything (with supporting evidence) rather than these dribs and drabs.
Face it, folks. Dandar created this mess all by himself. He agreed to never sue CoS again but unfortunately he got greedy and now he has to pay. Trying to shift the blame for Dandar's unethical behavior to an event that occurred 7 years ago doesn't fly. Dandar willingly signed the agreement in 2004 and received compensation in return. Rathbun's suggestion that the CoS paid a lawyer to convince a judge to ask the parties in a 7-year-old lawsuit to enter into mediation can be filed under "Bulls**t." Every day in courtrooms all across the U.S., judges ask litigants in civil suits to enter into mediation. Any judge, anywhere, would have made the same request in this case.
Isn't the issue that no contract can take away the right of a lawyer to practice his trade? IOW, even if he signed it, he knew it was invalid on the face, COS knew it was invalid, hence it is invalid. But IANAL.
That's funny because that's exactly what the Church of Scientology is arguing. Did you work on their motion papers?
You're a retarded Scio that doesn't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You need to lurk moar.
I haven't seen that argument in any CoS motion. Not saying they haven't brought it up somewhere along the line but I wouldn't expect them to because there's nothing noteworthy about a judge asking litigants to go into mediation. Tikk, I know he's your buddy, but surely you've figured out by now that Dandar has very little integrity and a bad habit of lying to the courts. Right now he's just a desperate man looking for someone to blame for his long history of unethical behavior. Dandar knows he screwed up when he violated the agreement and he's grabbing at straws. If he's not disbarred soon I'll be surprised.
Are you actually trying out for a spot on "America's Funniest Stupid Cult Morons" or were you just trolling? Why do you think it's ridiculous that Scientology paid a lawyer to influence a judge when David Miscvavige PERSONALLY did the same thing? The difference was that it was Judge Susan Schaeffer, whose assistant point-blank told the pint-sized muppet Miscavige to go away. The cult shortly thereafter provoked Judge Schaeffer into angry comments against the perjury they'd forced Bob Minton to commit. The case was then assigned to Judge Beach, who went hog-wild making the case go away and who has never met a Scientology motion he didn't adore to pieces, even one so nutso that a federal judge was enraged enough to file an injunction against it that the Eleventh Circuit decided went beyond his powers. I'm not at all surprised Beach would choose the opposite option. He's never met a Scientology motion he didn't love. Now he has fled the case, recusing himself. That means he actually personally believes his impartiality can be reasonably called into question. Go back to Moxon and ask what your response is.
Well, I do think humor is important. Glad I could make you laugh. You know what else was funny? Merryday's injunction. That was a real hoot. The legal community is still chuckling over that embarrassing mistake. That was quite a judicial smackdown from the Eleventh Circuit. How bizarre for Merryday to think he could just set aside a state court's order that had already been affirmed by the 2DCA. Speaking of the 2DCA, don't forget that Beach's orders for Dandar's compliance were affirmed. So instead of "adoring" the church's motions I think it would be more accurate to say that Beach makes the legally correct decision regardless of who is making the motion. Maybe Mr. Dandar should make better motions if he's disappointed with his win/loss ratio. Here are some interesting snippets that I found in one of the many court documents filed in this matter. It might help to put things in perspective for you: In 2005 and 2006, in separate hearings in front of Beach regarding the settlement agreement, Luke Lirot argued (with Dandar present) that he and the Dandars understood the "disengagement" portion of the agreement to mean that it restricted "anti-Scientology activities, litigation. From our prospective, [sic] that's engaging in litigation against the Church of Scientology." But wait, there's more: "To put it in context from our perspective would include involvement in adversarial proceedings. Now, anti-Scientology activity would be Mr. Dandar filing another lawsuit or getting involved in some kind of litigation with them. Not something as simple as expressing his opinion on a matter that he felt was important." "Judge, that provision to us means any kind of active participation in litigation, consultation with people that might be involved with litigation against the Church of Scientology ... And that's what I think the limitation is." Yep, that's right. Dandar knew for a fact that when he signed the agreement with the CoS in 2004 he was promising to never sue them again. No doubt about it. He agreed to it, he signed the paperwork, and then he took the money and ran. Funny how that just slipped his mind when he took on the Brennan case. And it's disgusting that he continues to knowingly waste the time and resources of everyone he has sucked into this mess just because he got greedy. If this is the kind of person you choose to pledge your allegiance to, then I'd say you're the stupid moron, not me.
You clearly have no understanding of the law in this matter. It's quite simple. No lawyer can bargain away his right to represent a client. By signing a settlement in one case cannot preclude one from never handling a case for another client again. Also if this information about Judge Beach is brought forward to the attention of Dandar and the court, Judge Beach should be forced to recuse himself in this matter. Whether he actually was suborned by Scientology is not the issue. The allegation is there and that should disqualify him. Sorry, troll.
Hey Einstein, get with the program. Beach recused himself almost a year ago. And thanks for simplifying the law for me. It was real nice of you to do that. Too bad you didn't get a chance to educate Dandar before he signed the agreement.
And it's disgusting that he continues to knowingly waste the time and resources of everyone he has sucked into this mess just because he got greedy. quote No
It seems odd that discussion of the terms of a sealed agreement would be in the publicly available court records. Can anyone else verify these claims?
The fact you think someone can even do this shows you are a moron. That would mean they could run over his entire family tomorrow in a Zamboni, and he couldn't sue them. How dumb do you have to be to believe that's even possible? My guess is pretty fucking dumb.
