Narconon Georgia - Judge Imposes Harsh Sanctions

[Infinite]

..

BUSTED!

 

[Anonycat]

..

BUSTED!

 

[NoName]

Breaking news yesterday of Judge Stacey Hydrick sanctioning Narconon of Georgia received cheers from far and wide. Narconon Executive Director Mary Rieser was caught lying under oath in as many as ten depositions. Judge Hydrick concluded that, when she asked Riser on the stand about the omissions and false declarations, Narconon’s leader was simply not credible in her responses - - failing to tell the truth.

Thanks! I don't have time to read the ruling right now, so I posted the question over at Tony's blog - what forms of discovery were involved and were they under oath? Because the cult might be able to pay the Desmonds to go away, but perjury is a very serious crime and that won't just go away.

In other words - very delicious caek. Omnomnomnomnom.

 

[shadow]

Thanks! I don't have time to read the ruling right now, so I posted the question over at Tony's blog - what forms of discovery were involved and were they under oath? Because the cult might be able to pay the Desmonds to go away, but perjury is a very serious crime and that won't just go away.

She lied in 2 depositions and in front of the judge, all under oath; plus the answers to rounds of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Then there were the lies she told reporters (not part of the legal procedures). I thinks she just can't open her mouth without lying, she is just so heavily conditioned/indocrinated.

 

[ClearedSP]

Practicing OSA orders as required by David Miscavige I would assume .

Right. Telling the truth would show that Narconon is one of Miscavige's puppet organizations, which must never happen, so you stall, you stonewall and you lie. If those don't work out, then Narconon GA just has to take one for the team.

 

[120 Degrees]

This is HUGE!!!

This type of sanction is reserved for the worst of the worst and is never issued lightly or without much consideration and evidence. It's a shocking doomsday sanction (shocking only in that they are rarely entered and only for egregious conduct not shocking in that Reiser and Narcanon/Scientology committed egregious acts) that is tantamount to a giant "fuck you" by a judge.

Happy days for Desmond's family and lawyers (and all those helping them).

 

[Infinite]

..

. . . <snip> . . . in two depositions, NNGA's Executive Director, Mary Rieser, was asked whether she investigated what led up to Desmond's death. She stated that she had asked students what had happened, but she testified that "none of the students knew," because "they were all sleeping." . . . The above-described discovery responses were patently false. Plaintiffs conducted months of discovery and numerous depositions with the belief that all statements regarding Desmond'd death had been shredded in the normal course of business, which in fact, as it turned out, was untrue . . . At the evidentiary hearing on the present motion, Rieser was asked why the documents regarding the Board of Investigation and the letter placing Delgado on probation had not been produced earlier. Her only explanation was that she "simply forgot" . . . The Court found Rieser's testimony and her explanation for NNGA's failures to produce requested documents to be incredible. Likewise, the Court did not find credible Rieser's explanation for her untruthful deposition testimony regarding whether she and NNGA had ever looked into compaints about conditions at housing or drug use at housing other than on an indivual basis . . . In the present case, the Court finds that NNGA intentionally, wilfully, and repeatedly provided false and misleading responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests regarding issues relevant to the resolution of this case . . .

In short, Scientology turned the discovery process in this case into an orchestrated litany of lies. Right now, Ms Rieser may well be standing in a rubbish bin with a sign around her neck reading "dyke" - that's what Scientologists do to their own when a mistake is made. Only, no one is worried about the lies, the overt was getting caught.

So scathing is that judgement, I can no longer see any reason whatsoever why the health authorities don't take another look at laying criminal charges. Negligent homicide would be a good start, or how about presenting falsified documents, or false advertising, or, Scientology's speciality, making fraudulent medical claims. This Narconon outfit has played the entire State's health and justice systems like hick town patsies. Even now, as I type, the Narconon Georgia website is sitting there live, advertising a 76% success rate.

C'mon Georgia, lets end this.

[video]http://youtu.be/NWb7f02UhhM[/video]

 

[AnonyMary]

There's moar coming down the pike!!! Quite a few of us are biting at the bit waiting to hear what the judge is going to do about Narconon International's lies and deceit throughout the discovery process:

Docket Text Details

Case ID 10A28641
Description MOTION
Docket Filing Date 31-OCT-2012
Associated Party JED D MANTON
Text
AADINO - PLTFS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NARCONON INTERNATIONAL

Umm.... wonder what this is all about? Could a decision be at hand? Could there be even more going on that requires the judge be informed by fax?

Docket Text Details

Case ID 10A28641
Description LETTER
Docket Filing Date 07-NOV-2012
Associated Party None
Text
FROM ATTY JEFFREY HARRIS TO JUDGE HYDRICK (FAX) TYD

Stay tunes for the next episode.........

 

[NoName]

She lied in 2 depositions and in front of the judge, all under oath; plus the answers to rounds of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Then there were the lies she told reporters (not part of the legal procedures). I thinks she just can't open her mouth without lying, she is just so heavily conditioned/indocrinated.

Just read it over at Tony's blog. I figured that quite a bit of the discovery abuse was within the written discovery requests (interrogatories and requests for production). The attorneys usually have to sign those, so she did them huge favor by putting in that footnote, imo. Or maybe the cult is scraping bottom for a lawyer that will represent them these days, and their lawyer really is that naive. Still, you always worry about signing your name to stuff when you start to realize a client is a total douche - not everyone has the nerve (or financial ability) to fire a client.

The depositions are great news, since the lying liar that lied really has no one to blame for those statements except for herself.

Y'know, for all the discovery abuse I've seen in my life (including just ignoring requests, partial information, mixing up paperwork before turning it over for a request for production, falsifying documents, receiving threats instead of the requested items), I have **NEVER** seen sanctions like this happen in real life. Getting to the point of having someone held in contempt is painful, at best, and getting the judge to give a real punishment attached to the contempt ruling also feels like a fucking joke. I'm seriously amazed that this happened. I always figured that sanctions like this existed more in theory than in practice.

 

[Intelligence]

Protest at Narconon of Georgia TODAY - (NOW)

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?29271-Narconon-of-Georgia-Faces-Protesters-Today

 

[Smurf]

Thanks! I don't have time to read the ruling right now, so I posted the question over at Tony's blog - what forms of discovery were involved and were they under oath? Because the cult might be able to pay the Desmonds to go away, but perjury is a very serious crime and that won't just go away.

In other words - very delicious caek.

This is only the first step in a long court battle. Whenever, a court decision was rendered in the past putting the cult in a bad light, OSA Legal paid alot of $$ to hire it's big guns to fight the decision in the appellate courts.

Judge Hydrick is a state judge. I expect her decision will go to the state Court of Appeals and beyond that, if the appellate court affirms Hydrick.

Those of us that have been around long enough know that this is only the first inning of a long ball game.

 

[NoName]

This is only the first step in a long court battle. Whenever, a court decision was rendered in the past putting the cult in a bad light, OSA Legal paid alot of $$ to hire it's big guns to fight the decision in the appellate courts.

Judge Hydrick is a state judge. I expect her decision will go to the state Court of Appeals and beyond that, if the appellate court affirms Hydrick.

Those of us that have been around long enough know that this is only the first inning of a long ball game.

I expect an appeal too, but it will be a pretty lulzy one because it seems like they will have to take the judge to court to get her permission to appeal it. I don't see her agreeing to the appeal otherwise (and yes, she has to agree to let them appeal this particular sanction).



120 - do you have an opinion on how this is gonna go down? I **hate** civil anything and avoid it (mostly because I can't deal with being on the receiving end of this type of bullshit and the "go stand in the corner and think about what you did" sanctions that are usually doled out), and this never comes up for prosecutors.

 

[120 Degrees]

Well, given how that sanction order is written I don't think Hydrick will grant Narconon's requested certificate of immediate review to pursue an appeal with the Court of Appeals. That sanction order really just dropped my jaw and I'm still a little floored by it. I think it's more likely she'll let the trial proceed and then let the whole thing go to appeals after the jury trial. It appears she's rather disgusted with the defendants and would rather give the plaintiffs the advantage the sanction represents and let the jury set precedent since it's obvious it's going to appeals anyway.

Harris still has to lay out the foundations for the damages and racketeering claims. Given the amount of evidence his team and volunteers have gathered I think a jury is going to crucify Narcanon.

As for the lawyers Miller and Marschalk, Hydrick really let them off the hook, especially after reading parts of this 129 (!) page Brief in Support of the Motion for Sanctions.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/1...fInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionsForSanctions.pdf

I'm sure their marching orders are coming directly from Scientology. When I initially read the Order I thought the Narconon attorneys may just be naive and inexperienced and Hydrick was convinced they didn't know what was going on with their clients. Of course, that in itself means you're a pretty bad attorney if you take a case with an organization as a client and don't do a little research. I don't know how any attorney representing Narconon/Scientology wouldn't know about how they've behaved in past cases. After reading just parts of the brief I'm surprised they weren't included in some way. Perhaps they weren't included in order to increase the sanction holding up on appeal?

I'm looking forward to more coming news with this case.

 

[120 Degrees]

In the above post I listed the wrong Brief in Support of Motion for Sanction. That one was an earlier Motion for Sanctions and resulted in the Judge issuing rules for the parties to follow regarding the discovery process and required that Narcanon pay for Rieser's depostions.

This is the correct link and it's pretty fascinating:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/1...intiffsBriefInsupportOfMotionForSanctions.pdf

 

[R2-45]

Yep.

...in order to increase the [likelihood of the] sanction holding up on appeal....

 

[Smurf]

I expect an appeal too, but it will be a pretty lulzy one because it seems like they will have to take the judge to court to get her permission to appeal it. I don't see her agreeing to the appeal otherwise (and yes, she has to agree to let them appeal this particular sanction.

Please cite the case law backing this up. I find it difficult to believe, with the demand for due process & fairness in the Court, that a state judge can tie someone's hands like this, but maybe the Georgia court is different from other courts.

 

[NoName]

Please cite the case law backing this up. I find it difficult to believe, with the demand for due process & fairness in the Court, that a state judge can tie someone's hands like this, but maybe the Georgia court is different from other courts.

To explain what I was talking about - yes, they can appeal a trial court verdict. That's absolutely their right. What you can't do without the trial judge's permission is go bitching and moaning to an appeals court about each bit of evidence that gets tossed until after the verdict is in. That's not really unusual for Georgia - that's just how the system works.

So when the cult was talking about appealing the sanction, I find that amusing because I see them as being between a rock and a hard place. They can settle in order to not air cult dirty laundry, but then they can't appeal. Or they can go to trial with basically no answer to the complaint so that they can appeal what just happened, but that approach necessarily airs a huge amount of dirty cult laundry. That's what's so funny to me.

I will try and look at Google Scholar a bit tomorrow. It's close to 3am now and I'm still dazed from the damned storms. I hate Google Scholar, but I can't use my work access to look stuff up - too many prying eyes. Maybe 120 will get to it before I do, but maybe now that I have clarified what I meant it doesn't seem so hard to believe.

 

[Smurf]

To explain what I was talking about - yes, they can appeal a trial court verdict. That's absolutely their right. What you can't do without the trial judge's permission is go bitching and moaning to an appeals court about each bit of evidence that gets tossed until after the verdict is in. That's not really unusual for Georgia - that's just how the system works.

"Georgia statute specifies two categories of appeal. Some cases may be appealed as a matter of right, and some cases may only be appealed if the Court of Appeals accepts the appeal ("discretionary review"). Applications for discretionary review will only be granted if reversible error appears to exist, or if establishment of a precedent is desirable. (Court of Appeals Rule 31(a).

In addition, certain rulings made by the trial court may be appealable even if the case is still going on. These interlocutory appeals can only proceed if trial court judge agrees to allow an appeal, and if the Court of Appeals agrees to accept the case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Court_of_Appeals

If the cult wanted to, they could file a claim that the judge's decision on sanctions was arbitrary & an abuse of judicial discretion.

http://www.gaappeals.us/standards_of_review.php

 

[AnonyMary]

"Georgia statute specifies two categories of appeal. Some cases may be appealed as a matter of right, and some cases may only be appealed if the Court of Appeals accepts the appeal ("discretionary review"). Applications for discretionary review will only be granted if reversible error appears to exist, or if establishment of a precedent is desirable. (Court of Appeals Rule 31(a).

In addition, certain rulings made by the trial court may be appealable even if the case is still going on. These interlocutory appeals can only proceed if trial court judge agrees to allow an appeal, and if the Court of Appeals agrees to accept the case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Court_of_Appeals

If the cult wanted to, they could file a claim that the judge's decision on sanctions was arbitrary & an abuse of judicial discretion.

http://www.gaappeals.us/standards_of_review.php

n a statement, Narconon of Georgia’s lawyers said they “respectfully disagree” with Hydrick’s order.

“We are now pursuing the only avenue available to us to try to seek appellate review of the order at this time,” said attorneys Steve Miller and Barbara Marschalk in their statement.

That appeal cannot be granted, however, without Hydrick’s permission.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/

 

[NoName]

In addition, certain rulings made by the trial court may be appealable even if the case is still going on. These interlocutory appeals can only proceed if trial court judge agrees to allow an appeal, and if the Court of Appeals agrees to accept the case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Court_of_Appeals

Yeah, last night (or this morning?) I was trying to figure out if that was a "certain" ruling that was still appealable. The only dox I've seen on that point was the article that Anonymary posted, so I was trying to find something more authoritative on that point.

If the cult wanted to, they could file a claim that the judge's decision on sanctions was arbitrary & an abuse of judicial discretion.

http://www.gaappeals.us/standards_of_review.php

They're going to do that on appeal, I am sure, but I'm looking for something specific about how to go about appealing this particular type of ruling without the trial judge's blessing. That's proving very hard to find, and I know that reporters don't always get these things right.

I also got a few of the cases cited in the ruling off of Google Scholar and was trying to skim them for a standard of review. But skimming while having an insomnia attack didn't go well so I moved on to viral cat videos fairly quickly. What would be interesting would be to find the standard of review (and I will post the quotes and links to google scholar if I find it in one of the precedents). As I'm sure you know, not all appeals are created equal. An abuse of discretion review standard is a loosing proposition for the cult, because the appeals court would have to find that her reaction was grossly out of proportion to the situation and inappropriately punitive. A de novo review would be like starting over from scratch with a new batch of judges. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities here, and abuse of discretion would be the best possible scenario.

So more later - if anyone finds procedural rules or precedents to back up the review for the sanction, post away. I find google scholar useful when I have a citation to pull. Otherwise, it is painful to use. Also, you can't check to see if precedent has been overturned in google scholar, but if the court cited it in a ruling handed down in the past couple of weeks or if it ended up in the Desmonds' memo, I'm gonna assume it's still good (for entertainment purposes on ESMB anyway).