Another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh Start

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Ryan Hamilton files another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh Start.

Tony Ortega: Ryan Hamilton files another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility
http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/26/ry...inst-scientologys-nevada-drug-rehab-facility/


Excerpt:
Less than a month after he filed a lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab unit, Las Vegas attorney Ryan Hamilton has filed a very similar federal lawsuit on behalf of another plaintiff who says she was defrauded by “Narconon Fresh Start” and its deceptive practices.

Virginia resident Cathy Tarr and her son, Michael Tarr of Florida, are the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit against Scientology’s facility in Caliente, Nevada, which also goes by the name of “Rainbow Canyon Retreat.”

Like in the previous complaint, Hamilton presents a thorough rundown of the kinds of problems that we’ve heard from so many people who get sucked into Narconon without knowing that it’s connected to Scientology.
Tarr v Narconon Fresh Start: Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/209305110/Tarr-v-Narconon-Fresh-Start-Complaint
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh S

The best part about this is they're using NarCONon's "expert witness" testimony against them:biggrin:

I :roflmao: when I read that quote.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Scientology's Narconon Las Vegas Lawsuit - Tarr v A Fresh Start

This Las Vegas federal lawsuit, Tarr v Narconon A Fresh Start, has taken a remarkable turn.

Usually...

Step 1: Complaint is filed by plaintiff(s)
Step 2: Answer is filed by defendant(s)
Step 3: Both sides wait for a Notice from the Court for a pre-trial conference.

Not in this case.

Step 1: Feb 24, 2014 - Complaint filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs
Step 2: Mar 21, 2014 - Answer filed by Brent Vogel & Alayne Opie for Narconon Defendants
Step 3: Mar 25, 2014 - Motion filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs

That Motion ^^^, filed by Mr. Hamilton, is certain to have knocked the defense counsel for a loop. Or two.

Here's why...

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") are pretty clear about what 'bare minimums' must be included in a Complaint and what 'bare minimums' must be included in an Answer.

Mr. Hamilton's Complaint was l-o-n-g and very detailed.
Vogel/Opie's Answer was short and simple - denying everything with a broad brush.

The Motion Mr. Hamilton filed essentially asks the Court to rule that Vogel/Opie's Answer did NOT meet the bare minimum standards of a properly-filed Answer per the Rules. The Answer failed to respond to each and every assertion made in the Complaint.
And because of that failure, everything Vogel/Opie didn't deny specifically should therefore be considered admitted to as true by Narconon henceforth.

Who knows what the Federal Magistrate will rule, but filing that Motion was a brilliant move by Mr. Hamilton.

Here's a link to The Underground Bunker, which provides the actual Motion to read/review/enjoy: http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/27/ry...arconons-answer-in-nevada-drug-rehab-lawsuit/

This is a case to watch, folks.

JB
 

Leland

Crusader
Re: Scientology's Narconon Las Vegas Lawsuit - Tarr v A Fresh Start

This Las Vegas federal lawsuit, Tarr v Narconon A Fresh Start, has taken a remarkable turn.

Usually...

Step 1: Complaint is filed by plaintiff(s)
Step 2: Answer is filed by defendant(s)
Step 3: Both sides wait for a Notice from the Court for a pre-trial conference.

Not in this case.

Step 1: Feb 24, 2014 - Complaint filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs
Step 2: Mar 21, 2014 - Answer filed by Brent Vogel & Alayne Opie for Narconon Defendants
Step 3: Mar 25, 2014 - Motion filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs

That Motion ^^^, filed by Mr. Hamilton, is certain to have knocked the defense counsel for a loop. Or two.

Here's why...

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") are pretty clear about what 'bare minimums' must be included in a Complaint and what 'bare minimums' must be included in an Answer.

Mr. Hamilton's Complaint was l-o-n-g and very detailed.
Vogel/Opie's Answer was short and simple - denying everything with a broad brush.

The Motion Mr. Hamilton filed essentially asks the Court to rule that Vogel/Opie's Answer did NOT meet the bare minimum standards of a properly-filed Answer per the Rules. The Answer failed to respond to each and every assertion made in the Complaint.
And because of that failure, everything Vogel/Opie didn't deny specifically should therefore be considered admitted to as true by Narconon henceforth.

Who knows what the Federal Magistrate will rule, but filing that Motion was a brilliant move by Mr. Hamilton.

Here's a link to The Underground Bunker, which provides the actual Motion to read/review/enjoy: http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/27/ry...arconons-answer-in-nevada-drug-rehab-lawsuit/

This is a case to watch, folks.

JB

Great info, thanks. Love the legal strategy stuff.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh S

My God, short and sweet. A knock-out in two lines.

Perhaps the cult was not too wise in its choice of defence lawyer. As Tony reports, this is Graham Berry's old firm but 'OSA and Eugene Ingram did a potentially damaging investigation of the senior partner of Lewis, Brisbois after we had also won the Fishman-Geertz case.'

http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/27/ry...arconons-answer-in-nevada-drug-rehab-lawsuit/
 
Last edited:

FascinatedNeverIn

Patron with Honors
Re: Another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh S

Perhaps the Sci lawyers, upset by previous investigations by their now-client, are now getting their own back by taking their money and ensuring Narconon are given poor lawyering, ending up with huge payouts on top.

Possible?
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Another lawsuit against Scientology’s Nevada drug rehab facility Narconon Fresh S

It seems a little obvious but has anyone a better suggestion? Will the cult sue for poor service? Who will represent it then?

By now surely the reputation of the cult in the legal world must be bumping along on empty. :biggrin:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Scientology's Narconon Las Vegas Lawsuit - Tarr v A Fresh Start

This Las Vegas federal lawsuit, Tarr v Narconon A Fresh Start, has taken a remarkable turn.

Usually...

Step 1: Complaint is filed by plaintiff(s)
Step 2: Answer is filed by defendant(s)
Step 3: Both sides wait for a Notice from the Court for a pre-trial conference.

Not in this case.

Step 1: Feb 24, 2014 - Complaint filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs
Step 2: Mar 21, 2014 - Answer filed by Brent Vogel & Alayne Opie for Narconon Defendants
Step 3: Mar 25, 2014 - Motion filed by Ryan Hamilton for Tarr Plaintiffs

That Motion ^^^, filed by Mr. Hamilton, is certain to have knocked the defense counsel for a loop. Or two.

Here's why...

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") are pretty clear about what 'bare minimums' must be included in a Complaint and what 'bare minimums' must be included in an Answer.

Mr. Hamilton's Complaint was l-o-n-g and very detailed.
Vogel/Opie's Answer was short and simple - denying everything with a broad brush.

The Motion Mr. Hamilton filed essentially asks the Court to rule that Vogel/Opie's Answer did NOT meet the bare minimum standards of a properly-filed Answer per the Rules. The Answer failed to respond to each and every assertion made in the Complaint.
And because of that failure, everything Vogel/Opie didn't deny specifically should therefore be considered admitted to as true by Narconon henceforth.

Who knows what the Federal Magistrate will rule, but filing that Motion was a brilliant move by Mr. Hamilton.

Here's a link to The Underground Bunker, which provides the actual Motion to read/review/enjoy: http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/27/ry...arconons-answer-in-nevada-drug-rehab-lawsuit/

This is a case to watch, folks.

JB

Fresh news and the latest filed documents from The Underground Bunker here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/04/14/sc...prises-a-new-wrinkle-from-narconon-attorneys/

It appears that the Narconon attorneys, Vogel/Opie, filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 8, 2014 (on the grounds that the original Complaint violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") because it was too long & too detailed).
On April 10, 2014, a mere 2 days later, Ryan Hamilton, attorney for the Plaintiffs filed their Response to that Motion to Dismiss.

The Motion to Dismiss is low-key, dry, and just boring enough to convince a reader that the caselaw & applicable Rules are on their side.
Then I read Mr. Hamilton's Response and realized I'd almost been hoodwinked.
The Response is another example of brilliant legal writing and shows how best to effectively call-out lying liars who lie.
Really.

JB
 
Top