Battle with Church of Scientology not over

Terril park

Sponsor
Did you think he was being snide? I don't think he's capable of snideness, it's just how he rolls.

Terril, I'm no legal wiz at all, I do pay attention and enjoy the battle, that's why I read it the way I did.

Legally I'm as dumb as a rock.

Legally I'm even dumber. Perhaps a rock at the bottom of the ocean?

An anon friend who's a philosophy grad told me that law firms, at least in
the UK, often prefer to hire philosophy grads instead of law grads.
They don't have to unlearn so much he said.
 
Did LRH ever say which implant is responsible for re-enacting creepy 'Cold War' spy dramas?
Hi Freeminds - Hubbard said on a tape he liked to read Ian Fleming before bed (James Bond) and he was (according to his military record) in the intellegence division of the navy. Plus what could be more spooky than a mystery man in a trench coat? I'll tell you! Japanese tourists! Ever see The Spanish Prisoner by David Mamet?

[video=youtube;AZT--rrzq3g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZT--rrzq3g[/video]


Mimsey
 
Does this mean COS' lawyer knew what Debbie was going to say in court?
Hi Lulubelle, since they were is a big rush to ambush her, they (the local Texas attorneys) ran to court with out having deposed her, waving papers saying she violated her contract. They likely didn't have a clue. From what I have read on-line, the church doesn't like to tell outside lawyers any more than the bare minimum. But the in house Scio. lawyer(s) who whipped out the tape, might very well have. I mean, for them to ramrod this home so fast, they must have read her "quid pro quo" email, they knew she had to be shut up NOW! NOW! NOW!

That having backfired, now we can invest in popcorn futures at the stock exchange and make a killing.

Anyway, both sides will be deposing each other's witnesses, so I doubt there will be any Perry Mason surprises. Just a good old fashioned mud slinging, legal maneuvering, eye gouging, no holds barred, legal battle.

Mimsey
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
Someday soon the headline for the thread will be
Battle with the Church of Scientology is Over!

:drama:

It's not over until they pack up their shit and move the phug out of Clearwater and Clearwater has an enormous celebration with fireworks and partying to all hours of the night. And I want to fly down there for that party.

Pete
 

Happy Days

Silver Meritorious Patron
It's not over until they pack up their shit and move the phug out of Clearwater and Clearwater has an enormous celebration with fireworks and partying to all hours of the night. And I want to fly down there for that party.

Pete

And someone turns out the lights as the door hits them in the arse for the last time leaving the building :yes::yes:
 

damo

New Member
What I find interesting is:

The church denies the abuse ever happened.

The church's lawyer seems to imply that it happened but it is irrelevant to the case.

So, the church is denying the abuse but their lawyer isn't.

Kind of like a defendant saying he didn't kill someone and his lawyer implying he actually did do the murder but that it's in some way inadmissible in the trial.


In order to understand what is going on here, you need to understand the nature of summary judgements. When applying for a summary judgement you generally are required to (without prejudice) agree to the facts as set out by the defence. You are required to argue that even if the defendant's evidence is true, there is still no good defence to the lawsuit. Basically that is what the CoS lawyers have tried (and made a semi-plausible case - better than I would have come up with I suspect). They are only not denying the duress for the purpose of the summary judgement application. When/if the trial proper begins, they may choose to deny this as untrue.

I should add that another way of getting summary judgement can be to say that the defence testimony lacks a credible basis in reality (ie they can prove it is totally preposterous and without foundation), but this is not the route they have taken.

If any of those facts are in dispute you can't get a summary judgement - settling disputes on facts is for a trial.

I am a lawyer in New Zealand, so there may be some minor procedural differences in the US, but I doubt they are significant
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
When applying for a summary judgement you generally are required to (without prejudice) agree to the facts as set out by the defence. You are required to argue that even if the defendant's evidence is true, there is still no good defence to the lawsuit. ... They are only not denying the duress for the purpose of the summary judgement application. When/if the trial proper begins, they may choose to deny this as untrue.

I am a lawyer in New Zealand, so there may be some minor procedural differences in the US, but I doubt they are significant

WELCOME to ESMB! :rose:

Thank you so much for joining us and helping with the legal points. :)
 
Top