Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
And I'm thinking that this is one of the reasons to depose him first. He is such a coward that he would study the transcripts from the other depositions. He is known to micro manage litigation, so I'm sure he would find a way to read the transcripts. That could lead him to either lie to stay consistent with the other deponents' statements, or possibly use the deny deny deny tech to throw them under the bus. This way, he is more likely to say something damning, or possibly even perjure himself in a very easy to prove way. That's really the only strategic advantage I see, but it is entirely possible that I'm missing something really big.

The only other explanation would be to get him to fold, do the Bulgravian Boogey, or end cycle in his bunker Fuhrer-style. But I don't think these plaintiffs want that - I think they want him by the short and curlies for as long as possible and savor the moment.

I actually think he's become more and more of a recluse. Does anyone see him outside Scientology events? I think he won't let it come to that stage - public embarrassment. Tom Cruise would pay the money first.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
I actually think he's become more and more of a recluse. Does anyone see him outside Scientology events? I think he won't let it come to that stage - public embarrassment. Tom Cruise would pay the money first.

I don't think that Top Gun Tommy can pay to make it all go away. Maybe one or two plaintiffs, but not the entire house of cards crumbling down. I think Davey would make a run for it first - either Bulgravian Boogey or ending cycle. I am really not sure how likely he would be to end cycle, but it certainly is an acceptable option in Scn culture (sadly), and greater men than him have done it (**cough**Hitler**cough**).

Davey, Laurisse, Jelly, and Taffy in the bunker. Just like Der Fuhrer in the end....
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I think Davey would make a run for it first - either Bulgravian Boogey or ending cycle.

A better option would be to fake his death and then move to Bulgravia. He can have Scientology doctors sign off as witnesses that he was dead , announce that his body was cremated, with no autopsy permitted due to religious reasons, they can blackmail a coroner into signing off as well, threatening to release incriminating information from his auditing files. Then get Travolta to fly him and the Beagles in his private plane to Bulgravia, stopping first along the way at one of the CST properties to pick up a billion dollars or so worth of gold.

It has some distinct advantages doing it this way. If done convincingly enough U.S. law enforcement won't spend time attempting to hunt him down. Tom Cruise can take over the COB position and and continue to stay in touch with DM taking directions as needed.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
A better option would be to fake his death and then move to Bulgravia. He can have Scientology doctors sign off as witnesses that he was dead , announce that his body was cremated, with no autopsy permitted due to religious reasons, they can blackmail a coroner into signing off as well, threatening to release incriminating information from his auditing files. Then get Travolta to fly him and the Beagles in his private plane to Bulgravia, stopping first along the way at one of the CST properties to pick up a billion dollars or so worth of gold.

It has some distinct advantages doing it this way. If done convincingly enough U.S. law enforcement won't spend time attempting to hunt him down. Tom Cruise can take over the COB position and and continue to stay in touch with DM taking directions as needed.

Yes, it does have some advantages. And two huge disandantages. 1) he is too coddled and soft from being waited on hand and foot and I don't think he can tough it out without a small army of servants. 2) having been among LRH's small army of servants in the end, he will be afraid of them killing him, just like his entourage "helped" LRH move on to further levels of research.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
<snip>"...Actually, as much as I'd like to see him go down - the church may actually settle before the discovery stage with one of those statements like, "While the church does not admit that it is culpable in any way or in agreement with Mr. Garcia's statements, and while COS in not in the practice of settling lawsuits as a general course of action, we feel in the best interest of our other parishioners and our ongoing priority of "clearing the planet" that the decision to settle these suits is right course of action at this time...Our biggest concern, and only real concern has been about Mr. Garcia's eternity and not his money..."

Or something stupid like that...." <snip>

Completely agree with your points above -- settlement prior to the discovery stage is what any competent attorney would advise his/her client given the facts/circumstances as presented. Clients balk all the time at suggestions of settlement - no surprise there, happens all the time -- but this client appears to have a most pugnacious nature, so he will likely balk (and squawk) louder and longer. Every moment wasted with COB's squawking increases the amount he'll have offer to Team Babbitt for a quick settlement.

<snip> "I actually believe that what they won't be able to avoid/escape from are criminal charges. I have a feeling something is going to come to light soon, there may be a death in the RPF, or something of that nature, or something from the past with no statute of limitations is going to be re-investigated. He will be subpoenaed in a criminal trial." <snip>

Agree he'd have a huge problem if criminal activity is alleged, but I don't see him feeling comforted by either 5th Amendment protections or using the 'nobody ever told me' testimony, so he'd bolt from jurisdiction.

Another thought... if the current suit for fraud is settled quickly, prior to discovery, EVERY attorney will notice. It's not beyond the pale to imagine a few unscrupulous attorneys offering to take cases from ex-scios on a contingency basis --usually 1/3 of the amount recovered + "costs" -- and I'd hope ESMB members would perform due diligence before engaging the services of any attorney/firm prior to signing any such agreement.

JB.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
True. It was very fortunate for the cult that Ron signed a new will just hours before he departed for Target Two. And that he did this while under the influence of the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril is a true testament to his OT abilities. :clap:

A few hours before he died, LRH was in a coma and incoherent. More accurately, it should be state that a new will was composed and signed just hours before he departed. Who composed and signed it is not fully known but it is known the DM was a licensed Notary Public who had become adept at copying LRH's signature and Ray Mithoff was present to sign as a witness for anything which DM ordered him to sign.
Lakey
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
Another thought... if the current suit for fraud is settled quickly, prior to discovery, EVERY attorney will notice. It's not beyond the pale to imagine a few unscrupulous attorneys offering to take cases from ex-scios on a contingency basis --usually 1/3 of the amount recovered + "costs" -- and I'd hope ESMB members would perform due diligence before engaging the services of any attorney/firm prior to signing any such agreement.

JB.

I wouldn't call that unscrupulous. Who cares? The 1/3 could mean the difference between a completely broke litigant litigating or just giving up on bleeding the cult dry. I'd personally prefer to see the cult stabbed a few more times, even is someone else is getting a 1/3 cut besides the ex.

Of course, experience and a lawyer that knows what the fuck they are doing would be nice too. Fraud has interesting issues with how to prove it and how to plead it in federal courts. That's where the exes would need to do their due diligence, imho.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
It's not beyond the pale to imagine a few unscrupulous attorneys offering to take cases from ex-scios on a contingency basis --usually 1/3 of the amount recovered + "costs" --<snip>

IF an attorney does take any of these cases on a contingency basis I don't necessarily consider it as "unscrupulous" to take 1/3rd. It depends upon on much work is needed by the attorney to prepare for the case and bring it to trial (if necessary). In a very real sense the attorney is gambling as he may spend hundreds of hours working on a case and than not get paid a penny if he doesn't win. Even if he does win he may not get paid for many years until the case is complete. So for an attorney to take on a case on contingency it's got to be worth it for him to do that or else he won't take it on in the first place.

And for the client it is good as well. He doesn't have to take $50,000+ out of pocket to pay for an attorney (if he even has it) and then he is out that money if he loses the case. He's not putting up his own money at risk but rather that of the attorney's.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Originally Posted by JBWriter
Another thought... if the current suit for fraud is settled quickly, prior to discovery, EVERY attorney will notice.It's not beyond the pale to imagine a few unscrupulous attorneys offering to take cases from ex-scios on a contingency basis --usually 1/3 of the amount recovered + "costs" -- and I'd hope ESMB members would perform due diligence before engaging the services of any attorney/firm prior to signing any such agreement.

JB.

I wouldn't call that unscrupulous. Who cares? The 1/3 could mean the difference between a completely broke litigant litigating or just giving up on bleeding the cult dry. I'd personally prefer to see the cult stabbed a few more times, even is someone else is getting a 1/3 cut besides the ex.

Of course, experience and a lawyer that knows what the fuck they are doing would be nice too. Fraud has interesting issues with how to prove it and how to plead it in federal courts. That's where the exes would need to do their due diligence, imho.


Agreed, nothing unscrupulous about a business (law firm in this case) being well-rewarded for significant risks.

It is pretty common for contingency fees to be even higher (e.g. 40%) but what difference does it make? If the client doesn't like it, they can go to another law firm and get a "better deal". All markets have their own way of leveling the playing field (supply/demand) and even if the contingency asked for was 75%, the client always has the option to HIRE THE FIRM ON A PER-HOUR BASIS.

Of course most people could not afford that, but isn't that the point? The client does not have the capital to risk and they are asking the lawyers to essentially perform in two roles:

1) As litigators.
2) As risk investors in the venture

The "risk investors" equity participation is whatever the market will bear and whatever the buyer/seller can agree on. The lawyers don't "owe" anything to the client other than their best efforts.

If the client doesn't like the contingency deals that major law firms demand (and deserve) they can always go to some newbie attorney or pre-paid legal services and save a lot of money. LOL

Basically, you get what you pay for.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

Another comment on lawyer contingencies. An analogy. . .

A rancher finds a small golden nugget on their property. He determines that he may have a rich gold mine and wishes to hire a mining company to excavate and explore. All the gold mining companies give estimates that it will cost appx. $1M to do that, considering that the nugget was recovered from a cave on a steep mountain facing. The scaffolding costs and risks to miners at such perilous heights is quite considerable.

The mining companies ask for 90% of the proceeds of the mine, if it bears gold.

The rancher is outraged that he will only receive 10%.

The mining company suggests that they can be paid in cash for the million dollars of expenses, labor, equipment and insurance to excavate--and keep 90% of the yield, if any. The rancher says he doesn't have a million dollars.

The mining company suggests an alternative which would give the rancher 100% of the yield. To mine it himself.

The rancher doesn't have any idea how to so.

That's essentially the position someone suing the Church of Scientology is in. They have no clue what they are doing or no means to pay any professionals to do it for them.

And there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that there is any gold in the mine to begin with.

All things considered, I think that this Indie Scientologists was extraordinarily fortunate that such a formidable and brilliant lawyer would take the case under ANY contingency.

I am thrilled to see the playing field leveled against the terror cult of dirty tricks. Game on!!
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
Agreed, nothing unscrupulous about a business (law firm in this case) being well-rewarded for significant risks.

It is pretty common for contingency fees to be even higher (e.g. 40%) but what difference does it make? If the client doesn't like it, they can go to another law firm and get a "better deal". All markets have their own way of leveling the playing field (supply/demand) and even if the contingency asked for was 75%, the client always has the option to HIRE THE FIRM ON A PER-HOUR BASIS.

Of course most people could not afford that, but isn't that the point? The client does not have the capital to risk and they are asking the lawyers to essentially perform in two roles:

1) As litigators.
2) As risk investors in the venture

The "risk investors" equity participation is whatever the market will bear and whatever the buyer/seller can agree on. The lawyers don't "owe" anything to the client other than their best efforts.

If the client doesn't like the contingency deals that major law firms demand (and deserve) they can always go to some newbie attorney or pre-paid legal services and save a lot of money. LOL

Basically, you get what you pay for.

That much, I disagree with. Because I don't really think that someone worth their salt will charge a 75% contingency. But there is some range of acceptable percentages that people operate in.

There are also state regulations that say sometimes you aren't allowed to do contingency. Divorce is pretty universal as far as not being allowed to do contingency. Car accidents are almost universally contingency. And sometimes you get real assholes who want to sue to prove a point and have a really horrible case. With nutjobs, lawyers are allowed to do hourly as opposed to contingency in the situations.

So if I were doing the shopping:

1) Ask around
2) Check the bar association for complaints and discipline files. Everyone gets complaints eventually, and stuff like not returning calls / being too busy for the case load is common. Allegations of incompetence or suspensions are not normal. Have perspective on stuff like that.
3) Be willing to negotiate. If you find a wonderful lawyer who wants 50%, they might let you talk em down. Especially if 50% is an outlier in the local market.

That's how I'd shop for this situation anyway. Or more likely, I would call up the Garcias' firms. Doesn't matter that it's not in your state in this situation, because it is a federal case. I would add that given the nature of the cult and the fact that it is in federal court mean that you should really not just open up the yellow pages. You want a very high level of specialization, and that is generally extremely expensive.

Edit - To finish my thought, with the local ambulance chaser, even if expensive and good at personal injury, you will not get what you pay for because this is not your every day weirdness. This is a bizarre religious cult, a federal case, and fraud with its difficult level of proof in federal courts.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't think that Top Gun Tommy can pay to make it all go away. Maybe one or two plaintiffs, but not the entire house of cards crumbling down. I think Davey would make a run for it first - either Bulgravian Boogey or ending cycle. I am really not sure how likely he would be to end cycle, but it certainly is an acceptable option in Scn culture (sadly), and greater men than him have done it (**cough**Hitler**cough**).

Davey, Laurisse, Jelly, and Taffy in the bunker. Just like Der Fuhrer in the end....

I'd like HIM to experience trying to live a life while constantly having to look over your shoulder.. When Anonymous appeared, I thanked them for relieving me of that compulsion.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I wouldn't call that unscrupulous. Who cares? The 1/3 could mean the difference between a completely broke litigant litigating or just giving up on bleeding the cult dry. I'd personally prefer to see the cult stabbed a few more times, even is someone else is getting a 1/3 cut besides the ex.

Of course, experience and a lawyer that knows what the fuck they are doing would be nice too. Fraud has interesting issues with how to prove it and how to plead it in federal courts. That's where the exes would need to do their due diligence, imho.

Agree, and didn't mean to imply that with no other option than to give up 1/3 or more, someone should simply abandon all thoughts of legal redress. Apologies for writing in an unclear manner. My thoughts were on the unscrupulous few who would file suit in a 'go-through-the-motions'-type way, with no actual experience in this type of litigation, expecting a fast settlement offer from CO$.

Obviously, if, for whatever reason, CO$ didn't offer to settle in that scenario, the client would be in a very bad position -- the suit's filed, an inexperienced/unmotivated attorney's 'in charge' and the clock's ticking/game's on. Messy all the way around -- and CO$ would likely prevail. Not an outcome any reasonable person would want to see.

I've wondered about Federal vs. State suits re: allegations of fraud. In some states, treble damages are awarded to those who successfully prove such has occurred.

JB.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
IF an attorney does take any of these cases on a contingency basis I don't necessarily consider it as "unscrupulous" to take 1/3rd. It depends upon on much work is needed by the attorney to prepare for the case and bring it to trial (if necessary). In a very real sense the attorney is gambling as he may spend hundreds of hours working on a case and than not get paid a penny if he doesn't win. Even if he does win he may not get paid for many years until the case is complete. So for an attorney to take on a case on contingency it's got to be worth it for him to do that or else he won't take it on in the first place.

And for the client it is good as well. He doesn't have to take $50,000+ out of pocket to pay for an attorney (if he even has it) and then he is out that money if he loses the case. He's not putting up his own money at risk but rather that of the attorney's.

I wrote in an unclear manner, and do agree with what you wrote above.

There are a few unscrupulous attorneys. (We agree?)

Contingency fee agreements are, sometimes, necessary for clients who do not have the financial resources to pay, say, $500. per hour, plus costs. (We agree?)

An unscrupulous attorney, who believes CO$ immediately settles, might attract ex-scios to his/her office, have the clients sign a contingency fee agreement, file suit...again, thinking it only a formality because CO$ 'settles quickly', and then, if CO$ does NOT settle quickly, it is the client who is then, IMO, in a vulnerable, messy, position.

JB (Who promises to review all future posts prior before hitting the 'submit' key. :yes:)
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
<snip>"...The lawyers don't "owe" anything to the client other than their best efforts." <snip>

<snip> "...Basically, you get what you pay for."<snip>

Apologies for not writing as clearly as I should have.

You're correct about much that you've written re: contingency fees.

That said, unscrupulous attorneys are those who do not give clients "their best efforts" -- and it is not the contingency fee that is, necessarily, unscrupulous.

JB.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

Basically, you get what you pay for.

That much, I disagree with. Because I don't really think that someone worth their salt will charge a 75% contingency. But there is some range of acceptable percentages that people operate in.
--snipped--


Au contraire, my friend. Your theory that superstars won't charge too much is not borne out in practice.

In the world of top-flight professionals (any field, industry or endeavor) "someone worth their salt" can charge whatever the market bears, and that is EXACTLY what they do.

Witness a brilliantly talented photographer who can command $1,000 for doing a simple two-hour portrait shot. Now let's ask Annie Leibowitz how much she will charge for doing that portrait.

What's that you say, Annie, you are going to charge $75,000 for the same portrait?

Hmmm, that doesn't sound fair, does it? LOL

Hey, what's the big deal, just use your iPhone and take a photo for free, right?

I called Paul McCartney earlier today to ask him how much he would charge to come to my kid's birthday party and sing "HAPPY BIRTHDAY". Jeeez, you wouldn't believe how much he told me--that guy is soooooo out exchange! LOL.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Apologies for not writing as clearly as I should have.

You're correct about much that you've written re: contingency fees.

That said, unscrupulous attorneys are those who do not give clients "their best efforts" -- and it is not the contingency fee that is, necessarily, unscrupulous.

JB.



We cool!

This fraud lawsuit is one of my top 5 favorite moments in the history of debunking the total freedom cult, right up there with the Immaculate Conception of Anonymous.

alg-anonymous-jpg.jpg



In a very poignant way, the spontaneous birth of Anonymous closely parallels the origins of Christ in that nobody initially got f*cked.


(I know, I know, I am going to hell for that one, so what?)
 
Top