Michael Fairman's effective BLOW to the Co$ - regarding DISCONNECTION!

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
:happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance:

A very effective blow indeed!:yes:


Fairmans Disarm Scientology Disconnection

Posted on September 21, 2012 by martyrathbun09 | 26 Comments
Michael, Sky, and Joy Graysen Fairman have delivered a big, effective legal blow to Miscavige and Scientology Inc on the subject of DISCONNECTION.
Shortly after Michael and Joy declared independence from the church, two Scientologist doctors informed them that they and their daughter Sky were no longer welcome as patients at their medical practices.
Joy and Sky

Michael and Joy diligently attempted to obtain a rational, lawful explanation for the sudden terminations. None was forthcoming from either Dr. Benest or Dr. Thorburn.
Michael and Joy decided to take a strong stand to vindicate their civil rights and assure others were not similarly abused in the future. They retained a seasoned litigator, Bruce C Gridley of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman in Los Angeles.
They sued Charlene Thorburn, Doctor of Chiropractic, her Thorburn Chiropractic and Wellness Center and Dr. Lisa Benest and her professional corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court for:

  1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE SECS. 51, 51.5 AND 52
  2. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
  3. BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
  4. NEGLIGENCE
  5. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
  6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
  7. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE
  8. AND INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
(see the first lawsuit here)
The suits were not based on any animosity the Fairman’s held against either doctor, who were considered friends, but on the fact that they appeared to be guided by the church’s policy of ‘disconnection’, which the Fairmans’ find abhorrent.
Michael Fairman

On March 14th 2012 the Los Angeles Superior Court entered judgment in favor of Michael and Joy and their daughter Sky against Thorburn.

More recently Dr. Benest settled the Fairmans’ case against her with a stipulated judgment and dismissal.
The Thorburn case – complaint, pleadings, and final judgment – can be obtained from the LA Superior Court under case number BC474478 (2011). Those pleadings and final judgment could be used as precedent by your own counsel should you suffer any of the harms alleged in the Fairmans’ case by the application of DISCONNECTION by members of Scientology Inc.
Michael, Joy and Sky did everyone a great service.


:dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::dancer::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
That is great, but I wonder if Fairman credits his hero LRH for the creation of the disconnection policy? Doubt it.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Did I understand this right? Instead of being simply barred from their favourite family doctors' office they are now still barred from their favourite doctors' office but $3500 (plus costs) richer?

Paul
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
A win is a win - don't be so negative! Who the fuck cares - as long as Scientologists still in get the message - Disconnection is really a strange practice and it could cost them money. I feel this is a great win!

No Scientologist's do business with Scientologist's in the area I live in. I have heard that they have had "the justice system" Scientologesed - and they won...but their was no enforcing at all. So I was told early on by the few public that attend this Morgue - to not do business with Scientologist's and I did not!
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Did I understand this right? Instead of being simply barred from their favourite family doctors' office they are now still barred from their favourite doctors' office but $3500 (plus costs) richer?

I guess the fact that they sued and won makes for a win, but it's not a huge win. The $3,500 judgement shows that the chances of winning this lawsuit at trial was a stretch, and the Fairman's could have walked away with nothing.

But, taking a lawsuit to trial is very expensive, and if the Fairmans were to take this trial, and lost, they'd be looking at coughing up alot of $$ in defendant's legal fees, i.e., what happened with the Headleys & why they asked for donations.

Charlene Thorburn & Lisa Benest were the losers & the winners in this case. They coughed up a minimal amount of $$ to make the case go away, with full adherence to cult's disconnection policy.

The circumstances of this case is similar to Jason Beghe's case.. cough up some $$ to make a nuisance lawsuit go away. The defendants lose because they settled the case for minimal damages (though their business insurance company probably coughed up the $$), but they win because the lawsuit is dead.

I worked on legal cases (as a paralegal) where the vast amount of lawsuits, where the accessed damages were less than $5,000, the business insurance company paid it, as encumbered by in the defendant's liability policy. The defendant's did not have to pay out of pocket.
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
Did I understand this right? Instead of being simply barred from their favourite family doctors' office they are now still barred from their favourite doctors' office but $3500 (plus costs) richer?

Sounds like it - I'm no fan of unnecessary litigation, but this might have been a "for the principle" move. Just a guess, of course, but a very possible reason.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Did I understand this right? Instead of being simply barred from their favourite family doctors' office they are now still barred from their favourite doctors' office but $3500 (plus costs) richer?

Paul

Well then I'd call this a mild slap rather than an effective blow. :lol:
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Sounds like it - I'm no fan of unnecessary litigation, but this might have been a "for the principle" move. Just a guess, of course, but a very possible reason.

I suspect Fairman's attorney, in negotiations with the defendant's attorney & their insurer's attorney (which is a standard aspect of any negotiation, nowadays), hammered out a deal to pay the Fairman's $3,500 & attorneys fees to end the case, which would be paid under Thorsen's business policy.

Charlene Thorsen & Lisa Benest did not have to pay anything out of pocket. In reading the case summary, I didn't see any acknowledgement that depositions took place, which is fundamental in any case.

The Fairman's sued for $10,000+ and walked away with 1/3 that amount. It looks like they understood their chances of winning this case, if it went to trial, were not great.
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
Dunno, it sounds like money wasn't really the key here - it was a big FU to The Man. Settle for a lot less, but you're vindicated to the masses? Sounds like a kind of reverse-SLAPP to me.

On the plus side, this sets a small precedent, legally speaking, against Disconnection Everywhere (TM). It's not a monetary win, but an ethical one.

Again, this is all a WAG, but I'd like to think it had a principled backing.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
I suspect Fairman's attorney, in negotiations with the defendant's attorney & their insurer's attorney (which is a standard aspect of any negotiation, nowadays), hammered out a deal to pay the Fairman's $3,500 & attorneys fees to end the case, which would be paid under Thorsen's business policy.

Charlene Thorsen & Lisa Benest did not have to pay anything out of pocket. In reading the case summary, I didn't see any acknowledgement that depositions took place, which is fundamental in any case.

The Fairman's sued for $10,000+ and walked away with 1/3 that amount. It looks like they understood their chances of winning this case, if it went to trial, were not great.

Yes, any attorney worth his/her salt would've rendered Fairman impotent on the stand....

Attorney: So Mr. Fairman you left the Church because you believed it had strayed from the original precepts, philosophy, policies and applied technology as originated by the Founder, L. Ron Hubbard?

Fairman: Yes that's correct.

Attorney: Isn't it true Mr. Fairman that LRH instituted the Disconnection Policy himself? I see you're hesitating....shall I show you the policy letter and the passages from PTS/SP Course materials?

Fairman: No,no, you are right. LRH originated disconnection.

Attorney: So that's one policy in which the Church was keeping in line with the Founder, meaning that you have a disagreement with LRH, not the current CoS. Furthermore, my client is simply keeping the policy as directed by LRH, whom you also purport to admire and follow. Am I reading this right Mr. Fairman?

Fairman: (crickets chirping)
 
Top