Fed Judge ENJOINS FL judge in Kyle Brennan Litigation

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by pooks, Jun 24, 2009.

  1. Herro Member

    Lol win after win after win.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. subgenius Member

    I gotta feeling its not over.
  3. subgenius Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    THIS IS WHY...

    people think you are douche. For every decent, insightful or logical post you make, you make 3 others that are fucking useless.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Herro Member

    Some people make jokes about david miscavige being short. Just think of it as my version of that.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Triumph Member

    Scientology gets closer to removing nemesis lawyer from wrongful death lawsuit

    By Thomas C. Tobin, Times staff writer
  7. subgenius Member

    DM's personal defender.
    The issues are totally equivalent.
    And because someone else does something wrong that makes it alright for you to do so.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. moarxenu Member

    I am feeling bad for Kyle's mom Victoria Britton. None of this would be an issue if the cult had not so thoroughly terrified lawyers that none of them will take a case that were the defendant not the Church of Scientology lawyers would I imagine be glad to take.

    What an unending path of grief she has to tread. My heart and prayers are with you, Victoria.
    • Like Like x 5
  9. Herro Member

    I have a hard time feeling bad about this. Suing the Church over her son's suicide is bullshit. I understand why she's doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.
  10. Anonymous Member

    That's what OJ said.
  11. tikk Member

    Bullshit because you think the estate's claims are false? Or bullshit because you think it's acceptable that Church officials contributed to Kyle's death by ordering the father to withhold his meds?
    • Like Like x 6
  12. Herro Member

    Bullshit because she's trying to claim that the leaders of the church are responsible for ordering the father to withhold the meds. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that.
  13. tikk Member

    I discussed the evidence issue as it applies to Denise Miscavige here and here. The evidence you apparently seek would be elicited at trial, namely the testimony of Denise Miscavige--her denial of knowledge of Kyle being on Lexapro is not credible given that she specifically called Kyle's mother in an attempt to convince her to allow Kyle to be treated by Narconon.
    • Like Like x 8
  14. subgenius Member

    none are so blind as those whom will not see
    semantic game
    i haven't seen evidence of a lot of things
    unless we know what evidence one has and hasn't seen its impossible to judge or argue how valid the conclusion is
    and who has the time or desire to find out
    what a waste
    dancing on the head of pins and defending evil cult leaders
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. Anonymous Member

    Dumbass. The DM jokes are psyops.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    The religions probably find The Age of Reason to be a Paine in the ass.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    If someone was to superglue the evidence to your fugly face, you still wouldn't accept it. Useless troll.
  19. Herro Member

    Then why isn't Denise the only person named in the suit? And isn't the father the proximate source of harm in all of this? I'm going to assume you're right and I'm wrong, since you have the expertise, but this all just seems to me to be bogus.
  20. Anonymous Member

  21. tikk Member

    Because the justice system recognizes that several persons can jointly share liability to varying proportionate degrees. The estate has named all potentially culpable parties. Scientology's liability derives from Denise having acted in her capacity as a Church official. The estate can collect damages from each party to the extent it can be shown they are liable in the proportion they are deemed to be liable.
    • Like Like x 5
  22. Anonymous Member

  23. Herro Member

    But if the Church says "Denise acted on her own," how do you demonstrate otherwise? Just trying to understand here.
  24. greebly Member

    I find this comment very intriguing as "Ministeral Exception" is used in other cases whereby if someone is "paid/employed" by the organisation they are acting under that umbrella yes/no?

    So in regards to any liability when does someone act on thier own or as part of an organisation that uses "Ministerial Exception"

    Maybe this is where the distinction could be clarified...
  25. tikk Member

    By showing that it was the ordinary business practice for someone in Denise's position to act the way she did; and further that ordinary business practice dictates that no end of internal reports would have naturally been generated in a scenario such as this. The absence of those reports gives rise to permission of an "adverse inference" that what would have been contained on such reports is/was harmful to the Church of Scientology's case. The Lance Marcor declaration covers some of this territory but some of it would be covered by Denise's testimony.

    If you know how Scientology works, there's simply no question as to whether a staff member could possibly act "on their own" in a scenario like this. Even if Denise somehow thought she was acting on her own (they're not contending this, btw--they're denying causal effect across the board with all defendants), the determining factor would likely instead be Kyle's father's perception of whether he sought Denise's advice because she was a friend or because she was a CoS official, and whether her position as an official had any bearing on how he proceeded. But these really aren't close questions because Denise's conduct is entirely consistent with her role as a CoS official.

    But you do hint at something that hasn't really come up yet, but may yet--the defendants are at cross purposes to some extent. They all share the motivation to disprove all of the Estate's claims, but they also have a secondary motivation to prove that X and Y share a greater proportion of blame than me, Z.
    • Like Like x 5
  26. AnonLover Member

  27. greebly Member

  28. Herro Member

    That ought to tell you something about the legitimacy of the suit...
  29. tikk Member

    From a poster's mere inquiry as to whether other lawyers were willing to take the case, you were able to presume that there are not, from which it logically follows that this presumption is evidence of the suit's illegitimacy. Keep thinking.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Herro Member

    One of these threads about this case was full of people saying that getting rid of this attorney would be the death of the case because nobody else would take it, even though the family tried to find someone else. Calm down cupcake.
  31. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Does not make it illegitimate, stupid.
  32. tikk Member

    Yeah, I'm familiar. Indeed, it was the basis for the estate's argument that it was difficult to find another attorney, but that difficulty arises from the dearth of attorneys interested in litigating against Scientology on a contingency basis... due to Scientology's particular litigious history, not because of the suit's legitimacy.
  33. Herro Member

    And yet people sue them all the time. Why are you so invested in this? It's a bullshit case.
  34. LocalSP Member

    Herro you should just quit before Tikk make look more foolish. seriously.
  35. Herro Member

    1) Nice broken english.
    2) Tikk is too close to this for some reason. It's clouding his judgement.
    3) You think I care about looking foolish on WWP talking about scientology? Child please.
  36. anonymous612 Member

    He's serving a useful purpose in a thread that would otherwise be at risk for dissolving into mutual backpatting. Deal with it or handle him better.

    EDIT: and before I run the risk of seeming too friendly, you're an asshole, Herro. :( I'll think of why later.
    • Like Like x 3
  37. LocalSP Member

    1 Herro you should just quit before Tikk makes you look more foolish. seriously. Fixed

    2 Your tinfoil a little too tight?

    3 Yes or you wouldn't be here.

    You mad?
  38. Herro Member

    1) Thank you
    2) Perhaps. Something is just off about tikk in this thread.
    3) That makes no sense silly.

    And no, I ain't even mad.
  39. Anonymous Member

    You're an irritating little thing aren't you.
  40. anonsparrow Member

    He is good at what he does.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins