Rex Fowler To Stand Trial For Business Partner Murder

Discussion in 'Controversial Scientologists' started by Enthetan, Apr 10, 2010.

Tags:
View Users: View Users
  1. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    He COULD go the Diminsihed Capacity route (see http://www.legalview.info/Legal-Dictionary/Diminished_capacity/Default.aspx). This could potentially keep him OUT of the psych hands, but allow him to speak to his STATE OF MIND, and the can of worms that would open.

    Unfortunately, with a Public Defender, there will not be a vigorously mounted defense. She will do what she can to get a reduced charge, but that is about it.
     
  2. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    I DO believe that a great attorney along with the right expert witnesses could obtain an acquittal for Fowler using the Insanity Defense.
    The M'Naghten Rule is one that is used in Colorado. Information can be found about that here:
    http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-mnaghten-rule.html

    "In 1843, Daniel M'Naghten, an Englishman who was apparently a paranoid schizophrenic under the delusion that he was being persecuted, shot and killed Edward Drummond, Secretary to British Prime minister Sir Robert Peel. M'Naghten believed that Drummond was Peel. To the surprise of the nation, M'Naghten was found not guilty on the grounds that he was insane at the time of his act. The subsequent public outrage convinced the English House of Lords to establish standards for the defense of insanity, the result subsequently referred to as the M'Naghten Rule.
    The M'Naghten Rule provides as follows: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
    The test to determine if a defendant can distinguish right from wrong is based on the idea that the defendant must know the difference in order to be convicted of a crime. Determining a defendant's ability to do so may seem straightforward enough, but dilemmas often arise in cases in which the M'Naghten standard is used. For instance, some issues focus on whether a defendant knew that his or her criminal acts were wrong or whether he or she knew that laws exist that prohibit these acts.
    Criticism of the M'Naghten test often focuses on the test's concentration on a defendant's cognitive abilities. Questions also crop up about how to treat defendants who know their acts are against the law but who cannot control their impulses to commit them. Similarly, the courts need to determine how to evaluate and assign responsibility for emotional factors and compulsion. Additionally, because of the rule's inflexible cognitive standard, it tends to be difficult for defendants to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Despite these complications, M'Naghten has survived and is currently the rule in a majority of states with regard to the insanity defense (sometimes combined with the Irresistible Impulse Test)."

    Additional information Colorado's insanity defense can be found here:

    http://articles.directorym.com/Criminal_Defenses_Colorado-r935318-Colorado.html

    http://www.westword.com/2001-01-11/news/colorado-s-insanity-cases/

    I honestly believe that a convincing argument can be made that Fowler was in fact insane at the time of the act due to his scientology mindfuck IF he thought what he was doing was the greatest good.

    But I doubt that Fowler would use this defense even if advised by his attorney that it was his best strategy. In Colorado, if you "win" with the insanity defense, treatment IS mandatory.

    EDIT: The "Irresistable Impulse Test" also comes into play in colorado with the insanity defense:
    http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/...sanity-defense/irresistible-impulse-test.html
    "In response to criticisms of the M'Naghten Rule, some legal commentators began to suggest expanding the definition of insanity to include more than a cognitive element. Such a test would encompass not only whether defendants know right from wrong but also whether they could control their impulses to commit wrong-doing. The Irresistible Impulse Test was first adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State. The Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to "the duress of such mental disease [that] he had ... lost the power to choose between right and wrong" and that "his free agency was at the time destroyed," and thus, "the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely." In so finding, the court assigned responsibility for the crime to the mental illness despite the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong.
    The Irresistible Impulse Test gained acceptance in various states as an appendage to the M'Naghten Rule, under which right versus wrong was still considered a vital part of any definition of insanity. In some cases, the Irresistible Impulse Test was considered to be a variation on M'Naghten; in others, it was considered to be a separate test. Though the Irresistible Impulse Test was considered to be an important corrective on M'Naghten's cognitive bias, it still came under some criticism of its own. For example, it seemed to make the definition of insanity too broad, failing to take into account the impossibility of determining which acts were uncontrollable rather than merely uncontrolled, and also making it easier to fake insanity. The test was also criticized for being too narrow; like M'Naghten, the test seemed to exclude all but those totally unable to control their actions. Nevertheless, several states currently use this test along with the M'Naghten Rule to determine insanity, and the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code definition of insanity adopted a modified version of it."
     
  3. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    You make a very crucial point, about the privilege belonging to Fowler.
     
  4. Ulf K. Maier

    Ulf K. Maier Patron Meritorious

    SPD on Files

    Here is the Scientology SPD order regarding files. Sorry if the formatting is a bit off:

    S C I E N T O L O G Y P O L I C Y D I R E C T I V E
    SCN POLICY DIRECTIVE 118
    26 July 1985​


    All Orgs
    All Missions
    All Staff
    Office of Special Affairs
    HCO
    Tech
    Qual
    Security Hats
    Legal Hats
    Dept 3 Hats
    Tech Services Hats​


    URGENT - IMPORTANT
    LABELLING OF TECHNICAL AND ETHICS FILES


    NOTE: THIS ISSUE CONTAINS DEFINITIONS AND DATA ON
    STATUTES THAT EXIST IN AMERICAN LAW. WHILE THE
    "PRIEST/PENITENT PRIVILEGE" (DEFINED BELOW IN THIS
    ISSUE) IS FAIRLY UNIVERSAL, THE STATUTES COVERING
    IT MAY VARY TO SOME DEGREE FROM STATE TO STATE AS
    WELL AS FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY. THEREFORE, THE
    RESPONSIBLE TERMINALS IN THE LOCAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL
    AFFAIRS IN EACH STATE, PROVINCE OR COUNTRY SHOULD
    CHECK THIS ISSUE WITH THEIR LAWYERS AND AGAINST THE
    LOCAL STATUTES AND LAW ON PRIEST/PENITENT PRIVILEGE,
    IS REQUIRED FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATE, PROVINCE OR COUNTRY.

    IF SO, SIMILAR DIRECTIVES TO SUPPLEMENT THIS
    ISSUE ARE TO BE PREPARED BY LEGAL TERMINALS IN THE
    LOCAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS FOR THE PARTICULAR
    AREA, BASED UPON THE EXISTING STATUTES FOR THAT
    AREA, AND DISTRIBUTED TO ALL ORGS AND MISSIONS IN
    THE AREA.


    It is important that the confidentiality of preclear and
    pre-OT auditing folders and Ethics folders be maintained.
    Therefore, effective at once , both the auditing and
    Ethics folders of all preclears and pre-OTs, staff and public,
    are to be labelled:

    CONFIDENTIAL
    CONFESSIONAL
    PRIEST/PENITENT PRIVILEGED
    FILE

    Each individual folder is to be stamp d clearly on the outside
    with the above label.
    This does not change the designation to be used for marking
    pc folders containing upper level technical materials, per HCO PL
    8 Aug 1966, OT III - COLOUR FLASH, COLOUR FLASH ADDITION, but is in
    addition to such colour flash designation.

    The file cabinet drawers or shelves where such folders are
    stored (Ethics files in HCO; pc and pre-OT files in Tech) must
    be clearly marked with the same label. The only difference in


    SPD 118 - 2 -



    the drawer or shelf labels is that the word "FILE" is made
    plural - i.e., "FILES".

    DEFINITION
    "Priest/Penitent Privilege" is the privilege between a
    parishioner (penitent) and his auditor (priest? . "Priest/Penitent"
    is the widely recognized legal term for the privilege that exists
    in law which makes the communication between a parishioner
    (penitent) and his auditor (priest) inviolate.

    Black's Law Dictionary defines it as follows:
    "Priest-penitent privilege : In evidence, the recognition
    of the seal of confession which bars testimony as to the
    contents of a communication from one to his confessor .
    Nearly all states provide for this privilege by statute ."


    FILES CONTAINING CONFIDENTIAL UPPER LEVEL
    TECHNICAL MATERIALS

    Files that contain confidential upper level Bulletins, Policy
    Letters, advices or course packs are to be clearly stamped:

    CONFIDENTIAL
    RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
    FILE

    The file cabinet drawers or shelves where these folders are
    secured are to bear the same label, using the plural designation
    "FILES".


    RUBBER STAMPS

    Each org and mission is to have standardized rubber stamps
    made with the above designations in bold lettering, to facilitate
    and ensure the correct and standard marking of such files.
    Effective immediately:
    1) the current pc and pre-OT folders of all staff and public,
    2) the current Ethics folders of all staff and public,
    3) the current folders containing confidential upper level
    Bulletins, Policy Letters, advices and course packs,
    4) and the filed drawers or shelves where these materials are
    kept, are to be labelled per the instructions above.

    Projects are to be drawn up and completed to get all back
    folders, (both Tech and Ethics) and file cabinets or storage
    shelves for these similarly labelled.


    ATTEMPTED SEIZURE OF FILES

    Should any public individual or governmental agent or agentin-
    charge (as in a raid or otherwise) demand or attempt to seize
    public or staff pc folders or Ethics files (CONFIDENTIAL PRIEST-
    PENITENT PRIVILEGED FILES), or files containing confidential
    upper level materials (CONFIDENTIAL RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY FILES),


    SPD 118 - 3 -



    any staff member must ask them to halt and refer to the statute
    (for that state) which covers the Priest/Penitent Privilege.

    The staff member may also quote or refer to the Priest/Penitent
    Privilege as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, the law dictionary
    which is most widely used in the United States. (Or, in another
    country, the staff member should refer to the statute which applies
    to this subject in that country, and the law dictionary which
    covers this subject which is used in that country.)

    This could cause the agent, agent-in-charge or other
    individual demanding or attempting to seize these files to back
    off at least until an attorney can be obtained.

    Proper labelling of these folders should give the protection
    that is provided by law in most states for ensuring the confidentiality
    of our confessional and religious technical materials.

    Additionally, every staff member, regardless of post, should
    be familiar with and able to apply the data contained in this
    issue. He/she should also be familiar with the statute covering
    this subject in the particular state, province or country in
    which his org or mission is located.


    SENIOR C/S INTERNATIONAL
    Authorized by
    AVC INTERNATIONAL
    for the ®
    CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
    INTERNATIONAL
    • CSI:AVCI:RM:pm:pl
    © 1985 CSI.
    All Rights Reserved.​



    OT and SCIENTOLOGY are trademarks and service marks owned by the Religious Technology Center and is used with its permission.
    Printed in U.S.A.​
     
  5. anonyvix

    anonyvix Patron

    Hang on, I thought the ethics files were not considered priest penitent privilege by the cult, isn't that why the cult like to get confessions in sec checks so they can with clear conscience tell the authorities? Or are sec check files a different issue?
     
  6. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    That was a "Scientology Policy Directive" from 1985. Is there any issue from Hubbard addressing this issue?
     
  7. skydog

    skydog Patron Meritorious

    Thanks for posting the policy Ulf.

    Clearly, the law generally protects such communications. What that policy fails to recognize is that the privilege belongs to the penitent, not the priest. A duly executed waiver of such privilege by the penitent puts an end to that privilege. As far as the other asserted privilege (confidential church materials) that is on a different footing and, if applicable, would only relate to OT levels.