Brian Culkin's $350,000 refund and the Garcia Case

[Purple Rain]

Don't be a pussy - tell us what you really think.

I give the movie purple rain 2 out of 4 stars!! I hope that doesn't offend anyone! That's what I really think.

Oh, I'm sure you won't offend anyone. I'm hardly the most liked poster on the board. I can live with that, though. I'll still say what I think - even moreso the more you go after me.

 

[Free to shine]

Thank you TG1. You are correct, I was never involved in Cos. I've done a lot of reading about cults. Part of freedom is adults making bad choices - like joining a cult. However, kids are just lumps of clay who cling to the adults in their life for guidance. Parents who are true cult members, the real fanatics, view it as their mission to mold their children into good cult members and even worse view their children as less important than the cult. Children end up trying to be even more fanatical cult members simply to get their parents love and approval. I don't think anyone, other than other kids raised in a cult, can understand the difficulty.

The fact that these 2nd generation cult members can and do break away as adults is really a testament to the human spirit and an amazing feat, overcoming both the nature and nurture.

In my mind there are different standards for adults who had the choice to join and children who's parents made the choice for them. Not that I lack sympathy or understanding for adults who joined, but I take those on a more individual case basis. I give blanket compassion to any child who was raised to become a cult member. Thier actions as an adult cult members all stem from that unchosen upbringing.

(One exception, I have very low tolerance for any one joining the CoS in the past 5 or 6 years. I mean come the fuck on I know you can type Scientology into google and if the army of red flags didn't stop you in your tracks, well sorry, you were well warned or purposely avoided the warnings. Brian Culkin, I'm looking at you.)

Thanks for the post about Rinder that you wrote, it's pretty much how I feel as well, being a second generation. The fact that he started his own, more activist blog shows he is continuing to shed the upbringing. And it is indeed a very, very hard thing to do.

 

[tetloj]

Re: $50,000 Extorted from Brian Culkin?

I have read it. He has some interesting counter points but I don't see him saying it is going to scupper the case.
There is a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth here and over at Tony's and I want to know what people are reading in this, because damned if I can see it. Is this the end of the case? Will Garcia never be able to sue the church again?

If Garcia's lawyers didn't expect something like this, or worse, from COS, then Garcia should get himself some new attorneys.

In addition to the declaration Brian was privy to several phone calls and may/may not have had access to information about strategy that should not be shared with the CO$ which may/may not have now been revealed.

Not wailing or gnashing teeth to say his decisions are bitterly disappointing and show a very selfish streak on top of incredible naivete.

 

[shadow]

I am concerned that Brian revealed the identities of others who are involved in this effort to get their money back, and opened them to harassment and pressure from the most ethical people on the planet.

I hope those involved are documenting every act of harassment or other inappropriate contact with scn and are not pressured to fold before the suits are in front of a judge.

 

[Panda Termint]

General Commentary: Maybe/maybe not. Why not hold off on the hostility and labeling until we actually know what really happened and what the actual consequences are? Even then, why not simply accept it as another example of "shit happens"?
This, too, will come to pass!

 

[degraded being]

General Commentary: Maybe/maybe not. Why not hold off on the hostility and labeling until we actually know what really happened and what the actual consequences are? Even then, why not simply accept it as another example of "shit happens"?
This, too, will come to pass!

Well let's close the board then!

 

[Stat]

Re: $50,000 Extorted from Brian Culkin?

Stat I love you for trying. Ima need my tech guy and I think a tune up is due. I'm probably running some dinasoar version of internet explorer? Anyhoo- Your bunker screen does not resemble my bunker screen options, mine shows; facebook, twitter, g+,digg,reddit and nothing else. No worries, i'll be tuning up soon. I'm also just a little cautious about protecting my online identity. Thanks for trying. Back to the task at hand did Brian trade emails and strategy for a check?

Riveting.
Dil

Sorry, Dil, I forgot to suggest using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.

 

[Panda Termint]

Well let's close the board then!

Then what would we all do? :confused2:

 

[Stat]

Then what would we all do? :confused2:

 

[In present time]

Well let's close the board then!

yeah, too much communication going on. on this board. better shut it down, been nice knowing you guys

 

[JBWriter]

I was glad to see t1kk's analysis and Babbitt's comments at Tony O's place this morning. Good stuff. At http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/13/wi...n-demolish-the-garcias-federal-fraud-lawsuit/

Despite all our armchair lawyering, the real story involves what Judge Whittemore's ruling will be. That's pretty much the only thing that matters here. Everything else is entertainment.



TG1

Plaintiff Garcia's response to the motion is thought to be due, per the link above, 15 days from the date the motion was filed on May 10th, 2013.

Since May 25th, 2013 is a Saturday, does that mean the response is due on Monday, May 27th, 2013?

JB.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Garcias Answer Scientology’s Attempt to Disqualify Their Attorneys in Fraud Lawsuit

From Tony Ortega: Garcias Answer Scientology’s Attempt to Disqualify Their Attorneys in Fraud Lawsuit
http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/28/ga...-disqualify-their-attorneys-in-fraud-lawsuit/

Excerpts:

Two weeks ago, the Church of Scientology pulled a classic maneuver from its bag of litigation tricks. Using the declaration of ex-church member Brian Culkin — who had signed the document reportedly in order to obtain a large refund — Scientology attempted to get the attorneys for Luis and Rocio Garcia disqualified in their federal fraud lawsuit against the church.

But in their response, Weil and Babbitt generally ignore Culkin and instead explain that Johnson’s involvement in the case is tangential and in no way violates Florida court rules. While Johnson did, fifteen years ago, handle church matters such as land purchases, the Garcia lawsuit is about fraud.

And a hat tip to WWP for this:

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...h-the-garcia-suit.108358/page-12#post-2312007

From the Opposition Motion, first footnote at the bottom of pg3:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144278941/Garcia-Opposition-to-Disqualify

1 Babbit Johnson Osborne & LeClainche, P.A. will be referred to in this Memorandum as
“Babbitt Johnson,” and Weil Quaranta, P.A., nowknown as Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A., will
be referred to as “Weil.” In response to the Scientology Defendants’ motion to disqualify counsel
for the Garcias, Robert Johnson of Gray Robinson, Ted Babbitt of Babbitt Johnson and Ronald
Weil of Weil, submit their Declarations, which are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C,
respectively. In addition, Michael Rinder and Marty Rathbun submit their Declarations, which
are attached to this Memorandumas Exhibits D and E, respectively. The Declarations will be
cited in this Memorandum as: Johnson Decl. at ¶ __; Babbitt Decl. at p. __; Weil Decl. at ¶ __;
Rinder Decl. at ¶ __; and Rathbun Decl. at ¶ __.

DO WANT those extra Declarations in Exhibits A-E dagnabbit! They are not attached to the document released. Fail.

 

[TG1]

From t1kk (lawyer Scott Pilutik) over at Tony O's blog:

It’s also worthwhile to note that in paragraph 34 of Johnson’s declaration he points out five instances which his own account contradicts Culkin’s version of events. He’s calling Culkin a liar, and the contradictions between the two are of the easily verifiable sort–e.g., number of phone calls, number of emails, letters or documents sent or not sent. Since Scientology’s legal argument rests *entirely* on facts provided by Culkin, the judge could call a hearing to determine the credibility of Culkin, and if found to be lacking, dismiss the motion without even addressing the legal argument. And to the extent Scientology’s lawyers obtained Culkin’s declaration without conducting what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure refer to as a “reasonable inquiry” into the veracity of the facts provided, they may wind up in a heap of trouble and get sanctioned under F.R.C.P. 11(b) (Babbitt would likely have to file a motion). Additionally, Culkin himself may also be liable for contempt.

Emphasis added.

At http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/28/ga...-disqualify-their-attorneys-in-fraud-lawsuit/

TG1

 

[Purple Rain]

From t1kk (lawyer Scott Pilutik) over at Tony O's blog:

It’s also worthwhile to note that in paragraph 34 of Johnson’s declaration he points out five instances which his own account contradicts Culkin’s version of events. He’s calling Culkin a liar, and the contradictions between the two are of the easily verifiable sort–e.g., number of phone calls, number of emails, letters or documents sent or not sent. Since Scientology’s legal argument rests *entirely* on facts provided by Culkin, the judge could call a hearing to determine the credibility of Culkin, and if found to be lacking, dismiss the motion without even addressing the legal argument. And to the extent Scientology’s lawyers obtained Culkin’s declaration without conducting what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure refer to as a “reasonable inquiry” into the veracity of the facts provided, they may wind up in a heap of trouble and get sanctioned under F.R.C.P. 11(b) (Babbitt would likely have to file a motion). Additionally, Culkin himself may also be liable for contempt.

Emphasis added.

At http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/28/ga...-disqualify-their-attorneys-in-fraud-lawsuit/

TG1

I doubt that they will hold Culkin in contempt, but the whole manoeuvre was a disgrace. I hope Scientology's lawyers at least do get sanctioned.