Kyle Brennan: Lawyer Luke Lirot to speak online live Thurs 2/16

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by moarxenu, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. moarxenu Member

    God Discussion has announced on its page for its weekly blogtalk radio show that attorney Luke Lirot will be speaking on the Kyle Brennan wrongful death lawsuit. He has just filed an appeal to Judge Stephen Merryday's order granting the cult defendants' motion for summary judgment.

    The show starts off at 6:00 pm Pacific/9:00 pm Eastern with Vanity Fair editor Cullen Murphy speaking about his new book on the Inquisition. At 7:00 pm/10:00 pm atheist Staise Gonzalez talks about her protest against a Nigerian exorcist touring the US.

    Luke will speak at 7:30 pm/10:30 pm. It will be exactly five years since the night of Kyle's death in 2007.

    God Discussion programs on Scientology are always lively. You can call in and join the online chat and troll OSAbots. Details at the show page.

    Here's the program description:

    San Francisco anons are raiding in honor of Kyle on Friday, February 17, from 2:00 pm until dark with special Kyle Kaek.

    • Like Like x 8
  2. Anonymous Member

    moar, what channel is the God show on?
  3. Anonymous Member

  4. bump

    this is why....
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    The show airs live on BlogTalkRadio (you can hear it via your computer) at 6 PM Pacific / 9 PM Eastern. We cover news for the first 10-15 minutes and then join the guests. Calls are welcome and encouraged and as always, our web-based chatroom will be open during the live show and we'll follow your questions/comments as best we can. If you miss the show, you can listen to an MP3 download via Blog Talk Radio or iTunes (see the Blog Talk Radio widget on the bottom of this and every page on The link for the February 16 show is here.
    • Like Like x 4
  6. moarxenu Member

    • Like Like x 8
  7. moarxenu Member

    Gawd, Luke is awesome. He is doing a great job.
    • Like Like x 6
  8. Darth Xander Member

    • Like Like x 5
  9. amaX Member

    the show was awesome.
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Sponge Member

    T'was a good show.
    Thanks to the host God Discussion and also thanks to Damian DeWitt, AnonMomAnon2 and Xeubarb for calling in. Shame on OSA Peter Mansell for not calling in.
    Stream replay and MP3 Download (link under the stream player nav bar) available here: (Luke is in the 2nd hour).

    Attorney Luke Lirot said that the next step would be an 11th Circuit appeal hearing for both sides (to submit briefs and present oral arguments) in front of a panel of 3 judges.
    • Like Like x 9
  11. Anonymous Member

    I had to skip around a bit to find that the beginning of the discussion happens 1 hour 26 minutes into the mp3
    • Like Like x 8
  12. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  13. amaX Member

    God Speed to you SanFranAnons today. I am with you in spirit. Please shout out a couple of times that Victoria Britton LOVES her son and MISSES him so very much. <3
    • Like Like x 6
  14. Really good to listen to, in all candiditude.

    Luke has his head screwed on. Nice to hear from xenubarb and AMA2, too!

    No scilons, though. They are thinning out a bit, admittefly, but then again, they might have modestly declined to talk about themselves in a God Discussion show.
    • Like Like x 4
  15. Random guy Member

    Listning to it now. Lirot is great, my best wishes to him and Kyle Brennans mother!
    • Like Like x 6
  16. moarxenu Member

    I have transcribed some interesting passages from the show. Reference is the mp3 here and the show page Sponge cited here.

    2:04:00 – Luke Lirot discusses issues of suspicious documents and other suspicious elements related to the case

    Damian DeWitt: I have a question for Luke. Luke, one of the things that interested me about Judge Merryday’s order granting the summary judgment is that he referred quite often to 38 handwritten pages that Tom Brennan showed up with two weeks after he shipped Kyle’s belongings home.

    And as I recall when those documents were shown to members of Kyle’s family they could not recognize his handwriting. So I take it that the content of those documents was apparently sort of crazed ranting. And it really surprised me that Judge Merryday would cite those documents as if they were of indubitable authenticity. And so I’d like to hear your comment on that.

    Luke Lirot (2:05:00): Well, I’ll couch it in these terms – whether or not they would prove that Kyle was “off his rocker” just to use the colloquialism, I think that should have been up to the jury whether they were authentic or not. That should have been up to the jury. The delivery of those documents and the timing is another factor you would bring up to cast suspicion on those documents.

    If those don’t appear on the same day that an investigation is undertaken and somebody digs them up later and nobody recognizes the handwriting the plausible inference would be that this is something concocted to try to support the belief that Kyle was so insane at the time that he did not know what he was doing and therefore he is the sole individual responsible for this tragic consequence.

    I would have to disagree with that, and then again it’s the timing, it’s the nature, it’s the recognition of those documents. It certainly raises the specter of suspicion that I think a jury can consider.

    And it’s not speculation. Juries look at circumstantial evidence all the time. Sometimes it takes a little bit more of, shall we say, a reasoned approach.

    But in every trial I have participated in, and there have been a few, one of the things you tell the jury is that you’re allowed to use your common sense.

    In fact every jury instruction session I’ve sat through the courts will tell them “You don’t have to believe anybody, but you have to use your common sense. And you have to decide one way or the other which was more probative of an issue, which was more persuasive.” And that’s what it really comes down to.

    But the problem with this case is that there are scores of those suspicious little items of evidence that for me really create a cloud of suspicion. And I don’t know how to respond to it other than that.

    2:07:00 - My personal belief is really not that important. It’s my desire to be able to present that in a fair and impartial way to let a jury decide what they think about it. What I think is not important. My responsibility lies in exposing the evidence as truthfully as I can and letting them determine what that means.
    • Like Like x 8
  17. Herro Member

    The mom needs to let this go. The sooner she does that, the sooner she can come to terms with her son's death.
  18. Anonymous Member

    0/10 Oh Herro you can do better than making fun of the mom by insinuating she hasn't gotten over what happened to the Son. Try a little harder next time won't you?
    • Like Like x 1
  19. amaX Member

    i know you're attempting to troll. i'm still going to say this. a mother never gets over the death of a child. never. it's not the natural order of things. it goes to the mother's very soul. it could be 5 years or 50 and the hole in her heart will still be there.
    • Like Like x 5
  20. Herro Member

    Not trolling at all. Seems to me like this is just some mom looking for someone to blame for her son's death. It's understandable, but probably not best for her. And I don't know why you are saying "getting over." I said come to terms with. There's a difference.
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Herro Member

    What's the difference between you and a Scientologist screaming "SP!" whenever confronted with information he or she doesn't like? I can't think of any.
  23. Random guy Member

    Luke Lirot seems like a smart and knowledgeable guy. He's taking the case pro bono as I understand it. If he did not think there were cause for the case, he never would have. It's not that I think your are stupid Herro, but I'll take Lirtot's assessment of the case over yours.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Herro Member

    I'll take the court's assessment of the case over that of some attorney with an axe to grind. The mom is looking for someone to blame, the lawyer would love any excuse to try and get at Scientology... and here we are. Yeah.
  25. Anonymous Member

    Herro, why didn't you call into the show? You had the perfect opportunity to have it out once and for all directly with the attorney. It sounds like that's what you need to do because it appears that you aren't getting much satisfaction here by repeating yourself over and over again. You are the one coming across with the raging obsession. So "edgy".
  26. Random guy Member

    Oh, and I too believe it is for the courts to settle. And since the case is still in the system, I guess we'll have to wait a while to find out what the courts final position is, won't we? I respect the function you fill here on WWP Herro, but for the moment you are the one who could need to put your preconceptions aside.
  27. moarxenu Member

    2:07:25 - Luke Lirot addresses the issue of the appeal and new discovery

    Damian DeWitt: Thanks. I have a follow-on question to that which is - What will come out of this appeal? I have heard that if the appeal is granted the case starts de novo, but there seems to be some ambiguity about whether there is opportunity for new discovery and new depositions or not.

    Luke Lirot (2:07:40): The discovery in this case was thorough. I actually, when I got involved, and again I got involved at the eleventh hour probably at 11:58 because the summary judgment came out very shortly after I got involved in the case, which was very frustrating, and I wanted to re-open discovery. I hadn’t gone through the massive amounts of discovery in great depth. And the motion was denied, and I can’t argue with the reasoning because I couldn’t come up with anything specific that I needed.

    A lot of times I’ll just go on instinct and figure out what I need as I am going through a deposition and try find out how they’re answering certain questions. So there is a certain amount of instinct element to it, but there is a vast amount of discovery in this case.

    The courts are very cautious to make sure they don’t dissipate their resources or the resources of the parties improvidently. So the court could well say, “I might give you a month for discovery.” He may even ask, “What additional discovery do you need?”

    Or they may say, “You’ve had all the opportunities in the world to conduct discovery. The case was reversed and remanded; let’s go to trial.”

    A the point I inherited the case and before the judge had granted summary judgment the parties had done their pre-trial briefing; they had submitted proposed jury instructions; they submitted their proposed verdict forms,

    I mean the case was poised for trial. And candidly I was stunned by the granting of summary judgment.

    And again, judges are human too. I think the judge was very frustrated because this judge I think went out of his way to be fair certainly to the plaintiff and the estate and their counsel to give them their day in court.

    The vast amount of attention in this case went to that issue rather than the wrongful death issue.

    And I think he just came to the conclusion that enough is enough. I mean judges get tired of these disputes just as everybody else does. And I’m not faulting the judge. I am sure that the decision that he made is the decision he felt was right.

    I don’t think he was swayed by anything else other than his own personal beliefs and his application of the law.

    I’m not critical of this judge in anyway, but I respectfully dissent from the conclusions he reaches. And candidly I think that in a situation that has this many questions marks, and again I emphasize that, there are quite a few exclamation points, but there’s certainly a lot of questions marks. And a situation like that I do think it should be brought to the jury.

    2:07:20: Luke responds to Damian's question what granting of the appeal would mean in terms of re-opening discovery and related issues.
    • Like Like x 2
  28. moarxenu Member

    2:10:00-2:15:00 - Luke Lirot on the future process of the appeal

    DamianDeWitt: Who hears the appeal?

    Luke Lirot: It will be the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the intermediate court between the US Supreme Court and the District Court that issued the decision.

    We will be assigned a three-judge panel that could include any sitting judge. We might get a retired or a senior judge.

    We might get a guest judge. I can remember I went up there - I have had many, many arguments up there. Sometimes we’ve had District Court judges from the Northern District of Georgia, from the Southern District of Florida. We had one from the International Court of Trade.

    So it’s really kind of an open bag. You do file what is called a certificate of interested persons, so that they can make sure that there’s nobody sitting on your panel that has any interest in anything.

    Obviously there are only a certain number of players here; and obviously the state is not a corporation or anything like that. So I don’t think that is ever going to become an issue.

    But it will be a three-judge panel and the 11th Circuit.

    Damian: Thank you very much.
    • Like Like x 2
  29. moarxenu Member

    2:19:56 – Laura Flynn’s Tribute Victoria Britton

    I just want to say very uppermost in my mind is Victoria Britton, Kyle’s mother. We’ve been in contact with her a bit here lately trying to help her through this horrible anniversary tomorrow.

    She’s a wonderful lady, a very religious Catholic. I hesitated to post about this on Why We Protest, which is our website that we mainly work off of, but a Mass will be said for Kyle tomorrow in Tarpon Springs and then another one the first week of March.

    I know that Victoria was very happy that Kyle was buried Catholic. That was very important to her. I just wanted to bring that up because she’s just uppermost on my mind right now

    And if anybody can help Victoria with this case it’s Luke and his office. They are just wonderful attorneys and great people.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. moarxenu Member

    2:20:54 – Luke Lirot’s Tribute to Victoria Britton

    Luke Lirot: I’m very flattered. I will echo your sentiment. Ms. Britton - I’ve watched her as a human being work herself through this tragedy.

    In the McPherson case the personal representative was Lisa McPherson’s aunt. Her mother passed away during the case. And while she had great love for Lisa, it wasn’t that very close personal relationship that I’ve come to know and respect with Victoria Britton and her son Kyle.

    And to watch the effort and the sacrifice to participate in what is one very, very, very vigorous, excruciating litigation while at the same time trying to assuage your grief and deal with your loss.

    If you can just keep it together - the strength that I have seen from that woman has been unparalleled, and I probably respect her as much as I have respected anybody in my entire life for her fortitude, for her dedication; and let’s just say she has a moral certainty that I think keeps her going.

    But it’s the only one talked about all night that makes any sense to me. I truly , I love her with every cell of my body. I respect her so much I can’t even put it into words.

    She gets so much credit for standing up and doing what she thinks is right and in the same process dealing with her loss.

    That’s more pressure than a lot of people could ever take, and she’s done it. And she’s handled it like a champion, and I commend her from the bottom of my heart

    That’s Olympic gold medal all the way from my perspective.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Anonymous Member

    I'm saving this for when the panel says that summary judgment was improvidently granted. Will our hero Herro then take the court's assessment over that of some attorney with an axe to grind when the court says summary judgment was improper and the COS attorney is bitching?
  32. Herro Member

    If the court's decision is reversed then I will of course consider changing my opinion on the validity of the case. And if the court upholds the previous decision, what will you do?
  33. It's perfectly valid for anons/anyone to have a different opinion from that of a court. We share some things in common - that we were not there to witness the events in question, so we must weigh up the evidence, and, being human, we are fallible.

    Your position smacks of a slavish conformity to the opinions of others - it is really that logical fallacy, argument from authority (by proxy, in your case), isn't it?
  34. amaX Member

    I'll know that cult lies and money changing hands has once again worked in Clearwater. Luke has no ax to grind with the cult. Luke likes the Constitution and fights heartily for it. He studied Kyle's case very closely before taking it on. Luke is an upstanding human being. I've met him. I trusted him enough to put my life in his hands. If Luke believes that Victoria has a case and that Merryday overstepped his bounds by trying the whole case in his own head without giving the jury the case then that's good enough for me.

    I understand that you don't know Luke. That's fine.

    I understand that you don't know how the cult works especially here in Clearwater. That's fine, too.

    Some of us do know Luke and we do know corrupt the cult is.

    I wholeheartedly agree with your right to state how you feel about the case, but the personal comments about Victoria needing to get on with her life and let this go are not something I can ever agree with your saying. But you've got your right to that opinion, too. I just wish you hadn't posted that. Felt wrong, man.

    Carry on, butthead.
    • Like Like x 2
  35. Random guy Member

    When the case have run it's course, we don't need to hold opinions, then we'll know the validity of the case.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Interesting response. Have you changed your position that Debbie Cook's email will not have an effect?

    The validity of the case has nothing to do with whether or not the court granted summary judgment. In fact, the case may have validity and yet not be legally actionable. You can be at fault but not liable. You can be liable but there are no damages. Court is not the place to resolve "truth" or "validity."

    In this case, the Scientology mindfuck was at work, and there is no denying that. Just as it cannot be denied that humans demonstrating the mindfuck also had a role here; whether COS is liable for that or not is debatable. Most regrettably, a young man with mental issues was subject to a bad judgment call by his dad who was in turn demonstrating mindfuck bias and being "anti psyche." It is a complicated case, and one that a jury decision (good or bad) would have been more persuasive to me as to the allocation of fault in a legal sense.

    The standard for summary judgment is whether there are genuine issues of material fact such that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lirot is right that judges are not supposed to weigh evidence on summary judgment, including competing credibility. Lirot is right that the evidence is supposed to be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. LRNtoWestlaw. However, having not read the briefs, I cannot opine whether there were indeed issues of material fact in this case. I do know that summary judgments are routinely reversed at the appellate level. Doesn't mean the judge is dumb, it means our system is structure to, more often than not, let someone have their day in court to test their theories before a jury of their peers.

    For "validity" of the case, give me a trial on the facts. For the moral culpability, I've got that determined already.

    RIP Kyle Brennan.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Aurora Member

    "Coming to terms with" does not mean letting others escape responsibility for heinous actions. There's a difference.
  38. xenubarb Member

    Glib words from one with shallow life experience.
  39. Herro Member

    I brought that up in response to the guy that said he trusted the judgement of Lirot over my judgement.

    So if the outcome isn't what you want, that means that the courts are corrupt and have been bought off? Come on AMA2, you're better than that.

    The allegations made in the case are pretty ridiculous and there was never any sort of meaningful evidence to support those claims. I'm not talking about moral culpability here (although based on the information at hand I don't think you can reasonably hold the people named in the suit morally culpable either. Maybe the dad), I'm talking about the merits of the suit. It really doesn't have merit from what I can see. The ruling issued by the judge says as much.

    And it certainly doesn't mean a desperate attempt to wrongly blame others in an effort to make sense of such a tragic occurrence.

    Honestly, I find it hard that anyone could see the named Scientologists as being legally culpable unless you simply approached this from the standpoint of "this obviously is the fault of Scientology." If you step back and look at this dispassionately, you can pretty easily see just how ridiculous this suit is.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Hopefully a jury will have the the final say in this.
    A good discussion.
    A family destroyed by the doctrines of a mental sci-fi writer.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins