National Association of Forensic Counselors vs. Narconon

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by sallysock, May 18, 2014.

  1. Quentinanon Member

    I think you are projecting excessive power onto the asthmatic dwarf, and the lawyers who his minions pay for him are by no means an army.
  2. Quentinanon Member

    I believe the case would have to be filed in Federal Court for the Marshalls to pay him a visit. For a state case, the Sheriff deals with it.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    Just as I thought. Thank you, Q.
  4. Quick question ~

    Any chance they would make Shelly Miscavige take the stand?
  5. Quentinanon Member

    I think the plaintiff would have to show that Shelly had firsthand knowledge of the matters under prosecution.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. ok, thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a link I might be missing where she had anything to do with Narc. before she disappeared.

    It would be great if someone found a link between her and Narc. and she was asked to take the stand. :D
    If nothing else it would piss the dwarf off in a major way.
  7. fishypants Moderator

    So his lawyers will appear on his behalf and file a submission saying that he knows nothing.
  8. eddieVroom Member

    • Like Like x 1
  9. Quentinanon Member

    Miscavige may still be in court, just not visible. I think his attorney could stow him into a large briefcase.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. jensting Member

    No, the lawyers for Captain David "he is NOT insane!" Miscavige will appeal against him being served, all the way up to the SCOTUS. It's part of his religious freedom to not be served.
  11. fishypants Moderator

    • Like Like x 2
  12. tinfoilhatter Member

    Do people who enroll in narconon have to sign any sort of contract?

    It occurred to me, that the falsifying of the nfaic logo, would count as a breech of good faith. This means that any and ALL contracts that customers signed, would not only be void, but the customers would be entitled to their money back + DAMAGES.

    I am not familiar with the enrolling process. But i want to put this out there in case any narconon contracts show up, with either individuals, or with states.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Quentinanon Member

    That's right. Void from fraud in the inducement, but that is the standard situation of all scientology contracts.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Random guy Member

    Quite, but the best sort of situation is where the fraud is obvious from some some sort of "point-and-say-ha-ha" detail.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Updated docket-from-hell report RECAP'd here:

    Major highlights not covered elsewhere - the list of defendants without an attorney is shrinking. Previously identified law firms have picked up more clients, few new firms have gotten involved and ABLE brought in a pro hac vice attorney. Scientology of London has been served, along with Mary Reiser, Kent McGregor and lots more.

    TonyO blogged a few of the Motions to Dismiss and the response from the Plaintiffs in September when these were fresh, including the main one for RTC that is referenced and repeated in all the other similar filings. Here are a few more responses to defendant's motion to dismiss from the top of the food chain that we haven't seen yet.

    NAFC v Narconon - Response in opposition to CSI Motion to Dismiss

    Summary - this one is mostly just the same boilerplate text we have seen in the other similar documents. The CSI-specific stuff is mostly under STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS (best part quoted below) and the CONCLUSION at the end.

    (more to come)
  16. NAFC v Narconon - Response in opposition to ABLE Motion to Dismiss

    Summary - This one is longer than most, and contains several pages worth of information that is unique to the situation with ABLE being the front group umbrella. So this one is well worth reading in full even though there is a fair amount of repetitive text from the CSI and RTC responses that can be skimmed. Some of the best parts quoted below.
    Additionally, the argument that starts on page 20 for all five factors for executing jurisdiction being in the Plaintiff's favor is quite compelling and an entertaining read! Then there is a lulzy paperwork filing screw up pointed out under PLAINTIFFS OBJECT TO THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE starting on page 24 that makes it seem like ABLE has no clue what they're filing in this case. Both of these juicy bits are also repeated in the NI response below.

    (more to come)
  17. NAFC v Narconon - Response in opposition to NI Motion to Dismiss

    Summary - This is another longer-than-most response, with an equal amount of information unique to Narconon International and repetitive text that shows up in the other similar dox. They really beat up on the tangled web of the Narconon Network in this document, and point out all the cross-over between facilities and corporations. Overall, it reads like a slam dunk, and if you only read one of these document this is the one to read. Some of the best parts quoted below.

    Another oddity that has come out in all these dox is that the parent companies at the top of the scilon food chain incorporated the PITA Group motion to dismiss. But oh, they're not inter-connected in anyway whatsoever. They just share lawyering.

  18. Anonymous Member

    Thank you, PACERfag! Your posts are appreciated!
    • Like Like x 5
  19. DeathHamster Member

    Hey, who doesn't like a nice filled pita?

    • Like Like x 3
  20. jensting Member

    Seconded. And that lawsuit is going to get settled a bit quickly before more evidence is (re-)entered into the system.

    I liked this bit, I really should read the whole truckload.

    • Like Like x 3
  21. BigBeard Member

    One more time. If the NN's mentioned were actually independent, it would mean the Cof$ lied to the IRS in the once secret 1993 Closing Agreement, when they got the Group Exemption Letter covering NN Int as a "$cientology Entity". And has been committing tax fraud ever since.

    To the IRS, Narconon Int is the Central or Parent organization to the group of Subordinate organizations covered by the Group Exemption Letter, which was assigned the Group Exemption Number 2595. If their Form 990 is only for themselves, then field H(a) should be checked 'No', and the GEN doesn't have to be entered. If H(a) is 'Yes', the 990 is also for subordinate organizations the the GEN is entered so the IRS will know which group of subordinate organizations to look at. Subordinate organizations always have to include the GEN.

    I dumped the IRS Select Check Exempt Organization (Pub78) databases current as of 09/09/14 and pulled the Narconon Int list using GEN 2595 assigned to them by the Narconon Int Group Exemption Letter resulting from the 1993 Closing Agreement. I left out the data between the 'Affiliate' code and 'DBA' name, as it's not relevent to this discussion.

    Note: I compressed 'NARCONON INTERNATIONAL' down to 'NN INT' to save space. And any DBA names changed at the state level may not have reached the IRS yet.

    The basic format is:

    EIN, Organization Name, Address, GEN, SubCode, Affiliate Code, DBA Name
    The explanations of the codes follows the list.

    Central/Parent Organization to GEN 2595:
    952769582 NN INT 4652 HOLLYWOOD BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90027-5408 2595 03 6

    Subordinate Organizations to GEN 2595:
    330911677 NN INT 225 W BROADWAY STE 420 GLENDALE CA 91204-1331 2595 03 9 NARCONON FRESH START
    421534941 NN INT 611 S FT HARRISON AVE 228 CLEARWATER FL 33756-5301 2595 03 9 NARCONON OF GEORGIA
    463559503 NN INT 249 N BRAND BLVD 384 GLENDALE CA 91203-2609 2595 03 9 NARCONON PACIFIC COAST
    731589280 NN INT 69 ARROWHEAD LOOP CANADIAN OK 74425-5012 2595 03 9 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA
    954536141 NN INT 622 E VILLA ST PASADENA CA 91101-1120 2595 03 9 FRIENDS OF NARCONON
    954853440 NN INT 13850 GRABER AVE SYLMAR CA 91342-2622 2595 03 9 NARCONON DRUG PREVENTION & EDUCATIO

    Group Exemption Number:
    2595 - NN INTernational and subordinate Narconon's Group Exemption Number

    03 - 501(c)3 Charitable Organizations

    6 - Central - This code is used if the organization is a parent of a group ruling. In this case EIN 952769582
    9 - Subordinate - This code is used if the organization is a subordinate of the central organization in a group ruling.

    So either these organizations are subordinate to Narconon Int, or some major tax fraud has been going on. They can't have it both ways.

    • Like Like x 6
  22. fishypants Moderator

    Good work BB!
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  24. Random guy Member

    I trust you do know where to send this information?
  25. BigBeard Member

    It's been sent a lot of places, for all the good it's seemed to do so far.

    • Like Like x 4
  26. wolfbane Member

    Indeed! Thanks for the RECAP assist PACERfag, here's how things stand on who's representing who (updated from my previous list on July 1st)

    DEFENDANTS who haven't filed an ATTORNEY APPEARANCE as of October 1st:
    • Like Like x 3
  27. wolfbane Member

    And here's where they landed...
    • Like Like x 5
  28. fishypants Moderator

    Christmas in lawyertown, basically.
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Random guy Member

    Man, this is a large case!

    If I were the judge, I'd choose to believe plaintiff's position on who is who of the alphabet soup, if only to abele to treat it all as if it was a single entity. It would simplify the case tremendously.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. fishypants Moderator

    Why are some of them with represented by more than one law firm? How is that possible or desirable for them?
  31. Anonymous Member

    I work on my impatience with learning how these mooks proceed:

    Nick Hayes (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Scott Burgess (citizen of Quebec, Canada)

    Tibor Palatinus (citizen of British Columbia, CA) <-- Especially this mook!

    Sylvain Fournier (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Marcel Gemme (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Richer Dumais (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Cheryl Williams (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Marc Bernard (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    Martin Gamsby (citizen of Quebec, CA)

    This week, my inbox has this report on how LinkedIn tracks my behaviour:

    LinkedIN cult fags 2.png

    Besides Mr. Palatinus, Hilarie Rockl & Catherine Savage are cult fags.

    • Like Like x 2
  32. wolfbane Member


    AFAIK there is no law defining how many lawyers a defendant can haz.

    Pure speculation: as to the "desirable" factor, I think it's feasible to say some of those 80+ defendants may have been shocked to find out their certifications were a total scam. So if they loose in the NAFC lawsuit, they may want to turn around and sue McGregor, Pita Group or whoever scammed them into getting it in the first place. In that scenario, having secondary representation for the later fight (as well as ain independent, second opinion on the initial fight) would be helpful.
    • Like Like x 5
  33. fishypants Moderator

    Interesting thought and I hope that you're right and the defendants turn on one another, but I don't quite follow the logic.

    Surely each individual would know whether they themselves had attended and passed the NAFC training course? Or they'd know if their own certification had expired or been withdrawn by the NAFC, surely?

    Or am I misunderstanding how the certification system works?...

    I can still see other situations though where some of the individual defendants might feel they have a case against Narconon themselves, i.e. they could argue that they have also been misled. E.g. in the case of some of the people doing referrals perhaps, they could try arguing that they were deceived by Narconon's claims to be a genuine and highly-successful drug rehab, and therefore they gave their clients the best advice they could in the light of their imperfect knowledge.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    My understanding, based on the content of this thread, is that the whole NAFC accreditation process was a scam, administered by Kent McGregor.

    My readings of what took place amount to Kent McGregor supplying and administering the certification course(s), tests and test answers to all comers.

    If all comers knew they were being coached to cheat, it probably didn't bother them, because, *scientology* but they could have been led to believe it was all legitimate and honorable, at least on scientology terms.

    Kent McGregor may have been Clark Carr's ace-in-the-hole/cut-out. I speculate it all started with Carr who set up McGregor to be the front man (patsy) for the scam.

    The very idea of the mooks deciding to rat each other out is filled with delicious lulz. Bring it mooks! Bring it!
    • Like Like x 3
  35. wolfbane Member

    See Nightowl's answer. We've seen multiple dox plus David Lee and Eric Tenorio statements that back that scenario up: Kent McGregor and Pita Group were the ones pushing the scam. How much the fake certification holders actually knew remains to be seen.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. David Lee, who has his own attorney, has been an open critic of Narconon and Scientology since Jan 2013. Before that, he was anonymously helping. Neither he nor his company, Intervention Services and Technologies, Inc. have referred anyone to these places in quite a few years. They are not cooperating with any of those defendants who are working as or with or supporting Narconon.

    Here is his first post over at Reaching For The Tipping Point forum where he speaks out
  37. DeathHamster Member

    I'm hoping that this is about legal strategy, and that NAFC has a whole stack of slack that they're going to cut him once they reach their goals.

    (Even if they promised stuff behind the scenes, I don't know if I'd walk into this self-lawyering.)
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Kessling was one of the attorneys on the case as an attorney with Gary Richardson's firm,when it was filed May 16, 2014. David Lee was urged by someone to correspond with Kessling by email, offering up information and providing details of his history with Narconon and Scientology and helping as a critic, in the hopes of clearing up the matter of his being named in a lawsuit along with those he's been helping expose. His certification was not in question and no copyright use of logo existed on his site. We were all surprised he was added to the list.

    Shortly afterwards, Kessling was terminated from the Richardson firm for a variety of reasons, Surprisingly, Karla/ NAFC chose to take the case and go with Kessling on the case because she was familiar with working with Kessling's secretary/assistant in setting up the case.

    The correspondence with David Lee occurred before this, but Kessling took that correspondence and has tried to use some of it to his case advantage. I don't respect Kessling for this at all. DAvid Lee had to obtain his own lawyer, as does his company and his brother, who let his certificate expire and the website never updated his name without the title. They are interventionists, not rehab specialists. They don't need this type of certification. It was just an error in not updating the website. But they are being sued, and it will cost a bundle in legal fees just to read and answer all the responses being filed by everyone...I gather that NAFC is going to get whatever NAFC can squeeze out of all of them to get this case off their backs. Like many, settling with insurance is an option but I have yet to hear of any defendant settling for anything...

    David is not really self-lawyering, that wpuld be doing all this without an attorney. he's being represented and with excellent counsel.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins