Ryan Hamilton files federal lawsuit against Narconon Fresh Start in Nevada

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by The Wrong Guy, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. Random guy Member

    Not sure about that.

    They are charged with fraud (presenting themselves as something they're not), not malpractice. They have just conformed what they actually are (a amateur scientology faith healing rehab), so if Hamilton is able to prove they claimed otherwise, I'd say he's there.
    • Like Like x 7
  2. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Y'all go ahead and do that.
    • Like Like x 5
  3. fishypants Moderator

    So when do the "noisy investigations" into Ryan Hamilton begin?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. wolfbane Member

    I've been wondering that myself. Surely the low-level stalker-like antics that RayJ in Texas encountered shortly after the Debbie Cook case began has at least started by now with Ryan.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. DeathHamster Member

    Narconon Fresh Start aka Narconon Southern California has many locations to sue. Has Ryan got them all yet?
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Anonymous Member

    Interesting how in tiny, barely visible type, this appears at the bottom of the page to the code linked site:

    • Like Like x 2
  7. Quentinanon Member

    He shredded the dox and success stories by accident when he was PTS.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Quentinanon Member

    And you can read this on the ABLE website: "The Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE) has the purpose of reversing the social decay that threatens our societies by resolving the worst problems that plague man today—drugs, crime, illiteracy and immorality—utilizing the breakthrough discoveries and secular methodologies developed by author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard."
    • Like Like x 3
  9. DeathHamster Member

    Pretty Tipsy/Stoned?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Quentinanon Member

    Or enturbulated by an evil SP.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    I think of it as all of the above.


  12. The Wrong Guy Member

    Lawsuit number 17 filed by Las Vegas attorney against Scientology’s rehab network

    We just got our hands on a legal complaint that was filed back on June 30. It’s yet another federal fraud lawsuit filed by Las Vegas attorney Ryan Hamilton against Scientology’s drug rehab network, Narconon.

    In this case, Hamilton represents a California family that searched the Internet in January for a rehab center. Barbara Knoflick wanted to find a place for her son, Terney.

    Someone at a generic referral site took her info, and then she was contacted by Mike DiPalma of Narconon. According to the complaint, DiPalma told Barbara that Narconon Redwood Cliffs in Watsonville has an 85 percent success rate, that her son would be cared for by medical professionals, and that he would receive personalized drug counseling.

    Barbara was told that the program used a sauna program based on scientific principles, and that Narconon’s was a secular regimen.

    Barbara paid $37,500 for her son’s treatment.

    But the Knoflicks soon learned what others do when they get to the program — that it’s Scientology training, not drug counseling. The sauna program, meanwhile, is a risky procedure not based on scientific principles, and it was not monitored by medical personnel.

    Hamilton provides material from previous lawsuits showing that Narconon’s own legal expert cast doubt on the high success rates advertised by Narconon centers.


    By our count, that’s seventeen federal lawsuits Hamilton has filed against Narconon in California, Nevada, and Colorado.

    Angelo Amato (San Diego)
    Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (San Diego)
    Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
    Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
    David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
    Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
    Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
    Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
    Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
    Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
    Lori, Ryan, and Jilliene Winchell (Nevada)
    Ben Levy (Colorado)
    Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
    Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)
    Michael and David Tino (Nevada)
    Jerry and Christy Courson (Colorado)
    • Like Like x 7
  13. Random guy Member

    It is interesting to view this filing up against the religious defence the cult seem to aim for. I think they're going to have a problem worming their way out of this.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. fishypants Moderator

    I think you're right.

    Really can't see how the 'faith healing' defence fits with 'scientifically shown to be safe and effective'.
    • Like Like x 3
  15. wolfbane Member

    Their use of the faith-healing defense, despite the propaganda spin CommunicatorIC put on it in the cross-posted versions, was more of OK-fine! bratty retort to getting beat up on for the drug counseling services Narconon sells as secular actually being Scientology-based.

    Based on the blurbs I pulled out of the over Hamilton cases, the ABLE/NarcononInt argument was essentially stating that *IF* they were using Scientology-based counseling techniques as the Plaintiffs alleged, well than neener-neener-neener - you can't accuse us these causes of action because haha-on-you Faith-based healing is legal. So there! Take that you big bully.

    With a major fuckton of emphasis on the *IF*

    So they DID NOT actually use the faith-based healing defense to their advantage, nor did they outright claim it Narconon = Faith-based healing. That merely threw out a big fat lulzcow red-herring point that laid down a passive aggressive threat of their ability for turning sour lemons in lemonade *IF* *IF**IF* it boiled down to it.

    • Like Like x 6
  16. I agree that Narconon would prefer to argue in the alternative, and would like to make it appear it did so. I disagree that Narconon did, in fact, argue in the alternative. I also disagree I put "propaganda" spin on anything.

    As you posted above, ABLE and Narconon specifically argued:
    That argument is relevant if and only if Narconon is "faith-based." Either it is not "faith-based," in which case it is subject to the licensing requirements, or it is "faith-based," in which case it is, according to Narconon, not subject to the licensing requirements.

    Similarly, Narconon Fresh Start argued:
    Same analysis This argument makes sense only if Narconon Fresh Start is "faith-based."

    Narconon Fresh start also argues the plaintiff's
    Another argument that makes sense only if Narconon Fresh Start's program relates to the practice of Scientology.

    Yes, I see that in the end Narconon Fresh Start (but neither Narconon Int. nor ABLE) tried to make their argument one in alternative by stating:
    In this passage Fresh Start appears to take the position that it is going to assert a "faith-based" exemption from the licensing laws only if Plaintiff Yates shows that it, Fresh Start, was utilizing the principles of Scientology rather than medicine. I don't find this convincing or controlling. Earlier Narconon Fresh Start, like Narconon Int. and ABLE, argues that it is exempt from the licensing laws, which is true only if it is in fact "faith-based."

    My understanding of the Motion filed by Narconon Int. and ABLE is that they contend that Narconon is exempt from the licensing laws because it is "faith-based." Period. While the Motion filed by Narconon Fresh Start is a bit more ambiguous, I believe that is Fresh Start's position also, and certainly will be if asked by a the judge at oral argument.
    • Like Like x 5
  17. fishypants Moderator

    Hmm. I see what you're saying. I've taken another look at the document that you quote from in #115 above.

    I agree they seem to be saying that "you're not licensed" isn't a viable cause for action because faith-based rehab doesn't have to be licensed.

    But if they do go down that route - the route of saying that they don't have to be licensed because they're faith-based - then surely that opens them up to the charge of fraud in so far as they told the claimant that their 'technology' was scientifically/medically proven, rather than admitting that it was pure "we pray you'll get better" pissing-in-the-wind.

    Hopefully they're fucked on their faked success rate either way.
    • Like Like x 3
  18. wolfbane Member

    This is exactly what I was getting at in my opined speculation that they were posibly laying the groundwork for a fallback defense by conditionally mentioning faith-based healing would negate certain allegations.

    But it should also pointed out that those remarks came from ABLE and Narconon International, which is higher up on the corporate ladder than the local Narconon facilities where the fraud actually took place.

    So in the bigger scheme of things, the upper echelon of scilon corporations that are lumped into these cases are being accused of the alleged causes of actions under the "Alter Ego Liability" portion of the complaints. And that's one the MAJOR corrections/additions Hamilton incorporated into the initial filing on the later cases then backtracked into his initial cases on the amended complaints he filed.

    After stewing on things a bit, I'm now speculatively considering that maybe what we are seeing in regards to the faith-based healing red-herring ABLE and NarcononInt tosssed out to muddy the waters is their way of throwing the individual Narconon facilities under the bus. Just like in the Mosey case where CSI is getting thrown under the bus to take the hit for RTC and DM. Or in the drydock garnishment case where first it was FSO, and now FSSO, setting themselves up for a fall to protect CSI.

    When factoring in the history of previous Narconon cases always going the settlement with gag-order route, up until the Patrick Desmond case in GA came along that named names higher up the corporate ladder, the faith-based healing fallback defense is even more telling imo. Escape hatch. ABLE and NarcononInt needs one!

    So inb4 we get news of the first settlement attempt where they try to pay off one of Hamilton's earlier plaintiffs under the condition that the upper level corporations (who are only guilty of selling faith-based healing, and can't be blamed for the facility's fraudulent actions in not revealing that to their clients) get left off the hook. :cool:
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Random guy Member

    What's the flopping sound? Oh, it's the cult flipping between secular and religious positions again ... and again ... and again.

    This is the cult's most effective weapon, and one they have used very successfully in the past. I believe what Wolfie wrote means they are still playing the same game with the court. "We're sooo religious, except we aren't, but you're not supposed to see that your honour."

    The cult's problem now is that they are up against an educated solicitor with the internet watching. I am fairly sure Hamilton knows the trick is to force them to take one or the other position, and then tie them to it. He has wisely kept the scope of the cases extremely narrow. As far as I can see, I think he has them either way.

    If they claim to be secular, then he can nail them on failing to live up to standards, if they claim to be religious, he can nail them on not disclosing that. The interesting thing is that no matter what they land on, it will have ramification later on non of us (nor the cult) can fully foresee.

    If we view Hamilton's cases in isolation, I think the safest rout out is to claim they are religious and settle a charge of fraud rather than opening themselves up to possible suits of malpractice. However, in this day and age that mean Narconon has branded them selves faith-healing forever moar, which will probably kill it in the long run.

    Damned if the do and damned if they don't.
    • Like Like x 4
  20. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. The problem is that litigation really doesn't work that way.

    I agree that failure to be licensed is probably does not give rise to a cause of action by itself.

    But failure to be licensed, IF a licensed is required, is almost certainly relevant to various causes of action.

    No Court is going to let a defendant force the plaintiff to prove that the defendant violated specific licensing requirements, and only after forcing the plaintiff to incur the expense of doing that say, "Oh, by the way, we're not subject to any licensing requirements because we are faith-based."

    If, is is almost certainly the case, satisfaction of the licensing requirements (assuming they apply) is relevant to at least some causes of action, then Narconon is going to have to unequivocally state early on whether its position is that it is exempt from the licensing requirements because it is "faith-based."
    Maybe they can't be "blamed," in a non-legal sense, but if a given plaintiff prevails on the alter ego theory, then the upper level corporations will be held liable for the fraud of the low level Narconon delivery entity. If the upper lower level Narconon deliver entity is not found to be the alter ego of the upper level corporations, then the upper level corporations will not be liable for anything. The alter ego theory does not depend on the knowledge or wrong-doing of the upper level entity.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. wolfbane Member

    IANAL, but derrrrrrrp! And I mean that in a lulzy j/k entertaining way, and I mean no disrespect to all the effort you put into finding useful nuggets of info and spreading them around. <3

    Might I kindly suggest you lurk moar? The causes of action (or "claims for relief" in certain states) Hamilton's plaintiffs are using are these charges:
    1. Breach of contract, related to providing Scientology rather than substance abuse counseling
    2. Fraud, related to falsely stated success rate
    3. Negligence, related to the harmful aspects of the purif
    4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, related to all of the above plus trying to recruit him into Scientology
    5. Civil RICO claims for mail and wire fraud, related to the massive network of website/call-center referral scams and false marketing practices
    6. Negligent misrepresentation, related to all the above
    7. Negligence per se, THIS is relevant to licensing and related to specific business codes about performing medical procedures without a license. But Hamilton uses it in the very narrow context of the facility not-providing medical personnel for supervising the purif stuff related to vitamin & sauna overdosing. But NOT the drug counseling aspects of the program, nor the prescription meds being withheld scuttlebutt or doctors being promised and not available scuttlebutt we occasionally hear about.
    8. Breach of good-faith & fair dealing (the wording greatly between the different states), related to another general business code for illicit contracts signed in bad faith that give away too many rights
    9. Unfair competition (another one where the title wording varies between CO, NV & CA), also related to the marketing scam stuff.
    So the faith-based healing red-herring is related to only ONE cause of action, Neglience per se, which is a bit repetitive and more of an add-on to the bigger Negligence cause (No. 3) where the argument is the sauna-based detox program is dangerous pseudoscience that their own expert admitted was unproven. But props to Ryan for nailing them everywhichway he can! :)

    And that one allegation i's not claiming that the entire rehab program is medical practice without a license, just two small slivers of how the sauna program is managed. A small but reasonable reach imo, but the faith-based healing knee-jerk response from ABLE/NarcononInt on that one cause is a overblown hissy fit in their own wording. Which is (IMO) extremely typical of scilon lawfare tactics where they blow tons of smoke and blather on for several pages worth of derailing bullshit in order to setup their smoke-n-mirror sidestepping maneuvers.

    This makes the conditional faith-based healing bawling worthy of pointing out for shits and grins at this point in time. But I thing using it to try and make the point that they are proactively calling Narconon treatment a faith-based healing program is buying into their bullshit and amping it up unnecessarily. At least for now in regards to how the pretrial foreplay has been tentatively floated so far.

    But is there definitely wiggle room for them to build on that groundwork they've laid, *IF* things go badly for them in regards to getting the upper level corporations off the hook. And that's a troubling possibility that seems mighty risky. I'm betting they hemorrhage cash to make Hamilton's case go away before they jeopardize their ability to keep running the bigger picture multi-corporation shell game scam.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Random guy Member

    I can imagine the settlements talks will be lively:

    Plaintiff: We want XXX (insert very large amount) dollars to make this lawsuit go away.
    Defendant: Nice try, you'll get XX (small amount), you'll never get anywhere near XXX if the case goes to trail.
    Plaintiff: We know, but if it does, your corporate shell game comes rattling down. How much is that game worth to you?
    Defendant: Eh, um, eh...
    • Like Like x 4
  24. wolfbane Member

    Oh hey, I just noticed there is a new twist with this lawsuit - Hamilton is branching out! All the other cases were filed in federal court. This one fits the same pattern as far as what the complaint alleges, but it was filed at the county level in the Superior Court of California for Santa Cruz.

    At first I thought maybe the alternative venue was due to all the parties being in California. But nope! The Plaintiffs are from Nevada. So something else must be going on with this one. Or Hamilton is just trying to make sure he has a change of scenery built into in his schedule when all these cases start getting court dates put on his calendar. :p
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Attorney Ryan Hamilton Talks About the Narconon Sauna Program

    • Like Like x 4
  26. Attorney Ryan Hamilton Discusses Narconon Drug Rehabilitation Success Rate

    • Like Like x 3
  27. Attorney Ryan Hamilton Speaks to Narconon Victims

    • Like Like x 4
  28. Attorney Jonathan Little, Why we represent Narconon victims

    • Like Like x 4
  29. Attorney Jonathan Little is helping victims recover from Narconon alleged fraud

    • Like Like x 3
    • Like Like x 4
  30. RightOn Member

    loving these vids!
    Need to get on TV!
    Are they considering local advertising?
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Random guy Member

    Hamilton need to drop those little self-confirming "OK"s, apart from that he has a very pleasant style and inspire confidence.
  32. JohnnyRUClear Member

    The music gets to be a bit much after a while, too. Still, those are shallow complaints; the work being done here is right on target and so very welcome.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. RightOn Member

    GO GO GO
    Bring 'em down!
    • Like Like x 2
  34. fishypants Moderator

    Videos: can haz transcripts?
  35. wolfbane Member

    The vids sound like a good bit of the content on the website, and it looks like they haven't been all posted there yet:

    So I'm thinking - watch the website... they will likely updating it to have pages that match up with the video content.
    • Like Like x 3
  36. DeathHamster Member

    Category:Sunshine Summit Lodge
    • Like Like x 4
  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 3
  38. fishypants Moderator

    This Hamilton fellow, I like the cut of his jib.
    • Like Like x 3
  39. The Wrong Guy Member

    Scientology surrenders — at least partially — in seven lawsuits against its rehab network

    Here at the Underground Bunker, we’ve been keeping a close watch on Las Vegas attorney Ryan Hamilton, who has filed eighteen lawsuits since January against Scientology’s drug rehab network, Narconon. Hamilton accuses Narconon of running a deceptive operation that promises drug counseling but instead subjects patients to Scientology training. In each case, Hamilton has sued a local Narconon facility in either California, Nevada, or Colorado, as well as two of Scientology’s umbrella organizations — Narconon International and the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE).

    Now, we’ve learned that in seven of those lawsuits, Narconon International and ABLE have been removed after quietly settling with the plaintiffs. The lawsuits remain active, meanwhile, because the local facilities have not settled.

    Considering Scientology’s reputation for scorched-earth legal tactics and delaying maneuvers, it may come as quite a shock to some observers that two Scientology organizations, staffed with elite “Sea Org” workers, are cutting checks to quietly get out of these lawsuits.

    Here’s the list of lawsuits that Narconon International and ABLE settled, and that will continue, at least for now, only against the facility where the alleged abuses occurred:

    Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
    Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
    Lori, Ryan, and Jillene Winchell (Nevada)
    Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
    Christy Estrada and Braden Chavez (San Diego, CA)
    Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
    Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)

    We’re left with a lot of questions. If Scientology leader David Miscavige was willing to cut a check to extricate two of his entities from a particular lawsuit, why not write a larger check to get all three of them out?

    One answer may have to do with the companies providing these entities with insurance. Our legal experts tell us that increasingly, as Narconon’s troubles have deepened — with patient deaths in Georgia and Oklahoma, and lawsuits piling up all over the country — the companies that provide liability insurance to these facilities are losing patience. We hope to have more about that in a future story.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 4

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins