Customize

Scientology sued for Fraud! It's going DOWN like bird sh**! (The Garcia Suit)

Discussion in 'Media' started by BlackRob, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Random guy Member

    Hey, we are listening to the cults slimy muck, and we don't even get paid!

    (Oh, except the Marcabian service pay, with is hardly enough to cover bongs and beer.)
    • Like Like x 5
  2. eddieVroom Member

    • Like Like x 2
  3. The Internet Member

    Let's say I rob a bank. Then people on the Internet say, "Look at that fucker who just robbed a bank. I think he is a fucker."

    Because people said mean things about me on the Internet before the case goes to court, does that mean those people are in trouble for making me feel like a bad person nobody likes?

    Intimidation is a very scary feeling. It makes me want to hide under a rug. And per Title 18, Section 1512(b), United States Code, provides that "Whoever knowingly uses intimidation... commits a crime." So there.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. eddieVroom Member

    Can you say "bitchslap"?..

    Moar@ http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/15/re...y-jeffrey-blasts-scientology-in-court-filing/
    • Like Like x 3
  5. eddieVroom Member

    It seems to me that you cannot be damaged by actions you have a feeling a potential bad actor might take, assuming that you have that feeling at all in the first place. Now "damage" in the legal sense exists, and Culkin has standing to respond.

    Tikk?..
  6. DeathHamster Member

    Ray Jeffrey! Urine trouble now mister!
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Anonymous Member

    We asked Manhattan attorney Scott Pilutik to give us his thoughts on what some of the consequences might be…
    Well isn’t this just something else and then some. First thing worth pointing out is that you, me, and many others were right when we suggested that Scientology’s “unopposed” motion to take Culkin’s deposition in Massachusetts had more to do with Culkin not wanting to play ball with Scientology anymore than with mean Internet commenters. So, does the judge unload all-out damnation on Scientology for concocting the mean Internet commenters narrative as an excuse to take Culkin’s deposition out of state? Maybe, but remember, this latest story hinges on your believing Brian Culkin, and therein lies the rub, as Culkin’s credibility is spiraling downward with each soap opera episode.

    Culkin’s credibility problem is compounded by the eye-rolling notion that he was told, and he believed, that his declaration was for “internal use” only. I understand that he’s not an attorney, but how could anyone simultaneously read that declaration, sign it, and believe it would never see the light of day? I’m not sure how much it matters at this point, anyway — Culkin at this point is a poison tree of problematic testimony, which is great news for the Garcias, since Scientology’s disqualify motion hinges on Culkin. It will be interesting to see if anyone takes Culkin up on his offer to appear in Florida for the hearing so long as his expenses are paid, because I’m not sure, at this point, whether either side wants anything to do with him.

    It will be interesting, however, to see how Scientology responds to their star witness calling them liars. Do they double down on the mean Internet commenters narrative and claim that Culkin relented to the duress that comes with anonymous commenters saying mean things about you?
    Do they ask Culkin for their (well, his, but then theirs, then his again) money back?

    I recall some commenter asking about the difference between a Declaration and an Affidavit (the latter is sworn) — perhaps this suddenly becomes a relevant distinction if Scientology pursues remedies against Culkin. For what? I guess it would depend on the terms and nature of the agreement between them that led to his signing the Declaration, to which we’re not privy. Or maybe they file a contempt motion against Culkin and try to recapture the attorney fees they’ve blown on this lark.

    Even if this kills Scientology’s motion to disqualify, the court may still want to satisfy itself that Johnson isn’t conflicted and conduct the hearing anyway, with or without Culkin. But in that case, Johnson’s version of events would be practically unchallenged, and it’d thus be harder to imagine the court disqualifying Babbitt. The court could also find some sort of middle ground, limiting Johnson’s involvement going forward.

    http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/15/re...y-jeffrey-blasts-scientology-in-court-filing/
  8. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  9. OTeleventy Member

    • Like Like x 5
  10. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 3
  11. tigeratbay Member

    Couldn't access it. Arghhhh
  12. Anonymous Member

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  13. OTeleventy Member

    Sorry. My first try with dropbox. Did I fuck it up?
  14. Anonymous Member

    pestered.png
    No doubt "stated that" means he finally caved to hours of interrogation.

    I do believe they just gave Brian an out to recant his declaration without losing his refund.
  15. Quentinanon Member

    If you are going to sue scientology, suing for fraud is a no-brainer, because scientology is fraud.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. AnyOldName Member

    Not a fuck up - but you need to have dropbox installed locally to open files.
  17. Anonymous Member

    Nice, Samki!! Can't believe you broke this news before Tony O. Anonymous delivers.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. OTeleventy Member

    I know right? That post took me all day to write...
    • Like Like x 8
  19. tigeratbay Member

    Read it from the pdf ;) tks.
  20. eddieVroom Member

    Apparently point #2 calls Culkin a liar, then point #4 says his declaration should stand as-is.

    Funny.
    • Like Like x 6
  21. Quentinanon Member

    Funny to us WOGS, but in the scientology mentality, that logical contradiction makes perfect sense.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Random guy Member

    I will be very surprised if Culkin is ever put on the stand in this case. My guess is the cults protest just went south.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. DeathHamster Member

    South? It's nearing Tierra del Fuego!
    • Like Like x 4
  24. Random guy Member

    More competent people than me agree with you. Tikk and John P. from the Bunker:

    • Like Like x 5
  25. Anonymous Member

    David Miscavige, the behind-the-scenes movie director who brought you Battlefield Earth, now acting as behind-the-scenes lead lawyer.

    I like the sound of that.
    • Like Like x 5
  26. Nancy Beazley Member

    Yo, that's just about the whole story. Miscavige is the lead lawyer. In his dreams!
    • Like Like x 2
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    We have a couple of legal updates: This week, Scientology defended the subpoenas it issued in the Luis Garcia federal fraud lawsuit. The church is gathering evidence for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 26, during which they want to prove that Garcia attorneys Ted Babbitt and Ronald Weil improperly relied on help from attorney Robert Johnson, who had previously done work for the church. To gather evidence for that hearing, the church issued supboenas that Babbitt complained were way too far-reaching. In their answer, the church defends the wide range of their subpoenas.

    More at
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/27/jo...ir-game-deflected-with-disinfecting-sunlight/
    • Like Like x 3
  28. wolfbane Member

    OMFG! The irony.... it burns. Like chemo. The document scilons filed that is not embedded, but linked to in Ortega's article, is like a trip through the twilight zone!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/156292338/Garcia-Defendant-Response-to-Opposition-to-Subpoenas

    They are bawling about Team Garcia using their own stall-stall-stall-stall tactics against them! Crow. They are eating it big time.

    And they lay out this latest bawl fest with a basketball analogy (Marty much?). If I'm reading this right... and IANAL so I am not entirely sure I am... their biggest beefs with Team Garcia is that Johnson is out of town, they want a fukton of attorney-client privilege dox that it sounds like their not entitled too, they want a privilege log of the dox that it sounds like their not entitled too, and they want all this shit now before the hearing on their original motions rolls around.

    If that isn't totally bizarro world flashback weirdness enough, other things that slip into this latest round of lawfare bawling is passing mention being made of wanting invoices, payments and contracts between Rathbun/Rinder and all the different lawfags. As well as every communication relating to Team Garcia's legal strategy that Rathbun/Rinder/Johnson played apart in.

    The batshit crazy has seemingly gone nuclear. I feel for the judge. Srsly. Straightening out this ginormous mess surrounding Johnson, Culkin and the Rinderburns will likely age the poor guy 10-20 yrs by the time they get past the motion for summary judgement and start moving into the more complicated pre-trial proceedings.

    Prediction: Popcorn will NOT be enough to get us through this case. Suggestion: anons should be widening their om nom nom stores to include a broader range of nutritious snack-ables in order to maintain your lulz stamina.
    • Like Like x 5
  29. rickybobby Member

    OMG THIS IS DEEEEELICIOUS CAEK

    Time to pull out the pop-tarts.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. jensting Member

    Uh-oh. Suggest snacking on carrots and celery and other healthy things while anticipating actual progress in this one.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Enturbuleak Member

    • Like Like x 2
  32. tigeratbay Member

    Damn, this is Suupah!. Hope you do it every year!
    • Like Like x 1
  33. eddieVroom Member

    q07n.jpg
  34. Anonymous Member

    Bump for more info coming soon on this case.

    From TO's latest post:
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/09/15/sc...-memories-valley-whales-and-top-secret-plans/
    From latest docket entries on pacer for Garcia et al case:
    GarciaDocket.png

    So there was finally a split decision rendered on Friday September 13, 2013 re: Babbitt's motion for protective order related to cock blocking the flurry of subpeonas the church attorneys issued on Team Garcia.

    The gist of that motion (dox snippet)
    • Like Like x 4
  35. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  36. Anonymous Member

    From TO: http://tonyortega.org/2013/09/16/to...ology-gathering-big-names-for-product-launch/
    Correction - wrong dox linked for what this ruling actually pertained to. The link previously given was for the Plaintiffs initial reply to the subpoenas, but not the actual "Motion for Protective Order" to stop them. Much of the same language exists in both, but the actual motion dox make it clearer what the 6 numbered points were decided in the ruling "order" dox that TO linked to in today's post:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/168379231/Garcia-vs-Scientology-McCoun-s-Order-Regarding-Subpoenas

    So stay tuned - the Motion for Protective Order that was decided, as well as some other older dox and declarations TO never published related to the Motion to Dismiss, coming soon ITT.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Anonymous Member

    Garcia v Scientology - Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Jul2013)
    Description: Includes the original motion as well as copies of the exhibits (actual subpoenas) cult lolyers filed in support of the disqualify motion that kicked all this off.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/168541932...laintiffs-Motion-for-Protective-Order-Jul2013
    http://hotfile.com/dl/245762053/136...otion_for_Protective_Order_(Jul2013).pdf.html

    Garcia v Scientology - Motion for Protective Order Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Status Report (Sep2013)
    Description: This is documentation for an entertaining round of hair splittting that went down the day before the protective order motion hearing took place. Nothing much important to see here aside from a prime example of something Ray Jeffrey drove home in the Texas case - DILATORY TACTICS.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/168541931...-Plaintiffs-Pre-Hearing-Status-Report-Sep2013
    http://hotfile.com/dl/245761057/ea1..._Pre-hearing_Status_Report_(Sep2013).pdf.html

    So, that is the motion we got a ruling on last Friday, September 13th that TO posted on the link below. And the lawfare foreplay that went down leading up to the hearing.
    More older dox still to come ITT that we previously missed out. Namely, MR2 declarations and other supporting info stuff related to the Plaintiffs reply to the original motion to disqualify that will finally come to forefront in the next hearing on this case slated for October 3rd... unless Team Scilon asks for continuance once they get the info Judge McCoun ruled had to be turned over to them.
    • Like Like x 4
  38. Anonymous Member

    Oops.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Moar dox. Flashback: May 2013, Scientology files Motion to Disqualify Garcia's Attorneys and the shitstorm (that still rages on until the next hearing in October) begins.

    May 10, 2013 TO breaks the news of what Ray Jeffrey in the Texas case, where the cult is trying the same bullshit, calls a DILATORY TACTIC. Previously released dox we have already seen related to this action filed by Scientology:

    Garcia Case Motion to Disqualify
    Brian Culkin Declaration
    Allan Cartwright Declaration
    Sarah Heller Declaration
    Glen Stilo Declaration
    Judy Fontana Declaration
    Peter Mansell Declaration

    May 28, 2013 TO reports a follow-up on the Team Garcia response to the Motion to Disqualify. This was a massive filing on the case by Team Garcia, however we only got to see a small sampling of lawfare maneuvering with these previously posted dox:

    Garcia: Opposition to Disqualify
    Robert Johnson Declaration (PART 1 OF 5 - WE DIDN'T SEE THE OTHER 4 PARTS)

    Here is all the other stuff that went down on the case docket following the filing of the Motion to Disqualify, and prior to the Brian Culkin derail that further shook things up starting in July 2013:
    GarciaDocket-MotionToDisqualify.jpg
    Pink highlight - dox previously released on The Bunker.
    Yellow highlight - newly gotten dox coming in next post.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins