Gawker on Diskeeper Company Handbook
tikk
http://gawker.com/5265009/software-companys-scientology+loving-handbook
Gawker points back to a post of mine at WWP, which includes an update
on the Diskeeper case, and recent documents:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/diskeeper-company-handbook-case-update-45766/
~ tikk
Hartley Patterson
Is Diskeeper still undecided as to whether they are being persecuted for
their deeply sincere religious beliefs or their totally secular business
practises?
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/index.htm
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
tikk
wrote:
> pilu...@gmail.com:
>
> > Gawker posted on the Diskeeper Company Handbook:
>
> >http://gawker.com/5265009/software-companys-scientology+loving-handbook
>
> > Gawker points back to a post of mine at WWP, which includes an update
> > on the Diskeeper case, and recent documents:
>
>
> Is Diskeeper still undecided as to whether they are being persecuted for
> their deeply sincere religious beliefs or their totally secular business
> practises?
>
> --
> Hartley Pattersonhttp://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/index.htmhttp://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
I think there's a shift to the latter now. They won on their motion to
strike the request for permanent injunctive relief (which likely
wouldn't have been granted anyway, but so it goes), and their 'sincere
religious belief' argument was only employed to the extent that the
injunctive relief remained a contingent possibility.
~ t
R. Hill
Even if they are dropping their "sincere religious belief" argument,
they nonetheless made it, and can still be used against them, right?
--
Ray.
henri
wrote:
>I think there's a shift to the latter now. They won on their motion to
>strike the request for permanent injunctive relief (which likely
>wouldn't have been granted anyway, but so it goes), and their 'sincere
>religious belief' argument was only employed to the extent that the
>injunctive relief remained a contingent possibility.
Estoppel seems to become an issue, considering their success using an
argument they now want to argue on the other side of their mouth.
henri
Yes, so long as they can't bamboozle the judge. And Barry Kaufman is
there to ensure they can't. They still have a little room to slither
around in, though, which they'll certainly do.
tikk
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT), tikk <pilu...@gmail.com>
I don't think estoppel is an issue, because the argument was not ...
"Diskeeper's implementation of Hubbard Admin Tech is religious and
therefore Godelman is barred from seeking permanent injunctive
relief"
but rather ...
"To the extent that a legal possibility exists that Diskeeper's
implementation of Hubbard Admin Tech is eventually found to be
religious, permanent injunctive relief cannot be a legal remedy."
The latter argument required no inquiry into facts which would speak
to the religiosity of Hubbard Admin Tech as implemented by Diskeeper.
Although making an argument as to the availability of a remedy before
trial seems counter-intuitive, i understand the tactical purpose
because knocking out a potentially damaging remedy before trial would
change how you approached trial.
~ tikk
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> ~ tikk
Glad the picked that up. Interesting turn of events, so far.
Craig Jensen is quite the megalomaniac!
henri
wrote:
>On May 22, 7:06�pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
I checked this out, since I was skeptical and seemed to remember that
they had overtly stated that Scientology as used in Diskeeper was a
religious activity, but their papers are pretty consistent about using
language like "purportedly religious" and otherwise limiting the scope
to plaintiffs' claims. I guess they haven't painted themselves into a
corner on this.
Eldon
Maybe just a light coat of spray paint in a semi-circle surrounding
the corner?
Maureen
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 18:25:26 -0400, "R. Hill"
>
>
>
> <rh...@xenu-directory.net> wrote:
> >tikk wrote:
> >> On May 22, 3:07 pm, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>> pilu...@gmail.com:
>
> >>>> Gawker posted on the Diskeeper Company Handbook:
> >>>>http://gawker.com/5265009/software-companys-scientology+loving-handbook
> >>>> Gawker points back to a post of mine at WWP, which includes an update
> >>>> on the Diskeeper case, and recent documents:
> >>>>http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/diskeeper-company-hand...
> >>> Is Diskeeper still undecided as to whether they are being persecuted for
> >>> their deeply sincere religious beliefs or their totally secular business
> >>> practises?
>
> >>> --
>
> >> I think there's a shift to the latter now. They won on their motion to
> >> strike the request for permanent injunctive relief (which likely
> >> wouldn't have been granted anyway, but so it goes), and their 'sincere
> >> religious belief' argument was only employed to the extent that the
> >> injunctive relief remained a contingent possibility.
>
> >> ~ t
>
> >Even if they are dropping their "sincere religious belief" argument,
> >they nonetheless made it, and can still be used against them, right?
>
> Yes, so long as they can't bamboozle the judge. And Barry Kaufman is
> there to ensure they can't. They still have a little room to slither
> around in, though, which they'll certainly do.
That's good to hear. To me, this looks like a perfect venue to explore
where religious belief ends and secular business begins. The
enmeshment of the business and recruitment to business principles
covering up Hubbard are obvious. And not to forget how even one judge
in the Sklar case suggested that they posess a status of 'chosen
people with the IRS.' I could see (or hope at least) the 'religious
belief'(be) a forthcoming hazard to issues such as the separation of
church and state, and to the Senate Finance Committee, (Grassley)
weighing in as the current trend in fraud since chartiable
organizations have not been looked at since 1994.
Also, the use of subversive Guantanamo Bay tactics should be made
aware to any judge and courthouse staff, as so many of the past
courthouse corruptions (jury tainting, private meetings in courthouse
chambers with judge; recusals) have all been in $cientology's
playbook. A good history of past tactics would be helpful in seeing
the approaches that are employed in this case.
Maureen
henri
wrote:
>henri a �crit :
>> I checked this out, since I was skeptical and seemed to remember that
>> they had overtly stated that Scientology as used in Diskeeper was a
>> religious activity, but their papers are pretty consistent about using
>> language like "purportedly religious" and otherwise limiting the scope
>> to plaintiffs' claims. I guess they haven't painted themselves into a
>> corner on this.
>Maybe just a light coat of spray paint in a semi-circle surrounding
>the corner?
Maybe a bit. If nothing else, the judge has had to listen to howls of
anguish about religious freedom and may be less inclined to cut slack
when they're suddenly secular again. But it won't really be from this
motion to strike language.
Diskeeper is in a heap of trouble for other reasons, though. That
manual is insane, and the fact that it constantly quotes L. Ron
Hubbard, which Scientologists consider "scripture," and even
completely adopt's LRH's own format for HCOPLs, is going to make it
very hard to argue it's anything but religious in nature.
Android Cat
> On May 22, 6:08 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 18:25:26 -0400, "R. Hill"
>>
>> there to ensure they can't. They still have a little room to slither
>> around in, though, which they'll certainly do.
> Also, the use of subversive Guantanamo Bay tactics should be made
> aware to any judge and courthouse staff, as so many of the past
> courthouse corruptions (jury tainting, private meetings in courthouse
> chambers with judge; recusals) have all been in $cientology's
> playbook. A good history of past tactics would be helpful in seeing
> the approaches that are employed in this case.
Don't forget the Duke Defense: Stalk the judge, slash his tires, drown his
dog, and when he isn't scared off, make an appeal of the case because he was
/biased/ against Scientology.
Hardball: When Scientology goes to court, it likes to play rough -- very
rough.
January 28, 1998, Lucy Morgan, Special Report, St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/News/32899/TampaBay/Hardball.html
After the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Wollersheim's multimillion-dollar
verdict against the church, Scientology filed suit again, alleging that
California Judge Ronald Swearinger, the trial judge, had been prejudiced
against them. Swearinger, the Scientologists argued, decided their case
while harboring unfounded fears that Scientologists slit his tires, followed
him during the trial and had drowned his border collie, Duke.
Earle Cooley is chairman of BU's board of trustees. He's also made a career
out of keeping L. Ron Hubbard's secrets.
April 19, 1996, Dan Kennedy, BU's Scientology Connection, Boston Phoenix
http://bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/specials/scientology/SCIENTOLOGY_1.html
An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts
March 9, 1997, Douglas Frantz, New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E3D71639F93AA35750C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
--
Ron of that ilk.
Fredric L. Rice
>henri a =E9crit :
>> I checked this out, since I was skeptical and seemed to remember that
>> they had overtly stated that Scientology as used in Diskeeper was a
>> religious activity, but their papers are pretty consistent about using
>> language like "purportedly religious" and otherwise limiting the scope
>> to plaintiffs' claims. I guess they haven't painted themselves into a
>> corner on this.
>Maybe just a light coat of spray paint in a semi-circle surrounding
>the corner?
I had thought that the Scientology company claimed to be religious so
that there could not be any Judicially ordered corrections to the way
the criminal company does business. If a Judge rules that they are a
company engaged in religious discrimination, a Judge could order the
company to pay financial damages and to fix its behavior. Claiming to
be a religion would protect the company from being ordered to behave
in a non-criminal way.
---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages
Second offense mandatory gay abortions.
How nice it is to be able to walk for miles without seeing a Republican
John
"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:2jfg15tk3h8h5b608...@4ax.com...
Not without arguing that scientology itself isn't religious in nature.