Whatever happened to "The Profit"
bmul...@verizon.net
about a movie about LRH. A few years
back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
release.
Uncle Bruce
Patty Pieniadz
Within hours of being notified by Luke Lirot (attorney for THE PROFIT)
that
CoS had finally withdrawn their Injunction against the movie, the
producers
were notified by Mr. Lirot that Bob Minton, a partner in Courage
Productions, LLC
(the partnership that owns the movie) had started a legal action
preventing
the release and distribution of the film. It appears that Bob Minton is
still
working with CoS in order extend their grip on the film.
Any other questions should be directed to Peter Alexander or
Patricia Greenway. You can contact me if you need their
email addresses. They don't read or post here.
Patty
Quaoar
Generally, the person who supplied the funding, i.e., either the
majority stockholder or the majority creditor, calls the shots, like it
or not. Minton is entirely within his rights if he qualifies as either
of majority stockholder or majority creditor to demand corporate action.
Minton might well be working for himself. TFC might have made a major
error at the onset of the deal.
Why, by the way, do you remain their ARS contact point?
Q
Zinj
qua...@tenthplanet.net says...
<snip>
> Generally, the person who supplied the funding, i.e., either the
> majority stockholder or the majority creditor, calls the shots, like it
> or not. Minton is entirely within his rights if he qualifies as either
> of majority stockholder or majority creditor to demand corporate action.
>
> Minton might well be working for himself. TFC might have made a major
> error at the onset of the deal.
>
> Why, by the way, do you remain their ARS contact point?
>
> Q
Nobody
Cares
About
The
Profit
Nobody
Cares
About
the
Minton
Wars.
I've seen 'The Profit'; it would be good if it was available as a
'historical document', but otherwise, it's already irrelevant and
even for the time-period, it's less relevant than 'The Bridge' was
for its.
The only people who *care* about 'The Profit' and 'Bob Minton' as
controversies are OSA and obsessed whack-jobs.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Patty Pieniadz
It's amazing how you just pull this crap right out of your ass.
>
> Minton might well be working for himself. TFC might have made a major
> error at the onset of the deal.
Might, might, might, do you actually know any of the facts of the
matter.
Why not write to Peter and ask HIM about this. Naaaaaa, don't bother,
you don't want to be confused with the facts.
>
> Why, by the way, do you remain their ARS contact point?
I can't help it!!!!! I've been hypnotized by the Evil Gypsy Queen!
Patty
>
> Q
bmul...@verizon.net
movie was more about freedom of speech and the CoSs' ability to keep
it from being shown.
As far as Mr. Minton is concerned I'm sure it was not his idea to stop
distribution of the film. Everyone realizes that he was compromised
by the CoS and no longer acts as a free agent in these matters.
As far as his corporate position goes he also has a fiduciary
responsibility to the corporation and if it can be shown that he is
acting under duress against the best interests of the corporation the
other board members can override his objections. In any case I will
continue to make up my own mind about what I do and do not care
about.
Uncle Bruce
On Aug 17, 6:10 pm, Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <mZKdnU4KBrSKhFvbnZ2dnUVZ_rqln...@comcast.com>,
Alert
What does this letter mean?
What does the following mean?
"full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof."
Zinj
ppie...@gmail.com says...
<snip>
> I can't help it!!!!! I've been hypnotized by the Evil Gypsy Queen!
>
>
> Patty
Hypnotized by *something*, or you wouldn't repeatedly fall into
this cheezewhip-baited trap.
Patty Pieniadz
> In article <5imnt8F...@mid.individual.net>,
> ppie...@gmail.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can't help it!!!!! I've been hypnotized by the Evil Gypsy Queen!
>>
>>
>> Patty
>
> Hypnotized by *something*, or you wouldn't repeatedly fall into
> this cheezewhip-baited trap.
>
Well if that's the case, then what "something" has you so hypnotized
that you repeatedly fall into this sneering correction of me.
What is it you want to say? Just say it and be done with it.
Patty
> Zinj
bmul...@verizon.net
has turned over any authority he has in the corporation to Mr. McGowan
and, in effect, the CoS.
Basicly, it means the movie will not be released anytime soon, if
ever. This answers my original question. Thanks.
Uncle Bruce
On Aug 17, 7:15 pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20releas...
Patty Pieniadz
> I'm not quit sure what an "OSA whack job" is, but my interest in the
> movie was more about freedom of speech and the CoSs' ability to keep
> it from being shown.
> As far as Mr. Minton is concerned I'm sure it was not his idea to stop
> distribution of the film. Everyone realizes that he was compromised
> by the CoS and no longer acts as a free agent in these matters.
> As far as his corporate position goes he also has a fiduciary
> responsibility to the corporation and if it can be shown that he is
> acting under duress against the best interests of the corporation the
> other board members can override his objections.
It doesn't even have to be under duress. He can not act against
the best interests of the partnership. The best interests would be
to get the film shown. It was made to be shown, not hidden or
banned.
In any case I will
> continue to make up my own mind about what I do and do not care
> about.
That could get you in some trouble with a few of the folks here.
Btw, I really enjoy your posts.
Patty
d...@cs.cmu.edu
> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
> about a movie about LRH. A few years
> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology.
You can learn a little more about The Profit at this web site:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
-- Dave
Alert
> The letter is a standard power of attorney. It means that Mr. Minton
> has turned over any authority he has in the corporation to Mr. McGowan
> and, in effect, the CoS.
> Basicly, it means the movie will not be released anytime soon, if
> ever. This answers my original question. Thanks.
So you have an understanding of intent, in regard to how any and all
decisions being made (and representations) , in fact may not be coming
from the person who relinquished all "things" in relation to both CP
LLC and the movie itself?
The cult know who to manipulate for an 'apparency'. And the
'apparency' is that the aforementioned Minton is directly behind
attempts to stop any showing or distribution of said film, when it is
clearly McGowen exercising his POA that *only* applies to CC and the
movie.
The last 3 lines of the POA are quite clear that now and forever said
POA will never apply to anythying beyond CC and the movie itself, no
matter *what*.
Both the POA and 'letter of demand' are quite "odd" in several
aspects.
barb
> In article <5imnt8F...@mid.individual.net>,
> ppie...@gmail.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can't help it!!!!! I've been hypnotized by the Evil Gypsy Queen!
>>
>>
>> Patty
>
> Hypnotized by *something*, or you wouldn't repeatedly fall into
> this cheezewhip-baited trap.
>
> Zinj
Jeez, you never let us have any fun, pops! ;)
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
read my blog!
http://xenubarb.blogspot.com/
cultxpt
> Quaoar wrote:
> > Patty Pieniadz wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you talked to Minton, or are you only listening to one side of
the argument?
Out_Of_The_Dark
> I'm not quit sure what an "OSA whack job" is, but my interest in the
> movie was more about freedom of speech and the CoSs' ability to keep
> it from being shown.
> As far as Mr. Minton is concerned I'm sure it was not his idea to stop
> distribution of the film. Everyone realizes that he was compromised
> by the CoS and no longer acts as a free agent in these matters.
> As far as his corporate position goes he also has a fiduciary
> responsibility to the corporation and if it can be shown that he is
> acting under duress against the best interests of the corporation the
> other board members can override his objections. In any case I will
> continue to make up my own mind about what I do and do not care
> about.
>
> Uncle Bruce <
It's an LLC not a corp. No board of directors. The next step is
arbitration because Peter Alexander won on Appeal to get that. It's
been years now but with the CoS injunction out of the way, Alexander
's lawyer Lirot apparently has not been able to get anywhere with
Minton or his POA voluntarily going to arbitration as the Appeals
court ruled was the process their contract requires. I guess that
Alexander will now have to compel Minton or his POA to court by
subpoena to get the issue of Minton's opposition to Arbitration back
in the lower court view. Alexander will then have to use the lower
court to compel Minton to complete the process of resolving their
differences and settling accounts via arbitration.
Minton was subpoenaed to by CoS via Marin County CA court recently, as
was Gerry Armstrong and The Lisa McPherson Trust, which is
nonexistent? Not sure. I am curious to see what happens there. Perhaps
we'll hear soon.
Emma
"cultxpt" <cul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187399862.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Isn't he a little hard to get a hold of these days?
Quaoar
You comment about facts. So, what are the facts? Can you post the
contract in question?
Q
Quaoar
How many corporations, LLCs, etc., have you actually be a party to?
None, I am very certain.
Q
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Patty Pieniadz wrote:
> > Quaoar wrote:
> >> Patty Pieniadz wrote:
The facts are that Minton already had an injunction from years ago on
Alexander distributing the film and that injunction is still in place
because the court order on that has never been recinded.
Minton won his case against Alexander but Alexander won his appeal
that the LLC contract between them required arbitration services, not
court by jury, which is usually more costly.
It all started when Minton as a partner, sued Alexander as a partner
in the production company for access to all the accounting information
to get a final balance if any and to find out where his investment was
spent and on what. In the lower court case, Minton won the case
requiring the court to intervene and order the books be turned over by
Alexander to Minton for review. But on appeal of this case, Alexander
won on the point of having to use arbitration to resolve all the legal
matters between them.
The matter has been sitting for several years now, and seems that some
had hoped that, after CoS took off their injunction against the film
and the LMT, Minton would then be free to settle things with
Alexander.
It did not work out that way and my guess is because Minton wants the
matter on public record and probably does not trust using the
arbitration format since some of the 'Alexander et al' gang are kind
of cozy with some of the arbitrators on the Hillsborough County list.
Besides, Alexander would have to pay for lawyers to go back to court
to force the arbitration and since he's had years to do this and
didn't, he must have good reasons for not. But by not forcing Minton
to arbitration via the courts, Alexander does not have to reveal all
the records Minton wants to see, nor pay for expensive legal services
to defend his wishes.
So where things stand now, the movie is stalled, Minton's injunction
against the movie is still in place but the financial issues are not
going to done through civil court as Minton wanted.
Minton wanted the company financial records fully disclosed so that
the financial concerns he had about how his money was spent could be
resolved.
I have the documents in pdf format if anyone would like to post them
online.
Patty Pieniadz
>
> The facts are that Minton already had an injunction from years ago on
> Alexander distributing the film and that injunction is still in place
> because the court order on that has never been recinded.
That's a CROCK. Minton has never, to this day, gotten an injunction
against the film. Ms. Mary Knowitall should post it if she has it, but
she
doesn't, so she won't.
>
> Minton won his case against Alexander but Alexander won his appeal
> that the LLC contract between them required arbitration services, not
> court by jury, which is usually more costly.
>
> It all started when Minton as a partner, sued Alexander as a partner
> in the production company for access to all the accounting information
> to get a final balance if any and to find out where his investment was
> spent and on what. In the lower court case, Minton won the case
> requiring the court to intervene and order the books be turned over by
> Alexander to Minton for review. But on appeal of this case, Alexander
> won on the point of having to use arbitration to resolve all the legal
> matters between them.
THIS IS A CROCK. The books and records were delivered to the Judge
and since Minton/CoS only were interested in getting the NAMES of the
cast and crew, the Judge allowed the books to be given to Minton with
the NAMES redacted from the records. Minton/CoS didn't like that and
demanded the names---even though they were offerred the full set of
books and records. It was at that time it was pointed out that the LLC
partnership agreement required ARBITRATION and it moved to an
APPEALS court.
>
> The matter has been sitting for several years now, and seems that some
> had hoped that, after CoS took off their injunction against the film
> and the LMT, Minton would then be free to settle things with
> Alexander.
> It did not work out that way and my guess is because Minton wants the
> matter on public record and probably does not trust using the
> arbitration format since some of the 'Alexander et al' gang are kind
> of cozy with some of the arbitrators on the Hillsborough County list.
OH RIGHT! The all powerful, omnipotent Gypsy Queen controls
the entire arbitration system in a county the size of Hillsborough.
Ya, sure. Good story. Ever thought of writing spy novels instead of
posting bullshit on a Usenet forum?
Who is your source of information on this? OSA? or one
of their "critics" who is fed their bullshit and passes it on as
the "truth".
>
> Besides, Alexander would have to pay for lawyers to go back to court
> to force the arbitration and since he's had years to do this and
> didn't, he must have good reasons for not. But by not forcing Minton
> to arbitration via the courts, Alexander does not have to reveal all
> the records Minton wants to see, nor pay for expensive legal services
> to defend his wishes.
>
> So where things stand now, the movie is stalled, Minton's injunction
> against the movie is still in place but the financial issues are not
> going to done through civil court as Minton wanted.
>
> Minton wanted the company financial records fully disclosed so that
> the financial concerns he had about how his money was spent could be
> resolved.
Yeah and you forgot to mention that if Minton wanted the records, he
could've
obtained them from the Judge all those years ago. What Minton wanted was
information of the names of the cast and crew so that the C of S could
do their
harassment of the them.
If he wanted ANY legitimate information he would've gone through
arbitration
---not the corrupt Pinellas County courts.
How can I make it any clearer to you Mary. Minton was OFFERED the
records
but with the names of the cast and crew redacted. He refused! He
wanted
the names too! Why would Minton refuse to look at the books without the
names of the cast and crew?
Why do you keep omitting this FACT?
I don't understand why you are promoting this bullshit Mary. What is
your
reason for distorting the facts?
>
> I have the documents in pdf format if anyone would like to post them
> online.
Nice spin job there. Please show your pdfs so we can all see how you
used
just enough of the factual documents that allowed you weave your
Scientologically-styled conspiracy theories around it to come up with
this CRAP.
Let's see....who ELSE does this....?
Oh ya, there's that RFW site. They seem to use "documents" to spin
things
against Scn critics as well. They only tell half the story. They omit
information
that will give the entire picture.
Patty
Patty Pieniadz
I wrote to Minton and I am awaiting his reply.
Patty
Hartley Patterson
> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
> about a movie about LRH.
Thank you for your question. Maybe I should add it to the FAQ as a
question it is adviseable for newcomers not to ask otherwise they may be
assumed to be trolls. :-)
--
alt.religion.scientology FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm
Quaoar
Sure, that is the Shore Story for ARS. Where is the actual contract to
validate "what we have been told"? If you have the contract among the
participants in the Profit corp, whatever it is, post it here.
Otherwise, I posit that you are being handled by TFCVP.
Q
Quaoar
Holy BatMan! So Pattie from Boston, hows abouts your posting the REAL
CONTRACT between Minton and TFC? You can shout and scream, but until
and unless you post the contract(s) between Minton and TFC, then your
shouting is simple confirmation that TFCVP is paying you by the word for
your responses.
Q
Quaoar
>> error at the onset of the deal.
>>
>>
>
> It's a dire movie but here's the link:http://www.theprofit.org/
> index2.html
> But that's just my opinion, not of the subject matter but just the
> production values. At any rate when it comes out i hope plenty see it.
>
That link is nothing more nor less than a red herring, designed by TFCVP
to deflect those who might ask the salient questions. The site is the
maximum effort that TFCVP can accomplish since she is a party, legally,
to the gagged settlement agreement between the parties in the Lisa suit.
I believe that every word from TFC, or TFCVP, that appears on that site
is a strictly measured response that will not violate the settlement
agreement, whatever that is.
Q
Quaoar
Others, myself included, remain adamant that Dandar and Company,
including many on #altreligionscientology clique, have much remaining to
explain. ARS and OCMB had been "handled" about the Profit.
I simply object to the handling, which to me has been, and remains, obvious.
"The Profit" is simply a stalking horse being used to deflect concern
from those who might question.
Thanks for asking, though!
Q
Quaoar
... after writing to TFCVP and receiving your marching orders!
Q
jerald
> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
> about a movie about LRH. A few years
> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
> it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
> worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
> jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
> firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
> the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
> heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
> release.
>
> Uncle Bruce
There was a low budget movie made a few years ago. But its in lawsuit
hell and not likely to be released anytime soon or have many movie
house show it even if it is. It would just end up on a few sites as a
DVD for sale or on U Tube.
Its time to let the movie and the Minton mess go already. I am
hopeing someone will make a real movie based on the evil of
scientology. That could fill seats if its done right and put out
right.
jerald
Out_Of_The_Dark
Patty, I don't know why you have not been informed about this
injunction Minton won in freezing the assets ( The Profit being one of
them) until all matters are resolved. It's public record, the
information has been posted before and it's one of the reasons why the
film is not out allowed to be made public.
I don't have time today to get into the rest of your post but I hope
you will read the following and go look at the documents first before
replying here, it would make things easier for both of us.
Below is the information on the injunction. The part stating:
'MANDATE REVERSING & REMANDING OR12878PG0554-006' comes from
Alexander's Appeal for compelling arbitration instead of the courts
regarding the records issue. You can see the complete Appeal ruling
after the case information on the Injunction case below.
I can email you the 4 pdf files of each page of the Injunction and the
complete Appeal order or you can view them all and save the pdf's
yourself by going to the Pinellas court records site:
https://pubtitles.co.pinellas.fl.us/login/loginx.jsp
Log in by clicking GUEST.
Once in, look at the top right corner list & click
'Official Records Book/Page or Name Search'
Type in the name exactlylike this: Alexander Peter
Go to Instrument Select choose: ALL TYPES DOCUMENTS
from the list of types and then click SUBMIT.
Look for these 2 cases:
ALEXANDER PETER <== MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 12/2/2002 12383
1950 2002449878
ALEXANDER PETER ==> MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 7/7/2003 12878 554
2003277542
The first is Minton's Injunction, described below, and the separate
order which was reversed on Appeals.
The second case is Alexander's Appeal decision, copied & pasted out
following the injunction record info.
By clicking the white page to the left of each case, you can obtain
the related document. The order that was reversed is not available on
the net because it was reversed but the injunction is there and
active.
Here are the particulars:
Uniform Case Pinellas Case Section Case Type Type
522002CA008684XXCICI 02008684CI 008 INJUNCTION CI
Style: MINTON ROBERT S
vs. ALEXANDER PETER
Jury Trial STIP NOTH Reason Type Disp.
Y JDMT
Filling Date Appeal Date Judg. Date Reop Date Docket Date
11/01/02 12/02/02
12/04/02
Case/Cat INJUNCTION
10 Docket Entries, 07/03/03 to 12/19/02
Pages Date P/D Docket Entry Ver
07/03/03 DEFENDANT DCA MANDATE REVERSING & REMANDING
OR12878PG0554-006 F
02/04/03 CLERK ORDER DCA:RESPONSE TO WRIT OF CERT DUE 022003 F
01/08/03 DEFENDANT NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE F
01/08/03 DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COVER LETTER F
01/06/03 DEFENDANT NOTICE OF FILING COPY ORDER GRANTING STAY F
01/03/03 CLERK APPELLANTS WRIT OF CERT IS COMPLETE F
01/03/03 CLERK ORDER DCA:GRANTING APPELLANTS MTN FOR STAY
PROCEEDINGS UNTIL N
12/30/02 CLERK LETTER FROM 2ND DCA RE:ASSIGN APPEAL NO. 02-5544
F
12/20/02 DEFENDANT NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING 010603 @ 3:00 F
12/19/02 PLAINTIFF TRANSCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS MOTION FOR
INDIRECT CIVIL CONTEMPT
_________________________________________________
Here is the District Court of Appeals decision referred to on
Alexander's request for arbitration in regards to giving Minton access
to the records:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PETER ALEXANDER, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) Case No. 2D02-5544
)
ROBERT MINTON, ))
Respondent. )
__________________________________)
Opinion filed June 13, 2003.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit
Court of Pinellas County, Thomas E.
Penick, Jr., Judge.
Luke Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot, P.A.,
Tampa, for Petitioner.
Thomas H. McGowan of Thomas H.
McGowan, P.A., St. Petersburg, and
Anthony S. Battaglia of Battaglia, Ross,
Dicus & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for
Respondent.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Petitioner Peter Alexander seeks a writ of certiorari to compel
arbitration
with Respondent Robert Minton based on a contract, the operating
agreement under which they formed a company to develop a feature-
length motion picture. Because the trial court's nonfinal order denies
a claim of entitlement to arbitration, we deem this a 1 Section
608.4101(2), Florida Statutes (2002), also provides this right: A
limited liability company shall provide members and their agents and
attorneys access to its records at the limited liability company's
principal office or other reasonable locations specified in the
operating agreement. . . . The right
of access provides the opportunity to inspect and copyrecords during
ordinary business hours. . . .
- 2 -
nonfinal appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), rather than a petition for certiorari. Finding
merit in Mr. Alexander's arguments, we reverse.
In February 2000, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Minton formed a company called
Courage Productions, LLC, to develop, produce, market, and distribute
a motion picture tentatively titled "The Profit." Based on his
experience in the motion picture industry, Mr. Alexander was generally
to provide the "know-how" for the limited liability company (the LLC)
and Mr. Minton was to provide the financing, although during the life
of the
company Mr. Alexander apparently invested substantial sums of money in
the project, too. The motion picture was to be part of Mr. Minton's
continuing efforts to discredit the Church of Scientology. To the
surprise of many, in April 2002, Mr. Minton announced his intention to
resolve all his differences with the Church. Soon thereafter, invoking
his rights under the operating agreement, he petitioned for an
injunction and other equitable relief against Mr. Alexander and sought
to restrain him from alienating, assigning, or hiding the assets of
the company, directly or indirectly, until an accounting could be
conducted and the assets of the LLC equitably divided. Section 8.2 of
the agreement provides that each party has the right, upon reasonable
request, "for purposes reasonably related to the interest of that
[party]," to inspect and copy any of the
company's books and records, and any party may require a review and or
audit.1
- 3 -
Concluding that Mr. Minton's new-found friendly attitude toward the
Church provided an ulterior motive for the litigation, Mr. Alexander
feared the motion picture would never see the light of day, or of a
film projector, thereby destroying his substantial personal investment
of time, effort, and money in the project. As soon as practicable
after being served with suit, Mr. Alexander moved to compel
arbitration, but his motion was ultimately denied. Mr. Minton advances
a variety of arguments to support the circuit court's denial of
arbitration, none of which has merit. When a court is presented with a
motion to compel arbitration, three questions must be answered: Is
there in existence a valid, written agreement containing an
arbitration clause? Does an arbitrable issue exist? Has the right to
arbitration been waived? Pulte Home Corp. v. Smith, 823 So. 2d 305
(Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The LLC's operating agreement is the contract
between these parties and has a broad and clearly stated arbitration
clause, which affirmatively answers the first question. Section 11.5
provides: "Any controversy or dispute arising out of or relating to
this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be settled by binding
arbitration in Hillsborough County, Florida, conducted in accordance
with the rules existing at the date thereof of the AFMA [American Film
Marketing Association]."
Neither party disputes that the contract to form and operate the LLC
was validly entered into and is currently in effect. As to whether
there is an arbitrable issue, the operating agreement gives each party
to the agreement the right to inspect the books and records of the
company,
but Mr. Alexander has raised numerous defenses to Mr. Minton's
unfettered access.
Primarily, Mr. Alexander claims that Mr. Minton's actions are inimical
to the LLC's best interests and to his duty and loyalty to the company
required by section 608.4225,Florida Statutes (2002), because he has
now aligned himself with the adversary. We
- 4 -
conclude that an arbitrable issue exists in the unfettered access to
the LLC's records and sole asset, the motion picture itself, and
therefore is "related to" the operating agreement. See § 682.02, Fla.
Stat. (2002) (providing that agreement or provision to arbitrate shall
be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable without regard to the
justiciable character of the controversy).
Mr. Minton counters that his statutory right to such access in an LLC,
provided him by section 608.423, trumps the contract and, in effect,
nullifies the existence of the arbitrable issue. We cannot agree.
Section 608.423 merely states that no operating agreement of any LLC
may "unreasonably restrict the right to information or access to
records" of the LLC. The operating agreement at issue here does not
unreasonably restrict such access. Moreover, Florida favors
arbitration to settle disputes outside the courtroom. Healthcomp
Evaluation Servs. Corp. v. O'Donnell, 817 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002). To accede to Mr. Minton's argument would abrogate this public
policy in the context of LLCs, which are wholly creatures of statute.
Finally, we hold that Mr. Alexander's actions do not constitute a
waiver of
arbitration. He moved to compel arbitration at his earliest
opportunity, and his other involvement in the proceedings has been
defensive in nature, all the while claiming entitlement to
arbitration. See Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Brennan's
Glass Co., 824 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that because
the first substantive filing made by the appellants was a motion to
stay invoking the contractual
arbitration clause, the trial court erred in finding that the
appellants waived their right to arbitration).
Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with directions
to
grant Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and to stay all
other pending matters
- 5 -
in the circuit court until the arbitration process is complete.
VILLANTI, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur
====================================================
The key wording is in this part of the above statement:
"Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with directions
to
grant Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and to stay all
other pending matters in the circuit court until the arbitration
process is complete."
The Injunction was is one of the stayed matters pending the
arbitration process completion. It was never cancelled and won't until
arbitration occurs to settles their business disputes.
Is it correct that the church lifted it's own injunction on the
movie? Do you have a copy of that release or a date and a case number?
I could not find anything on this happening. Email me if you want me
to send you the 5 pdf file docs.
Mary McConnell
Patty Pieniadz
>
> Patty, I don't know why you have not been informed about this
> injunction Minton won in freezing the assets ( The Profit being one of
> them) until all matters are resolved. It's public record, the
> information has been posted before and it's one of the reasons why the
> film is not out allowed to be made public.
There was never an injunction.
I forwarded this and your other posts to Atty Luke Lirot. Please
contact him at your earliest convienience. He is very interested
in speaking with you to find out why you manufactured this
load of crap.
Patty P
Out_Of_The_Dark
I forgot about this thread..... as I thought you would've emailed me
asking for the documents if you were interested in SEEING THINGS FOR
YOURSELF.
I cannot believe how you are letting yourself be taken for a sucker
like that, Patty! Lirot knows full well about all that I wrote and
that the documents are real and a matter of public record. Go look for
yourself.
Roan
> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
> about a movie about LRH. A few years
> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
> it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
> worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
> jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
> firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
> the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
> heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
> release.
>
> Uncle Bruce
Here's a "very helpful" message board where you'll get all your
questions answered... but only if you stay well aware from any
perceived "snottiness."
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=8&hl=
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=15&hl=
Patty Pieniadz
>
> I cannot believe how you are letting yourself be taken for a sucker
> like that, Patty! Lirot knows full well about all that I wrote and
> that the documents are real and a matter of public record. Go look for
> yourself.
As I said in my previous post.
Out_Of_The_Dark
I have not manufactured anything. I am not interested in talking to
Luke and have no reason to call him.
I gave all the information and links on this thread. I will email the
injunction in pdf format to anyone who cares to see it, if going to
Pinellas County site and searching for it is too complicated or time
consuming. You obviously are not interested. So be it.
Pts 2
anyone who cares to see it."
I'd like to see it. Please send it on. As a principal in the
production and direction of THE BRIDGE movie, I've always been curious
as to the (real) stops in getting THE PROFIT out to the public.
I have even thought since allegedly Rinder has recently blown (or was
fired,) that this issue might ease up a bit, and the producers of THE
PROFIT could now move forward in getting it released!?!?!?!?
Tom
------------------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Out-Of-The-Dark wrote: "I will e-mail the injunction in pdf format to
>
> anyone who cares to see it."
>
> I'd like to see it. Please send it on. As a principal in the
> production and direction of THE BRIDGE movie, I've always been curious
>
> I have even thought since allegedly Rinder has recently blown (or was
>
> Tom
> ------------------------www.thebridgemovie.net < <
sorry I didn't see this post until now. You should have them shortly.
Out_Of_The_Dark
If the names of those involved in the movie were not important for
Minton to see then they are not important for Alexander to withhold.
Minton should be able to any copy any record regardless of CoS
involvement. It's all supposition that CoS wants the names of those
omitted. It's money Minton wanted to documented as paid. For all he
knows, the payment could have been made to Peter Alexander and
Patricia Greenway and those names could have been the names that were
didacted.
Dave T asked for and received the documents I suggested you can get
your copies from him. others have asked for them and I do hope they
get webbed.
The POA that McGowan was given can be cancelled by Minton at any time.
Maybe if Alexander ok'd unfettered access to the records through a
court appointed mediator setting, Minton would be agreeable to
proceed. I don't blame him for wanting the courts involved. I think he
wants everything on record. I would too.
Even thought if would not change the situation much, you've never
supplied any documentation that the injunction on the film from the
CoS and Minton/ LMT case was lifted.Where's your proof? Why haven't
you webbed that, since you're insisting the webbing of the other
public record documents is the only proof you'll accept?
I also hope to see the elusive paperwork from the supposed March court
hearing that was postponed, as mentioned on The Profit web site. I
have not seen anything on record about this hearing even existing.
Nothings been updated on the Profit forumin months, so why not work
on that instead of trying to get in an argument with me? It will be
alot more productive.
Mary McConnell
Mark Bunker
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189368592.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
If anyone has pdf documents of the case, I'd be happy to post them.
I don't think the list of who worked on the film should be of importance.
Bob was supplied a copy of the movie and the people should all be listed in
the credits. Finding out where all the money went would be of more
importance.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dave Touretzky
Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>If the names of those involved in the movie were not important for
>Minton to see then they are not important for Alexander to withhold.
That bit of sophistry was beneath you, Mary.
The names of vendors and contractors were not important if Minton just
wanted to see how the money was spent: how much for lighting rental,
how much for makeup, etc. They are vitally important if Minton's
intent was to turn this information over to OSA so they could use it
to stir up more trouble for Peter and Patricia. Given Minton's other
heinous actions since he capitulated to the cult, this is a very
reasonable fear, and the appeals court acknowledged as much in its
decision, which you kindly supplied, overruling the judge who denied
the request for arbitration.
>Minton should be able to any copy any record regardless of CoS
>involvement.
Not when his intentions are harmful to the enterprise towards which he
has a legal obligation to act in good faith, and in which Peter
Alexander is also an investor and co-owner.
>It's all supposition that CoS wants the names of those
>omitted.
Yes, but it's a very reasonable supposition, given Minton's refusal to
accept redacted records. If he was suspicious about the use of funds,
why not start by looking at those records and then, if something
questionable turns up, demand more detailed documentation for that
specific item? Any reasonable person would proceed that way.
>It's money Minton wanted to documented as paid.
How do you know what Minton really wanted? Do you have special
knowledge the rest of us lack?
>For all he
>knows, the payment could have been made to Peter Alexander and
>Patricia Greenway and those names could have been the names that were
>didacted.
Minton didn't just finance this movie; he had a part in the film.
Several other LMT folks did too. They were there, on set. They saw
what went on. There have been no allegations of improprieties.
>Dave T asked for and received the documents I suggested you can get
>your copies from him.
I've received them, and read them, but my interpretation of them does
not match yours. And I've found Peter and Patricia to be entirely
trustworthy. No one can say the same about Minton after he succumbed
to the cult's blackmail and intimidation campaign.
-- Dave Touretzky
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
Out_Of_The_Dark
> In article <1189368592.557982.119...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Patty P and others have stated over and over again that Minton did not
want didacted records and that the didacted names were the reason her
refused the records as provided him. What would the names matter to
CoS? That certain people were paid so much money? That we are to
believe that Peter and Patricia are protecting certain unnames people
that CoS wants to know about? That CoS wants to know the names of the
people who were in the movie, or who provided services to the movie,
and those names were withheld? Are we to expect that charges of
collusion will be forthcoming when the names arew revealed and is that
why the protections are being made to not reveal the didacted names? I
just don't get it. Explain to me why CoS would want the names. Explain
to me why those names would be considered important then and now.
The way I see it, at this point it does not matter what Bob Minton did
or didn't do when it comes to this matter. He has every right to see
every single piece of paper that business generated and to see where
every single dollar went just like any full partner would.
It's so easy to dis Minton after the fact but when the money was
flowing and the game was spending Minton's money and using his clout,
no one even thought to make sure he was clean on everything because
history shows that CoS goes for the gut. Since he was cornered into
being held accountable for his acts and omissions that rightly or
wrongly impacted the movie, why shouldn't the Alexander and Greenway
be held accountable as part of Courage Productions to their possible
acts and omissions related to the movie?
Are we to buy the altruistic story that Alexander is protecting some
unnamed individuals from the claw of CoS or is it that checks were
paid to unnames and undeserving individuals and that CoS really has
nothing to do with why the original papers cannot be provided? I mean,
what does Alexander have to hide that he would not show the records? I
don't know of any credible critic who Alexander and Greenway would be
protecting, do you? CoS has already dragged the majhor ones through
the mudd as far as they can, so who is being protected that needs
protection? Some technical worker who's all but forgotten he had
anything to do with this movie and could care less about CoS?
I hardly think so. Perhaps things would have been different if there
had not been a dissing campaign going on at the same time by Tigger
and Patricia while Minton was being surrounded by the CoS snakes.
We'll never know. All that is left is a film that will never see the
light of day because one partner is holding the other accountable and
the other refuses to reveal what what was hidden. If I were taking
bets, and I'm not, I'd wager to say that money was paid to some people
and those payments were not agreed to. If I didn't feel like being
held accountable for repeying it, I would not reveal the information
either, but this is about Peter Alexander and Robert Minton and their
company. Things are at a standstill and will probably remain so
because Minton probably does not care to fight this anymore. I don't
know what Alexander's excuse it for not doing anything for 5 years
since winning his appeal to effect arbitration but I can tell you that
whatever he's done, it's not been effective in moving matters forward.
The simple solution is just to arrange with Minton, his current or
future POA of Minton's choosing to have all the records presented and
audited like many other businesses in disputes like this do. My
viewpoint is not sophist, it's logical and irt has a resolution in
mind. Prove to me otherwise.
Patty Pieniadz
>
> Patty P and others have stated over and over again that Minton did not
> want didacted records and that the didacted
it's redacted.
Nice spin job, Mary! Worthy of anything OSA could do.
Well done! But I notice you haven't contacted the attorney
of record, Luke Lirot with your made up crap. If you were
really interested in the truth, you'd go to the source instead
of doing things the OSA way, that is, take a small bit of truth
and put your nasty spin to it.
When I want to hear the truth, I go to the source. Mr. Lirot's
been notified of your very blatant attempt to twist the facts
and he's waiting for your call. Since you seem to be
obsessed with putting out your convoluted version of
the facts, it seems you'd want to try VERIFYING
things with the person who could set you straight.
So if you want proof, then I suggest you contact
Luke Lirot. He's waiting to speak with you.
But that's of no interest to you, is it? That would
mean you would have to deal with facts rather
than your twisted version.
Please get your facts straight and stop spreading
bullshit. Call Luke Lirot. Or maybe not, I guess it's
a lot easier for you to anonymously spread bullshit
against real people with real lives than to muster up
your courage and get to the truth.
Patty
Quaoar
"And I've found Peter and Patricia to be entirely
trustworthy."
Well, screw the world! That's good enough for me!
Q
Quaoar
> Please get your facts straight and stop spreading
> bullshit. Call Luke Lirot. Or maybe not, I guess it's
> a lot easier for you to anonymously spread bullshit
> against real people with real lives than to muster up
> your courage and get to the truth.
>
Heh. Call Luke Lirot, and get the "facts". The "truth" is out there,
somewhere, but I seriously doubt that Luke Lirot is in possession of
same. Not that there is anything devious about Luke Lirot, but he is
representing an alternative opinion; as such, he has no lock on the
absolute truth.
BTW, Pate`, you always appear whenever P. Greenway might have an
interest in a defensive response. Under what authority of P. Greenway
and Luke Lirot are you acting as the spokesperson for this case?
Q
Out_Of_The_Dark
Patty, the records speak for themselves. You are the only one on this
thread to have a reason for me to call Luke Lirot. It reminds me of
some of the tactics of the Queen in Snow W. I am not interested in
that poison apple.
Even if I had a reason to call him I wouldn't because I don't like
Luke Lirot and he's the last lawyer I would choose if I were in
Alexander's shoes. Thankfully I'm not. I do give Lirot credit for
helping Alexander;
How could I, when he writes things like:
"i have no love or hate for any of this madness, one way or another. I
look at it from a Darwinistic perspective, because if you are
misguided or weak enough to get involved in any large organization to
do your thinking for you, you
will perish and the world will be free of more inferior DNA. I am
simply a refinery for Darwinistic progression. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/29437549c114c6e5?hl=en&
This post is the extent of any opinion I will share about him and my
last reply to you and your 'kind' offer.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=3&st=15&;
Out_Of_The_Dark
lol! ...........truthfully, I like Dave and I have decided to stay his
comment because of that.
Patty Pieniadz
Coward.
Patty
Patty Pieniadz
"Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.com> wrote in message
news:a5KdncbPjtxnIHjb...@comcast.com...
BTW, Queer, (not that there's anything wrong with that)
you always appear when I make a response. Under what
authority are you acting to stalk and attempt to harass me when
I attempt to give my opinion.
Patty
Pts 2
Luke Lirot, Atty-at-Law
Re: The Profit
Dear Mr. Lirot;
For quite a few years now, many good people who are highly critical of
the Scientology belief system, have anticipated the release of film The
Profit. It's certainly safe to assume that the cult didn't want this
movie to ever see the light of day. There are numerous reports and
claims being made on the internet about the deep controversy for it's
continued hold up.
In the past, a Ms. Shirley Wilson (aka Tigger) has guided people seeking
answers to contact you for inquiry . Currently, a Ms. Patty Pieniadz
(aka PattyP,) is also suggesting the very same -- even to the degree if
they do not, they are "cowards." Accordingly, could you please shed
some light on the details of this concern for me? For us?
As to my interests in this matter, I was personally involved in the
production of
THE BRIDGE, also a film about Scientology.
www.thebridgemovie.net If you have not seen it, I'd be delighted to
forward you a DVD copy for your viewing. I am intimately aware of the
complications and set backs that evolve in trying to get a media piece
critical of $cn out to the public.
Lastly, also out of curiosity, rumor has it that
Mike Rinder has blown the organization as it's
Office of Special Affairs chief. If this is true, does this change the
negotiations still lingering with The Profit release?
Any sincere response as to the facts in this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
Respectfully,
<Tom>
Thomas C. Padgett
P.O. Box 424
Orleans, MA 02653
(508) xxx-xxxx
Jonathon Barbera
>There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
>about a movie about LRH. A few years
>back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
>Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
>it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
>worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
>jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
>firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
>the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
>heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
>release.
>
>Uncle Bruce
Anonymous released it on youtube. It was great. Sorry you missed it.
capricious
wrote:
lol at least you have a sense of humor :P