Scientologists Doug and Laura Dohring sued by US Bankruptcy Trustee for involvement in Slatkin's Ponzi scheme
Martin Ottmann
Meritorious" and Laura (Laurie) Dohring as a "Patron with Honors" of
the "International Association of Scientologists" (IAS).
Case Information For Adversary Proceeding #:02-01189
SLATKIN, REED E
Bankruptcy Case: 01-11549
Office: 9
Judge: Riblet
RR Chapter: 11
Debtor: SLATKIN, REED E
Adversary Number: 02-01189
Filing Date:10/11/2002
Filing Office:9
Plaintiff Name: R TODD NEILSON TRUSTEE
Plaintiff Attorney: JAFEK, TIMOTHY B.
Attorney Address: 777 S. FIGUEROA ST., LOS ANGELES CA 90017
213-680-8400
Defendant Name: DOHRING, DOUG
Defendant Attorney: BURSTEIN, RICHARD D.
Attorney Address: 2029 CENTURY PARK E., STE 3RD FL, LOS ANGELES CA
900672904
310-277-0077
Cause of Action: TO RECOVER MONEY OR PROPERTY
Judge: Riblet
Other Relief Sought?: No
Origin of Suit: Original Proceeding
Demand (Thousands $): $193
Nature of Suit: To recover money or property
Case Closing Date: Pending
Excerpts from docket:
10/11/2002
Complaint on claims to set aside and recover fraudulent transfers, to
set aside and recover preferential payments, and for turnover under 11
U.S.C. Sections 542, 544, 548, and 550; and Cal. Civil Code Sections
3439.04 and 3439.07; ND01-11549RR; Receipt No: ND-004497 $150.00
hearing on 12/20/2002 at 10:00 a.m. at 1415 State Street, Courtroom
201, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
10/15/2002
Summons service executed - served on defendants Doug and Laurie
Dohring and Patricia Lutton October 14, 2002
10/22/2002
Alias summons issued - answer due 11/21/02; status conference hearing
on 12/20/2002 at 10:00 a.m. at 1415 State Street, Courtroom 201, Santa
Barbara, CA
93101
11/07/2002
Jury demand (for trial) by defendants Doug Dohring, Laurie Dohring,
and Patricia Lutton in the district court
11/07/2002
Answer filed by defendants Doug Dohring, Laurie Dohring, and Patricia
Lutton to trustee's complaint and defendants' demand for trial by jury
in the district court
11/18/2002
Motion for partial summary judgment filed by Trustee; Notice of
motion; Memorandum of points and authorities hearing on 01/17/2003 at
10:00 a.m. at 1415 State Street, Courtroom 201, Santa Barbara, CA
93101
12/04/2002
Ex parte application for order vacating hearing date on trustee's
motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants hearing on
01/17/2003 at 10:00 a.m. at 1415 State Street, Courtroom 201, Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Magoo
Can someone please explain to me what this means?
Is it the Dohrings only owe $193?
Please fill me in, if you can.
Thanks
Tory/Magoo!
"Martin Ottmann" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71d327bb.02120...@posting.google.com...
ka...@wwwaif.net
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> This says, 'Demand: (Thousands $) $193
> Can someone please explain to me what this means?
> Is it the Dohrings only owe $193?
>
> Please fill me in, if you can.
No, it means 193 (thousands), or $193,000.
For the full list of lawsuits and amounts, you can visit the mysterious
slatkininfo.com site, at the following URL:
http://www.slatkininfo.com/lawsuitsfiled.htm
K
Magoo
Now is that how much they made...and then they have to pay it back?
Or it goes to a jury and they decide?
I'm just curious how this deal works.
Thanks Kady.
Tory/Magoo!
<ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92DFB5AFD93...@205.232.34.12...
ka...@wwwaif.net
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Thank you VERY much.
>
> Now is that how much they made...and then they have to pay it back?
> Or it goes to a jury and they decide?
>
> I'm just curious how this deal works.
> Thanks Kady.
>
Well, from what I understand, the Trustee - that's the guy who is rooting
through the estate on behalf of the creditors, looking for any and all
assets or money that Reed may have - is arguing for summary judgement
against a number of the defendents.
This means that if he successfully argues that motion, and it is granted,
he will be able to begin taking action against all those defendents in
order to get back the money that was allegedly the result of fraudulent
transfers.
If the Judge refuses the summary judgement motion, I believe he would then
have to proceed to trial against each defendent, and argue why the money in
question should be returned to the estate.
I might have some of the details wrong; I'm sure someone more knowledgeable
than I on bankruptcy matters can fill us both in on the procedure if that
is the case.
K
Martin Ottmann
> Now is that how much they made...and then they have to pay it back?
> Or it goes to a jury and they decide?
>
> I'm just curious how this deal works.
From what I understand:
All these people who got sued by the Trustee made a profit from their
investment into Slatkin's criminal enterprise. In the case of the
Dohrings their profit was in the amount of $ 193,000.
So, rather than giving back their proceeds to the Estate in order to
pay off Slatkin's victims (f. e. the severly handicapped man who had
lost all his savings), these "ethical and upstat Scientologists", who,
by the code of the IAS, "do not belong to or work for any organization
or group that is dedicated to the harming of mankind", try to hold on
to their proceeds, which had been gained through fraud.
There exists a law that was mentioned once in the newspaper articles
about Slatkin that makes it mandatory for investors to give back
proceeds from a Ponzi scheme. Otherwise they can be sued, as in this
case by the Trustee, to be forced legally to get rid of criminally
gained money.
That all of them demand a jury trial, I interpret as a mean to prolong
and to wear off the Trustee's efforts to get the money back. Which is
another indication of the total lack of moral integrity of these
Scientologists, because all these actions cost the Estate money, and
will eventually reduce the compensation of Slatkin's victims.
That's how I understand it.
barb
I hope he gets a clue about Greta and hubby John Coale. They made money
off Reed's scam. They should have to repay it, despite Greta's
"celebrity" status.
--
Rev. Barb
Church of Xenu, San Diego
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
Warrior
>
>I hope he gets a clue about Greta and hubby John Coale. They made
>money off Reed's scam. They should have to repay it, despite Greta's
>"celebrity" status.
I once heard Greta say, "I like Scientology's ethics."
Profiting from another's misfortune seems to violate the "doctrine
of exchange". As such, it is "out-ethics" to Scientologists who
adhere to this part of Hubbard's system.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
roger gonnet
"Martin Ottmann" <martin...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 71d327bb.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<_DdJ9.52803$hK4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > Now is that how much they made...and then they have to pay it back?
> > Or it goes to a jury and they decide?
> >
> > I'm just curious how this deal works.
>
> From what I understand:
>
> All these people who got sued by the Trustee made a profit from their
> investment into Slatkin's criminal enterprise. In the case of the
> Dohrings their profit was in the amount of $ 193,000.
>
> So, rather than giving back their proceeds to the Estate in order to
> pay off Slatkin's victims (f. e. the severly handicapped man who had
> lost all his savings), these "ethical and upstat Scientologists", who,
> by the code of the IAS, "do not belong to or work for any organization
> or group that is dedicated to the harming of mankind", try to hold on
> to their proceeds, which had been gained through fraud.
Since their money was also proabbly given in part to the crime cultists
to buy some fraud, the fraud money returns to fraud, and the true
defrauders (scentology cheidfs) should finally pay the bill. They call
it ded-dedex, or overt-motivator sequence, or flow One, ya know.
>
> There exists a law that was mentioned once in the newspaper articles
> about Slatkin that makes it mandatory for investors to give back
> proceeds from a Ponzi scheme. Otherwise they can be sued, as in this
> case by the Trustee, to be forced legally to get rid of criminally
> gained money.
>
> That all of them demand a jury trial, I interpret as a mean to prolong
> and to wear off the Trustee's efforts to get the money back. Which is
> another indication of the total lack of moral integrity of these
> Scientologists, because all these actions cost the Estate money, and
> will eventually reduce the compensation of Slatkin's victims.
>
> That's how I understand it.
Me too. But we are such Espees, Martin, that we can't possibly be right
about ethics.
roger
Anonymous
It's "out-ethics" whether you adhere to Hubbard's system or not. Slatkin's
Ponzi scheme wasn't "another's misfortune". It was a crime. Many crimes.
That's why he's in jail.
Net gainers who _profited from his crimes_ got their "profits" thanks to
Slatkin's _crimes_ against net losers. That's why Neilson is suing them.
That's why I'm surprised, or maybe I'm not, that the International Justice
Chief of the Church of Scientology has approved the litigation of
Scientologists against Neilson, as he surely must have.
Tarapia Tapioco
It's "out-ethics" whether you adhere to Hubbard's system or not. Slatkin's
Warrior
>>>
>>>I hope he gets a clue about Greta and hubby John Coale. They made
>>>money off Reed's scam. They should have to repay it, despite Greta's
>>>"celebrity" status.
>On 10 Dec 2002, war...@xenu.ca wrote:
>>
>>I once heard Greta say, "I like Scientology's ethics."
>>
>>Profiting from another's misfortune seems to violate the "doctrine
>>of exchange". As such, it is "out-ethics" to Scientologists who
>>adhere to this part of Hubbard's system.
In article <45bf1d3514aa1070...@ecn.org>, Anonymous said:
>
>It's "out-ethics" whether you adhere to Hubbard's system or not.
Just in case there was a misunderstanding, and for the benefit of anyone
else reading this, my use of quotation marks around the Scienospeak (in
this case, "out-ethics") is intended to denote *irony* and a double meaning
since the term "ethics" in Scientology means something *quite* different
from the usual definition.
But for sure it is not ethical. What I was saying is that it is "out-ethics"
even in the Scienoview of things for John Coale and Greta VanSusteren Coale
to have profited from Reed's scam. Their profiting from Reed's crime violates
Scientology's "doctrine of exchange". The Coales didn't provide anything in
exchange for the profit they made, unless helping criminals constitutes
something of value. :)) If Greta was really ethical she'd give the money
back to people like Stuart Stedman.
>Slatkin's Ponzi scheme wasn't "another's misfortune". It was a crime.
>Many crimes. That's why he's in jail.
Yup. And I'm sure Scientology profited greatly from Reed's crimes.
>Net gainers who _profited from his crimes_ got their "profits" thanks to
>Slatkin's _crimes_ against net losers. That's why Neilson is suing them.
Exactly as it should be. Too bad the super duper OT Tony Hitchman felt
the need to flee the country. Hiding is a very "low-toned" activity
according to Scientology. Hubbard placed it at -8 on his "Tone Scale".
>That's why I'm surprised, or maybe I'm not, that the International Justice
>Chief of the Church of Scientology has approved the litigation of
>Scientologists against Neilson, as he surely must have.
I doubt it. Scientologists don't need approval from the International
Justice Chief to sue a "wog", only another Scientologist.
I had a thought while composing my reply, and I'd like to share it with
readers.
Hubbard defined the "ninth dynamic" as "the buck" (the dollar)[1], and he
said the "tenth dynamic probably would be ethics".[2] Reed Slatkin, Tony
Hitchman and Irene Dirmann would all, without a doubt, have listened to the
tape where Hubbard said this, since it is required listening on the Saint
Hill Special Briefing Course. All three of these long-term Scientologists
have completed this course. This tape reveals evidence of Hubbard's warped
mind, since he said the "eighth dynamic" is "infinity or God"[3]. Obviously
Hubbard placed higher importance on worshiping money than he did on worship-
ing God.
References:
[1] Hubbard's taped lecture "Thought and Preclears", March 5, 1952,
catalog number C5203CM05A
[2] Hubbard's taped lecture "Thought and Preclears", March 5, 1952,
catalog number C5203CM05A
[3] Hubbard's _Fundamentals of Thought_, pp. 36-38
Warrior
>>>
>>>I hope he gets a clue about Greta and hubby John Coale. They made
>>>money off Reed's scam. They should have to repay it, despite Greta's
>>>"celebrity" status.
>On 10 Dec 2002, war...@xenu.ca wrote:
>>
>>I once heard Greta say, "I like Scientology's ethics."
>>
>>Profiting from another's misfortune seems to violate the "doctrine
>>of exchange". As such, it is "out-ethics" to Scientologists who
>>adhere to this part of Hubbard's system.
In article <45bf1d3514aa1070...@ecn.org>, Anonymous said:
>
>It's "out-ethics" whether you adhere to Hubbard's system or not.
Just in case there was a misunderstanding, and for the benefit of anyone
else reading this, my use of quotation marks around the Scienospeak (in
this case, "out-ethics") is intended to denote *irony* and a double meaning
since the term "ethics" in Scientology means something *quite* different
from the usual definition.
But for sure it is not ethical. What I was saying is that it is "out-ethics"
even in the Scienoview of things for John Coale and Greta VanSusteren Coale
to have profited from Reed's scam. Their profiting from Reed's crime violates
Scientology's "doctrine of exchange". The Coales didn't provide anything in
exchange for the profit they made, unless helping criminals constitutes
something of value. :)) If Greta was really ethical she'd give the money
back to people like Stuart Stedman.
>Slatkin's Ponzi scheme wasn't "another's misfortune". It was a crime.
>Many crimes. That's why he's in jail.
Yup. And I'm sure Scientology profited greatly from Reed's crimes.
>Net gainers who _profited from his crimes_ got their "profits" thanks to
>Slatkin's _crimes_ against net losers. That's why Neilson is suing them.
Exactly as it should be. Too bad the super duper OT Tony Hitchman felt
the need to flee the country. Hiding is a very "low-toned" activity
according to Scientology. Hubbard placed it at -8 on his "Tone Scale".
>That's why I'm surprised, or maybe I'm not, that the International Justice
>Chief of the Church of Scientology has approved the litigation of
>Scientologists against Neilson, as he surely must have.
I doubt it. Scientologists don't need approval from the International
Justice Chief to sue a "wog", only another Scientologist.
I had a thought while composing my reply, and I'd like to share it with
readers.
Hubbard defined the "ninth dynamic" as "the buck" (the dollar)[1], and he
said the "tenth dynamic probably would be ethics".[2] Reed Slatkin, Tony
Hitchman and Irene Dirmann would all, without a doubt, have listened to the
tape where Hubbard said this, since it is required listening on the Saint
Hill Special Briefing Course. All three of these long-term Scientologists
have completed this course. This tape reveals evidence of Hubbard's warped
mind, since he said the "eighth dynamic" is "infinity or God"[3]. Obviously
Hubbard placed higher importance on worshiping money than he did on worship-
ing God.
References:
[1] Hubbard's taped lecture "Thought and Preclears", March 5, 1952,
catalog number C5203CM05A
[2] Hubbard's taped lecture "Thought and Preclears", March 5, 1952,
catalog number C5203CM05A
[3] Hubbard's _Fundamentals of Thought_, pp. 36-38
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Anonymous
[snip good stuff]
>>Net gainers who _profited from his crimes_ got their "profits" thanks to
>>Slatkin's _crimes_ against net losers. That's why Neilson is suing them.
>
>Exactly as it should be. Too bad the super duper OT Tony Hitchman felt
>the need to flee the country. Hiding is a very "low-toned" activity
>according to Scientology. Hubbard placed it at -8 on his "Tone Scale".
>
>>That's why I'm surprised, or maybe I'm not, that the International Justice
>>Chief of the Church of Scientology has approved the litigation of
>>Scientologists against Neilson, as he surely must have.
>
>I doubt it. Scientologists don't need approval from the International
>Justice Chief to sue a "wog", only another Scientologist.
Neilson (and his lawyers) are representing Scientologist and wog net-losers
and suing Scientologist and wog net-gainers. There's no getting around the
fact that this means Scientologists are litigating against each other. Why
wouldn't the IJC have to approve this?
Cerridwen
news:H78T48SE3760...@anonymous.poster...
Per the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book copyright 1998,
Page 296 HIGH CRIMES (SUPPRESSIVE ACTS)
"Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or
Scientologist, including the non payment of bills or failure to refund,
without first calling the matter to the attention of the International
Justice Chief and receiving a reply."
One of these days I'll post the whole list. It's quite fascinating.
Cerridwen
"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
disagree with you." --Prignillius
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
Zaliwa
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:8QHT239J3760...@anonymous.poster...
> Anonymous" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in message
> news:H78T48SE3760...@anonymous.poster...
> > On 11 Dec 2002, war...@xenu.ca wrote:
>
> > >
> > >I doubt it. Scientologists don't need approval from the
> International
> > >Justice Chief to sue a "wog", only another Scientologist.
> >
> > Neilson (and his lawyers) are representing Scientologist and wog net-
> losers
> > and suing Scientologist and wog net-gainers. There's no getting
> around the
> > fact that this means Scientologists are litigating against each
> other. Why
> > wouldn't the IJC have to approve this?
>
>
> Per the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book copyright 1998,
>
> Page 296 HIGH CRIMES (SUPPRESSIVE ACTS)
>
> "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or
> Scientologist, including the non payment of bills or failure to refund,
> without first calling the matter to the attention of the International
> Justice Chief and receiving a reply."
You know, every time I've read this, one thing has always been left unanswered,
and that is "and receiving a reply." It doesn't say what kind of reply, whether
favourable or not, whether giving assent or not. Just "receiving a reply." So I
wonder if you just sent a letter stating something like "I am bringing suit
against _____ for (reason)...." if that then fulfills this requirement.
Z.
Warrior
>>
>> Per the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book copyright 1998,
>>
>> Page 296 HIGH CRIMES (SUPPRESSIVE ACTS)
>>
>> "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or
>> Scientologist, including the non payment of bills or failure to refund,
>> without first calling the matter to the attention of the International
>> Justice Chief and receiving a reply."
In article <3dfa...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Zaliwa" said:
>
>You know, every time I've read this, one thing has always been left
>unanswered, and that is "and receiving a reply." It doesn't say what
>kind of reply, whether favourable or not, whether giving assent or not.
>Just "receiving a reply." So I wonder if you just sent a letter stating
something like "I am bringing suit against _____ for (reason)...." if
>that then fulfills this requirement.
>
>Z.
Sure. But if the reply says, "Don't bring suit" you'd probably find
yourself declared persona non grata ("SP") in Scienoland PDQ.