All Scientology critics can be sued in a California court?
ptsc
the latest lawsuit against Keith Henson.
Please comment if you have any ideas on the disturbing implications of
this letter. Also note in the Cc:s our old friend William Hart, Esq.
who you might recall from the dwarf deposition, in which he was not
well shaved, looked like a ruffian, and was causing a disruption of
the deposition.
The precedent cited in the letter is a deCSS case in which Pavlovich,
an out-of-state student was sued in a California court despite not
living there.
The cult may intend to play more of their fun forum-shopping games by
suing out-of-state critics in California courts at tremendous expense
to the critics, forcing them either to lose and accept a default
judgment, or else lose their jobs from having to spend all their time
in court in California while attempting to live elsewhere.
Consdiering the total corruption of California courts, extending their
sordid corruption to the rest of the country seems an entirely
possible action for the cancer these courts have become on the
nation's jurisprudence. After all, when a cancer fully corrupts its
own organ, it metastasizes.
God save the planet from these criminals.
[letter 1]
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 75 East 5% Street, New York, New
York 1D022-.205 telephone 212.'.18-6000 / facsimile 212-339-9150 /
internet www.paulhasting.com
399 Park Avenue. 31st Floor. New York, New York 10022-4697
Pa u l Hastings telephone 212.316-6000 / facsimile 212.',19-4090 /
internet wvvw.paulhastings com
Atlanta / Costa Mesa / London / Los Angeles / San Francisco / Stamford
/ Tokyo I Washington, D.C.
(212) 318-6020 samue...@paulhastings.com
24437.03000
August 9, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. Neil Levin Church of Scientology International Office of Special
Affairs 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California
90028-6329
Re: FACTNer II et al.
Dear Neil:
Although I have not yet seen the decision, I am told that on August 7,
a California Court of Appeal issued a decision in a case, in which the
defendant is Pavlovich, upholding jurisdiction over him, an out of
state student, for operating a web site that allowed users to pirate
films. Apparently the Court's key holding is that Pavlovich "knew or
should have known" that his web activities could injure the California
plaintiff and therefore upheld a personal jurisdiction over him on
claims of trade secret theft and copyright infringement. We obviously
need to study this decision, but if it is as cracked up to be in the
report, this is the one which would be very important both to the
captioned case as well as to a lot of the domain name disputes that we
deal with daily.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
Samuel D. Rosen
SDR:dm
cc: Warren McShane
William Hart, Esq.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
to: from:
SEE DISTRIBUTION LIST Samuel D. Rosen
company/office: facsimile:
facsimile: telephone: (212) 318-6020 telephone: Initials: SDR date:
client name: August 9, 2001 (3-.16pm) pages (with cover):
client/matter number: 24437.03000
From: Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
DISTRIBUTION LIST.
to:
company: facsimile: phone no.:
name:
Mr. Neil Levin CSI (323) 960-3508 or 3509 323) 960-3500
Warren McShane Religious Technology (323) 667-0960 (323) 663-3258
Center
William Hart, Esq (212) 969-5050 (212) 969-3095
[letter 2]
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 75 East 55th Street. New York,
New York 10022-3205 telephone 212•318-6000 / facsimile 212 339-9150 /
internet www.paulhastings.com
399 Park Avenue. 31st Floor, New York, New York 10022-4697
Hastings telephone 212-3ie-6000 / facsimile 212-319-4090 / Internet
www.paulhastings.com
Atlanta / Costa Mesa / London / Los Angeles / San Francisco / Stamford
/Tokyo / Washington, D.C.
(212) 31.8-6020 samue...@paulhastiilgs.cntn
28886.00400
August 9, 2001
VI FACSIMLE
Daniel Leipold Leipold, Donahue & Shipe, LLP 960-A West Seventeenth
Street Santa Ana, California 92706
Re: Lopez
Dear Mr. Leipold:
Just to follow up on my previous letter confirming the deposition of
Dr. Fretheim, I don't know which conference room on which floor in my
offices we will be assigned for the deposition so the best thing for
you and the witness to do is to come to the main reception on the 23rd
floor where the receptionist will direct you to the proper floor and
conference room.
As you can well appreciate, we've got an awful lot of ground to cover
with Dr. Fretheim. I would certainly like to finish it in one day
rather than carrying it over and towards that end, I am certainly
willing to go a bit beyond 5:00 p.m. if that is what it will take to
finish it. Assuming you and the witness are of the same mind as I am,
perhaps you
Paul Hastings
Daniel Leopold August 9, 2001 Page 2
can alert Dr. Fretheirn to the possibility that we might need to go a
bit past 5:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
Samuel D. Rosen
SDR:dm
cc Gerald L,. Chaleff, Esq.
Paul Hastings
Daniel Leipold August 9, 2001 Page 3
bcc: Mr. Neil Levin
Magoo
great certainty say....and that is that they do NOT "inadvertently attach"
anything as by accident. They just don't.
They are admin fiends and their attorneys as we can see are as well, covert
creeps....and no doubt they wanted just what occurred to happen. You got it,
and you posted it. It is probably their hopes that more people will shudder
into silence due to this "accidental" but what they hope to be taken as a
very real communication.
hmmmm let's see.......where could that possibly be at on the "tone
scale"....could it be
1.1 ????
Could it be anything else?
Oh that's right.....they need to match our tone levels, so that's why they
are being 1.1
Sure Scientology...and was it an accident
that although you all are NEVER scared of anything, a middle aged white
haired man carrying a picket sign "Terrified" some of you?
What happened to your all mighty TR's???
Time for crams, and serious security checks.
You lie like rugs.
Tory/Magoo~dancin in the light~
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alis DOT net> wrote in message
news:a5voot02mtqshn4s1...@4ax.com...
> New York 10022-3205 telephone 212.318-6000 / facsimile 212 339-9150 /
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <a5voot02mtqshn4s1...@4ax.com>
From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alis DOT net>.
Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet.
Wrote on the subject: All Scientology critics can be sued in a
California court?:
Well, what else it to be expected from a country without any working
laws, run by corrupt politicians and mafia cult devils?
SAZ
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PR Series 12
PROPAGANDA BY REDEFINITION OF WORDS
[...]
"Psychiatry" and "psychiatrist" are easily redefined to mean "an
anti-social enemy of the people". This takes the kill crazy
psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions. This is a good use
of the technique as for a century the psychiatrist has been setting an
all time record for inhumanity to man. [...]
The way to redefine a word is to get the new *definition* repeated as
often as possible.
Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry, and psychology
downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards.
This, so for as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for
belief in *your* definitions, and not those of the opposition.
A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this
technique of propaganda.
One must know how to do it.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 5 Oct 1971
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******************* ze...@wineasy.se (Anti-Cult) ********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pignotti
>
>The cult may intend to play more of their fun forum-shopping games by
>suing out-of-state critics in California courts at tremendous expense
>to the critics, forcing them either to lose and accept a default
>judgment, or else lose their jobs from having to spend all their time
>in court in California while attempting to live elsewhere.
Given the fact that California has some of the most stringent anti-SLAPP
legislation of any state in the US, if this is what they are planning, it
wouldn't be a wise move on their part. There is an initial hearing and if the
plaintiff cannot show just cause (with a very heavy burden of proof on the part
of the plaintiff), the suit gets immediately thrown out and the plaintiffs have
to pay all legal costs.
Monica Pignotti
cerr...@freedom.net
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3b8c...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Knowing these folks for 30 years as I have,,,there is one thing I
can with
> great certainty say....and that is that they do NOT "inadvertently
attach"
> anything as by accident. They just don't.
>
> They are admin fiends and their attorneys as we can see are as well,
covert
> creeps....and no doubt they wanted just what occurred to happen. You
got it,
> and you posted it. It is probably their hopes that more people will
shudder
> into silence due to this "accidental" but what they hope to be
taken as a
> very real communication.
>
I agree with Tory. These guys don't do anything "inadvertently". The
attachments were more than likely put there on purpose. They question
is why would they do that. It could be to attempt to scare off some
critics. OSA knows that the letters would be posted and discussed and
theories expounded upon, but knowing how devious these guys are it
could be that they are somehow trying to divert attention.
Divert attention from what? God only knows. But I whatever it is,
they are up to no good.
Cerridwen
Kaeli
shudder me into silence.. it just disgusts and angers me further. And I
think it would be best to make this more public, as in: they are
attempting to stifle people's freedoms of speech and expression.
So much for the most "ethical" organization on the planet, using shyster
barristers like Moxon and Kobrin for the legal dirty tricks department. I
question their competence and their integrity.
Kaeli.
ptsc
This makes me assume either a) they are planning a suit which would
not be patently frivolous, perhaps in the court of Ronald M. Whyte
where probably nothing would be frivolous if you're rich enough; or b)
they aren't planning anything of the sort and just included this
letter to freak people out.
The letter is from the law office of a nothing Hemet lawyer who has
been hired as a phony front to represent Henson's "victims" in the
422.6 trial, in a new civil suit. Why this lawyer would have any
attachment to RTC lawyer Sandy Rosen or have correspondence from him
to various people such as Gerald E. Chaleff and William Hart is
unknown, and indeed if he's acting at the behest of RTC, this would
probably constitute a violation of bankruptcy law.
That's why it's rather odd for these documents to be attached to a
(seemingly) unrelated lawsuit against Henson. The business about
suing someone not in California might apply to Henson being in Canada,
but all the acts in the current lawsuit are alleged to have occurred
in California.
The subject title "Factnet 2" is also interesting.
As for whether Scientology ever does accidentally include materials
they shouldn't, they've done it before in the past, such as when they
accidentally sent Henson another letter they shouldn't have.
Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin went berserk and attacked Keith
Henson in a deposition to steal this document. Judge Whyte of course
did nothing, even open assault and terrorist threats in open court
against opposing counsel never fazed old "L." Ron Whyte.
ptsc
GS1100
>
>I see. Well, they can try for an international incident, as it will not
>shudder me into silence.. it just disgusts and angers me further. And I
>think it would be best to make this more public, as in: they are
>attempting to stifle people's freedoms of speech and expression.
>So much for the most "ethical" organization on the planet, using shyster
>barristers like Moxon and Kobrin for the legal dirty tricks department. I
>question their competence and their integrity.
>
>Kaeli.
>
"Question?" There's a question about their competence and integrity? I don't
think there's any question about that at all..........
yertletheturtle
it would require them to endure the expense and time of travelling away from California?
Also, are:
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP one of the good guys or
do the work directly for the church? It's not clear to me from
the postings which side they work for.
ptsc
<yer...@turlte.com> wrote:
>Can they really drag someone to California? Couldn't it work in the
>opposite direction where
>it would require them to endure the expense and time of travelling away
>from California?
>Also, are:
>Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP one of the good guys or
>do the work directly for the church? It's not clear to me from
>the postings which side they work for.
The Paul, Hastings firm employ Sandy Rosen, who is one of the most
despicable and unethical Scientology lawyers, multiply sanctioned for
abusive, harassive discovery. He'll depose you, he'll depose your
wife, he'll depose your dog, he'll depose your twelve-year-old
daughter. He bills $500 an hour and requires two first-class airplane
tickets anywhere he goes because of his girth. He farts in open court
and doesn't wash his hands after using the bathroom. What's pathetic
about this is I'm not even making it up.
The Paul, Hastings firm also employs Cynthia Cohen, who was initially
involved in the Reed Slatkin debacle. She was, I believe, retained by
Bennetta Slaughter's crew, and the only significant action she took
that I am aware of was hiring the Deloitte & Touche accounting firm to
take computer images and preserve records prior to the feds getting
their hands on the data. Lest this sound suspicious, D&T is a very
reputable firm and I do not know that there is anything sinister about
this. If it hadn't been Bennetta Slaughter's crew who retained
Cynthia Cohen, I wouldn't have any suspicion about it at all.
As it is, Cynthia Cohen promptly withdrew from the case citing a
conflict of interest. Whether this had to do with legal ethics (Paul,
Hastings is a very large firm and while any firm that would retain a
Sandy Rosen in any capacity has some question about their ethics) or
whether Cohen simply took one look at this mess, decided to have
nothing to do with it, and decided any conflict of interest would do,
is uncertain.
ptsc
Keith Henson
net> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:44:24 GMT, Monica
>Pignotti<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <a5voot02mtqshn4s1...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>
>>>The cult may intend to play more of their fun forum-shopping games by
>>>suing out-of-state critics in California courts at tremendous expense
>>>to the critics, forcing them either to lose and accept a default
>>>judgment, or else lose their jobs from having to spend all their time
>>>in court in California while attempting to live elsewhere.
I don't see how this attack on the Federal courts can be allowed to
stand on appeal to them. A diversity of location is the reason you
take it to federal court, and the requirement is you have to file it
near the person you are suing, not thousands of miles away. *BUT*
"The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win . . ." I expect as long as
this decision has not been struck down, to see the cult suing people
all over the world in California courts.
>>Given the fact that California has some of the most stringent anti-SLAPP
>>legislation of any state in the US, if this is what they are planning, it
>>wouldn't be a wise move on their part. There is an initial hearing and if the
>>plaintiff cannot show just cause (with a very heavy burden of proof on the part
>>of the plaintiff), the suit gets immediately thrown out and the plaintiffs have
>>to pay all legal costs.
>
>This makes me assume either a) they are planning a suit which would
>not be patently frivolous, perhaps in the court of Ronald M. Whyte
>where probably nothing would be frivolous if you're rich enough; or b)
>they aren't planning anything of the sort and just included this
>letter to freak people out.
Whyte is Federal so this decision has nothing to do with him. I can't
complain all that much about Judge Whyte because he slapped the last
two cult motions in his court down. They were baseless of course but
I am sure he was put under a lot of outside pressure to rule for them.
>The letter is from the law office of a nothing Hemet lawyer who has
>been hired as a phony front to represent Henson's "victims" in the
>422.6 trial, in a new civil suit. Why this lawyer would have any
>attachment to RTC lawyer Sandy Rosen or have correspondence from him
>to various people such as Gerald E. Chaleff and William Hart is
>unknown, and indeed if he's acting at the behest of RTC, this would
>probably constitute a violation of bankruptcy law.
>
>That's why it's rather odd for these documents to be attached to a
>(seemingly) unrelated lawsuit against Henson. The business about
>suing someone not in California might apply to Henson being in Canada,
>but all the acts in the current lawsuit are alleged to have occurred
>in California.
>
>The subject title "Factnet 2" is also interesting.
>
>As for whether Scientology ever does accidentally include materials
>they shouldn't, they've done it before in the past, such as when they
>accidentally sent Henson another letter they shouldn't have.
>Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin went berserk and attacked Keith
>Henson in a deposition to steal this document. Judge Whyte of course
>did nothing, even open assault and terrorist threats in open court
>against opposing counsel never fazed old "L." Ron Whyte.
This is the third time they have screwed up. The first time was not a
letter, but instructions for illegal acts to be taken against a person
who was in a deposition without a lawyer. They were attached to a
bunch of exhibits. The next time was last fall when someone in
Hogan's office sent me (among other things) a copy of an RTC check for
$46k and change for a month's billing. Some of this might have been
on Grady, but Hogan was not the most expensive lawyer they were using
against me. As a guess, they were spending over $100k a month on a
bankruptcy where best case they would not recover a month of lawyer
billing.
I still have not convinced my lawyer in San Jose this is abuse of
process.
I have not seen it yet, but my wife tells me to rent and watch _The
Insider_, a movie about the tobacco industry's vicious war against
those who exposed the fact that the industry was working hard to make
cigarettes more addictive and to get kids to get hooked.
I am hard put do decide between scientology ant the tobacco industry
which is more vicious. The tobacco people stopped short of framing
people, but the scene where Wigand reported finding a bullet in his
mail box and an email death threat exceeds anything CoS has done
taking a computer.
Three FBI agents who owed favors to an PI/former FBI agent who was
working for the tobacco industry came at his request. Two agents as
represented in the film asked him what caliber of guns he owned. Then
smirked at him in an almost patented scientology way for the rest of
the conversation.
They basically harassed him--quietly, just making sure that he knew
that they were of the opinion that he had done all this himself and
was the suspicious person, that he had put the bullet in his own mail
box.
In the movie a third agent, not one of the 2 interviewing Wigand, was
busy taking away his computer while the others were interrogating
Wigand. Wigand's wife, who was then still living with him, called him
as the agent was hefting it down the hall headed toward the doorway.
Wigand chased him, but the agent threw the computer into the trunk and
squealed out of his driveway, leaving Wigand to trip over something
and roll around on his own lawn-- a lawn he was shortly to lose when
his wife left him with the kids and sued him for divorce.
I think overall scientology is more vicious than the tobacco industry,
mainly because they not only used exactly the same methods, perhaps
even some of the same people, but they also fabricated crimes and have
done bodily harm to those they designate as enemies. Wigand received
threats, lawsuits, DA packs that local and national TV outlets
believed.
He lost his family and was cut to 1/10 of his former earning power,
and his employer was handed a DA pack. But the threats stayed
threats. The only bodily harm anyone ever actually managed against
him was something depicted in the movie that--again--I don't have
independent confirmation of. A process server was shown as throwing a
foot of paper at him and yelling "You've been served" as he retreated
from the 2 bodyguards around Wigand.
The movie does not suggest phone taps, bugs at home. Detectives
following people (including Lowell Bergman), yes. But not reading
their email, tapping their phones, bugging their homes.
They dug up dirt on Wigand, but--as usual--it was all petty. No one
accused them of fabricating crimes. Different animal. Dirty tricks
and litigation, yes. Conviction for threatening to throw a Tom Cruise
missile at a paramilitary compound painted as a neighborhood "church,"
no.
The tobacco companies have not lost any more than CoS has lost.. But
CBS has apparently not continued to pay for bodyguards, nor did the
CIA think it necessary to continue sweeps. Perhaps the TI was getting
too much bad PR over it. Another difference is that bad PR doesn't
faze scn.
I don't know how much of this is factual and how much was dramatic
enhancement.
Gives me pause about the critics vs scientology story being
dramatized.
Wigand does consulting work for the Canadian government. If anyone
knows how to reach him, tell him I would be delighted to have a chance
to meet him next time he is here.
Keith Henson
Aokay [David G. Bryce]
wrote:
<Wigand does consulting work for the Canadian government. If anyone
<knows how to reach him, tell him I would be delighted to have a
chance
<to meet him next time he is here.
<
<Keith Henson
see his website: http://www.jeffreywigand.com/
and email address: jwi...@jeffreywigand.com
a snail mail address is also at
http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/reach.html
Just a little old google search on "wigand + insider + tobacco" gets
his site as #1:}
dgb
David G. Bryce
65 Loon Lake Drive
P. O. Box 1002
Gravenhurst, ON P1P 1V3
Telephone: 705-684-8087
roger gonnet
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alis DOT net> a écrit dans le message :
a5voot02mtqshn4s1...@4ax.com...
> From two letters apparently inadvertently (or purposely?) attached to
> the latest lawsuit against Keith Henson.
>
> Please comment if you have any ideas on the disturbing implications of
> this letter. Also note in the Cc:s our old friend William Hart, Esq.
> who you might recall from the dwarf deposition, in which he was not
> well shaved, looked like a ruffian, and was causing a disruption of
> the deposition.
>
> The precedent cited in the letter is a deCSS case in which Pavlovich,
> an out-of-state student was sued in a California court despite not
> living there.
>
> The cult may intend to play more of their fun forum-shopping games by
> suing out-of-state critics in California courts at tremendous expense
> to the critics, forcing them either to lose and accept a default
> judgment, or else lose their jobs from having to spend all their time
> in court in California while attempting to live elsewhere.
>
> Consdiering the total corruption of California courts, extending their
> sordid corruption to the rest of the country seems an entirely
> possible action for the cancer these courts have become on the
> nation's jurisprudence. After all, when a cancer fully corrupts its
> own organ, it metastasizes.
>
> God save the planet from these criminals.
You mean, God saves the planet from US hegemonic intentions? And corrupt
police, justice, finances, and politics.
roger
roger gonnet
Kaeli <ka...@klis.com> a écrit dans le message :
3B8CEB16...@klis.com...
> I see. Well, they can try for an international incident, as it will not
> shudder me into silence.. it just disgusts and angers me further. And I
> think it would be best to make this more public, as in: they are
> attempting to stifle people's freedoms of speech and expression.
> So much for the most "ethical" organization on the planet, using shyster
> barristers like Moxon and Kobrin for the legal dirty tricks department. I
> question their competence and their integrity.
Weare there into trhe full battle field: people having "jurisdictions" over.
You see the problem?
That's one of the internet/mondialism problems to see. It's not over
to-morrow, guys, and I see some bloddy wars between judges from any country.
roger
Kymus
>Consdiering the total corruption of California courts, extending their
>sordid corruption to the rest of the country seems an entirely
>possible action for the cancer these courts have become on the
>nation's jurisprudence.
And someone in this forum actually called you intelligent and articulate.
Isn't there some kind of a.r.s. tradition of demanding facts and details to
back up wild eyed assinine assertions? It applies only to one side, seems.
>After all, when a cancer fully corrupts its
>own organ, it metastasizes.
Yeah, yeah, and it was Bill Clinton's body thetans that made him do it.
*Sigh.*