DOCSLIB.ORG

In the State Court of Dekalb County State of Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the State Court of Dekalb County State of Georgia IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA PATRICK C. DESMOND, MARY C. DESMOND, Individually, and MARY C. § DESMOND, as Administratrix of the Estate § of PATRICK W. DESMOND § § Plaintiffs, § v. ? Civil Action File No: 10A28641-2 NARCONON OF GEORGIA, INC., NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, DELGADO DEVELOPMENT, INC., SOVEREIGN PLACE, LLC, SOVEREIGN PLACE APARTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., LISA CAROLINA ROBBINS, M.D., and THE ROBBINS GROUP, INC. Defendants. DEFENDANT NARCONON OF GEORGIA, INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED MOTION, MEMORANDUM AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS COMES NOW, Narconon of Georgia, Inc. ("Defendant") in the above styled civil action and files its Response to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion, Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum to Unseal Documents showing the Court as follows: I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The above-referenced matter was filed on May 19, 2010, in which Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged wrongful death of Patrick Desmond. Patrick Desmond died due to cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to a heroin overdose. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert a variety of causes of action against the Narconon Defendants for their alleged failure to provide safe, properly licensed, legally operated, scientifically and medically based rehabilitation treatment services to Patrick. (See generally, Complaint). Because of the nature of the discovery process, Plaintiffs have been allowed access to highly sensitive and even confidential information concerning employees and students of Narconon of Georgia and its structure and operation. Recognizing the privacy concerns of the Narconon Defendants, the parties entered into an agreement to treat certain documents and information confidential and limiting the use of such information as needed for this litigation. On March 25, 2011 this Court entered a Protective Order governing the discovery in this case. (Protective Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). That order adopted the terms of a Stipulation and Confidentiality Agreement ("Stipulated Agreement") that all the parties to this case, including Plaintiffs, consented to and agreed upon. The Stipulated Agreement stated that "no copies of the Confidential Information shall be distributed to anyone.. .without the written consent of the producing party." (Stipulation and Confidentiality Agreement, 14 attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). The '"Confidential Information' includes the names and identities of employees, documents regarding the structure and operation of Narconon of Georgia, Inc. and Narconon International, and documents regarding the students of Narconon of Georgia, Inc." (Exhibit B, 11). The Narconon Defendants have produced documents pursuant to the Protective Order. Those protected documents have been discussed in and made exhibits to depositions taken in this case. It is expected that those depositions and their exhibits will be made a part of the record in this case. Indeed, the deposition of Mary Rieser has already been filed with the Court in connection with past proceedings. More recently, Plaintiffs' counsel has indicated a intent to file confidential information with the Court and, for reasons that are not clear, has expressed an objection to filing those records under seal. While the Narconon Defendants do not object to the proper use of these documents and information in this litigation, as expressed in the Protective 2 Order, the open record of this case effectively obliterates the protection provided by that order. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Unseal Urgent Directive Documents, Post Incident Documents, Board of Investigation Documents and Miscellaneous Documents. All of these documents are expressly covered by the Stipulated Agreement and this Court's Protective Order as documents relating to Narconon of Georgia's structure, operation and its students. (Exhibit B, ^ 1). Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion seeks to directly contravene this Court's Protective Order. Plaintiffs argument for circumventing this Court's Order is based on the idea that because they were the ones to file documents with the Court on April 16, 2012, the Protective Order is now "moot." It is manifestly unjust to allow Plaintiffs simply disregard a Protective Order they voluntarily entered into. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied. Due to the open access to the Court's record, persons wholly unaffiliated with this litigation and whose interests are adverse to the Narconon Defendants have been provided ready access to information that the parties have agreed is confidential and should be protected. Anti- Narconon groups are actively monitoring this litigation and have pulled pleadings, interlocutory orders, clips from video depositions, deposition transcripts, police reports, and other information and documents from the record of this case for the purpose of fueling discussion and analysis of the case on their websites. A simple search of the name "Patrick Desmond" through Google's search engine results in what appears to be something in the range of at least 200 Internet websites that discuss this litigation. For example, a page on the Operation Clambake Message Board is devoted to this litigation. (http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=33257). There, anyone and everyone can access documents from this case and engage in discussions about the parties, facts, witnesses, and even the judges. The concerning consequences of the availability of the record of 3 this case to the general public are illustrated by the following comment found on the Operation Clambake Message Board: Thank you Mary for updating and cross posting the current particulars involving this tragic case. The words coming out of NarCONon of Georgia executive director Mary Rieser,s mouth during her deposition are to say the least "Very revealing". She for all intents and purposes does not know what her own organization is about much less anything remotely relating to addiction and or drug rehabilitation services. Though the PDF,s are huge, the content is well worth a look at. An insiders look at a scam of epic proportions. (Excerpts from Operation Clambake Message Board at attached hereto as Exhibit A). Indeed, two individuals who are wholly unrelated to this litigation have filed a Petition to Unseal Documents of Record and Open Depositions. These two individuals are affiliated with the website www.reachingforthetippingpoint.net. A quick review of that website will reveal photographs of the court file in this case - and extensive discussions about the various pleadings filed by lawyers - much of which would never be admissible in front of any DeKalb County State Court jury. The websites cherry-pick the documents to suit their agenda - the public attack of Narconon. They do not limit their intrusion to what may ultimately be admissible evidence before any jury that may hear this case. The commentary and conclusions drawn in the banter in these websites are not legally sound. Yet, it is all available for anyone, including the prospective jury pool for this case, to review. II. ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY Plaintiffs' argument for lifting the seal is based on Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 21 and one Georgia Supreme Court case. The presumption Plaintiff relies upon in Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 21, that records should be made public when they are filed with the court, does not take into consideration the 4 fact that there is a pre-existing Protective Order governing the dissemination of documents in this case; much less a pre-existing Protective Order that Plaintiffs, the moving party, voluntarily consented to. Plaintiffs conveniently omit the remainder of Rule 21 that states "unless public access is limited by law or by the procedure set forth below." Id. One of these procedures is a protective court order. See Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 21.1. Precisely the same order this Court entered on March 25, 2011 that prohibits public disclosure of these documents. Plaintiffs attempt to persuade the Court that Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 21 applies because Plaintiffs filed the documents directly with the Court on April 16, 2012. However, the fact that Plaintiffs filed the documents under seal obviously shows Plaintiffs knew the documents were expected to be kept unpublished. More importantly, Plaintiffs came into possession of these documents only after Defendant produced them to Plaintiffs pursuant to the very same Protective Order they now wish to render moot. It is illogical to allow Plaintiffs to receive documents under seal, then turn around and file them with the Court and claim they should be disclosed to the public. "The trial court has supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion, seal documents if the public's rights of access is outweighed by a competing interest." In re Knight Publishing Company d/b/a The Charlotte Observer, 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). It is proper for the Court to conduct a balancing test in which the following factors are weighed: (1) whether the records are sought for improper purposes, such as promoting public scandals or unfairly gaining a business advance; (2) whether release would enhance the public's understanding of an important historical event; and (3) whether the public has already had access to the information contained in the records. Nixon, 425 U.S. at 597-608. The court has the authority to temporarily seal documents 5 while a motion to seal is under consideration, so that the issue is not mooted by the immediate availability of the documents. Knight, 743 F.2d at 236. Atlanta Journal v. Long, 258 Ga. 410, 369 S.E.2d 755, 757 (1988) (an order limiting access may be granted on a finding that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in interest clearly outweighs the public interest.). These are important interests which outweigh the general right to public access. Plaintiffs are simply attempting to misguide the Court in thinking a public policy interest has now been created in disclosing these documents because the Georgia Healthcare Facility Regulation Division (GHFRD) recently investigated Defendant's facility.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Miscavige Legal Statements: a Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection
    SPEAKING OUT ABOUT ORGANIZED SCIENTOLOGY ~ The Collected Works of L. H. Brennan ~ Volume 1 The Miscavige Legal Statements: A Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection Written by Larry Brennan [Edited & Compiled by Anonymous w/ <3] Originally posted on: Operation Clambake Message board WhyWeProtest.net Activism Forum The Ex-scientologist Forum 2006 - 2009 Page 1 of 76 Table of Contents Preface: The Real Power in Scientology - Miscavige's Lies ...................................................... 3 Introduction to Scientology COB Public Record Analysis....................................................... 12 David Miscavige’s Statement #1 .............................................................................................. 14 David Miscavige’s Statement #2 .............................................................................................. 16 David Miscavige’s Statement #3 .............................................................................................. 20 David Miscavige’s Statement #4 .............................................................................................. 21 David Miscavige’s Statement #5 .............................................................................................. 24 David Miscavige’s Statement #6 .............................................................................................. 27 David Miscavige’s Statement #7 .............................................................................................. 29 David Miscavige’s Statement #8 .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Caveat Venditor: Technologically Protected Subsidized Goods and the Customers Who Hack Them Christopher Soghoian
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 6 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2007 Caveat Venditor: Technologically Protected Subsidized Goods and the Customers Who Hack Them Christopher Soghoian Recommended Citation Christopher Soghoian, Caveat Venditor: Technologically Protected Subsidized Goods and the Customers Who Hack Them, 6 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 46 (2007). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol6/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Caveat Venditor: Technologically Protected Subsidized Goods and the Customers Who Hack Them Christopher Soghoian Fall 2007 VOL. 6, NO. 1 © 2007 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2007 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 6, Number 1 (Fall 2007) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Caveat Venditor: Technologically Protected Subsidized Goods and the Customers Who Hack Them By Christopher Soghoian* I. INTRODUCTION ¶1 This paper focuses on the subsidization of a technology-based durable good.1 It goes on to discuss the delicate dance between the producer trying to protect its profit, competitors trying to create and sell aftermarket goods,2 and those innovative customers who use the items in completely unplanned and unprofitable ways. ¶2 An age old, but increasingly popular business model involves the subsidization of a proprietary durable good by a manufacturer, such that the good is sold below cost.3 Due to careful design, technological, and legal restrictions, the producer creates a primary product that is only compatible with its own aftermarket goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Brain Neuroimaging Experiments Find 'Evidence
    NEWS AND COMMENT Brain Neuroimaging Experiments Find ‘Evidence against Existence of Psi’ . or Do They? KENDRICK FRAZIER precognition exist. They made minimal paid volunteers, thirty-two people total. assumptions about psi and think they Some were couples, some emotionally Can imaging of the brain help resolve have offered the broadest possible test of close roommates or friends. There was the debate over whether psi exists or not? the psi hypothesis. one mother-son pair, one pair of sisters, Two researchers at Harvard University The researchers used sixteen pairs of and two identical twin pairs. Fourteen think it can, and in fact they have now published neuroimaging results that they say “are the strongest evidence yet ob tained against the existence of para- normal mental phenomena.” The researchers note that despite widespread public belief in paranormal mental phenomena such as telepathy or mind-reading, also known as psi, “there is not compelling evidence that psi exists.” Among academic scientists, psychol- ogists especially tend to be skeptical of reports of psi, particularly the anecdotal kind that impress people unaware of all the psychological biases that allow them to so easily misinterpret evidence: the clustering illusion, availability error, confirmation bias, illusion of control, and many others. But if psi processes do exist, they are a mental activity, and there should be some way to detect that activity in the brain by modern neuroimaging techniques. Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn of the Harvard Psychology Department feel strongly that with sophisticated neuroimaging techniques, psychology is in a position to advance the psi debate, which in the past “has produced more heat than light.” They set up experiments using functional magnetic imaging (fMRI) of the brain to try to document the exis- tence of psi.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientology: CRIMINAL TIME TRACK ISSUE I by Mike Mcclaughry 1999
    Scientology: CRIMINAL TIME TRACK ISSUE I by Mike McClaughry 1999 The following is a Time Track that I put together for myself and some friends at the time, in 1999. I originally used the pseudonym “Theta” at the request of Greg Barnes until he was ready to “go public” with his defection from Scientology. I also used the pseudonym “Theta 8-8008” around this same time period. Bernd Luebeck, Ex-Guardian’s Office Intelligence and then Ron’s Org staff ran the website www.freezone.org. In 1999, just after my time track was released privately, Bernd used it on his website as-is. He later expanded on my original time track with items of interest to himself. Prior to my doing this time track, Bernd, (nor anyone else involved with Scientology on the internet), had ever thought of the idea to do things this way in relation to Scientology. Mike McClaughry BEGIN An open letter to all Scientologists: Greetings and by way of introduction, I am a Class 8, OT 8, who has been in the Church for many decades and I am in good standing with the Church. I am a lover of LRH’s technology and that is my motivation in writing you and in doing what I am now doing. It came to my attention, sometime in the not too distant past, that the current top management of the Church, particularly David Miscavige, is off source. One of the ways he is off-source is that he has made the same mistake as the old Guardian’s Office staff made, engaging in criminal activities to solve problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:15-Cv-00037 Doc #1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#1
    Case 1:15-cv-00037 Doc #1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT FOR THE WESTERNDISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Civil Action No. LAUREN PREVEC, an Ohio Citizen; JANNETTE PREVEC, an Ohio Citizen; and FRANK PREVEC, an Ohio Citizen, Plaintiff, V. NARCONON FREEDOM CENTER, INC.; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL; NARCONON EASTERN UNITED STATES; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I - X, inclusive, Defendants. Jeffrey P. Ray (P31098) Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY P. RAY, P.C. 2500 Lake Lansing Road, Suite A Lansing,MI 48912 (517)372-5700 i eff(%Qtisravlaw,com Plaintiffs Lauren Prevec, Jamiette Prevec, and Frank Prevec("Plaintiffs"),through counsel, JEFFREY P. RAY, P.C., allege the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs Lauren Prevec, Jannette Prevec, and Frank Prevecwere, and at all relevant times to this Complaint are residents of Ohio. 1 Case 1:15-cv-00037 Doc #1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 14 Page ID#2 2. Defendant Narconon Freedom Center, Inc. (hereafter "NFC"), is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a corporation incorporated under the laws of, and with its principal place of business in, the State of Michigan. NFC has been at all relevant times transacting business in Albion, Michigan. 3. Defendant Narconon International ("NI") is a California coiporation with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California. 4. N1 is the principal and licensor of Defendant NFC. N1 exercises control over the time, manner, and method ofNFC's operations. 5. N1 was doing business in the State of Michigan by and through its agent and licensee Defendant NFC.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan A. Hamilton CA Bar No. 291349 HAMILTON LAW
    Case 3:14-cv-00586-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 17 1 Ryan A. Hamilton CA Bar No. 291349 2 HAMILTON LAW 5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C 3 Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702) 818-1818 4 (702) 974-1139 (fax) [email protected] 5 Attorney for the plaintiffs, 6 Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHRISTY ESTRADA, a New Mexico Citizen; 10 and BRANDEN CHAVEZ, a New Mexico Citizen, Case No. 3:14-cv-00586-LAB-KSC 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 AND JURY DEMAND NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a 14 SUNSHINE SUMMIT LODGE; 15 ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL; 16 NARCONON INTERNATIONAL and DOES 1- 100, ROE Corporations I – X, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiffs Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, 21 Ryan Hamilton of Hamilton Law, LLC, allege the following: 22 I. 23 PARTIES 24 1. Plaintiffs Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez were, and at all relevant times to this 25 Complaint are, citizens of New Mexico. 1 Case 3:14-cv-00586-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 17 1 2. Defendant Narconon Fresh Start (hereafter “Fresh Start”), is, and at all times relevant to 2 this Complaint was, a corporation incorporated under the laws of, and with its principal place of 3 business in, the State of California. Fresh Start has been at all relevant times transacting business 4 in Warner Springs, San Diego County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff SARAH LOCATELLI in Pro Per (530) 274-8198 (Phone/Fax)
    Plaintiff SARAH LOCATELLI In Pro Per (530) 274-8198 (phone/fax) SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF NEVADA SARAH LOCATELLI, an individual, ) Case No. L75070 ) ) UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE Plaintiff, ) ) vs. DECLARATION OF SARAH LOCATELLI NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a ) ) IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO California corporation, NARCONON ) MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and ) DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, ) Date: September 25, 2009 ) ) Time: 10:00 a.m. Defendants. ) Date action filed: June 29, 2009 ) Trial Date: None yet ) ) ) ) ) ) ______________________________________) I, Sarah Vogel, declare: I stand by my Complaint and ask that the Court consider it while reading this DECLARATION presented to the Court as an incorporated document in support of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I never signed a written contract with any Narconon organization. The extent of the contract between the parties in this case is the telemarketing calls to and from and between fake referral help line phone number acting as a Narconon representative (Desiree Romero) and an employee of Narconon (Micki Allen) who took my credit card information when I agreed to purchase "Joshua Hills" rehabilitation services and later the 2 post dated checks made out to Narconon Southern California which I faxed copy of and then sent originals in the mail based upon what I was told to do. I never received a receipt for the deposit monies I paid by credit card; I was never informed that my deposit was going to any other entity besides the fictitious " Joshua Hills" which I was told by the rep was the California equivalent of "St Jude's of Nebraska".
    [Show full text]
  • Association for Narconon Easter
    Case 1:15-cv-00054 Doc #1 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTMCT OF MICHIGAN Civil Action No. JOSHUA CURREY, a West Virginia Citizen, Plaintiff, V. NARCONON FREEDOM CENTER; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL; NARCONON EASTERN UNITED STATES; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I - X, inclusive, Defendants. Jeffrey P. Ray (P31098) Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY P. RAY, P.C. 2500 Lake Lansing Road, Suite A Lansing,MI 48912 (517)372-5700 i eff(%otisraylaw. corn Plaintiff Joshua Currey ("Plaintiff"), through counsel, JEFFREY P. RAY, P.C., alleges the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Joshua Currey is, and at all relevant times to this Complaint was, a resident of the State of West Virginia. 2. Defendant Narconon Freedom Center (hereafter "NFC"), is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a corporation incorporated under the laws of, and with its principal place of 1 Case 1:15-cv-00054 Doc #1 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 15 Page ID#2 business in, the State of Michigan. NFC has been at all relevant times transacting business in Albion, Michigan. 3. Defendant Narconon International ("NI") is a California corporation with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California. 4. N1 is the principal and licensor of Defendant NFC. N1 exercises control over the time, manner, and method ofNFC's operations. 5. N1 was doing business in the State of Michigan by and through its agent and licensee Defendant NFC. 6. NFC and N1 are agents of the Association for Better Living and Education ("ABLE").
    [Show full text]
  • Scientology in Court: a Comparative Analysis and Some Thoughts on Selected Issues in Law and Religion
    DePaul Law Review Volume 47 Issue 1 Fall 1997 Article 4 Scientology in Court: A Comparative Analysis and Some Thoughts on Selected Issues in Law and Religion Paul Horwitz Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Paul Horwitz, Scientology in Court: A Comparative Analysis and Some Thoughts on Selected Issues in Law and Religion, 47 DePaul L. Rev. 85 (1997) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol47/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCIENTOLOGY IN COURT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND SOME THOUGHTS ON SELECTED ISSUES IN LAW AND RELIGION Paul Horwitz* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 86 I. THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ........................ 89 A . D ianetics ............................................ 89 B . Scientology .......................................... 93 C. Scientology Doctrines and Practices ................. 95 II. SCIENTOLOGY AT THE HANDS OF THE STATE: A COMPARATIVE LOOK ................................. 102 A . United States ........................................ 102 B . England ............................................. 110 C . A ustralia ............................................ 115 D . Germ any ............................................ 118 III. DEFINING RELIGION IN AN AGE OF PLURALISM
    [Show full text]
  • Scr29 Engr.Pdf
    ENGROSSED SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 29 By: Shurden of the Senate and Harrison of the House A Concurrent Resolution acknowledging Narconon Arrowhead for its commitment to the eradication of substance abuse; commending Narconon Arrowhead for its successful program design; wishing Narconon Arrowhead continued long and successful experience in the State of Oklahoma; and directing distribution. WHEREAS, Narconon has been successfully operating a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility accredited by the Commission on Accreditation or Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), as well as a drug education center in Oklahoma since 1992. Narconon has offered its lifesaving drug and alcohol rehabilitation services to more than 2,600 individuals using its own personnel and financial resources and at no cost to the State of Oklahoma; and WHEREAS, Narconon has invested more than $20 million into its operations, most of this money from outside the State of Oklahoma. This includes $5.5 million spent recently on the purchase and renovation of the Arrowhead Lodge in Pittsburg County, the home since September 2001 of Narconon Arrowhead, a 230-bed residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program; and WHEREAS, Narconon has plans to add four additional buildings in Pittsburg County at a cost of ten to twelve million dollars in new facilities and land development projects over the next three years so that it can provide additional specialized drug rehabilitation and education services. Narconon is using its own resources to raise these funds; and WHEREAS, since opening the Arrowhead drug rehabilitation and education center, Narconon has delivered drug education programs to more than 58,000 young people in Oklahoma schools, youth groups, and church camps throughout the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientology and Estate Planning Handout Materials Are Available for Download Or Printing on the HANDOUT TAB on the Gotowebinar Console
    11/12/2019 Scientology and Estate Planning Handout materials are available for download or printing on the HANDOUT TAB on the gotowebinar console. If the tab is not open click on that tab to open it and view the materials. 1 1 Scientology and Estate Planning By: Thomas Cummins and Martin Shenkman, Esq. 2 2 General Disclaimer The information and/or the materials provided as part of this program are intended and provided solely for informational and educational purposes. None of the information and/or materials provided as part of this power point or ancillary materials are intended to be, nor should they be construed to be the basis of any investment, legal, tax or other professional advice. Under no circumstances should the audio, power point or other materials be considered to be, or used as independent legal, tax, investment or other professional advice. The discussions are general in nature and not person specific. Laws vary by state and are subject to constant change. Economic developments could dramatically alter the illustrations or recommendations offered in the program or materials. 3 3 1 11/12/2019 Additional Disclaimer If there are any errors in how a particular faith is portrayed please email [email protected] and I will correct the materials and recirculate them. There was no intent to provide more or less coverage of the impact of any particular faith on estate planning. Rather, the objective was to use customs of various faiths to illustrate how planning can be tailored to respect and reflect the precepts of any faith. If you feel something important, or a particular faith’s omissions in the materials should be addressed email me relevant information at [email protected] and I will correct the materials and recirculate them.
    [Show full text]