|
|
| |
| |
In article<170ee625.0403031746.13cfb486@posting.google.com>, Mona
<mercurialbroad@aol.com> writes:
It is true the issue could not have been raised on appeal if it was not
preserved at trial. However, it is not necessary for an expert witness
to have personally spoken with the parties about whom he is testifying
or order to offer expert testimony. That is because experts are not
"fact witnesses." Their personal knowledge of the events at issue can,
in fact, preclude their serving as a witness
This seems to be deeply confused. The expert is indeed not
brining personal testimony of events seen. The basis is more
"in your long experience as (say) a taxation lawyer, looking
at the defendant's financial strategies, is it YOUR opinion
they meant to follow both letter and spirit of the law?"
If the expert has not LOOKED at the matter he purports to
be weighing up, then his opinion is largely worthless.
(RT 4/69). In summary, Dr. Shupe has no specific knowledge,
####:::::::::~~~~~~~~~~
skill, experience, training, or education with respect to CAN
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ :::::::::::::::::::
upon which any expert opinion about CAN could be based.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
In short, he did not know his arse from his elbow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In<170ee625.0403031756.25d9ec91@posting.google.com>, Mona writes:
Dave Bird <dave.xemu.deleteThe@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message...
Ok, look, OF COURSE Moxon is not an unbiased source., He is a
Scientologist and was the plaintiff's atty in the case that brought CAN
down. Nowhere have I said, and I would never be so stupid as to claim,
that Ken Moxon is unbiased. But he is still capable of finding and
presenting evidence at trial, even being biased -- every attorney is.
It is a matter of "how often" and "how extreme". I've WATCHED
Scientology lawyers walk out of a court-room and publish a
contempt of the judgement the just accepted within 2 1/2 minutes
of accepting it. In Moxon's case the lying is extreme and
frequent: if he said the sum will rise in the morning, I would
phone up the observatory and check the date of the next eclipse.
The same is true when you look at any other scientology conduct,
examine the EXTENT and FREQUENCY of the conduct.
For instance, how many other groups proceed by trying to
recuse the judge? How many do that in about 1/3 the cases?
How many attempted to blackmail the judge, by setting up his
gay son with a rent-boy? How many have tried to frame a city
mayor who opposed them for a criminal offence? How many have
sent investigators after horses or other pet animals?
How many have tried to get a provincial Crown prosecutor
(or state District Attorney) removed from office?
How many have infiltrated the offices and stolen the documents
of governement agencies investigating them? How many plaintiffs
in ordinary commercial matters have been convicted for conducting
their business in a way which led to manslaughter?
Certainly these things are done -- by the Carlo Gambino crime
family and its ilk. But not by normal organisations. This is
why I say CofS is less like organised religion than organised crime.
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | ----- The only real crime for
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- which one can be punish
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ -ed by governements of
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | today is lack of money.
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ In other crimes, if one
// .' : .'___' : ' has the huge sums nec-
// ; '. ~===~ /\ -essary to hire lawyers,
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ once can often get off.
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,,L.RON HUBBARD,
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,,Phat Dead Phounder of
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, the $cientology cult.
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[in HCOPL 20/sept/1976]
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
|
| |
| |
Dave Bird <dave.xemu.deleteThe@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<sdUJiQC1p6RAFw2p@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
In article<170ee625.0403031746.13cfb486@posting.google.com>, Mona
<mercurialbroad@aol.com> writes:
This seems to be deeply confused. The expert is indeed not
brining personal testimony of events seen. The basis is more
"in your long experience as (say) a taxation lawyer, looking
at the defendant's financial strategies, is it YOUR opinion
they meant to follow both letter and spirit of the law?"
If the expert has not LOOKED at the matter he purports to
be weighing up, then his opinion is largely worthless.
You cannot possibly be saying that Anson Shupe has not studied the
sociology of opposition to new religious movemements? I read him, his
book "Strange Gods," (co-authored with DAvid Bromley) when I took a
class on American cults almost 20 yrs ago, and he therein had plenty
to say about anti-cult movements. I mean, he is like *the god* of
anti-cult in academic circles. Between him and David Bromely, they
would be my first two choices if I needed an anti-cult expert.
<snip>
It is a matter of "how often" and "how extreme". I've WATCHED
Scientology lawyers walk out of a court-room and publish a
contempt of the judgement the just accepted within 2 1/2 minutes
of accepting it. In Moxon's case the lying is extreme and
frequent: if he said the sum will rise in the morning, I would
phone up the observatory and check the date of the next eclipse.
See, I believe that is even likely true, but do not REMOTELY think it
makes him different from many other lawyers. Lawyers are LIARS almost
by trade who simply have to try not to get caught and to cover their
asses for the bar grievance committees. Moxon is a lawyer, and so I
assume he is scum. Yeah, yeah, there are some decent attys, and I've
actually worked with and for a few, but many ormost are sheer
(intellectual) whores.
But still, what I read of Moxon deposing CAN employees and agents
elicited my professional admiration. He did a very good job, and did
it as the best lawyer would.
The same is true when you look at any other scientology conduct,
examine the EXTENT and FREQUENCY of the conduct.
For instance, how many other groups proceed by trying to
recuse the judge? How many do that in about 1/3 the cases?
How many attempted to blackmail the judge, by setting up his
gay son with a rent-boy? How many have tried to frame a city
mayor who opposed them for a criminal offence? How many have
sent investigators after horses or other pet animals?
How many have tried to get a provincial Crown prosecutor
(or state District Attorney) removed from office?
How many have infiltrated the offices and stolen the documents
of governement agencies investigating them? How many plaintiffs
in ordinary commercial matters have been convicted for conducting
their business in a way which led to manslaughter?
Certainly these things are done -- by the Carlo Gambino crime
family and its ilk. But not by normal organisations. This is
why I say CofS is less like organised religion than organised crime.
All of the above is apparently true. To my knowledge, even the mafia
has not been this bold. These are the primary reasons I think the CoS
is truly engaged in evil and needs to be exposed and stopped. I balk
only at the "manslaughter" claim if you mean the suicides linked to
the CoS. How many members of other political/therapeutic/religious
groups commit suicide, per capita?
--Mona--
|
| |
| |
Dave Bird <dave.xemu.deleteThe@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<sdUJiQC1p6RAFw2p@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
In article<170ee625.0403031746.13cfb486@posting.google.com>, Mona
<mercurialbroad@aol.com> writes:
It is true the issue could not have been raised on appeal if it was not
preserved at trial. However, it is not necessary for an expert witness
to have personally spoken with the parties about whom he is testifying
or order to offer expert testimony. That is because experts are not
"fact witnesses." Their personal knowledge of the events at issue can,
in fact, preclude their serving as a witness
This seems to be deeply confused. The expert is indeed not
brining personal testimony of events seen. The basis is more
"in your long experience as (say) a taxation lawyer, looking
at the defendant's financial strategies, is it YOUR opinion
they meant to follow both letter and spirit of the law?"
If the expert has not LOOKED at the matter he purports to
be weighing up, then his opinion is largely worthless.
You cannot possibly be saying that Anson Shupe has not studied the
sociology of opposition to new religious movemements? I read him, his
book "Strange Gods," (co-authored with DAvid Bromley) when I took a
class on American cults almost 20 yrs ago, and he therein had plenty
to say about anti-cult movements. I mean, he is like *the god* of
anti-cult in academic circles. Between him and David Bromely, they
would be my first two choices if I needed an anti-cult expert.
Mona,
Do you realize what you are saying from a statistical point of view? You are
putting your frame of reference, your reliance, your faith, into the
extremely tiny perspective of two people. Think about this. The argument
that these two folks supposedly have read a lot, etc. does not change the
fact that you are counting on the frame of reference of only two
individuals. The world is a much bigger place than what these two solely
have to offer.
Susan
<snip>
See, I believe that is even likely true, but do not REMOTELY think it
makes him different from many other lawyers. Lawyers are LIARS almost
by trade who simply have to try not to get caught and to cover their
asses for the bar grievance committees. Moxon is a lawyer, and so I
assume he is scum. Yeah, yeah, there are some decent attys, and I've
actually worked with and for a few, but many ormost are sheer
(intellectual) whores.
But still, what I read of Moxon deposing CAN employees and agents
elicited my professional admiration. He did a very good job, and did
it as the best lawyer would.
All of the above is apparently true. To my knowledge, even the mafia
has not been this bold. These are the primary reasons I think the CoS
is truly engaged in evil and needs to be exposed and stopped. I balk
only at the "manslaughter" claim if you mean the suicides linked to
the CoS. How many members of other political/therapeutic/religious
groups commit suicide, per capita?
--Mona--
|
| |
| |
In article <170ee625.0403052105.2f65b53c@posting.google.com>,
Mona says...
But still, what I read of Moxon deposing CAN employees and agents
elicited my professional admiration.
http://lisatrust.bogie.nl/Media/us-60min-can.htm
When he used Mark Blocksom's affidavit even after he knew
it was false did he elicit your admiration?
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
|
| |
| |
n article<170ee625.0403052105.2f65b53c@posting.google.com>, Mona
<mercurialbroad@aol.com> writes:
Dave Bird <dave.xemu.deleteThe@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<sdUJiQ
C1p6RAFw2p@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
You cannot possibly be saying that Anson Shupe has not studied the
sociology of opposition to new religious movemements? I read him, his
book "Strange Gods," (co-authored with DAvid Bromley) when I took a
class on American cults almost 20 yrs ago, and he therein had plenty
to say about anti-cult movements. I mean, he is like *the god* of
anti-cult in academic circles. Between him and David Bromely, they
would be my first two choices if I needed an anti-cult expert.
<snip>
How do you account for (I assume this is ) the trial judge saying
what follows............... {{{
If the expert has not LOOKED at the matter he purports to
be weighing up, then his opinion is largely worthless.
(RT 4/69). In summary, Dr. Shupe has no specific knowledge,
####:::::::::~~~~~~~~~~
skill, experience, training, or education with respect to CAN
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ :::::::::::::::::::
upon which any expert opinion about CAN could be based.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
In short, he did not know his arse from his elbow.
}}}
Which is what you snipped.
I'm not sure what the expert witness is actually supposed to
be expert in here. Is he saying "I understand (through study
or personal experience) the structure, policies, and beliefs
of this group, and how they would act in particular circumstances."
Evidently the judge disagreed.
It is not quite in the same category as ex-members of CofS
being expert witnesses in explaining its hard-to-comprehend
beliefs and policies, or convoluted structure. The beliefs,
policies, rules, and structure of CAN are straightforwardly
understandable. The alternative is that he is offering experience
of organisational practice from the inside. But he didn't have
that, either. I don't think he had even interviewed first-hand
witnesses of internal practice extensively. What is he supposed
to offer expert testimony ON? People in the MacPherson case were
giving OPINION, on their personal experience of how things worked
inside CofS, whether it was PLAUSIBLE and according to procedure
that this or that had been done in the particular case. I don't
think Shupe even had the background to do this. The judge thought not.
It is a matter of "how often" and "how extreme". I've WATCHED
Scientology lawyers walk out of a court-room and publish a
contempt of the judgement the just accepted within 2 1/2 minutes
of accepting it. In Moxon's case the lying is extreme and
frequent: if he said the sum will rise in the morning, I would
phone up the observatory and check the date of the next eclipse.
See, I believe that is even likely true, but do not REMOTELY think it
makes him different from many other lawyers. Lawyers are LIARS almost
by trade who simply have to try not to get caught and to cover their
asses for the bar grievance committees. Moxon is a lawyer, and so I
assume he is scum. Yeah, yeah, there are some decent attys, and I've
actually worked with and for a few, but many ormost are sheer
(intellectual) whores.
Well we will have to disagree here. While lawyers (especially
American lawyers) are not a wonderful group as a whole, I do
not see them as complete scum. I see what Moxon does as different
in extent and frequency to the bad conduct of other lawyers.
How many would involve themselves with an organisation like the
CofS except in criminal defendant? How many would directly
involve themselves with cash payments for perjured testimony?
How many would directly involve themselves with attempts to
blackmail judges? Most would not have the sheer brazen effrontery
but have some sense of caution as to possible consequences
if they did not have a protector like CofS.
But still, what I read of Moxon deposing CAN employees and agents
elicited my professional admiration. He did a very good job, and did
it as the best lawyer would.
I did not deny his ruthlessness or efficiency. Honesty, decency,
ethics, and humanity to the extent that he can barely be seen as
part of the same species. He is a sort of legal Gollum, except
I doubt at the last he will have the integrity to bite Eugene Ingram's
dick off and jump into a lava flow; I did not question his efficiency.
The same is true when you look at any other scientology conduct,
examine the EXTENT and FREQUENCY of the conduct.
For instance, how many other groups proceed by trying to
recuse the judge? How many do that in about 1/3 the cases?
How many attempted to blackmail the judge, by setting up his
gay son with a rent-boy? How many have tried to frame a city
mayor who opposed them for a criminal offence? How many have
sent investigators after horses or other pet animals?
How many have tried to get a provincial Crown prosecutor
(or state District Attorney) removed from office?
How many have infiltrated the offices and stolen the documents
of governement agencies investigating them? How many plaintiffs
in ordinary commercial matters have been convicted for conducting
their business in a way which led to manslaughter?
Certainly these things are done -- by the Carlo Gambino crime
family and its ilk. But not by normal organisations. This is
why I say CofS is less like organised religion than organised crime.
All of the above is apparently true. To my knowledge, even the mafia
has not been this bold. These are the primary reasons I think the CoS
is truly engaged in evil and needs to be exposed and stopp
|
| |
| |
What is this all about?
Truth Seeker
++++++++++
"The first battle a warrior must win is the battle for his own mind"
Here is a list of the titles of all the articles posted earlier to
this newsgroup that the Church of Scientology does not want you to read.
If you're having a hard time finding them, just do a search on the title
of the article within this newsgroup with your newsreader or go to
google.com, select "groups" and enter the title of the article. Make sure
that if you do a search on a title to leave out the quotation marks:
*- "7 good reasons why you should stay away from Scientology"
*- "The FAQ for Alt.Religion.Scientology"
*- "When does a Scientologist cease to be a Scientologist?"
*- "Never reveal your true identity on this newsgroup!"
*- "The injustice that was leveled against me by the Church of Scientology"
*- "Names the Church of Scientology is posting under on this newsgroup"
*- "The Real Source of Happiness"
*- "Understanding how Scientology is going about discrediting their enemies"
*- "Want to know a good way to spot the undercover scientologists on this newsgroup?"
*- "The Church of Scientology creates their own enemies"
*- "The Church of Scientology is a mind control organization"
*- "The Church of Scientology is like a shadow"
*- "The Church of Scientology's Decoy System"
*- "Be careful of somebody trying to get you to put your name on a petition!"
*- "Arnie Lerma answers this important question"
*- "How Scientology is playing both sides of the coin"
*- "How Scientology wants the reader to Misidentify things on this newsgroup"
*- "How the Church of Scientology tries to discredit it's critics"
*- "How to know if you have been manipulated by OSA on this newsgroup"
*- "How to spot the OSA members on this newsgroup"
*- "This is how to destroy the Church of Scientology"
*- "Another trick Scientologists who are pretending to be critics use on this newsgroup"
*- "A red flag that something isn't right with the Church of Scientology"
*- "How Scientology Creates Identity Confusion"
*- "Don't ever send your mail to other people on this newsgroup!"
*- "Giving Scientology a taste of its own medicine"
*- "OSA's tactics in a nutshell"
*- "The effect The Church of Scientology is aiming for with those "Xenu" web sites"
*- "The key to how The Church of Scientology is trying to handle this newsgroup"
*- "The Magical Transformation of Church Member into Critic"
*- "The one thing the Church of Scientology won't help you go "free" from"
*- "The subject of CONTROL and the Church of Scientology"
*- "The truth about the book "Introduction to Scientology Ethics""
*- "There are two justice systems in Scientology"
*- "Be careful logging on to Scientology related web sites!"
*- "Church of Scientology's Solution to Stopping Real Critics & Criticism of their church"
*- "Conclusions the Church of Scientology want you to come to"
*- "Here's the real reason the OSA trolls want you to go on those "xenu" web sites"
*- "Is the Church of Scientology really helping you get somewhere?"
*- "Some ways to "handle" the Church of Scientology"
*- "Tactics OSA uses to stop critics on this newsgroup"
*- "The discrepancies between what's in Scientology's books and how things are in reality"
*- "What a undercover OSA agent Will & Will Not do"
*- "Want to know if you have been manipulated by Scientology?"
*- "What a Scientology Staff member sees when they look at you"
*- "What does the Church of Scientology have against free speech?"
*- "What to do so OSA can't hurt you on this newsgroup"
*- "Another Inconsistency in Tory's story"
*- "Tory's real mission on this newsgroup"
If any of the articles listed in this index cannot be found, it is probably because the
Church of Scientology has illegally canceled it in order to keep anybody from reading it.
Please wait for me to re-post it in the future.
Thank You.
|
| |
| |
|
