§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §



Message-ID: <4RAZX6O537678.3353356481@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: Cambridge <cambrdge@ivy.league>
Subject: Re: The Clients of Michael Flynn
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <MUD20EAP37677.2030555556@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3e5aefe5@news2.lightlink.com>, <BO13AGLR37677.387025463@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <b3gg0702h6u@drn.newsguy.com>
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
Date: 26 Feb 2003 08:03:56 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Lines: 194
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news-hub.siol.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!nerim.net!noc.nerim.net!Gilgamesh-frogadmin.yi.org!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1598607

On 25 Feb 2003
in Message-ID: <b3gg0702h6u@drn.newsguy.com>
ladayla <ladayla_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>In article <BO13AGLR37677.387025463@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, Cambridge
>>>>It became more puzzling still to learn that they all had been
>>>>engaged in some way in litigation against Hubbard and Scientology, and
>>>>that all were connected with the same attorney. Surely, it was
>>>>reasoned, if there actually existed such fecund cause of action, then
>>>>there should be some statistically rational scatter graph distribution
>>>>of cases and attorneys around the country, and, indeed, around the
>If you were around during this time,

If by "this time" you the time span of the Flynn cases that our study
covers, that is approximately seven (7) years, from 13 December 1979, the
date of the first Flynn case, to 6 December 1986, the date of the "global
settlement." So could you be a little more precise about what you are
referring to?

>and the church decided that you were somehow dangerous to them, they would
>subpoena you.

Could you please define what you mean by "the church," and what you mean by
"they" in reference to the issuers of any subpoenas? Who, specifically, by
name, issued any subpoenas you saw, and what were the dates? Precisely how
many subpoenas do you have personal knowledge of being issued, to whom, by
whom, on what dates, and for what? Clarity is the soul of clarity.

>The subpoenaes were flying about like confetti.

That's rather imprecise. Could you provide any specifics? Any at all? I'm
going to tell you here in all unvarnished candor that since embarking on
this study I have spent months drowning in a tidal wave of this exact
category of chaotic, overblown, and shapeless hyperbole, attempting to swim
my way through the turbulent and murky waters toward anything resembling
the sunlight of ascertainable fact. In doing so, I have gulped and choked
on all the brackish and loathsome swill I care to taste. If you would like
to state with as much unimpassioned precision as you can muster who,
specifically, the parties were, and when, specifically, these events you
are painting with such a wide roller occurred, I would be quite happy to
incorporate the factual and verifiable data into the study. Otherwise, you
are penning fabulous fiction to pawn off as fact.

>I tried for weeks to get a lawyer just
>to go to a deposition with me. None wanted to connect themselves with

Could you name any of the attorneys you approached who turned you down?
What case was the deposition for? Were you subpoenaed for deposition? If
so, who issued the subpoena and what is its date? Do you have a transcript
of your deposition? If not, why not? What attorneys for the opposing side
were at your deposition? Who else was present at your deposition? Did
anyone represent you? If so, who?

>No respectable attorney would risk his career, his peace
>of mind, even his life to dance with the church.

Utter drivel, and gallons of it. Provide us with your survey of a
representative sample of the over 500,000 attorneys listed in FindLaw for
the United States alone, with analyzed results that support your claim, or
pour your mephitic hogwash down the nearest sewer.

>I believe that is the
>'why' (reason) that Michael Flynn came into prominence as an attorney
>who would help people who had been shat upon by Huborg.

Our data analysis rejects the "Flynn the Dragonslayer" myth.

>>But the density distribution of the law suits was not at all
>>commensurate with either. It all was concentrated in one law office
>>over a small fraction of time relative to the history of Scientology.
>>This is a function of the subject of statistics, which subject I
>>cannot give a treatise on here, nor do I pretend to be a statistician
>>myself. But I will say that the statistician I am working with got
>>very puzzled, and very serious indeed, when she saw such a glaring
>>statistical anomaly.
>>In fact, allow me to give you the same inelegant analogy that she gave
>>to me by way of explanation to a layman. It was along these lines: if
>>you were able to witness a similar statistical anomaly with regard to
>>mass relative to space, you and your entire neighborhood would have
>>already imploded.
>The church imploded to a large degree when RTC committed the great tech

RTC doesn't possess any "tech" whatsoever, by robbery, purchase,
inheritance, transfer, or by any other means or instrument. You build
castles on thin air. You have not a grain of foundation. If any attorneys
did, in fact, refuse to represent you, your own inability to grasp reality
and the fundamental facts of law and ownership would be the reason, not the
quivering trepidation of multi-million dollar law firms.

>Prior to RTC coming upon the scene, scientologists were
>relatively happy with the church, aside from the grousing about price

Michael Flynn filed his first relevant suit, the LaVenda Van Schaick
complaint, on 13 December 1979.

RTC did not "come upon the scene" until 1 January 1982, over two years
later, nearly a third of the way through the Flynn conflagration of

Nor did RTC "come on the scene" like a magic mushroom sprouting 'neath a
spreading oak in a fairy tale wood. RTC is a corporation that was perfected
under the non-profit corporate codes of the state of California by the law
firm of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, purportedly as one part of an "estate
plan" that Sherman Lenske claims he wrote at the behest of L. Ron Hubbard.

At the time they created RTC, Lenske, Lenske & Heller were also the ruling
and guiding hands over all the litigation being carried out in L. Ron
Hubbard's absence, including all the litigation against Flynn and his
clients. This all has been substantiated with credible evidence that has
been posted repeatedly in this newsgroup.

This is the misery you are confronted with: none of the facts fit the myth
that you seem still entranced by. The evidence annuls it.

>When RTC came along and declared everybody with any power

RTC did not "come along." RTC is a corporation that was perfected under the
non-profit corporate codes of the state of California by the law firm of
Lenske, Lenske & Heller, purportedly as one part of an "estate plan" that
Sherman Lenske claims he wrote at the behest of L. Ron Hubbard.

Anything that "RTC did" pursuant to its creation, it did at the pleasure of
it creators, and its creators were Lenske, Lenske & Heller, who had power
of attorney to carry out what they claimed were the wishes of the missing
L. Ron Hubbard. Lenske, Lenske & Heller were the personal representatives
of the missing L. Ron Hubbard in all things having to do with his business
interests, the corporations, his copyrights, his trademarks, his patents,
the litigation, and his probate.

These are incontrovertible facts. I cannot fathom why you cannot or will
not face these stark and unblinking towering granite material realities
that stand across your path to Never-Never Land and stare down at you.

>and IHelp said

I-Help (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors) was merely
another corporation perfected by Lenske, Lenske & Heller, on 24 November
1982, under the non-profit corporate codes of the state of California.

By 27 April 1982, seven months before anyone even heard of I-Help, Michael
Flynn already had filed 27 law suits against Scientology organizations and
individuals, at least according to his claims to UPI.

By 6 May 1982, Flynn was holding the Clearwater hearings.

By the beginning of August 1982, Flynn had added the Armstrong suit.

On 12 November 1982, still 15 days before I-Help was even incorporated,
Flynn filed the DeWolf suit for control of L. Ron Hubbard's estate in the
Superior Court of Riverside County, California, "with 30,000 accompanying
documents," a number curiously identical with the number of documents
Armstrong had stolen from the archives that were under the custody and
control of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, bringing the purported total number of
Flynn cases to 29.

So I-Help had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with even a single case
ever filed by attorney Michael Flynn, did it?

If you would spend more time acquainting yourself with facts you would
spend less time writing fiction and attempting to peddle it as fact.

>if you want to practice, then sign this paper that says
>that you agree that RTC owns all the copyrights

RTC does not own any copyrights and never has. You are in a feverish dream.

Where is this "paper that says that you agree that RTC owns all the
copyrights"? Can't you please produce a copy? If you produce just one, I
assure you that you will become the new Dragonslayer, and will launch the
biggest explosion of cases of civil and criminal fraud that has ever swept
across the face of this our Earth. What you will engender will render the
Flynn era to nothing more than a footnote in the litigation history of

Never, in any utterance, have Lenske, Lenske & Heller ever been so bold and
foolish as to allow any such material and blatant lie as you describe to be
printed. They could not. The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," owns every copyright.

So I don't believe your claimed paper exists at all. That is why you have
now stretched my patience leagues beyond its breaking point.





§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §