Author Topic: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol  (Read 30754 times)

Offline Stutroup

  • Supressive Person
  • Posts: 436
Splendiferous summation, Skydog!

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
In her affidavit, Deb Danos, claims that the church suffered a loss of $50,000 in religious materials and books.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-07-08-DefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedMaterialFacts-ExhibitA-AffidavitOfDeborahQDanos.pdf

It is interesting how this statement fits into the bigger picture. Several former insiders have stated that the local orgs are forced to buy a large number of books and the public are required to buy multiple sets for donations to libraries, etc. (Sorry, can't find cite).

Counsel for the landlord might want to make some inquiries with respect to these damages.

Oh such fun could be had!

When were the books purchased?
Monthly book sales?
Number of books donated to local libraries?
Fair market value of the books-i.e., most of these books can be purchased on ebay or amazon for pennies on the dollar!!

So, Ms.Danos, your organization purchased $25,000 worth of books in March, 2006, isn't that right.
For that $50,000, your organization received 5000 books, isn't that correct?
Am I correct in my understanding that prior to March, 2006, the sales of books from your organization averaged less than 50 per month?
You knew then, did you not, that if these averages continued, it would take roughly 100 months to sell these books?
So at the time the organization purchased these books, you could reasonably expect that these books would have a shelf life slightly over eight years?
Now, after March, 2006, the book sales of the organization did not increase did they?
In fact they decreased, isn't that right.
So I am a bit curious as to why the organization would purchase another 5000 books the next year?
I am correct, am I not, that after this second purchase, the book sales did not increase, did they?
Is it fair to say that after this second purchase, you now have an inventory of books that would last over fifteen years according to your normal sales?
Knowing that some of these books would be sitting unused on shelves for that period of time, etc etc etc






Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,344
Great questions, skydog!

Here is a corporate data update:

Business Name History
Name    Name Type
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA, INC.    Current Name
Non-Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
   
Control No.:    J920035
Status:    Active/Compliance
   
Entity Creation Date:    10/18/1989
   
Jurisdiction:    GA
Principal Office Address:    4588 Winters Chapel Road
Atlanta GA 30360
Last Annual Registration Filed Date:    3/24/2011
Last Annual Registration Filed:    2011
Registered Agent
   
Agent Name:    MacKay, Deborah

Office Address:    4588 Winters Chapel Road
Atlanta GA 30360
Agent County:    Dekalb
Officers
   
Title:    CEO
Name:    Debbie Benk
Address:    4588 Winters Chapel Road
Atlanta GA 30360
Title:    CFO
Name:    Douglas MacKay
Address:    4588 Winters Chapel Road
Atlanta GA 30360
Title:    Secretary
Name:    Debbie MacKay
Address:    4588 Winters Chapel Road
Atlanta GA 30360

http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?392250

I believe Deborah MacKay = Deb Danos. See the following:

Business Name History
Name    Name Type
MACKAY ENTERPRISES, INC.    Current Name
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
   
Control No.:    0568358
Status:    Active/Compliance
   
Entity Creation Date:    10/7/2005
   
Jurisdiction:    GA
Principal Office Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345
Last Annual Registration Filed Date:    7/14/2011 2:47:44 PM
Last Annual Registration Filed:    2011
Registered Agent
   
Agent Name:    Mackay, Deborah
Office Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD NE
ATLANTA GA 30345
Agent County:   
Officers
   
Title:    CEO
Name:    DOUGLAS D. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345

Title:    CFO
Name:    DOUGLAS D. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345

Title:    Secretary
Name:    DEBORAH Q. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD NE
ATLANTA GA 30345

Dissolved tax business corporate data.

Name    Name Type
THE TAX PLACE OF ATLANTA, L.L.C.    Current Name
Limited Liability Company - Domestic - Information
   
Control No.:    08000782
Status:    Admin. Dissolved
   
Entity Creation Date:    1/3/2008
Dissolve Date:    9/16/2010
Jurisdiction:    GA
Principal Office Address:    3494 Braircliff Road
Atlanta GA 30345
Registered Agent
   
Agent Name:    Danos, Deborah Quinn
Office Address:    3494 Briarcliff Road
Atlanta GA 30345
Agent County:    Dekalb
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 20:49 by mefree »
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
It is interesting how this statement fits into the bigger picture. Several former insiders have stated that the local orgs are forced to buy a large number of books and the public are required to buy multiple sets for donations to libraries, etc. (Sorry, can't find cite).

I have heard that too.  They are also required to buy smaller items, such as tickets to the "free introductory film" from Bridge Publications.
 
Quote
Counsel for the landlord might want to make some inquiries with respect to these damages.

Oh such fun could be had!

When were the books purchased?
Monthly book sales?
Number of books donated to local libraries?
Fair market value of the books-i.e., most of these books can be purchased on ebay or amazon for pennies on the dollar!!

So, Ms.Danos, your organization purchased $25,000 worth of books in March, 2006, isn't that right.
For that $50,000, your organization received 5000 books, isn't that correct?
Am I correct in my understanding that prior to March, 2006, the sales of books from your organization averaged less than 50 per month?
You knew then, did you not, that if these averages continued, it would take roughly 100 months to sell these books?
So at the time the organization purchased these books, you could reasonably expect that these books would have a shelf life slightly over eight years?
Now, after March, 2006, the book sales of the organization did not increase did they?
In fact they decreased, isn't that right.
So I am a bit curious as to why the organization would purchase another 5000 books the next year?
I am correct, am I not, that after this second purchase, the book sales did not increase, did they?
Is it fair to say that after this second purchase, you now have an inventory of books that would last over fifteen years according to your normal sales?
Knowing that some of these books would be sitting unused on shelves for that period of time, etc etc etc

I would love to see those questions answered in an official document!

And thanks for the summary, skydog.  I guess we'll find out soon enough if the judge buys it.   ;)
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
MACKAY ENTERPRISES, INC.    Current Name
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
   
Control No.:    0568358
Status:    Active/Compliance
   
Entity Creation Date:    10/7/2005
   
Jurisdiction:    GA
Principal Office Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345
Last Annual Registration Filed Date:    7/14/2011 2:47:44 PM
Last Annual Registration Filed:    2011
Registered Agent
   
Agent Name:    Mackay, Deborah
Office Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD NE
ATLANTA GA 30345
Agent County:   
Officers
   
Title:    CEO
Name:    DOUGLAS D. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345

Title:    CFO
Name:    DOUGLAS D. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD
ATLANTA GA 30345

Title:    Secretary
Name:    DEBORAH Q. MACKAY
Address:    3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD NE
ATLANTA GA 30345

http://www.dexknows.com/business_profiles/mackay_enterprises_inc_-l824337285
Quote
MacKay Enterprises Inc.
3494 Briarcliff Rd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Integrity, Craftsmanship, Quality

http://idealkitchenandbath.vpweb.com/

Quote
Ideal Kitchen & Bath
Mackay Enterprises, Inc.
About Us
 
Ideal Kitchen & Bath was founded by master carpenter and contractor Douglas MacKay. With over 35 years of experience in the construction industry, Doug has the knowledge and skill to build a new home from the ground up or completely re-design and re-build an existing home to your specifications. Currently, the company is specializing in quality kitchen and bath design and build.
 
Our company is based on the belief that our customers' needs are of the utmost importance. Our entire team is committed to meeting those needs. As a result, a high percentage of our business is from repeat customers and referrals.

Doug, of all people, if he's a carpenter, should know exactly how much work needs to be done on the Ideal Org building.  Maybe he's gonna rebuild it "from the ground up."
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
 Doug, of all people, if he's a carpenter, should know exactly how much work needs to be done on the Ideal Org building.  Maybe he's gonna rebuild it "from the ground up."
[/quote]

That is another disturbing aspect of the church's business practices. The does not hire local tradesmen and professionals that are members-they expect them to volunteer their labor and services.

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,324
 No record of anyone by the names Deborah Mackay/Danos or Douglas Mackay having ownership of the property listed as  3494 BRIARCLIFF ROAD NE ATLANTA GA 30345

 No marraige record for the afore mentioned individuals. Could be united via "Common law" within the state of GA. Unknown @ this time.

Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,344
Probably renting. Depending on how long they have been together in GA, could be common-law marriage.
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,344
There was a hearing in this case yesterday. The parties are going to give mediation a try, while admitting they are currently very far from any type of agreement.

The "fee simple" argument didn't impress the judge very much. "It's not your best argument, is it?"

Attorney for plaintiff pointed to several emails from Deb Danos (aka Mackay) that failed to cite any problems with the building as a reason for vacating the premises and instead, gave lack of funds/inability to pay rent as cause.

EC and others will probably post more details here later today.
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,324
http://www.gadivorceonline.com/gapages/Alimony/commonlawmarriage.asp

 I do find it interesting that under certain circumstances Deborah Danos signs legal documents as both the afore mentioned name and also Deborah Mackay.

 Is this legal in the state of Georgia?

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
The majority of cases in the courtroom were child support cases, with a couple of items on the motions calendar.  Addressing the courtroom as a whole, Judge Flake encouraged the use of the dispute resolution mediators, stressing that it was always best for parties to work it out among themselves, if possible, rather than "have a judge make those decisions."

After all the child support cases got sent out to dispute resolution, the Waterford Park case came up first.  (Yay!)

One issue was recent filings which the judge said were filed "out of time".  Apparently these recent filings were not acceptable to the judge, and she wanted to know if the parties were agreeable to her considering the motion for summary judgment without considering these filings.  Neither party seemed to be very happy about this, but the judge rejected a request for continuance by the plaintiff and proceeded with hearing both sides of the case, from which mention of the recent filings was excluded.

Here is the list from the docket of items, all of which were filed less than one week before the hearing date (which we do not have yet), and I have bolded the item below that I think was primarily at issue:
Quote
DEPOSITION   23-AUG-2011   DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN ROWLAND. (WS)

OBJECTION   23-AUG-2011   OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   23-AUG-2011   FOREGOING OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (WS)

RESPONSE     23-AUG-2011   DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND THINGS. (WS)

VERIFICATION   23-AUG-2011   OF DEBORAH Q. DANOS. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   23-AUG-2011   FOREGOING DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND THINGS. (WS)

NOTICE   23-AUG-2011     NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL DISCOVERY. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   23-AUG-2011   FOREGOING NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL DISCOVERY. (WS)

RESPONSE     23-AUG-2011   DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   23-AUG-2011   FOREGOING DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS. (WS)

NOTICE   23-AUG-2011   NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL DEPOSITION. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   23-AUG-2011   FOREGOING NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL DEPOSITION. (WS)

LETTER    22-AUG-2011   DEAR JUDGE FLAKE FROM ANDREA CANTRELL JONES. (WS)

MOTION   18-AUG-2011   PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (WS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   18-AUG-2011   FOREGOING PLEADINGS. (WS)

AFFIDAVIT   18-AUG-2011   AFFIDAVIT OF LIVIA WHISENHUNT. (WS)

AFFIDAVIT   18-AUG-2011   THIRD AFFIDAVIT OF CAROLEE PARKER. (WS)

The judge also made it clear that what she is to hear are matters where the facts are not in dispute, and that where facts would be in dispute, that would need to be heard by a jury.

Most of the discussion revolved around information which is contained in the various filings from earlier in this thread, so I'll not take the time to summarize everything, and only cover things which are noteworthy.

Plaintiff's attorney,  Jeff Golomb:
There are 4 issues with the motion for summary judgment - estoppel, constructive eviction, breach of lease, and standing.

Estoppel involves a document signed by tenants when the building was purchased that stated there were no issues with the building that needed to be attended to. 

Constructive eviction deals with whether or not the building was so uninhabitable that the "church" could not do business in it.

Breach of lease involves whether or not the "church" properly ended the lease agreement, that is, gave proper notice and did not owe rent when giving notice.

Standing involves the position the "church" takes that neither Waterford Park or PS Energy had standing to collect rent payments.

Mr. Golomb stated that after his client began managing the lease, there were records and emails indicating issues with having the Church of Scientology pay the rent, having cash flow issues, that they were having trouble paying the rent on a timely basis and said that they needed more time.  There were no rent payments made through April 1, 2010 to the remainder of the lease.

The May 10 issue with water in the building was caused by a drainage pipe being dislodged, with some question of how it got that way, that someone may have stepped on it.

He pointed out that defendant argues that the water intrusion resulted in constructive eviction, yet the "church" continued to occupy the property through May, June, and July (and I believe through August also, but he did not include it).

Defendants submitted the deposition of Stephen Rowland, in which he states that there were prior water intrusion issues, but Golomb states that the plaintiffs were unaware of this, other than an intrusion in September 2009 when there were historic rains in Atlanta and many people were flooded.

(I notice also that there is a discrepancy between what Steve Rowland says about discussing the pond's spillway being maintained with a cgurch staff member - page 19 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-09-DefendantsFirstSupplementAndAmendmentToItsResponseToPlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedFactsl.pdf
and page 2, item 6 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-07-08-DefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedMaterialFacts-ExhibitC-AffidavitOfMerrikLevetan.pdf.  There are also discrepancies on pages 4-5 of the  affidavit and pages 20-21 of the deposition regarding water running the length of the building and fans being brought in.)

Judge Flake asked whether Golomb was contending that the dislodged pipe issue would not be an issue for jury consideration as far as constructive eviction, and Golomb answered yes (he was contending that).

Golomb covered the requirements for constructive eviction:
a. landlord allowed property to deteriorate to such an extent that it became an unfit place to carry on business
b. premises could not be restored to fit conditions by ordinary repairs
c. some grave act of a permanent character done out of vandalism with the intention of depriving the tenant of enjoyment of the premises

and stated that the tenant does not meet these requirements.

Regarding a, the defendant continued doing business in May, June, and July.
Regarding b and c, the problem was repaired, and there were no additional water issues reported throughout May, June, or July.

He again cited 2 or 3 long emails sent by Deb Danos which state that the only reason they are leaving is that they cannot afford the rent.  One email states, "We simply don't have the money."  The emails make no mention of constructive eviction, because they can't do business there, or that there's water coming in, etc.

Addressing the issue of standing to collect rent: The property was deeded to Waterford Park.  Because of a Small Business Administration loan requirement, the SBA wanted the property to be managed by PS Energy group to accept rents.  He summarized that the Church of Scientology argues that because PS energy group does not have the fee simple title, they are not allowed to collect the rent, and because Waterford Park is not assigned to manage the property, they are not allowed to collect the rent either.  He said, "It took me some time to come to understand that argument."  He said that the brief seems to suggest that the arrangement is not valid because it somehow protects Waterford Park from the requirements to make repairs because the tenant would not know who the owner really is.  (This the part contained in pages 15-18 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-07-08-DefendantsMemorandumOfLawInOppositionToPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf.)  He said that OCJ-44-73 addresses this issue, and that, in this case, the owners are known.

Plaintiff is seeking $135,369.52.

(Part of this addressed an elevator that was out of operation, but I couldn't hear exactly what was said about it and don't have it in my notes.  If anyone else who was there remembers this, please add it.)

Defendant's attorney, Andrea Cantrell Jones (also their attorney for the RLUIPA case):
The estoppel certificate that Mr. Golomb referred to in his argument is in the filings that were objected to (the judge's objection based on timeliness of filing), so it is not considered to be in the record.

Defendant is not in agreement with all the facts, therefore the court should deny the motion for summary judgement.  The court mustn't weigh the facts; if there is any question, the court much deny the motion.

Defendant has submitted affidavits from 6 church members who state that the flooding damaged $50,000 worth of "religious publications," created an odor and mold, and the "church" needed to relocate.  The "church" could not just leave, they had to find another place.  "Obviously they suffered during this time with their membership... and yeah, they had financial problems during this time."  They were trying to work it out with the management while they looked for another place.

Ms. Jones pointed to statements by Stephen Rowland where he indicated there would continue to be water issues, and stated that in February 2011 after the May 2010 flooding, Waterford Park had to replace the pump, and have water extraction services during the lease period, so there would have been at least 2 other instances, had they stayed. 

Disabled members were unable to get to the "church" when the elevator was out.  (Deb Danos states in her affidavit that the elevator went out about 4 weeks before they vacated the permises: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-07-08-DefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedMaterialFacts-ExhibitA-AffidavitOfDeborahQDanos.pdf.  This would have been right around the time they had given their notice anyway.)

The church could not operate its business and just on that alone, the court should deny the motion for summary judgement.  The constructive eviction is a disputed fact, and therefore the motion for summary judgement should be denied.

She suggests that the judge should look at the photographs and think very carefully and think about how water can affect a public space.

Jones began explaining the "standing" argument, and the judge asked her, "Who would have standing <to collect the rent>?  Jones answered that she believes they would have to correct it on the documentation.  Judge Flake said "that's not your strongest argument," to which Jones answered, "No, it's not my strongest argument, but I feel the need to make it.  And I have made it in my brief with citations and I think that kind of argument is better read than said.  Hahaha." (she laughed.)

She stated that the "church" was not behind in its rent when it gave notice, and said that the business with charging for light bulb replacement is questionable because the "church" didn't authorize that, and it didn't constitute rent.  She says they did give 60 days notice. (they didn't, it was 30, when the requirement was 90 - interestingly, 60 days was the time period for notice stated in the RLUIPA deposition of Deb Danos.)

She then asked the judge to deny the motion for summary judgment.

There was some discussion that took place between Mr. Golomb and the judge, which was hard for me to hear (did anyone else hear it?).

The judge asked if the parties had tried to work things out, and Ms. Jones said they had had some back and forth discussion, but were very far away from each other.  The judge told them to give dispute resolution a try.  I question whether I heard this correctly, but I think she told them she would wait until they had tried to come to an agreement before she would make a ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

Anyone else with anything to add?  Please do.
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
Thanks EC. I would like to make one sarcastic and snide comment regarding the constructive eviction claim- it would be better directed at the current church management than their landlord. With all the financial requests piled on their members for more cash, coupled with the horror show playing out in the media, the entire world is  "an unfit place to carry on business" (excuse me, religious practice).


Offline Sarcasm Pirate

  • Merchant of Chaos
  • Posts: 174
Quote
Anyone else with anything to add?  Please do.

Nope! You are clearly a better listener than I! That is quite the perfect summary in my opinion. :D

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
Thanks EC. I would like to make one sarcastic and snide comment regarding the constructive eviction claim- it would be better directed at the current church management than their landlord. With all the financial requests piled on their members for more cash, coupled with the horror show playing out in the media, the entire world is  "an unfit place to carry on business" (excuse me, religious practice).

LOL!  I had wondered if the staff members who submitted affidavits would be in the courtroom as a show of support, much as they were in the Sandy Springs zoning meetings, but they weren't.  Deb Danos was the only representative present.  I do wonder what they are thinking about the troubles with their MEST here in Georgia, whether they are seeing it as the result of SPs on the outside and the Merchants of Chaos media.  Or something on the inside?  I'd like to believe they might be thinking about it, at least.  Deb looked very very tired. 

Come on out, Deb.  You can get some rest out here on the outside...
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline wynot

  • Supressive Person
  • Posts: 422
  • wynot
...
Come on out, Deb.  You can get some rest out here on the outside...

That is a beautiful invitation, ec. I wish Deb would see it. I wish all the Scientology staffers could see it.

'til next time;
wynot
"When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before."

Jacob Riis

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,851
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
I think this is pretty clear about what occurred on the water issues in May. Looks like the church was responsible for he damages that caused the initial water damages. And that previous and subsequent emails from Danos that they couldn't make the rent because they had no money were the primary proof of the reason for non payment and for breaking the lease and leaving.

AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN R. ROWLAND
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsBriefInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

QUOTE:

[..] On or about Monday, May 3, 2010, P S Energy e-mailed me regarding water intrusion at The Church of Scientology of Georgia, which was at that time located on the lower floor at 4480 North Shallowford Road, Dunwoody, GA 30338. I was advised that water had seeped into the southwest comer office and the back entry door of the premises. I went to the premises at the above noted
address. The carpet along the windows of the west offices and the entry area, approximately 6' into the building of the west entrance was wet. I determined the leakage (which was rain water) was caused by damage to the pump drain pipe line. It appeared that someone had either stepped on or hit the pump pipe line with enough force to break the drain pipe splice. There are two auxiliary pumps
on the west side of building 4480. One of the pumps is located at the southwest corner of the building, and the other pump is located near the middle of the building at the west entrance. Each pump has a separate drain line. These pumps are in the building storm drains and act as auxiliary water removal if the building drains are overpowered by unusually heavy rain, which occurred on or
about Monday, May 3, 2010. The drain lines for these pumps, which is standard wire reinforced flex-pipe, are on grade and clearly visible. The area the lines are located is in an area where general foot traffic rarely occurs for any reason, as the area is on the side of the building where landscaping is done to discourage foot traffic, however, someone had stepped directly on the connecting splice
between the two drain pipe sections and broke the pipe at this connection. The water was unable to be pumped out of the area as needed and simply flowed back into an already overpowered storm drain.

I had warned the Church of Scientology in the past about allowing the kids belonging to members to run around outside, especially playing on the pond banks and climbing on the waterfall. This warning was made in person. I cannot attest that such happened on the given date, only that I had warned them in the past.

By or about May 5, 2010, there was no evidence that water had come into the area, other than a slight dampness in the carpet. There was no damage to sheetrock or carpet. There was no odor to indicate mold or mildew, and people were going about their work in that area [..]
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,851
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
Mr. Golomb stated that after his client began managing the lease, there were records and emails indicating issues with having the Church of Scientology pay the rent, having cash flow issues, that they were having trouble paying the rent on a timely basis and said that they needed more time.  There were no rent payments made through April 1, 2010 to the remainder of the lease.


Did I miss something? Like an amended complaint?  According to the complaint,  it states state rent  and expenses owning beginning Aug 2010 Waterford sued for those April-July 2010 rents?
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-001.pdf
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
I'm not sure, Mary.  I believe we have all the documents filed with the exception of a massive set of utility bills introduced as an exhibit.  I did not get them because it was a huge stack, and copies of these documents incur a cost per page.  We also do not have the ones that were filed less than a week before the hearing.  It may be that I misheard what was said in court because the plaintiff's attorney was very difficult to hear (imo, he would do well to work on his presentation in the courtroom, that is, speak up louder with a more assertive tone).

I do know that in the exhibits, there was mention of the "church" not being current when the sale took place, and a special provision made for the sellers to get any of the past due rent from before April 2010 paid to them instead of the buyers: pages 30-31 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-ComplaintForBreachOfCommercialLease.pdf

I also notice that according to the lease agreement (page 23 of the above document):

Every lessee, their agents, servants, or employees, shall not ... (g) use any Premises (i) for the storage of merchandise for sale to the general public, (ii) for lodging or sleeping, (iii) for the selling or display of any goods, items or merchandise, either at wholesale or retail.

So, I guess that covers any complaint the "church" has about the books being damaged.   :D
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline Stutroup

  • Supressive Person
  • Posts: 436
So, I guess that covers any complaint the "church" has about the books being damaged.   :D

... Unless their claim is that the books were only available for sale to members. The quantity, however, would come into question.

Oh, what a tangled web they weave, with books to sell which do deceive?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 19:26 by Stutroup »

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
Oh, what a tangled web they weave, with books to sell which do deceive?

 3((:
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions