Tony O. has another follow-up on Apr 22: http://tonyortega.org/2017/04/22/scientology-denied-twice-in-wrongful-death-lawsuit-as-parents-grieve-for-tabatha-fauteux/It actually should be, "$cientology Denied Three Times". In addition to the Anti-SLAPP and Demurrer motions being denied, Oklahoma attorney Gary Richardson's Pro Hac Vice application to represent narCONon in California was denied. Apparently application forms were not filled out correctly, copies of the application were not submitted to the California Bar as required, and no proof was provided a required $50 fee was paid. Maybe Richardson just wanted and excuse not to travel to California.
Hardly. There was some sort of a mix up. The attorney in California, who submitted the application to the court for Gary Richardson,forgot to include the fee.I am surprised that you would say this about Gary Richardson. Perhaps you don't know how many cases he has successfully represented victims of Narconon in Oklahoma? Here is a link discussing some of them**BTW, Gary is the attorney for the Fauteux Family and has been all along. It is he who helped locate the CA attorney and coordinated the start the of case. Done all the while fighting Narconon et al's desperate attempts to prevent the start of trial in the Murphy case in Oklahoma.So lets try not mock one of the few but brave attorneys still fighting to help shut down this front group.If you asked Guy Fauteax if he is satisfied with his attorneys and the work they have done thus far, he would no doubt say yes. The anti-slapp matter is one of many hurdles that the attorneys will continue to overcome for this family. Its significance is far more interesting to to us critics than to the average person who has been sucked into Narconon. Believe me, I know. Victims and their loved ones either just want their lawsuit over with as quickly as possible to a win, or their refund back so they can move on so they can forget the nightmare they lived through in dealing with Narconon . Our cause is not necessarily theirs, and they are not beholden to us to have their personal involvement all over the internet.I intentionally did not contact Guy for my article* announcing the lawsuit and it's significance, which I posted the day before Tony's came out. I am not a reporter, but Tony is. I just help get information out on Narconon, like you do. But Narconon Reviews is a site created to document and help educate the public about Narconon. Narconon Reviews staff also feel it is important to first ask the attorney for permission to speak with the plaintiffs if needed, before posting a lawsuit. That way their client is briefed on what should and should not be stated, for the benefit of the case. We didn't need to in order to announce the lawsuit. Besides, we don't want to give Narconon and Scientology anything that can be used to derail the case or weaken the trust between the attorney and plaintiff.So lets not take for granted the efforts of those helping us dismantle Narconon and Scientology. Even those previous attorneys, some of whom are no longer able to put in the time and efforts to help, are the good ones deserving of the benefit of the doubt. There was a time when no attorney would take a Narconon case!! We've come a long way, BigBeard! And you have been important in making that happen~ Mary
Mary - My apologies. Aside from making me sleepy most of the time, the pain meds they have me on until I get a hip replacement get me a bit fuzzy at times. And somehow I got Gary Richardson (good guy) mixed up with $cientology attorney Gary Soter (not good guy).
I also want to copy and paste the "contract" they have you sign upon admission. I think much is self explanatory. They have you sign the contract again after you've been in detox a bit and supposedly more clear headed as many enter under the influence. I signed it again but was still on Ativan and not of sound mind. The second signing of the contract then includes an addendum. The contract is very interesting in that the claim addicts are manipulative by nature and the detox portion will determine if the facility is right for you or not, yet that addicts will try to get out of the program as it's a common avoidance technique to problems and it's imperative the addicts family don't take the side of the addict but to contact them about the program so they can be better informed...again this is all designed for monetary purposes.
Quote from: Olive18 on March 25, 2018, 01:29I also want to copy and paste the "contract" they have you sign upon admission. I think much is self explanatory. They have you sign the contract again after you've been in detox a bit and supposedly more clear headed as many enter under the influence. I signed it again but was still on Ativan and not of sound mind. The second signing of the contract then includes an addendum. The contract is very interesting in that the claim addicts are manipulative by nature and the detox portion will determine if the facility is right for you or not, yet that addicts will try to get out of the program as it's a common avoidance technique to problems and it's imperative the addicts family don't take the side of the addict but to contact them about the program so they can be better informed...again this is all designed for monetary purposes.I'm sure we'd love to see the "contract", but am not sure it would be advisable if you're considering legal action. Mary McConnell can probably better advise you on that than I can. She should be along in the next day or two and can reply to you. I will give you PM capabilities (which normally kick in after 5 posts, but I sometimes make exceptions) so you can communicate privately with her.