Reaching For the Tipping Point

Scientology Information => Scientology on a Local Level => Topic started by: Mary_McConnell on December 25, 2010, 14:39

Title: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 25, 2010, 14:39
Looks like they breached their contract in October on the 4488 North Shallowford Road GA location.
too funny.... "dec 3, 2010: No Service -DEFENDANT DEBORAH DANOS MOVED, VACANT SUITE"

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC.  DEFENDANT  10CV13242  Superior

General Civil  Superior  Waterford Park Vs. Church Of Scientology (Tb) 
23-NOV-2010  OPEN 
 Case Information           
Case: 10CV13242 (Open) WATERFORD PARK VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (TB)
Filing Date: 11/23/2010 Type: Superior General Civil
Judge: GAIL C. FLAKE Superior Court
Secondary: Breach Of Contract
   
    Parties           
Party Type
WATERFORD PARK LLC Plaintiff
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
PS ENERGY GROUP INC Plaintiff
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
J K COMPLEX LLC Assignee Of
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC. Defendant
 
   Docket Entries           
Description Filing Date Text Assoc. Party?
 NO SERVICE  03-DEC-2010  DEFENDANT DEBORAH DANOS MOVED, VACANT SUITE.

(WS)  No
 MISCELLANEOUS  24-NOV-2010  SHERIFF SERVICE SENT. (WS)  No
 COMPLAINT FILED  23-NOV-2010  FOR BREACH OF COMMERCIAL LEASE, WITH EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS. RECEIPT #661 AMOU...more  No
 REQUEST  23-NOV-2010  FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS (NW)  No
-----------------------------------------
Corporate data on file with the stata as of 2/2010:
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: 4480 N Shallowford Rd NW
Suite 100
Atlanta GA 30338 
Last Annual Registration Filed Date: 2/15/2010
Last Annual Registration Filed: 2010
 
Registered Agent
Agent Name: Danos, Deborah 
Office Address: 4480 N Shallowford Rd NW
Suite 100
Dunwoody GA 30338 
 
Officers
Title: CEO
Name: DEBORAH DANOS
Address: 4480 N Shallowford Rd NW
Suite 100
Atlanta GA 30338

Title: CFO
Name: Antoinette Ady
Address: 4480 N Shallowford Rd NW
Suite 100
Atlanta GA 30338
 
Title: Secretary
Name: Susan Multz
Address: 4480 N Shallowford Rd NW
Suite 100
Atlanta GA 30338

******* Better update this info, Debbie :)
----------------------
FYI, Deborah Danos is having some other financial problems :

DANOS  DEBORAH   DEFENDANT  10M92513  Magistrate Civil Suits  Magistrate
Citifinancial Services Inc Vs Deborah Danos  22-NOV-2010  OPEN
Case: 10M92513 (Open) CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES INC VS DEBORAH DANOS
Filing Date: 11/22/2010 Type: Magistrate Civil Suits
Judge: Berryl A. Anderson Magistrate Court
Secondary: General Civil Other
Tertiary:
 Docket Entries           
Description Filing Date Text Assoc. Party?
 SERVICE, PERSONAL  24-NOV-2010  JCW  Yes
 FILING FEE  22-NOV-2010  AO-25.00 SER CK#1046344553  No
 PAYMENT  22-NOV-2010  A Payment of -$76.50 was made on receipt MCMA204214.
-------------------------

Wonder what they owe.....
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 11:21
I guess that explains why they moved so suddenly. 

The move was discussed here: Local cults little mission (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,5790.0.html)

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 11:44
Wonder what they owe.....

We'll see if we can find out.   ;)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on December 26, 2010, 11:55
So  much to read. Thanks, Mary!


Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on December 26, 2010, 13:42
 ST is pleased with this latest revelation. To fight a battle on 2 fronts is one thing. 3 fronts? lol.Protip. Any law firm representing the cult better be prepared to file suit against their former client (sci) for nonpayment of services rendered. The proverbial well is may go dry. ;D

 For a group of social misfits that claim to be small in numbers here in Georgia, They do have a very large amount of law suits against them. I will glady send this oh so nice information to the city of Sandy Springs attorney. Hell, I will also send the information to the cults current landlord.

 Public record is a matter of public concern. :D

 http://legalblogatlanta.com/?p=1058

Quote
Commercial landlords in Georgia have no duty to mitigate. Thus, a commercial landlord can simply allow a property to remain vacant until the end of the lease term and sue the tenant for the unpaid rent.  Further, almost all commercial leases we review have acceleration clauses that allow the landlord, upon breach of the lease, to immediately bring suit for all of the future unpaid rent.  Typically, these leases will also have clauses allowing for the payment of interest and the landlord’s legal fees.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 18:28
Here's some more information on this story - this is the shore story, I guess:

Questions by Ms. Laurel E. Henderson of Henderson & Hundley, P.C. in the RLUIPA case.  Answers by Deb Danos, Director of Special Affairs for Church of Scientology of Georgia.  Starting on page 34.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-1.pdf
Quote
18 Q Okay. Is the Shallowford location owned by
19 Georgia Scientology or it leased?
20 A No. It's a leased space.
21 Q And is there a date when that lease runs out?
22 A We are actually on a month-to-month with a
23 60-day notice requirement.
24 Q Has the lease been on a month-to-month the
25 entire time, or was it initially for a term?
1 A We had a six-month term.
2 Q Okay. All right. Is it the plan of Georgia
3 Scientology to stay in the Dunwoody facility until it
4 can occupy the Sandy Springs facility?
5 A I don't know.

Then:
Quote
17 Q Has there been any discussion among people at
18 the Georgia Scientology Church of a second interim
19 location that's larger than Dunwoody while they're
20 waiting for Sandy Springs to be ready?
21 A There has been some discussion about the
22 possibility of relocating, but mainly due to the
23 building we occupy having changed owners. And the owner
24 may want to occupy. So we may be forced to move.
25 Q Okay.
1 A But that is in the air.
2 Q Okay.
3 A And, you know, we would rather not have to
4 move and move and move.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 29, 2010, 17:37
Keep your reading glasses on, there's more.

 ||||9000||||


Waterford Park, LLC and PS Energy Group, Inc., Assignees of J K Complex, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia corporation,
Defendant
Civil Action File No. 10CV13242-4

Filing Cover sheet:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-000.pdf

Marshall's/Sheriff's Entry of Service; Summons; Complaint for Breach of Commercial Lease:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-001.pdf

Exhibit 1 - Lease Agreement, 4480 North Shallowford Rd., the Church of Scientology of Georgia, Suite 100:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-002.pdf

Exhibit 2 - First Lease Amendment; Official Notice of Intent to Vacate 4480 North Shallowford Rd. Suite 100:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-003.pdf

Exhibit 3 - Rental Certification and Cross Indemnity Agreement and Exhibits:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-004.pdf

Exhibit 4 - Itemized Statement of Debt:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-005.pdf

Exhibit 5 - Itemized Statement of Additional Building Expenses:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-006.pdf

Exhibit 6 - Invoice from Waterford Park, LLC to Church of Scientology; Invoice from Perimeter Solutions & Maintenance to Waterford Park, LLC:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-007.pdf

Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-008.pdf

Magistrate Court of DeKalb County
Plaintiff: CitiFinancial Services, Inc.
Defendant: Deborah Danos

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10M92513-000.pdf
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on December 29, 2010, 18:10
Wow, $116,865.23 in rent and other fees! I suspect that the lighting invoice is an interesting story.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 30, 2010, 22:23
Good job on getting these docs!!

CoS and Deb Danos are in noncompliance with the Georgia Secretary of State for not updating Registered Agent contact information. Just more evidence of the state of confusion this Ideal Org stuff is thrusting on the local org.

We should all write Deb at her home and suggest she run while she can, lol
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on January 17, 2011, 20:28
Quote
Case ID      10CV13242
Description      SERVICE, NOTORIOUS
Docket Filing Date      13-JAN-2011
Associated Party      None
Text      
DEFENDANT DEBORAH DANOS WAS SERVED BY LEAVING A COPY OF ACTION WITH CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GA INC. ON JANUARY 6, 2011. (WS)

Tick tock, Deb.

Whatever will CoS of Georgia do?  Become involved in yet another lawsuit?  Pay up?  Ignore it and hope it will go away?

I wonder if the staff member who recieved the service on behalf of Deb realized that they were in such a state of arrears? 
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on January 18, 2011, 19:55
It must have been an unhatted/trained staff member! Staff are trained to NOT accept anything and to leave it to the registered agent and lawyers ( supposedly 'keeping enturbulation off the org lines'. She must be pissed, lol
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 19, 2011, 09:54

Whatever will CoS of Georgia do? 

 If I where a betting man, I would say someone is going to meet the preverbal underside of a bus.Thrown to the wolves. Hung out to dry. Made an example of. Avoided like the plague etc.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on January 21, 2011, 09:11
Both the rental agreement and the amended rental agreement (Exhibits 1 and 2) clearly state that the term of the lease is from Nov. 2007 through April 2011. Both of these documents were signed by Deb Danos, as president of the CoS GA. Yet in her deposition in other litigation, she states that they are currently on a month to month tenancy with sixty days notice. This statement is predicated on the fact that there was a change of ownership in the property. However, Paragraph 19 of the lease states that the sale of the property (unless by forclosure or deed in lieu of forclosure) is subject to the lease.

Without looking at the GA penal code, it is difficult to say whether this would amount to perjury, but Danos has clearly lied under oath. Hopefully, attorney Henderson will be apprised of this fact.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on January 21, 2011, 21:11
Thanks for the update, Skydog!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on January 22, 2011, 10:32
Thank you, skydog!

There is also the matter of a continuing garishment related to a property on West Peachtree St. in Atlanta that they leased and left over 10 years ago:

Quote
Case Information             
Case:   99G71045 (Open)   COORDINATED PROPERTIES INC VS CHURCH OF SC
Filing Date:   03/04/1999   Type: State Garnishment
Judge:   WINSTON P BETHEL   State Court
Secondary:   Regular Garnishment
Tertiary:   
Related Cases:    Original Garnishment Amount - $110,782.87

Party     Type
COORINATED PROPERTIES INC    Plaintiff
    JOHNSON SR, MICHAEL R    Attorney
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY    Defendant
FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK    Garnishee

Seems this is a pattern that repeats itself. 

I imagine (I am speculating) that Fidelity was their bank at the time, and although they may still have an account there, that they aren't using it for their primary bank anymore.  I would think that they have taken in $110,782.87 over an 11 year period that could have gone to pay off that debt.  Now they have another $116,000 debt to pay off. 

If I where a betting man, I would say someone is going to meet the preverbal underside of a bus.Thrown to the wolves. Hung out to dry. Made an example of. Avoided like the plague etc.

No doubt, one person (cough*deb*cough) will probably be blamed for this, but it appears to be standard operating procedure for the "church". 

Without looking at the GA penal code, it is difficult to say whether this would amount to perjury, but Danos has clearly lied under oath. Hopefully, attorney Henderson will be apprised of this fact.

I feel certain she'll become aware of it in the near future, if she isn't already.   ;)

Question for you, skydog.  If I owed large amounts money to multiple companies, I would expect that those companies could attach or put a lien on any of my assets to recoup their money.   Is this something that happens in a business setting, or is garnishment the only way for these companies to get their money?  Or am I way off base here?

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on March 04, 2011, 11:45
A certified copy of this lawsuit has been entered into the RLUIPA lawsuit by the Defendant: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.0.pdf

Quote
1 Attached as Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a Complaint filed against Plaintiff in Dekalb Superior Court. The record of the Complaint has been truncated for convenience. Specifically, included is the Dekalb County Superior Court’s Certification, the first page of the Complaint, and Exhibit 1 and 2 to the Complaint in their entirety.

and Deb Danos has been called out for being untruthful in her sworn deposition testimony:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf
Quote
Contrary to the sworn deposition testimony of Deborah Danos, the lease for the North Shallowford Road property was for a three (3) year and seven (7) month term ending on April 15, 2011, subject to an earlier termination provided certain conditions were met. Compare Exh. 2, p. 3, 17 with Doc. 44-1, p. 34-35. The lease demonstrates that, absent termination which could not have immediately occurred due to necessary construction at the new facility, Plaintiff was obligated to pay this rent irrespective of the City’s zoning decision.

How interesting it is when two lawsuits come together.   8-^*
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on March 04, 2011, 15:11

How interesting it is when two lawsuits come together.   8-^*

 Stay tuned for part 3! ;)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on March 04, 2011, 20:37
A certified copy of this lawsuit has been entered into the RLUIPA lawsuit by the Defendant: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.0.pdf

Quote
1 Attached as Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a Complaint filed against Plaintiff in Dekalb Superior Court. The record of the Complaint has been truncated for convenience. Specifically, included is the Dekalb County Superior Court’s Certification, the first page of the Complaint, and Exhibit 1 and 2 to the Complaint in their entirety.

and Deb Danos has been called out for being untruthful in her sworn deposition testimony:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf
Quote
Contrary to the sworn deposition testimony of Deborah Danos, the lease for the North Shallowford Road property was for a three (3) year and seven (7) month term ending on April 15, 2011, subject to an earlier termination provided certain conditions were met. Compare Exh. 2, p. 3, 17 with Doc. 44-1, p. 34-35. The lease demonstrates that, absent termination which could not have immediately occurred due to necessary construction at the new facility, Plaintiff was obligated to pay this rent irrespective of the City’s zoning decision.

How interesting it is when two lawsuits come together.   8-^*

:)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on March 18, 2011, 23:10
Church of Scientology of Georgia has filed a reply and a counterclaim: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4-009.pdf

Apparently, the staff member who received the service at the Winters Chapel location was Deb herself.

They say:
"Plaintiffs have acted with the utmost bad faith, have been stubbornly litigious, and have caused Defendant unnecessary trouble and expense...."

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.   <--:D-->
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on March 19, 2011, 09:46
I guess someone is benefiting from all of these suits. $O$ $O$
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on March 19, 2011, 12:19
A certified copy of this lawsuit has been entered into the RLUIPA lawsuit by the Defendant: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.0.pdf

Quote
1 Attached as Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a Complaint filed against Plaintiff in Dekalb Superior Court. The record of the Complaint has been truncated for convenience. Specifically, included is the Dekalb County Superior Court’s Certification, the first page of the Complaint, and Exhibit 1 and 2 to the Complaint in their entirety.

and Deb Danos has been called out for being untruthful in her sworn deposition testimony:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf
Quote
Contrary to the sworn deposition testimony of Deborah Danos, the lease for the North Shallowford Road property was for a three (3) year and seven (7) month term ending on April 15, 2011, subject to an earlier termination provided certain conditions were met. Compare Exh. 2, p. 3, 17 with Doc. 44-1, p. 34-35. The lease demonstrates that, absent termination which could not have immediately occurred due to necessary construction at the new facility, Plaintiff was obligated to pay this rent irrespective of the City’s zoning decision.

How interesting it is when two lawsuits come together.   8-^*

:) Thanks to Skydog's observation and .... , lol!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on June 29, 2011, 14:15
There are some new documents in this case below.


Previously seen, but renamed for better organization:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-GeneralCivilFilingInformationForm.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-RequestForAdmissionOfFactsAndGenuinenessOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-ComplaintForBreachOfCommercialLease.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-Summons.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-01-06-EntryOfService.pdf


New:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-02-04-Rule52CertificateDefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsFirstRequest.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-09-Rule52CertificateOfService-DefendantsFirstInterrogatoriesNoticeToProduceAndRequestForProductionOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-Rule52CertificateAndPlaintiffsFirstInterrogatoriesAndRequestForProductionOfDocumentsAndThings.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsBriefInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsStatementOfTheoryOfRecoveryInSupportOfTheirMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedMaterialFactsInSupportOfTheirMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsRequestForOralArgument.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-02-NoticeOfHearing.pdf

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on June 30, 2011, 08:22
There are some new documents in this case below.


Previously seen, but renamed for better organization:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-GeneralCivilFilingInformationForm.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-RequestForAdmissionOfFactsAndGenuinenessOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-ComplaintForBreachOfCommercialLease.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2010-11-23-Summons.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-01-06-EntryOfService.pdf


New:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-02-04-Rule52CertificateDefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsFirstRequest.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-09-Rule52CertificateOfService-DefendantsFirstInterrogatoriesNoticeToProduceAndRequestForProductionOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-Rule52CertificateAndPlaintiffsFirstInterrogatoriesAndRequestForProductionOfDocumentsAndThings.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsBriefInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsStatementOfTheoryOfRecoveryInSupportOfTheirMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedMaterialFactsInSupportOfTheirMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsRequestForOralArgument.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-02-NoticeOfHearing.pdf

Well, now. It appears the LoL firm of Dillard & Galloway are feasting @ the so called churches "Cash" limited item salad bar. I say, GO GO GO Woodson and his agents.

Bill them into the frackin stone age.

It was the MOLDS fault all along! We lurved the building for years, But now? Not so much  :-D^\^\

Question. Can a so called religion or non-profit file for bankruptcy protection within the state of Ga during litigation? If so Dillard & Galloway better be prepared. (:E(
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on July 02, 2011, 01:24
ethercat!!  ||||9000|||| L-O-: When it rains, it pours! Thanks!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on July 04, 2011, 09:21

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsBriefInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

:D

Counsel for the plaintiff in this case should seek information regarding the timing I.E date/time a lease agreement was agreed upon and signed by the C of S of GA and the owner of the property CURRENTLY being leased by the defendant in this civil case.

Counsel for the plaintiff within this civil suit should perhaps explore dates and times defendant (C of S of GA) made first inquires into the leasing of currently occupied property.

Cross referencing these dates and times may show INTENT C of S of GA was going to vacate Shallowford rd property long before alleged neglect I.E water damage etc ever occurred thus makes defendants claims of harm and impediment to operate null and void.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on July 05, 2011, 09:24
Not in response to you ST ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWLjgPTR_c
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on July 05, 2011, 10:05
Very funny, mefree :)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on July 05, 2011, 11:09
Not in response to you ST ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWLjgPTR_c
Well it should be! 8-O)--|#| :-D^\^\
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on July 24, 2011, 10:51
Case Information              
Case:   10CV13242 (Open)   WATERFORD PARK VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (TB)
Filing Date:   11/23/2010   Type: Superior General Civil
Judge:   GAIL C. FLAKE   Superior Court


Uh, oh.  Something to be aware of:  http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/iteam/iteam-dekalb-judge-flake-20110613-es

Quote
I-Team: DeKalb Co. Judge Gail Flake

Updated: Monday, 13 Jun 2011, 6:36 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 13 Jun 2011, 6:26 PM EDT

Dale Russell

By MYFOXATLANTA STAFF/myfoxatlanta

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. - A political bombshell was dropped in a DeKalb County courtroom on Monday. A former district attorney testified that some 13 years ago, he helped conduct a bribery investigation of a lawyer who is now a DeKalb County judge.

The prosecutor is J. Tom Morgan, and the superior court judge is Gail Flake.  The testimony came up in a civil case in which Morgan argued that Judge Flake should have recused herself because of his investigation.

FOX 5 SENIOR I-TEAM REPORTER DALE RUSSELL HAS THE FULL STORY.  CLICK ON THE VIDEO ABOVE TO WATCH HIS REPORT.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on July 24, 2011, 17:38
 ooo}
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on July 30, 2011, 15:24
New documents:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-24-Rule52CertificateNoticeOfDepositionOfANon-PartyWitness.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-30-Rule52Certificate2ndNoticeOfDepositionOfANon-PartyWitness.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-30-Rule52CertificateDefendants2ndInterrogatoriesNoticeToProduceAndRequestForProductionOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-06-30-Rule52CertificateDefendantsResponseToPlaintiffs1stInterrogatoriesAnd1stRequestForProductionOfDocumentsAndThings.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendants seem to be arguing that no one had authorization to accept rent payments, therefore they didn't have to pay.   ::)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on July 31, 2011, 01:23
Moar to read!!
Interesting stuff. Do we have a copy of their lease? Where I come from, commercial tenant is responsible to inform landlord immediately and in writing within 48 hrs, of any problems that would effect the habitibility of the premises. Many leases make the tenants responsible for all repairs. Curious what thir lease says. Anyone can say they complained but losing $50,000 in books and materials , well, they should have seen that coming. Why were the books on the floor to begin with  ::)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on July 31, 2011, 09:08
Moar to read!!
Interesting stuff. Do we have a copy of their lease? Where I come from, commercial tenant is responsible to inform landlord immediately and in writing within 48 hrs, of any problems that would effect the habitibility of the premises. Many leases make the tenants responsible for all repairs. Curious what thir lease says. Anyone can say they complained but losing $50,000 in books and materials , well, they should have seen that coming. Why were the books on the floor to begin with  ::)

I believe there are 2 leases somewhere in the earlier documents, an original and then an amended when they acquired more space - possibly as attachments to the original complaint.  As to books on the floor - I think it's just another "play the victim" act to try to squirm out of paying rent.  Either that, or they're just plain stupid. 

This is another instance of trying to place responsibility on others for their own negligence (and blame, when the responsibility is not met).  We see this in the RLUIPA case (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,3137.0.html) where they try to place the blame on the city of Sandy Springs for the poor condition and lowered value of their $5.6 million building, saying it's because Sandy Springs did not allow them to inhabit the building with the additional floor they wanted, when in fact, when they own a property, it is their responsibility to maintain it whether or not they're using it.  As it is, the building is sitting there with holes in the roof, not helped any by recent wind and rain, with squirrels running in and out through an open vent pipe. (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6449.msg17808.html#msg17808)

If the flooding was so bad in May, why did they not give notice in May?  Then they would have had the required 90 day notice.  I'm not buying their statement that a sufficient replacement building was so hard to find, especially when there are loads of commercial properties sitting vacant on the market, waiting to be leased.

This link posted earlier in this thread by SocialTransparency becomes relevant again: Thinking about breaking a commercial lease in Georgia? (http://legalblogatlanta.com/?p=1058)

I'm surprised they haven't tried to blame this on those distracting protesters who were out in front of the building every month.    ;)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on July 31, 2011, 20:06
Thanks. Nothing surprises me, lol

I'm looking forward to the plaintiffs' replies to all that, lol
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on July 31, 2011, 21:04
They were constructively evicted, that's the ticket.

They didn't realize their merchandise should be moved after repeated flooding - that's it.

Although a lease was signed and some rent paid, it is no longer valid - yeah...

The lights were replaced without their permission - that's it.  M-|V|-M
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on August 01, 2011, 18:19
I thought this taped interview between Lawrence Wollersheim and Jesse Prince might be of interest.
 
Quote
Tape 1, August 16, 1998

Lawrence Wollersheim and Jesse Prince L: Testing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Today is the 16th of August, 1998. This is Lawrence Wollersheim, about 5:00 in the afternoon, sitting with Jesse Prince. We’re just going to talk about his time in Scientology and ask him different things. And this is my voice, the other voice will be Jesse’s.

J:  The voice he’s referring to is this one right here.

L:  OK. Tell me, the other day we were talking about Scientology tampering with judges.  You mentioned that you had been interviewed by the FBI once before and that they had asked you about it but you didn’t tell them what was going on.  Were you in Scientology?

J: Yes I was. I told them the truth as I understood it at that time.

L: You told them what you knew at that time, the truth as you understood it at that time.  It was concerning a tampering with a judge. What was that judge’s name?

J: Judge Mary Anna Fouser.

L: This was in a case?

J: A RICO suit brought against David Mayo, the AAC.  CSC and RTC brought the action.

L: What specifically did Scientology do to tamper with this judge, and if you can just try to describe what your knowledge is, and who was involved in doing it and if you know what they specifically did, or you don’t know what they did.  Kind of, a person, an action, as much detail
as you can have.

J: What I would like to do is just start at the beginning.  Any time a judge appears in a case in Scientology, good, bad, or indifferent, a common practice is to do an ODC, particularly if he’s a hostile judge, or is perceived to be a hostile judge.  ODC means overt data collection.  What would happen is, you’d get some guys normally from OSA Invest, and they would go and get as much public record as they could about that particular judge.

L: Could you state what OSA Invest is?

J: Office of Special Affairs Investigation Unit.  It’s kind of like a low scale FBI investigotory group that investigates enemies and critics of Scientology.

L: Great, go on.

J: They do an ODC.  If it goes further and the judge is really hostile, what they will do is go and start interviewing the associates of the judge, like trying to find out information in an innocuous way, or in a harsh way, to create intimidation.  That’s a common practice, they do it with every judge.  With Mary Anna Fouser, when we got on this case, an ODC was done on her.  They kind of looked up her records as a judge, looked up her cases, found out where she lives, everything that they possibly could.  Through lawyers and investigators, found as much personal information as they could about the judge, what she likes, what she doesn’t like, this kind of thing.  Before any case is started, you have the profile of the judge, you have a profile of a prosecutor, if it
is a prosecutor, or a profile of the opposing litigating attorneys......

......L: What they picked up in their investigation?

J: To back the judges off.

L: This is an important subtlety, because if they are gathering information about the judge’s sex life, his business life, his credit, anything that would embarrass or discredit him, then giving it to his associates.

J: Let me finish.  They would do ODC and CDC.

L: CDC is what?

J: Covert data collection.

L: Tell us about covert data collection.

J: Now ODC, you can go and get public records; CDC is going around and interviewing friends, associates, somehow getting ahold of bank records, somehow getting ahold of phone records.

L: When you say somehow, would they obtain these in a legal manner, to the best of your knowledge?

J: No. They would pay people to do it for them.

L: They would pay someone else.

J: …like a private investigator, if he said, "I can do this, I can get this."

L: I can get illegal bank records, illegal phone records.  They would knowingly pay him, he would tell the church, "I can get these illegal records," and the church would pay them.  The people that would pay them are the attorneys.

J: It would come through OSA, and the attorneys would pay the private investigators for investigation.  It was like it was all legal, it looks all perfectly fine, but it would go from OSA to the attorneys they hired to the investigators, and that’s how they get their information.

L: Would the investigators tell the attorneys that they could get these illegal bank records and phone records, or would they tell…       

J: Let me lay it out for you, OK.  This is how it would be done.  They had certain investigators, it’s like a network, Gene Ingram being the main one.  He knows and works with all of these others.  The thing would happen like this, "Hey Gene, it would be nice if we could get his bank records or his phone numbers to see who he’s calling."  Or whatever else.

more at http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/jtall.txt
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on August 01, 2011, 23:12
Thanks for the  ||||9000||||. Tht should be read by every wavering member.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on August 22, 2011, 18:24
And yet more documents:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-03-Rule52CertificatePlaintiffsResponsesToSecondInterrogatoriesAndRequestForProductionOfDocuments.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-09-DefendantsFirstSupplementAndAmendmentToItsResponseToPlaintiffsStatementOfUndisputedFactsl.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-09-DefendantsNoticeOfFilingPhotographs.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-09-RequestToFileOriginalDiscoveryMaterials.pdf

Tick-tock.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on August 22, 2011, 19:04
 ooo}
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on August 23, 2011, 08:57
As I understand Georgia landlord-tenant law, the complaints made by the church regarding flooding are not relevant to the non-payment of rent. While a landlord has the duty to repair any known defects, the tenant must first advise the landlord of the problem. No duty to repair exists until the defect is made known to the landlord. If the landlord fails to fix the problem, the tenant cannot withhold rent may repair the damages himself and recover the costs of these repairs from the landlord. See, http://www.valdosta.edu/~sostapsk/LandT.HTM

The substance of the church's defenses and counter-claim is that they were constructively evicted. Constructive eviction under Georgia law means that the leased premises cannot be used at all for the purposes designated under the lease. Mere inconvenience the tenant will not be enough. Constructive eviction can mean the tenant has been denied access to the property by the actions of the landlord in changing the locks while the lease is still in effect. Tenants in recent years have tried to use mold buildup, poisonous spiders, and building code violations as a possible constructive eviction action against the landlord to get out of a lease. In the majority of cases these defenses fail.

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Stutroup on August 23, 2011, 21:21
Splendiferous summation, Skydog!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on August 24, 2011, 09:50
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





Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on August 24, 2011, 20:43
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
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on August 24, 2011, 21:52
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.   ;)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on August 24, 2011, 22:17
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."
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on August 25, 2011, 08:44
 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.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on August 25, 2011, 16:13
 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.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on August 25, 2011, 17:08
Probably renting. Depending on how long they have been together in GA, could be common-law marriage.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on August 26, 2011, 07:59
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.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on August 26, 2011, 10:42
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?
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on August 26, 2011, 19:36
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 (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 (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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on August 27, 2011, 06:52
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).

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Sarcasm Pirate on August 27, 2011, 21:12
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
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on August 27, 2011, 21:28
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...
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: wynot on August 28, 2011, 09:31
...
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
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on August 28, 2011, 18:11
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 [..]
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on August 28, 2011, 21:20
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
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on September 04, 2011, 10:36
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
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Stutroup on September 04, 2011, 13:47
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?
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on September 04, 2011, 18:37
Oh, what a tangled web they weave, with books to sell which do deceive?

 3((:
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on September 06, 2011, 22:25
Thanks, EC. You've done enough and explained enough to satisfy my curiosity, lol

Thanks for the chuckles, stutroup  :)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: thetanbuster on November 13, 2011, 20:49
Allright, I have tried to pay attention throughout this delicious story...is there a final judgement or settlement doc?  Color me tired, I maty have missed it.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on November 13, 2011, 22:55
Quote
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.

This is where things stood as of August.

The case is still showing active on the docket with no further updates since that time.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on November 22, 2011, 20:16
Here is the latest from the docket:

 LETTER     22-NOV-2011     DEAR JUDGE FLAKE FROM ANDREA CANTRELL JONES.
 REPORT     21-NOV-2011     ADR STATUS REPORT. NON-SETTLEMENT THROUGH THE DRC (Dispute Resolution Center)
 LETTER     15-NOV-2011     DEAR JUDGE FLAKE FROM JEFF GOLOMB.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on November 22, 2011, 20:54
Guess this case is going to be heading to trial, unless the judge sends it back again to ADR.

I don't blame the plaintiffs for not giving in at ADR. Better to let the judge decide and have the decision on record.

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on November 23, 2011, 11:02
Guess this case is going to be heading to trial, unless the judge sends it back again to ADR.

I don't blame the plaintiffs for not giving in at ADR. Better to let the judge decide and have the decision on record.

Yes, and then good luck to the plaintiffs on collecting their money.  In the past, garnishments have been required, and in one case from 1999, the garnishment is still in effect. 

From earlier in this thread: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6309.msg15586.html#msg15586

Of course, this time they own property that a lien can be put on - 5395 Roswell Rd., the "Ideal" Org. 
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on November 23, 2011, 22:13
Case ID      10CV13242
Description      ORDER FILED
Docket Filing Date      22-NOV-2011
Text      
     ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SIGNED BY JUDGE GAIL C. FLAKE.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on November 27, 2011, 10:34
I wonder what the Judge's order states.  I hope it is one that instructs the plaintiff to file summary judgement order with details of what the judgement is and terms of payment are, lol

Scientology's attorney wrote the judge directly afterwards"

Docket Text Details
Case ID   10CV13242
Description   LETTER
Docket Filing Date   22-NOV-2011
Associated Party   None
Text     
  DEAR JUDGE FLAKE FROM ANDREA CANTRELL JONES. (WS)

Begging for mercy? haha!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on November 27, 2011, 15:28
It must be hard for Ms. Cantrell Jones being the cult's attorney.  She's also an attorney in the RLUIPA case.   :D
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: thetanbuster on November 27, 2011, 21:14


Of course, this time they own property that a lien can be put on - 5395 Roswell Rd., the "Ideal" Org.

Or DO they own it, doesn't property purchased go to the landlord's office?  Anyway, a judgement would be nice, and a full page ad in the AJC purchased by some of us would be extra sweet!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on November 28, 2011, 04:51
Or DO they own it, doesn't property purchased go to the landlord's office?  Anyway, a judgement would be nice, and a full page ad in the AJC purchased by some of us would be extra sweet!

According to the State of Georgia property records, they own it, but who knows what kind of behind-the-scenes agreements they have with the corp. offices?   And is that sort of thing legal?

A full page ad in the AJC?   Thetanbuster, you've got a wicked side.  >:D

Only if it's in the Religion section - after all, that's the only part of the paper where Hubbard wanted the "church" to be mentioned.  ;)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: SocialTransparency on November 30, 2011, 18:00


 a full page ad in the AJC purchased by some of us would be extra sweet!
Your thoughts,I like them!
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 13, 2011, 19:42
I think the judge signed the original Plaintiff Motion for summary judgement with later suppliments, after ADR failed to progress.

Hope to see a copy of the judge's order of Nov 22 ORDER FILED  22-NOV-2011  ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SIGNED BY JUDGE GAIL C. FLAKE before it becomes protected and unavailable.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 15, 2011, 19:44
Here are some more.

The date is unknown on this one because it is missing pages at the end, where the date is usually stamped by the court when it is filed.  In fact, it may be part of something else whose date could be obtained from the docket, but it is unclear to me what it might be a part of.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-25-PlaintiffsResponsesToDefendants2ndInterrogatoriesAndRequestForProduction-incomplete.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-08-30-OrderToADRProgram.pdf

This letter from Jeff Golomb is also incomplete.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-11-15-PlaintiffsDearJudgeFlake-incomplete.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-11-21-ADRStatusReport.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-11-21-DefendantsDearJudgeFlake.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-11-22-OrderOnPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

We can check up on the missing pages next time someone goes to the courthouse.  Not sure if they got missed by the court employee while he was making the copies, if they're missing from the record altogether, or if they may be misplaced elsewhere in the file.

Another interesting little factoid is that the file seems to spend a lot of time in the judge's office.   ooo:/
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 15, 2011, 22:00

Ok, from my limited brain functioning this evening, and my limited legal knowledge, I take it to mean that the Plaintiff lawyer probably filied another motion to for summary judgement since Nov 22 qnd that is why the judge has the file so long.

Most of the summary judgement was denied except for several key important ponts in favor of the plainfiff. Like the CoS argument about the lease. Well, they were supposed to give 90- days notice and didn't. Facts were proven.  Points ten, twelve, thirteen were affirmed, plus one counterclaim.

One had to go and look at both the defendent's answers by number ( defenses) to the original May 2011 Motion For Summary Judgement, and the Plaintiff's actual Brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgement
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-05-13-PlaintiffsBriefInSupportOfPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf
Not sure which pdf is of the defendents response to first motion or what the counter claim # IV is. Too tired to look anyway, the court said:

[..] Under our law and Rules, however, nothing prevents either party from again seeking summary judgment on these or other issues before the matter comes to trial. But see USCR 6.6 (West 2010) ("Motions for summary judgment shall be filed sufficiently early so as not to delay the trial. No trial shall be continued by the delayed filing of a motion for summary judgment.").


"Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (filed
May 13, 2011) shall be GRANTED as to Defendant's Tenth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Defenses
and Count IV of its counterclaim, and DENIED as to all other issues and claims"
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10CV13242-4/10CV13242-4-2011-11-22-OrderOnPlaintiffsMotionForSummaryJudgement.pdf

So I think this is why the folder was on the judge's desk. She's probably reading a resubmitted Motion for Summary Judgement and CoS Defenses to it , since they failed to resolve matters at ADR. It's a complicated case where there were multiple errors in original and subsequent filings by both parties and the judge gave them the opportunity , both, to file again for summary judgement on other points ( and get it right this time) and reply in advance of any court trial date ( of which there shows none on the state site).

Either that or they may well have decided to have the judge act as jury and she is studying the case in advance.
Case: 10CV13242 (Open) WATERFORD PARK VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (TB)
Filing Date: 11/23/2010 Type: Superior General Civil
Judge: GAIL C. FLAKE Superior Court
Secondary: Breach Of Contract
http://www.ojs.dekalbga.org/servlet/page?_pageid=65,289&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dcms.exact_last=ON&dcms.spriden_id=%402485129&dcms.case_type=&dcms.to_date=12%2F31%2F2090&dcms.from_date=01%2F01%2F1900&dcms.last_name=WATERFORD%20PARK%20LLC&dcms.first_name=&dcms.case_status=ALL&dcms.cort_code=&dcms.soundex=&dcms.case_id=10CV13242&dcms.ent_code=COURTS&dcms.pstart=0
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on December 16, 2011, 06:59
I don't have the time to look at this new stuff, but the Co$'s 10th, 12th and 13th special defenses are out. Also, count 4 of the counterclaim. That means that legally, there is no basis for these defenses and claims and the jury (or judge) will not hear evidence on these matters. When I get a chance, I will go through the pleadings.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on December 16, 2011, 07:23
Thanks, Mary and Skydog.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 16, 2011, 12:32
Thanks for comments, Mary and skydog.  I'll be interested to hear your (skydog's) comments when you have time.

Here's what I get from the Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.  (You can let me know if I'm off-base; I'm an amateur at this).

The judge goes to great length to lay out what she cannot consider for ruling on the Motion.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on May 13, 2011, and delivered by mail to Defendant.

The party opposing the Motion is required to respond within 30 days (June 15, since the motion was mailed?).  Defendant did not respond until July 8, 2011 (3 weeks late), nor did it ask for an extension.  It also did not make any excuses or give any explanations for this.

Meanwhile, before the 30 day period was over, on May 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a supplement with additional evidence which contained new arguments.  Plaintiff did not ask for permission to add new evidence, which it could have done if the judge or defendant allowed.

On June 2, 2011, the Court scheduled the hearing for August 25, 2011.

On July 7, 2011, Defendent deposed Stephen Rowland.

On August 9, 2011, Defendent filed the Rowland deposition (non-certified) and 10 photographs.  They did not ask for permission to add this evidence.

On August 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed new arguments and evidence, which it did not ask for permission to do. 

The hearing was held on August 25, 2011.  The law requires that anything considered at the hearing to have been in the record for at least 30 days prior to the hearing (by July 25, 2011).  At the hearing, Defendant objected to the Court considering anything filed by the Plaintiff after the May 13 Motion was made. 

Before the ruling (the Order on Motion for Summary Judgment) was made on November 22, 2011,  on November 8, 2011 Plaintiff submitted new arguments and evidence, and a request for reconsideration in the form of a letter.   This was before there was even an order made to reconsider.  (This is apparently on the missing page 2 of the Plaintiff's Dear Judge Flake letter, see footnote 5 on pages 5-6.)

The judge concludes that she cannot consider:

Plaintiffs' August 18, 2011 filing because it was submitted less than 30 days before the hearing and without permission.

Defendant's July 9, 2011 Response in Opposition because it was filed more than 30 days after the Motion, and no extension was requested, no excuses made, nor was a "retroactive" extension sought.  The judge could exercise discretion in allowing this if any of these existed, but they do not.

Defendant's August 9, 2011 First Supplement.  Non-movants are allowed to file affidavits in opposition up until the date of the hearing, but in this case, they had already waived their right to submit additional opposition by being tardy with their initial July 8 opposition.  She cites: "[T]he effect of an untimely response to a motion for summary judgment is the loss of the responding party's right to present evidence in opposition to the motion."

Plaintiffs "First Supplement," filed on May 27, 2011 both corrects an error or oversight in the original Motion, and introduces "new facts".  The Court allows the correction, but disregards the "new facts".

Judge Flake summarizes:
Quote
In conclusion, then, the Court in ruling upon Plaintiffs May 13, 2011 motion for summary judgment must disregard as untimely the Second Affidavit of Carolee Parker (filed May 27, 2011), Defendant's response in opposition (filed July 8, 2011), Plaintiffs "Second Supplement" to its motion for summary judgment (filed August 18, 2011), and Plaintiffs' November 8, 2011 unsolicited "letter brief."

This took 11 of the 18 pages.

"Upon motion for summary judgment, it is the movant's burden to show that no jury question remains and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Even though Defendant waived its right to oppose the motion by filing the opposition late, the Plaintiff still has the burden to prove there are no facts for a jury to decide.  Since most of the evidence was filed late and cannot be considered, the judge says that there are few issues to be considered in the ruling on the motion.

Here is how she rules:
The Plaintiffs do have standing to collect rent (thus disposing of the ridiculous claim that "no one had the right to collect rent, so we don't have to pay any rent."  This also disposes of the claim that no landlord-tenant relationship exists, and therefore Defendants are not liable for damages, i.e., rent owed.)

Defendants did breach the contract when they did not provide 90 days notice that they were leaving.  Whether or not they were current on rent is not at issue for a breach of contract ruling.

Constructive eviction and failure to repair is left for a jury to decide.  (This may well be included in a 2nd motion.  The record contains a number emails back and forth between Waterford Park and the elevator repair company.  We did not get these because this stuff costs $1.00 per page.  Apparently, there was a part that had to be ordered and that delayed the repair, which was actually made after the Scientologists had vacated.)

No ruling on Attorney's Fees for either party.



Mary, I would think that if another motion had been filed, it would appear in the docket.  There is nothing past November 22, so I don't think there has been another motion filed for the judge to consider, though Golomb may well be preparing one.  Let's just hope if that's the case, he gets it done in time, whenever that may be. 

Sheesh, what a screwed up case, on both sides.  Pretty stupid for the Defendants to blow the opportunity to have their opposition considered by filing it 3 weeks late, but then they didn't have much that was valid in the way of opposition anyway. 

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 16, 2011, 12:44
Parts of Golomb's letter (missing page 2) from footnotes in the Order:

5 In advance of any ruling by the Court, Plaintiffs' counsel's letter attempts to interpose a "request for reconsideration," to wit: "[a]t the August 25...hearing it appeared the court was disinclined to consider [materials] filed by the Plaintiffs on August 18, 2011 (although no rulings were issued by the court in this regard). Plaintiffs contend their August 18, 2011 [materials] are dispositive and are necessary to properly rule in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the court reconsider." (Letter from Jeff Golumb to the Court, dated November 8, 2011, p. 1 of 2.) Plaintiffs' counsel goes on in such letter to argue other points of law raised in the motion, as well as citing to the Court additional legal authority in support of Plaintiffs' position. Needless to say, the Court cannot consider a request for "reconsideration" made in advance of any ruling.

6 In his November 8 letter to the Court, Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the August 18 filing was "a response to the allegations made in Defendant's August 8, 2011 First Supplement" and contain evidence which is "dispositive and necessary to properly rule in this matter," to wit, "an April 7, 2010 Estoppel Agreement...." (Plaintiffs' counsel's letter, pp. 1-2) (emphasis in original).  While not abundantly clear, it appears that Plaintiffs here contend that the date of the estoppel agreement, and not the date it was made a part of the record, determines whether it may properly be considered by the Court as evidence on a motion for summary judgment filed three months earlier. This contention is not only unsupported by any legal authority, it misapprehends the significance of the document's date. If such agreement has in fact been extant for more than one year in advance of the
filing of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, what prevented Plaintiffs from including it with their originally-filed motion as the law and Rules require? See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-7 (b) (2006); USCR 6.1 (West 2011).

18 ... Plaintiffs' November 8 letter request that the Court somehow extend the time for Defendant to respond to such materials after oral argument as it "is more expedient that [sic] having Plaintiffs refile their motion for summary judgment" is unsupported by law. The materials which Plaintiffs sought to submit in their "second supplement" were in their possession before the inception of this action; nothing prevented Plaintiffs from fully evidencing their motion when it was filed, and their failure to do so imposes no duty upon Defendant or the Court to accommodate them, especially where as here such request is contrary to law.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: skydog on December 21, 2011, 09:14
My reading of the Order tells me that the judge was pretty upset at the conduct of the attorneys. A motion for summary judgment is designed to reduce the time of trial by resolving as many legal issues as possible. Where certain facts are not disputed, it is the court's job to determine their legal consequence.

The moving party (plaintiff landlord) has the duty to demonstrate that there are no disputed facts. They can do so with sworn testimony (depositions) or statements made under oath (interrogatories) or other evidence  that would be admissible at trial (written lease). Once filed the non-moving party (defendant church) may submit similar evidence to show that the facts are disputed. If any of the facts are disputed, then the issue must be resolved by trial.

There is no such thing as a default summary judgment. If the non-moving party (church) does not submit any evidence to raise a question concerning the facts, the court then assumes that the facts are undisputed and can rely on those facts to resolve any issues that those facts speak to. There are rules that must be filed with respect to the time this evidence must be submitted.

In this case, the church did not file a timely response and the court refused to consider the evidence that was submitted late. Likewise, the landlord attempted to file an additional deposition after the time it should have been filed. The court seemed perturbed that neither party sought the consent of the other or the court before making their late filings. Accordingly, the only evidence is considered was that provided by the landlord with it's motion. It noted that, in light of the later filings, the motion really was pre-mature but it did allow the court to resolve some of the issues.

It did resolve the question of whether the landlord had the right to collect rents. In contract law, there is a concept called "privity of contract" which means that only the parties to the contract have the right to enforce it. In this case the church claimed that because the new owner was not a party to the lease, it had no right to collect rent. The law does allow a party to assign their rights to a contract. In this case there was a written assignment executed by the former and current owners at the time of this sale. The court held that the plaintiffs had the right to collect rent and that issue will not be before the jury.

The court also ruled that there was no dispute that the defendants breached the terms of its lease. The written lease provided that a party could terminate the lease by giving ninety days notice of its intent to do so. The church gave only a thirty day notice which the court held was a breach of contract. The church also claimed that although the notice was defective, it still operated to terminate the lease effective ninety days after it was sent and that, while it could be held liable for the rents accruing within that ninety day period, it was not responsible for any rents accruing thereafter. The court ruled against them on that issue as well.

The court seemed to suggest that the late filings might have resolved the issue of constructive eviction but refused to do so because of the late filings. I sense annoyance on the part of the court because the parties did not resolve this case.

\
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 21, 2011, 10:23
Thanks for the terrific summery, Skydog. That was essentially my take on what I read but it was hard for me to explain being a nonlegal person :)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on December 21, 2011, 10:24
My reading of the Order tells me that the judge was pretty upset at the conduct of the attorneys. A motion for summary judgment is designed to reduce the time of trial by resolving as many legal issues as possible. Where certain facts are not disputed, it is the court's job to determine their legal consequence....

...The court seemed to suggest that the late filings might have resolved the issue of constructive eviction but refused to do so because of the late filings. I sense annoyance on the part of the court because the parties did not resolve this case.

I think your conclusions are accurate. Andrea Cantrell Jones indicated that both parties were very far apart going into dispute resolution. Apparently, they were unable to compromise and the late filings were a further irritant for the judge.

Thanks for your comments, skydog.

Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on December 21, 2011, 17:44
Thanks, skydog.  I'm reminded of the point in the hearing at which the judge told Andrea Cantrell Jones (defendant's lawyer) the right to collect rents, that it's "not your best argument."  She said it with a smile on her face, but the undertone was there.

She did seem annoyed in the courtroom that the case had not been resolved in some way already, since it had been filed in 2010, and made a statement to that effect.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on April 04, 2012, 18:01
Latest docket entries in this case. No dox.

Case:   10CV13242 (Open)   WATERFORD PARK VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (TB)
Filing Date:   11/23/2010   Type: Superior General Civil
Judge:   GAIL C. FLAKE   Superior Court
Secondary:   Breach Of Contract

Case ID      10CV13242
Description      ORDER FILED
Docket Filing Date      02-APR-2012
Associated Party      None
Text      
     ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SIGNED BY JUDGE GAIL C. FLAKE. (WS)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case ID      10CV13242
Description      LETTER
Docket Filing Date      02-APR-2012
Associated Party      None
Text      
     DEAR JUDGE FLAKE FROM ANDREA CANTRELL JONES. (WS)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: Mary_McConnell on April 04, 2012, 20:52
Wonder what's up with twice not getting summary judgement?
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on April 04, 2012, 21:35
 ??? No clue.
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: mefree on June 04, 2012, 16:43
 NOTICE OF HEARING     29-MAY-2012     JEFF GOLOMB SHALL APPEAR IN COURT ON JUNE 18, 2012 AT 9:00AM IN ROOM 6D. (WS)     No
 NOTICE OF HEARING     29-MAY-2012     ANDREA CANTRELL JONES HAS COMPLETED SEMINAR FOR DIVORCING PARENTS. (WS)     No
 DISMISSAL     25-MAY-2012     MUTUAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE OTHER WITH PREJUDICE. (WS)     No
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE     25-MAY-2012     FOREGOING PLEADINGS. (WS)     No
 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE     25-MAY-2012     (WS)

10CV13242
Description      DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Docket Filing Date      25-MAY-2012
Associated Party      None
Text      
     

(WS)Plaintiff Compensatory Award = $
Plaintiff Punitive Award = $
Counter Claim Compensatory Award = $
Counter Claim Punitive Award = $
Award Modified = (Y OR N)
Attorney Fees Awarded = (Y OR N)
Judgment Favor = (PL=Plaintiff,  DF=Defendant)
Punitive Damages Pleaded = (Y OR N)
Title: Re: CoS Georgia and Deborah Danos sued for Breach of Contract : Tenant Vacates, lol
Post by: ethercat on June 04, 2012, 18:02
NOTICE OF HEARING     29-MAY-2012     ANDREA CANTRELL JONES HAS COMPLETED SEMINAR FOR DIVORCING PARENTS. (WS)     No

That is extremely bizarre.



But look, here's another:
Case:   11A36755 (Open)   LAURA MAYERS VS THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GA
Filing Date:   05/09/2011   Type: State Civil Suits
Judge:   ALVIN T WONG   State Court

ORDER OF REFERRAL TO DISP RES     06-APR-2012     AT     No
 CHECK / LEAVE TO NEXT CALENDAR     05-APR-2012     DC - TO JUNE NON JURY CALENDAR PER JUDGE WONG     No
 LOCATION-JUNE NON JURY     05-APR-2012     DC     No
 NOTICE OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE     04-APR-2012     AT / JUL 1-9 2012     Yes
 JURY DEMAND FILED     15-MAR-2012     MB- PLTFS JURY DEMAND OF 12     Yes
 NOTICE OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE     21-DEC-2011     AT / DEC 28-30 / JAN 2-3 / FEB 20 / MAR 5-9 / APRIL 5-13 / MAY 285 / JUL 2-5 201...more     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     12-DEC-2011     AT / DEF RESP TOPLTF NOTICE TO PROD AND REQT FOR PROD OF DOC     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     09-NOV-2011     AT / PLTF NOTICE TO PROD TO DEF AND REQT FOR PROD OF DOC     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     09-NOV-2011     AT / PLTF RESP TO FIRST INTER AND PLTF RESP TO REQT FOR PROD OF DOC AND NOTICE T...more     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     19-OCT-2011     AT / DEF FIRST INTER , NOTICE TO PROD AND REQT FOR PROD OF DOC     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     29-SEP-2011     AT / DEF RESP TOPLTF FIRST CONT INTER     Yes
 RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE     31-AUG-2011     MC PLTF'S 1ST CONTINUING INTER TO DEF     Yes
 ANSWER FILED     19-AUG-2011     AT     Yes
 LOCATION-APRIL NON JURY     19-AUG-2011     AT     No
 NOTICE OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE     17-JUN-2011     AT ./ JUL 1-4 / JUL 22 / JUL 27 / AUG 3-5 / SEPT 2 / SEPT 29 / NOV 23 2011     Yes
 SERVICE, NOTORIOUS     02-JUN-2011     KC SERVED THRU KIMBERLY DESGRMEAUX /TUCKER #693     Yes
 OUT FOR SERVICE     01-JUN-2011     MR $25 CK6063 -- FOR SVC @ 4588 WINTERS CHAPEL ROAD, ATLANTA, GA 30360     Yes
 PAYMENT     01-JUN-2011     A Payment of -$25.00 was made on receipt STXA278897.     No
 NON EST     11-MAY-2011     KC VACANT SUITE/ TUCKER #693     Yes
 Filing Fee     09-MAY-2011     ALH 242.50 CHCK 6042     Yes
 PAYMENT     09-MAY-2011     A Payment of -$242.50 was made on receipt STXA277913.


Expanded upon here: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,10549.0.html