On 15 Mar 2001 11:24:27 GMT, fun@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:28:55 -0500,
>ptsc <ptscATnymDOTaliasDOTnet> wrote:
>:Note, this is a quote from Steven Fishman, a pathological liar. While it is
>:seems entirely possible the cult drowned Judge Breckenridge's dog,
>I don't have them to hand, but I recall Andrew Milne (CoS) posting some
>cracksmoking denials and accusations of others on the subject in late 1995,
>just after Steve Fishman showed up in a.r.s. It was the sort of denial that
>assures you SOMETHING is up.
What convinces me they drowned the Judge's dog is that the judge himself strongly implied this, in such a manner that cult lawyers even filed to have him recused on the grounds of prejudice. (Their attempt failed, they appealed, and failed there, too--I do not think the judiciary was interested in creating a precedent that a criminal can launch a harassment campaign against a judge and then claim prejudice when reaping the consequences of their actions.)

Then, of course, there were Andy Milne's cracksmoking denials that you mention, where he started out by claiming that Wollersheim did it himself, then claimed the dog had a heart attack and fell into the pool.

"The complaint continued, alleging Horne provided further details of the judge's statements to the Church's attorney, Michael L.

Hertsberg, on March 23, 1992. Horne allegedly stated the judge told him the judge's veterinarian told him the dog was old and had died of a heart attack, yet the judge still felt the dog had fallen or been pushed into the pool. Also, Horne stated the judge had said he felt the Church was somehow responsible for the dog's death. The judge also told Horne that he had been followed "a few times" in his car during the trial and he had assumed the Church was responsible for these actions.

"Horne's article in the July/August 1992 issue of The American Lawyer quoted Judge Swearinger as saying:

"'I was followed [at various times] throughout the trial . . .

and during motions for a new trial . . . . All kinds of things were done to intimidate me, and there were a number of unusual occurrences during that trial. My car tires were slashed. My collie drowned in my pool. But there was nothing overtly threatening, and I didn't pay any attention to the funny stuff.'"

"Upon information and belief, the Church alleged that the judge described these incidents to court personnel during the trial and that court personnel revealed them to the jurors, "resulting in a jury as biased as the judge."

"The complaint referred to other occasions in which the judge made statements to others regarding the Church. In April 1992, during a chamber's conference in an unrelated case, Judge Swearinger stated to Wollersheim's appellate lawyer "that he believed the award of damages . . . was excessive but that he had deliberately chosen to allow the excessive verdict to stand because of his displeasure with the Church and its trial counsel." The judge referred to the Church's counsel, Earl Cooley, as Earl "Fooley," "because Mr. Cooley had alleged that there had been tampering with the jury."

Judge Swearinger allegedly repeated the substance of this discourse in a telephone conversation with Church counsel:

he stated he did not reduce the jury's damage award "because such an action would have given credibility to Mr. 'Fooley's' charge that the jury was tainted." These comments, the complaint alleged, revealed the judge possessed unfounded suspicions and unfavorable beliefs regarding the Church and that he "improperly permitted entry of a judgment he knew to be outrageous, and the result of bias and prejudice, in order to conceal that he, himself, was the source of the jury's bias and prejudice." The Church alleged it was recently apprised of this information and prayed the judgment be declared null and void. The complaint was verified by James Morrow, President of the Church of Scientology California."

You can see the ludicrous results of the dog-drowning in the Appeals Court ruling at http://www.casp.net/wollers1.html for Church of Scientology v.

Wollersheim (42 Cal.App.4th 628, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620).

They lost.

ptsc

Go Back