On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:16:17 -0500, "Android Cat" <androidcat98@hotmail.com> wrote:

> [hillmann.txt]
> Indexed as: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
>
> File No.: 24216.
>
> 1995: February 20; 1995: July 20.
> ...
>
> The Application to the Facts of this Case

I've reformatted the text. I find the following very intgeresting:

> 192 In this case, there was ample evidence upon which
> the jury could properly base their finding of aggravated
> damages. The existence of the file on Casey Hill
> under the designation "Enemy Canada" was evidence
> of the malicious intention of Scientology to "neutralize"
> him. The press conference was organized in such a
> manner as to ensure the widest possible dissemination
> of the libel. Scientology continued with the contempt
> proceedings although it knew its allegations were
> false. In its motion to remove Hill from the search
> warrant proceedings, it implied that he was not trustworthy
> and might act in those proceedings in a manner that
> would benefit him in his libel action. It pleaded
> justification or truth of its statement when it knew
> it to be false. It subjected Hill to a demeaning
> cross-examination and, in its address to the jury,
> depicted Hill as a manipulative actor.

> 193 It is, as well, appropriate for an appellate court
> to consider the post-trial actions of the defendant.
> It will be recalled that Scientology, immediately
> after the verdict of the jury, repeated the libel,
> thus forcing the plaintiff to seek and obtain an
> injunction restraining Scientology from repeating
> the libel. It did not withdraw its plea of justification
> until the hearing of the appeal. All this indicates
> that the award of aggravated damages was strongly
> supported by the subsequent actions of Scientology.

> 194 In summary, every aspect of this case demonstrates
> the very real and persistent malice of Scientology.
> Their actions preceding the publication of the libel,
> the circumstances of its publication and their subsequent
> actions in relation to both the search warrant proceedings
> and this action amply confirm and emphasize the insidious
> malice of Scientology. Much was made of their apology
> tendered at the time of the hearing in the Court
> of Appeal. There is a hollow ring to that submission
> when it is remembered that it was not until the fifth
> day of oral argument before the Court of Appeal that
> the apology was tendered. Scientology can gain little
> comfort from such a late and meaningless apology.

> 195 These damages were awarded solely against Scientology
> and are based upon the misconduct of that appellant.
> There is no question of Manning being in any way
> responsible for these damages. Indeed, there cannot
> be joint and several responsibility for either aggravated
> or punitive damages since they arise from the misconduct
> of the particular defendant against whom they are
> awarded. See, for example, Sun Life, supra, at p.
> 1310; Egger v. Chelmsford, [1965] 1 Q.B. 248 (C.A.),
> at pp. 263 and 265; Vogel, supra, at p. 171; S. M.
> Waddams, The Law of Damages (2nd ed. 1991), at pp.
> 11-23 - 11-24. Scientology's behaviour throughout
> can only be characterized as recklessly high-handed,
> supremely arrogant and contumacious. There seems
> to have been a continuing conscious effort on Scientology's
> part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey
> Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations.

> ===
> Note that the court repeatedly refers to "the malice of Scientology". The
> use of language like that from the court is a clear condemnation of
> Scientology's behavior and misconduct.

Alsom note that it is Scientology Inc.'s behavior that is being denounced, not its "religious" beliefs.

> Too bad Wanlorn did a "duck and cover" after repeating CoS's shore-story
> about the case.

There is still the issue of if "wanlorn" was really "wanlorn." I suspect is a Scientology customer /staff member who found a LDS web page and decided to pretend he was the owner of the web page here in a.r.s. It seems highly unlikely that an LDS would support and defend Scientology and Scientology Inc.

> --
> Ron of that ilk.

--- http://lastliberal.org

"A cult is any group that has a form of godliness, but does not recognize Jesus Christ as the unique son of God." ..... "One test of a cult is that it often does not strictly teach that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who HImself is God manifested in the flesh." ...... "Christian-oriented cults include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Unity, Unitarianism, The Way International, Rosicrucian Society of America, Bahai, Hare Krishna, Scientology, the Unification Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses." -- CBN pamphlet "Cults," 1992

This signature was made by SigChanger. You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

<p><hr><p> From: "Android Cat" <androidcat98@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "The very real and persistent malice of Scientology"
Organization: Sandor Arbitration Intelligence at the Zoo
Message-ID: <D15Dd.176$Mk4.38@fe51.usenetserver.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 01:37:30 -0500

anonymous.informer@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, "Android Cat" <androidcat98@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ===============================================
> [hillmann.txt]
> Indexed as: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
>
> File No.: 24216.
>
> 1995: February 20; 1995: July 20.
> .
>
> The Application to the Facts of this Case
>
> 192 In this case, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could
> properly base their finding of aggravated damages. The existence of
> the file on Casey Hill under the designation "Enemy Canada" was
> evidence of the malicious intention of Scientology to "neutralize"
> him. The press conference was organized in such a manner as to
> ensure the widest possible dissemination of the libel. Scientology
> continued with the contempt proceedings although it knew its
> allegations were false. In its motion to remove Hill from the search
> warrant proceedings, it implied that he was not trustworthy and might
> act in those proceedings in a manner that would benefit him in his
> libel action. It pleaded justification or truth of its statement
> when it knew it to be false. It subjected Hill to a demeaning
> cross-examination and, in its address to the jury, depicted Hill as a
> manipulative actor.
>
> 193 It is, as well, appropriate for an appellate court to consider the
> post-trial actions of the defendant. It will be recalled that
> Scientology, immediately after the verdict of the jury, repeated the
> libel, thus forcing the plaintiff to seek and obtain an injunction
> restraining Scientology from repeating the libel. It did not
> withdraw its plea of justification until the hearing of the appeal.
> All this indicates that the award of aggravated damages was strongly
> supported by the subsequent actions of Scientology.
>
> 194 In summary, every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real
> and persistent malice of Scientology. Their actions preceding the
> publication of the libel, the circumstances of its publication and
> their subsequent actions in relation to both the search warrant
> proceedings and this action amply confirm and emphasize the insidious
> malice of Scientology. Much was made of their apology tendered at
> the time of the hearing in the Court of Appeal. There is a hollow
> ring to that submission when it is remembered that it was not until
> the fifth day of oral argument before the Court of Appeal that the
> apology was tendered. Scientology can gain little comfort from such
> a late and meaningless apology.
>
> 195 These damages were awarded solely against Scientology and are
> based upon the misconduct of that appellant. There is no question
> of Manning being in any way responsible for these damages. Indeed,
> there cannot be joint and several responsibility for either
> aggravated or punitive damages since they arise from the misconduct
> of the particular defendant against whom they are awarded. See, for
> example, Sun Life, supra, at p. 1310; Egger v. Chelmsford, [1965] 1
> Q.B. 248 (C.A.), at pp. 263 and 265; Vogel, supra, at p. 171; S. M.
> Waddams, The Law of Damages (2nd ed. 1991), at pp. 11-23 - 11-24.
> Scientology's behaviour throughout can only be characterized as
> recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious. There
> seems to have been a continuing conscious effort on Scientology's
> part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey Hill without any
> regard for the truth of its allegations.
>
> ===
> Note that the court repeatedly refers to "the malice of Scientology".
> The use of language like that from the court is a clear condemnation
> of Scientology's behavior and misconduct.
>
> Too bad Wanlorn did a "duck and cover" after repeating CoS's
> shore-story about the case.

Thanks for the wrap-fixed versions posted.

Note that the aggravated or punitive damages were assigned to Scientology only, and not their lawyer "who said the wrong thing at the wrong time" in the Scientology shore-story that "Wanlorn" repeated.

"the malicious intention of Scientology" "the very real and persistent malice of Scientology." "the insidious malice of Scientology." "recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious."* "without any regard for the truth of its allegations."

This is judge-speak for a massive reaming of epic and damning scale! (Anyone keeping a "What judges say" file/page? Parts of this are defintely keepers and recent.) There's more in that judgement that should be quotable.

There's a lot of dead links to copies of the full text, but here's a working one: http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/mgarde/hillmann.txt

* contumacious: wilfully obstinate; stubbornly disobedient; "a contumaceous witness is subject to punishment" [indeed!]

-- Ron of that ilk.

Go Back