Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: Federal court hearing Message-ID: <9506261036.0EWMX00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35/PRIMP 1.56p Distribution: world Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 10:36:39 -0700 Lines: 50 sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) Me: > They did not argue the motion to vacate the Writ of Seizure > specifically in court. However the grounds for the issuance > of it were completely dismantled in the papers before Whyte > and the general presentation of Carla and Harold did > reinforce the fact that the writ was granted without the > proper conditions of law having been met. Scott: >but this has little to do with the issue of the _execution_ of the >writ, and of your counterclaims of trespass, conversion, and denial of >civil rights under color of state authority, which is the main basis >for attacking the execution of the writ itself. obviously, it's not >yet time to argue _those_ matters, and it would be most unwise to show >oen's hand by raising issues not relevant to the cause(s) of action >being argued. They know from my deposition that MoFo's gonna go right down their throat on the subject of the execution of the raid. >i don't deny that the question as to whether of the writ was issued on >the basis of false or misleading statements is _very_ significant to >the motion to vacate and the motion to increase bond (was that even >argued at all?). No. It's already in the paperwork. The writ was also issued without the prerequisite conditions of law having been met, I've been told. >but the details of the execution of the writ has no >bearing i can see to the first motion, and, at best, tangential >bearing to the second. Right, it will all be argued in my counterclaim. >what i'm raising the issue about the lack of a marshall and the >overly aggressive search techniques is something that will come later, >when your counterclaims are being argued, most likely. at least, >that's what i would expect. Excellent analysis, Scott. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"