Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: CO$ LOSES MAJOR LIBEL Message-ID: <9507231351.0JGKR01@support.com> References: <3urf58$sh3@nntp4.u.washington.edu> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 13:51:09 -0700 Lines: 57 Phil > >wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote: > > In article , Jon Noring > wrote: > > >In article lee@g9.rmc.ca (Haynes Lee) writes: > > > > > >>The largest libel award in Canadian history, a whopping $1.6 million > > >>against the Co$ and Toronto lawyer Morris Manning, has been upheld > > >>by the Supreme Court of Canada. > > >> > > >>The unaninmous judgement means that former crown attorney Casey Hill, > > >>now an Ontario Court Judge, can collect more than $1.45 million from the > > >>Co$ and $150,000 from Manning. > > > > > >I'd like to see CoS try and not pay this, ala Wollersheim! Mr. Hill and > > >the Canadian government would not tolerate the type of asset hiding that > > >was done to avoid paying the $4 million (plus) to Wollersheim in an > > >analogous judgement here in the States. > > > > > >Now, if CoS and Morris Manning do pay the judgement, what are the > > >ramifications/precedents? > > > Pope(?): > > Apparently they illicitly transferred assets just before they could be > > found guilty. Now the question is, will the Canadian courts tolerate > > the false games that Miscavige and Scientology played and are playing > > with Wollersheim? > > Phil: > >An earlier post today indicated that in order to take the case to the > >canadian supreme court the CoS put up their 6 story landmark building > >in Toronto.... if thats the case, the funds are secure. Me: > Kinda naive there, Phil. The building is undoubtedly > mortguaged to the hilt. The scienos probably had > negative equity in it. Phil: > Maybe, but the Canadian intent would be to have a valuable > security posted, I'd be surprised if they would accept a fully > mortgaged property as a valuable asset... it also seems they > would hold title when it was put up for collateral, and that > would preclude further loans on the property. You'd certainly think so. We shall see. > Someone in Toronto could check possibly. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"