Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 20 Dec 1998 15:05:39 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 49 Message-ID: <36807fae.26492979@news.concentric.net> References: <367e6c23.33295240@news.snafu.de> <3680f3be.6502254@news.concentric.net> <367d4883.3869746@enews.newsguy.com> <75jp5o$mf5$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts024d30.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:156828 wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell): >It's not the pro bono work that matters, it is collateral expenses. >Filing fees, document fees and the like. This is probably rather sizable >by now. MoFo has spent over $1.5 mil on the case in fees and costs. >You have three possibilities. >Dennis pays RTC lawyers fees and costs. >RTC pays Dennis. >Nobody pays each other and eats own costs. What was that first choice again? >I doubt Whyte will give Dennis #2, simply because the cult wants >a bench trial rather than jury trial. But they probably feel >#1 and #3 will equally inconvenience Dennis so care little >about that outcome. If they won $1 million, it's not like he can pay. >Having $100,000.00 in expenses is as good as owing a million. >Unless he wins his countersuit. Which I certainly will. >I am not sure one can unilaterally drop the damages portion of a suit >while keeping the suit going. Not without a judge's OK. Whyte has to sign off on it. >And I am sure that Dennis and MoFo will have much to say about this. Much. >We would need a lawyer who can show us some precedents to go on, >in the 9th circuit. Seems to me, this sort of thing would smack >of something that would rely on local circuit custom. ? >Of course, another thought struck me just now. Maybe this is all just a >way to cause a flurry of motions and to delay things for another 6 months >while Whyte scratches his head and then makes a decision. Whyte is never quick, except to allow an unconstitutional, exparte raid for the heinous crime of "excessive quoting." Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *