Re: Minton transcript, please (Dandar's car)

Message-ID: <3CBD993D.5C30A10A@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:48:13 -0700
From: barb
Subject: Re: Minton transcript, please (Dandar's car)

yduzitmatter wrote:

> snippidity doo da:

Looks to me like Tigger's precious Dandar has suborned perjury.

Looks like Bob came forward with the truth, thus avoiding a perjury charge.

Also appears that Bob donated far more money than Tigger was aware of.

Well, well! Why didn't Dandar want it known that he'd received $750,000 more from Bob. Will he have to give back his big new Mercedes now?

What's that, you say? Did he buy a car with all that money? What else did he buy?

The plot sickens.

Sounds like Dandar is up the creek without a paddle in a canoe of his own making.

Who the heck did he think he was taking on? Just because Moxon can get away with suborning perjury (in Graham's case) is no reason to think he could do it.

I suggest that the stink-monkeys who are hooting and throwing poo in Minton's direction ought to turn their attention to this stupid action of Dandar's. If anyone tanks the case, it will be him.

barb

From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:21:52 -0400
Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <b38rbus61vm37mu3f3uhrgtsbripq57skd@4ax.com>

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:48:13 -0700, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:

>Did he buy a car with all that money? What else
>did he buy? The plot sickens.

Indeed. I see you are swallowing the lies hook line and sinker.

Fact: Dandar has not bought a "new car."

Fact: The "new car" was borrowed.

Fact: The reason he had to borrow a "new car" was that the cult cut his battery cable.

Fact: Now the "new car" has had the same thing happen.

Fact: Some assholes saw Dandar drive up in a BORROWED car, and are now spreading around the "fact" that he "bought a new car," presumably with "Minton money."

Fact: You're being played.

ptsc

Message-ID: <3CBDAF33.4B732EF0@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:21:55 -0700
From: barb
Subject: Re: Minton transcript, please

ptsc wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:48:13 -0700, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Did he buy a car with all that money? What else
> >did he buy?
> >The plot sickens.
>
> Indeed. I see you are swallowing the lies hook line and sinker.
>
> Fact: Dandar has not bought a "new car."
>
> Fact: The "new car" was borrowed.
>
> Fact: The reason he had to borrow a "new car" was that
> the cult cut his battery cable.
>
> Fact: Now the "new car" has had the same thing happen.
>
> Fact: Some assholes saw Dandar drive up in a BORROWED
> car, and are now spreading around the "fact" that he "bought
> a new car," presumably with "Minton money."
>
> Fact: You're being played.
>
> ptsc

You would have me believe that, rather than replace a simple battery cable at the local gas station, he's chosen to borrow a Mercedes to drive around in?

Well, okay...sure. If someone gave ME $750,000, yeah, I'd borrow a Mercedes rather than hire a mechanic to fix the cable. Absolutely!

Jeez, ptsc. If you'd said 'sugar in the gas tank,' it would have been plausible.

I could change out a battery cable in under an hour, and I don't even play a mechanic on TV.

barb

From: kady@wwwaif.net (kady@wwwaif.net)
Message-ID: <a9kbtf$3i8_002@news1.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:37:51 GMT

In article <3CBDAF33.4B732EF0@cox.net>, bwarr1@cox.net wrote:

>You would have me believe that, rather than replace a simple battery
>cable at the local gas station, he's chosen to borrow a Mercedes to
>drive around in?

If he had a meeting to attend within a short time, and he discovered, on getting into his car, that it didn't start, it doesn't seem that improbable to me that Dandar might not have called up a friend and said "Hey, can I borrow your car for the morning?" It seems less improbable than the notion that he would instead embezzle funds entrusted to him for an ongoing case, and use them to buy a shiny new car. I think you may be letting your irrational hatred of Dandar -- or perhaps your irrational support for Minton -- blind you to the alternative possibilities.

However, that said, this really does seem like a concrete allegation that can be proven or disproven. Who has seen him driving this new car? What evidence is there that the new car exists, and belongs to Dandar? Are there any Floridian critics out there who would be willing to go inspect Dandar's home and work garages to check for signs of a new car? Or perhaps check with the DMV and find out if he has recently registered a new Mercedes?

If this "new car" shaggy dog can be disproven, Barb, would you be willing to rethink your assessment of the quality of information that you have been given? Conversely, I'd be willing to state on the record that if the version of events I've been given about Ken's new car is proven to be false, that I would seriously reconsider mine.

Or are you actually interested in the truth of what went on at all?

From: kady@wwwaif.net (kady@wwwaif.net)
Message-ID: <a9k7oh$bc_002@news1.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:26:57 GMT

In article <3CBD993D.5C30A10A@cox.net>, bwarr1@cox.net wrote:

>yduzitmatter wrote:

>> snippidity doo da:

>Looks to me like Tigger's precious Dandar has suborned perjury.
>Looks like Bob came forward with the truth, thus avoiding a perjury
>charge.
>Also appears that Bob donated far more money than Tigger was aware of.
>
>Well, well! Why didn't Dandar want it known that he'd received $750,000
>more from Bob. Will he have to give back his big new Mercedes now?
>What's that, you say? Did he buy a car with all that money? What else
>did he buy?
>The plot sickens.

Hi, just a word from one of the "stink monkeys", as you so kindly phrase it. The "new car" allegation is based on misinformation - not sure whether deliberate or not. Dandar has no new car. He has an old Mercedes, which is leased. He borrowed a friend's wife's car to drive to a hearing recently, after discovering that morning that the battery cable on his car had been cut. The only people who saw him driving this "new car" (which wasn't his car in the first place) were Ben Shaw and one of the Scn attorneys. Apparently, that was enough to start this silly rumour that he took Bob's cash to buy himself a fancy new car, but it should be easy enough to confirm the real story for yourself.

Perhaps you could pass this on to the person who was misinformed in the first place, and passed this story along to you as part of the Dandar DA pack.

>Sounds like Dandar is up the creek without a paddle in a canoe of his
>own making.
>Who the heck did he think he was taking on? Just because Moxon can get
>away with suborning perjury (in Graham's case) is no reason to think he
>could do it.
>I suggest that the stink-monkeys who are hooting and throwing poo in
>Minton's direction ought to turn their attention to this stupid action
>of Dandar's. If anyone tanks the case, it will be him.
>

Other than Bob's word, is there any evidence that this claim is true? Or does it come down to a question of whether you believe Minton, who is currently in seclusion from criticdom and meeting with Scientology lawyers, or Ken Dandar, who - as far as I know - is not?

Barb, you're not stupid, but neither am I. Do you really think that it was Ken Dandar who, totally independently of any suggestion from LMT folks, including his "trial consultant" Stacy, came up with the idea of adding David Miscavige to the list of defendents? Especially since this strategy was one suggested by Stacy to Berry in one of his previous cases (Fishman, I believe?).

I think you might be letting your animosity for Tigger sway your opinion on Ken Dandar's credibility. The allegations that Bob has made against him are serious, indeed. However, there is really very little other than his word to suggest that they are anything more than a convenient shore story created for him by OSA to serve their purposes in derailing the case. Remember, a quid requires a quo.

I'm not saying you should immediately condemn Bob Minton as "the evil one" and frankly, I think you are an intelligent person, and capable of making up your own mind on the issue. But I wish you wouldn't rely on misinformation like this "new car" allegation without at least finding out if it's true or not. I'm sure that if you don't believe me, there would be some way of confirming that there was no "new car" via ownership records or perhaps a neutral third party.