Choquette v. Scientoloy Hearing 1/11/2011

Media coverage related to the Church of Scientology.

Moderator: Moderator Media

Post Reply [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
marklowell
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Choquette v. Scientoloy Hearing 1/11/2011

Post by marklowell » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:51 am

Riverside Calif - Francois Choquette filed a lawsuit in 2009 against the Church of Scientology for damages he claims from an incident where he was tackled and handcuffed in 2008. The lawsuit has been moving slowly through the California Superior Court of Riverside County California.

Today on the court's docket were 4 motions from the defense: a motion to compel the plaintiff, Mr. Choquette, to respond to the defendants form interrogatories and for sanctions of $1000; a demurrer to all claims; a motion to strike the punitive damages claim; and motion for a foreign cost bond. The hearing was set before Judge John Vineyard, on the court's motion calendar. The plaintiff told the court that he did not stipulate to being heard by Judge Vineyard and Judge Vineyard disclosed that he was the bench judge in a related proceeding in criminal court that gave rise to the plaintiff’s civil action. He sent the matter to Judge Paulette Barkley. Mr. Choquette said that Judge Barkley was a commissioner and that he did not stipulate to the matter being heard by a commissioner. Judge Vineyard told him that was the court's procedure and that he could make that objection before Judge Barkley to have the matter heard before an appointed judge.

Before Judge Barkley, the defendant was represented by David Cantrell with co-counsel Kendrick Moxon. The plaintiff told Judge Barkley that he did not want the matter heard by a commissioner judge. Mr. Cantrell said that as a matter of law he had already agreed to appear based on earlier proceedings. However, the court found that not to be the case and reset the hearing for Friday 1/14/2011 before Judge Gary Tranbarger and that no further briefs were allowed on the motions.

User avatar
Smurf
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Choquette v. Scientoloy Hearing 1/11/2011

Post by Smurf » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:16 am

This could work in AO's favor. Judge Tranbarger has a history of clashing with the DA's office. In 1999, he, along with other judges were facing criminal charges of racketeering.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_ ... a2d55.html

http://ielb.blogspot.com/2007/08/judge- ... iased.html

http://www.clr.org/Schiff&Shelton-Complaint.pdf

User avatar
AngryGayPope
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:56 pm
Location: Hollywood, USA
Contact:

We will have to wait till Friday for news on surprise witnes

Post by AngryGayPope » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:22 pm

Don't forget AO has an ex-OSA operative as a surprise witness. He will bring this up on friday when he speaks to a real judge.

User avatar
Smurf
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: We will have to wait till Friday for news on surprise wi

Post by Smurf » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:44 pm

AngryGayPope wrote:Don't forget AO has an ex-OSA operative as a surprise witness. He will bring this up on friday when he speaks to a real judge.
They still have real judges in Riverside County? Thier judicial system is has taken a monumental nose dive thanks to the economy. Attorney friends that have cases pending in Riverside loathe going there nowadays.

marklowell
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Choquette v. Scientoloy Hearing 1/11/2011

Post by marklowell » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:15 am

Riverside Calif - The defense lost their opportunity to have the civil suit filed against them dismissed last Friday in the Riverside Court. The court heard 4 defense motions, ruling on 3 of them. First, the court said that the pleadings did contain the necessary facts and overruled the defense's demurrer to all claims.

The court did however grant the defense's motion to strike the plaintiff's request for punitive damages. The defense, in their moving papers, argued that as a matter of law, a motion had to be filed by the plaintiff and granted by the court in order to request punitive damages from a religious organization. The plaintiff did not offer argument opposing the defense's motion.

In the defense motion to compel discovery and for $1000 in sanctions, the court ruled that the plaintiff had to respond to their form interrogatives within 30 days and reduced the requested sanction to $300.

Finally, in the matter of the defense's motion for a cost bond, the defense said they have spent over $20,000 defending this lawsuit. The court asked the plaintiff where he lived, but he did not answer with a specificity. The court sustained the motion setting the cost bond at $5000. The plaintiff then asked the court to explain its ruling and the court said, "Because I do not know where you live". The court modified it's ruling and gave the plaintiff until January 28th to file opposition "in proper form" to the court, remarking that his opposition papers for the hearing did not contain language sufficient to state that they were sworn under penalty of perjury.
Last edited by marklowell on Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Smurf
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Choquette v. Scientoloy Hearing 1/11/2011

Post by Smurf » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:41 pm

marklowell wrote: Finally, in the matter of the defense's motion for a cost bond, the defense said they have spent over $20,000 defending this lawsuit. The court asked the defendant where he lived, but the defendant did not answer with a specificity. The court sustained the motion setting the cost bond at $5000. The plaintiff then asked the court to explain its ruling and the court said, "Because I do not know where you live". The court modified it's ruling and gave the plaintiff until January 28th to file opposition "in proper form" to the court, remarking that his opposition papers for the hearing did not contain language sufficient to state that they were sworn under penalty of perjury.
Contradictory. Was the question about where Francois Choquette lived or where the Gold Base guards lived? I don't understand the question and why the court had a problem. It's common knowledge where both parties live unless Choquette has moved and doesn't want to reveal his new address. If that's the case, forget it. He has to reveal it to the Court and the cult lawyers will find out anyway (if they don't know already).

If Choquette conceals info from the court, he risks facing sanctions for contempt and having his case thrown out.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Media Reports”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests