I bash it because I was raised in it and consider it absurd. That is my personal belief. Joseph Smith was a con man in my view as was Hubbard. The whole beginning of it is ludicrous in my opinion. I agree that the Mormon religion does not treat it’s members like Scientology does. Frankly I consider most religion absurd, Mormonism is just one of the more obvious ones.

Why do so many people on this site bash Mormons? I used to fanatically read Tony’s articles and the comments…protest or provoke when I walk around my neighborhood (CCLA). But no more. As of now….all you bigoted Scientologists get what you deserve. And the Mormon church in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM treats it’s members like CoS.

sounds like you really sucked at it considering you have no idea the differing types of “notice” that a plaintiff may be held to. good thing, too. i bet your malpractice was sky high since you must have been buried under professional malpractice suits.

and, remember, mr. eckert, you only asked me for 1 case. how about #4? will that do? if not, we can always debate the phrase “put on notice”. do you know what constructive notice is? look it up and tell me again how the first cases do not apply.

nice to see that you stopped after citation 3. why don’t you read the rest and then follow through on your obligations to contradict me.

I quit the practice of law twenty years ago because I did not really enjoy arguing with assholes full time.

These cases talk about plaintiffs having been “put on notice” that the representations are false. The entire world has not been “put on notice” about the nature of Narconon. You want me to “prove” to you that you are engaging in victim blaming? I don’t know how else to characterize it. The people who go to Narconon are the victims, and you are shifting the blame onto them.

Here is Free Minds Free Hearts thread at Reaching For The Tipping Point (RFTTP) forum….

http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,12796.msg34248.html#msg34248

you may want to refrain from future legal argument with an attorney until you, yourself, have some legal knowledge with which to back up your assertions. now, don’t get your panties up in a bunch and say that i am calling myself a legal master and better and above all others. i most certainly am not so please refrain from putting said words in my mouth. but i did spend 3.5 years in law school and have been practicing since june 2004 (and 4 years before that to attain my bachelor’s in criminal justice and associate’s in paralegal studies). what are your legal qualifications?

your behavior is akin to me questioning the work of an electrical engineer. i am neither trained, educated, experienced nor skilled in such an area and would never presume to tell someone who is that they are “wrong” in their field without very strong evidence showing such.

really, mr. eckert. you task me so. i recognize that the requirement for investigation differs from state to state but, as you can see below, i did not misstate the law in my original post as you incorrectly alleged. as i have said all along, future plaintiffs have a real danger of being unable to establish reasonable reliance due to the nature of narconon’s, fresh start’s, etc. fraud being widely known and easily available to the public upon cursory research.

1. Keywell Corp. v. Weinstein, 33 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 1994) (In New York, “[w]hen a party is aware of circumstances that indicate certain representations may be false, that party cannot reasonably rely on those representations, but must make additional inquiry to determine their accuracy.”)

2. Smith v. Ethell, 144 Ill. App. 3d 171, 174 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (In Illinois, if a plaintiff is put on notice that the defendant’s statements may be untrue and has “ample opportunity to ascertain the truth of the representation before he acts,” the plaintiff must then conduct an investigation.)

3. Moore v. Daw, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3763, at *13 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (In Ohio, “where one is put on notice as to any doubt to the truth of a representation, the person is under a duty to reasonably investigate before reliance thereon.”

4. Gibson v. Home Folks Mobile Home Plaza, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 1211, 1216 (S.D. Ga. 1982) (In Georgia, a plaintiff must exercise “ordinary diligence” to discover the truth.)

5. Carroll v. Dungey, 223 Cal. App. 2d 247, 254 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1963) (holding that a plaintiff will not meet the justifiable reliance element if the plaintiff conducted an investigation and the investigation would, if performed with reasonable diligence, disclose the true facts)

6. field v man, 516 u.s. 59,76 (1995) (“the greater the distance between the reliance claimed and the limits of the reasonable, the greater the doubt about reliance in fact.”)

7. Restatement § 540 (“if a mere cursory glance would have disclosed the falsity of the representation, its falsity is regarded as obvious under the rule stated in §541.”)

8. Restatement § 541 section a (“a person is required to use his senses, and cannot recover if he blindly relies upon a misrepresentation the falsity of which would be patent to him if he had utilized his opportunity to make a cursory examination or investigation.”)

there is plenty more case law out there but i hope you see my point. now, prove to me that i (1) engaged in victim blaming with my posts and (2) misstated the law. i will be eagerly waiting. and please leave the emotional appeals out of it and stick to the law.