Thanks!

I should buy it but i just can’t lol

Well, I replied but it’s not here as it was last night. To simply sum it up, just read thesettlement agreement again, this time noting the phrase ” (hereinafter collectively “the McPherson Parties”) ” . Read the clauses related to that phrase. Also Note that Lirot and the Scn attorneys are not listed as ” (hereinafter collectively “the Scientology Parties”.. Note the signatures on who signed as and for who. Note that the word parties alone in the document means both “the McPherson Parties” and “the Scientology Parties” equally. Those clauses listed as “the parties” are quite different and separate from specific clauses that apply to “the McPherson Parties”

Nice!

🙂 Sorry, here is the new SP chair.

I am trying to point out a simple mistake Dandar and Lirot made that had bad consequences. To understand this, you need to read the document again to understand how it relates to the rest of the agreement. Start with para !: It starts out saying that “The parties who have engaged in civil disputes…..”.. bla bla.Then It goes on to state “The parties to this agreement are” and then there are names, beginning with Dell Liebreich, individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of Lisa McPherson; and as personal representative of The Estate of Fanny McPherson; the Estate of Lisa McPherson; the Estate of Fanny McPherson; the Estate of Ann Carlson; Kennan G. Dandar; Thomas J Dandar; Dandar and Dandar P.A.;…” and few other names, then stating “(hereinafter collectively “the McPherson Parties”); ” Then it goes on to add COS, Flag and the staff members who were named in the lawsuit as ” (hereinafter collectively “the Scientology Parties”).

The rest of the document contains clauses which either say “the parties” (which would be all named parties in the first paragraph) or “The McPherson Parties”.( which would be every name listed in the ” the McPherson Parties”.collective.) Dandar signed this as one of the “McPherson Parties” He signed the document as personal representative for Estate of Lisa McPherson and authorized signatory on behalf of the other named estates, himself, his brother and their company. Luke signed for all The McPherson Parties including Ken and Thomas and their company. ( See signature info ) BUT Luke did not sign for himself individually. The first paragraph names everyone but Luke Lirot and the attorneys for the “the Scientology Parties ” Every clause following the first paragraph where it states “the parties” or “the McPherson Parties” Ken Dandar gave consent to agree. For himself, for his brother and for his practice (Dandar and Dandar P.A.) and others he signed for.

Ken’s signature on this document means consent to clause #5. Individually and as partner in Dandar and Dandar P.A. And for his brother Thomas on both. This is why his representing Victoria in her claim against the Church of Scientology was determined to be a violation of this agreement. Dandar didn’t catch the mistake and neither did Lirot until scientology called Ken on it with Victoria’s case. This is the sad truth as I read it. As I understand it.

Give it up, Dodo! Don’t tease me and then no pict of the SP chair.

Even if Dandar was a party in the McPherson case (which creates a conflict of interest), he was NOT a party in Brennan’s case. Brennan’s Estate sued, not him; he was their counsel, required to represent them by a judge. BIG DIFFERENCE. Sometimes a lawyer is a party, i.e. if Scientology slandered Dandar, he could sue as a plaintiff (and his partner would represent him, probably). Also, applying this to future activity would prevent Scientology from suing Dandar, or vice versa, i.e. they could slander each other indefinitely. Ridiculous.

Terms like “other than enforcing the terms of this agreement” or “unless required to do so by law” would have been useful and should have been included. What if there was a criminal charge against Scientology and Dandar had to testify?

So basically, as Dandar argues in his motion, what CoS and this retired judge are doing to him IS unlawful.

Thanks for your reply. I really hope his motion is granted and these previous decisions get overturned.