STOP-WISE.BIZ » Sterling Management Systems » SMS vs CAN et al

Sterling Management Systems
vs.
Cult Awareness Network, Cynthia Kisser and Priscilla Coates

[Note by STOP-WISE.BIZ: In the meantime has Scientology destroyed the Cult Awareness Network and its name, logo, post office box and hot-line phone number have been bought by scientologist lawyer Steven L. Hayes. So don't ever contact CAN, you will be talking with scientologists. Read Chicago Tribune, 2 February 1997]

Newly added, bogus complaint by Sterling Management Systems' webmaster agains this page.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: p.d.coates@support.com
Subject: SMS vs CAN et al
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 00:29:19 -0800
Emery Wilson Corporation, dba Sterling Management
Systems, filed suit against Cult Awareness Network,
Cynthia Kisser and Priscilla Coates in December 1991,
BC043028, The Emery Wilson Corp vs Cult Awareness Network.
The Honorable Aviva K. Bobb, Judge, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, handed down a ruling on
January 31, 1995:
The court now rules as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion to strike the answer of defendants,
Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser, filed May 2, 1994 is
denied.
Plaintiff's motion in the alternative for issue sanctions against
the Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser is granted.  The
court finds that defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia
Kisser misused the discovery process by failing to respond to the
authorized method of discovery, and disobeying a court order to
provide discovery.  Defendants destroyed numerous phone logs, and
defendant Cult Awareness Network's mail logs "disappeared"
without explanation by defendants.  These logs were properly
responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests and the court order
of November 3, 1993.  Therefore, pursuant to section 2023(b)(2),
Code of Civil Procedure, the court imposes the following sanction
against defendants Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser:
1.  Defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser,
are prohibited from presenting any evidence at trial to oppose
the claim that defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia
Kisser, interfered with plaintiff's clients and prospective
clients.
2.  Defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser,
are prohibited from presenting any evidence at trial to support
the claim that they received complaints about plaintiff's
practices.
Monetary sanctions are denied.
Defendants' Motion for sanctions, filed September 19,
1994, is granted.
The court finds that the plaintiff misused the discovery process
by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, and
disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  In June, 1994,
numerous documents were retrived [sic] from plaintiff's trash bin
which were properly responsive to defendants' previous discovery
requests and the March 23, 1994 court order.  Therefore, pursuant
to section 2023(b)(2), Code of Civil Procedure, the court imposes
the following sanctions against the plaintiff:
1.  The documents found in plaintiff's trash bin, and
attached to the Priscilla Coates declaration of July 26, 1994,
are deemed authenticated.
2.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting any evidence
at trial to support its claim that defendants interfered with
plaintiff's clients and prospective clients.
3.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting any evidence
at trial to support its claims that plaintiff does not recruit
for the Church of Scientology and is not financially connected to
the Church of Scientology.
4.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting evidence at
trial to support the claim that plaintiff has not done business
as a branch office of the World Institute of Scientology
Enterprises.
Monetary sanctions are denied.
-------------------
From: spurgeon@is2.nyu.edu (Keith Spurgeon)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Meanwhile, CoS Loses on Another Front
Date: 2 Sep 1995 02:02:43 GMT
Message-ID: <428e03$1d0@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
William Barwell (wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: Anybody know what case this was and what court it took place in?
: Who was Sterling's lawfirm?
Here is the ruling  in the case,  It includes most of the information
sought by the Pope.  I include commentary afterwards.
I still wonder: since Sterling's case was based upon there being no
connection to Co$, and such a connection was found, is perjury in order?
Also, the clams have not proclaimed the PR "BigWin" they must have tried
to create from this loss.  Perhaps they are busy elsewhere?
Sorry, don't know the law firms involved.
keith
===========Begin quote
=============
(Note: Emery Wilson Corp., was doing business as Sterling Management;  a
Scientology-linked organization)
==============
August 23, 1995
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HONORABLE AVIVA K. BOBB     (Judge)
BC043028
THE EMORY WILSON CORP
VS
CULT AWARENESS NETWORK
MOTION OF DEFENDANT , CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, CYNTHIA KISSER, ET AL, FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MOTION OF PLAiNTIFF , EMERY WILSON CORPORATION, FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
OF THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
The Court having taken the above motions under submission on August 16,
1995, now makes its ruling as follows:
The motion of the defendant, Cult Awareness Network, Cynthia Kisser, et al
for summary judgement is granted.  There is no triable claims as to damages.
All the damges pleaded flow from the loss of clients or prospective clients.
Evidence of interference with clients or prospected clients is precluded by
court order.
Plantiff's motion for summary judgement is denied.  There are triable issues
as to the intent of the defendents to disrupt the BBB contract and as to
damages.  The only evidence of damages flows from evidence that disrupted
relationships with clients and prospective clients.  This evidence was
precluded by court order.
=============================end quote
Here's an earlier ruling in the case, with commentary by Dennis Erlich to
set the context.  (Sorry, I snipped some of the headers in my archiving).
============================begin quote
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Sms vs can et al
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 22:03:00 -0800
* For Readers who don't speak legal *
+---------------------------------+
My comments in brackets []
>       Emery Wilson Corporation, dba Sterling Management
>       Systems, filed suit against Cult Awareness Network,
>       Cynthia Kisser and Priscilla Coates in December 1991,
>       BC043028, The Emery Wilson Corp vs Cult Awareness Network.
>       The Honorable Aviva K. Bobb, Judge, Superior Court of
>       California, County of Los Angeles, handed down a ruling on
>       January 31, 1995:
[Sterling sued CAN for supplying the Better Business Bureau
with info connecting Sterling with scn and claimed loss of
business due to misinformation.]
>The court now rules as follows:
>
>       Plaintiff's Motion to strike the answer of defendants,
>Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser, filed May 2, 1994 is
>denied.
>Plaintiff's motion in the alternative for issue sanctions against
>the Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser is granted.  The
>court finds that defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia
>Kisser misused the discovery process by failing to respond to the
>authorized method of discovery, and disobeying a court order to
>provide discovery.  Defendants destroyed numerous phone logs, and
>defendant Cult Awareness Network's mail logs "disappeared"
>without explanation by defendants.  These logs were properly
>responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests and the court order
>of November 3, 1993.  Therefore, pursuant to section 2023(b)(2),
>Code of Civil Procedure, the court imposes the following sanction
>against defendants Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser:
[The scienos wanted all the phone and correspondence logs
from CAN so they could harrass anyone who contacted CAN.
Such logs are probably routinely destroyed simply to prevent
a wacko judge (much like this one) from ordering the records
turned over to the cults.]
>       1.  Defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser,
>are prohibited from presenting any evidence at trial to oppose
>the claim that defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia
>Kisser, interfered with plaintiff's clients and prospective
>clients.
[Since they didn't keep such records ... ]
>       2.  Defendants, Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser,
>are prohibited from presenting any evidence at trial to support
>the claim that they received complaints about plaintiff's
>practices.
[Again, no records exist]
>       Monetary sanctions are denied.
>
>       Defendants' Motion for sanctions, filed September 19,
>1994, is granted.
[CAN gets sanctions against Sterling]
>The court finds that the plaintiff [Sterling] misused the discovery process
>by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, and
>disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  In June, 1994,
>numerous documents were retrived [sic] from plaintiff's trash bin
>which were properly responsive to defendants' previous discovery
>requests and the March 23, 1994 court order.  Therefore, pursuant
>to section 2023(b)(2), Code of Civil Procedure, the court imposes
>the following sanctions against the plaintiff:
[Priscilla dug some stuff out of their trash that showed
Sterling, WISE and CofS were the same entity.]
>       1.  The documents found in plaintiff's trash bin, and
>attached to the Priscilla Coates declaration of July 26, 1994,
>are deemed authenticated.
[Can be used in court from now on.]
>       2.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting any evidence
>at trial to support its claim that defendants interfered with
>plaintiff's clients and prospective clients.
[This is what the suit is about.]
>       3.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting any evidence
>at trial to support its claims that plaintiff does not recruit
>for the Church of Scientology and is not financially connected to
>the Church of Scientology.
[Front group for the scienos - proven in court!]
>       4.  Plaintiff is prohibited from presenting evidence at
>trial to support the claim that plaintiff has not done business
>as a branch office of the World Institute of Scientology
>Enterprises.
[Branch office!]
>       Monetary sanctions are denied.
[Major win for CAN.]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich     * * the inFormer * *




Sterling Management Systems & Scientology


STOP-WISE.BIZ is © Mike Gormez (mike@stop-wise.biz). This website is not owned, operated, sponsored or endorsed by any Scientology Organization, including but not limited to World Institute of Scientology Enterprises International. All trademarks and service marks remain the properties of their respective owners --- more disclaimer info here.




STOP-WISE.BIZ counter: counter