Posted on 04/15/2004 5:43:42 PM PDT by sidewalk
Same ole sinky, disingenuous as usual, harping on the same ole partial truth in an attempt to fool the gullible. Fortunately, most of us here are quite used to your AmChurch Propaganda Alinsky type of shameless lies.
Once again sinky, you have been corrected before that those lawsuits were NOT dismissed for lack of merit, but only due to coverup and procedural manipulation by Hubbard, which still points to his factual involvement in that mess. Even Hubbard himself admitted he had been "less than transparent" in dealing with these cases so why do you skew the facts that not even Hubbard would deny? Yeah yeah, save your breath, we know the answer only too well.
Precisely, Cincinnatus posted the below to you not even a month ago which left you speechless.
Fr. Doyle is being a bit disingenuous here. As I understand it, all of the cases that were thrown out were on statute of limitations grounds, NOT because they factually lacked merit. What Aretakis was unable to prove was that the diocesan coverup was such as would toll the statute of limitations and allow the cases to go forward. BIG difference and Atty. Fr. Doyle knows that. His continued smearing of Atty Aretakis is bad lawyering, unethical, and almost certainly sinful.
You also conveniently ignored to highlight the fact that Minkler's "henry letter" was under investigation by RCF way before Aretakis ever came on the scene, and RCF has an excellent track record of exposing and help getting rid of (some) corrupt AmChurch bishops like Ryan and Weakland.
I am a patient man. there is much more to be revealed in good time, and there will be a Grand Finale where Hubbard is properly disgraced (as he should be) and leave the scene for good. You just sit tight.
Statutes of limitation are in place for a reason, m: memories tend to fade or get compromised with time. There was no manipulation by Hubbard; Aretakis knew before he filed the suits that they were outside the statute, yet he spit in the face of the court anyway, by bringing them.
What say you of this nutcase Leonard, the latest Aretakis "find," who accuses Hubbard of performing a "$6,000 exorcism on my body"?
He spent time in a mental institution, likely because he needed to.
How much does an exorcism cost, anyway?
If it comes from John Aretakis, nobody will believe any of it, as this ambulance-chaser has become a laughingstock.
What "facts"? Aretakis is a smear artist.
What do you think of this latest mental refugee Aretakis trotted out? What is a "$6,000 exorcism of my body", anyway?
Really?
They should never have been brought, in the first place.
The fact he brought three of them is the reason he's up on ethics charges before the New York bar.
This your so called latest case of David Leonard to the link cited above is dated 5/19/2003 10:28 PM. Can you count back to last year ???
Aaaaaawwwwwwwwww, poor sinky did NOT check the FACTS as warned, again.
You never failed to make a fool of yourself even with advance warning, sinky. That's pathetic.
Besides, neither you nor I have much information on this so it's best to stay silent if you don't want to embarrass yourself further.
What is a "$6,000 exorcism on my body"?
Leonard claims the alleged exorcism in Little Falls, New York led to several stays in a mental hospital, depression and attempted suicide.
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Leonard's mental illness preceded his bizarre claim of exorcism?
I can see why you don't want to discuss this latest "witness." He is exactly like the rest of Aretakis' stable of "witnesses": his claims are bizarre and unsubstantiated by any facts.
You are dilarious sinky.
Just tell us what the DATE is on that report. Is it not dated 2003? So this is "the latest" ????? This info had been posted previously also but there isn't much info so nobody talked about it. Either way it does NOT help restore YOUR credibility.
As usual, you can't deal with simple truth so I really don't take you seriously.
The latest "info" is contained in the article at the top of this thread.
It leaves out the nutty "$6,000 exorcism on my body," and the fact that Leonard was in a mental institution and tried to commit suicide.
You say there's no "info," but there is. In fact, the info that is available discredits Mr. Leonard, totally.
My credibility is not the issue here. The credibility of anyone who continues to tie themselves to John Aretakis is, however.
sinky ..... You say there's no "info," but there is.
Ah, the same ole trick of Misquoting me again, sinky.
Can't you surprise us once in a while and be honest? Or at least give me credit for knowing precisely what I put down without you polluting it.
Bottom line sinky, it is about YOU, and YOUR lack of credibility. As they say, a meaningful and Honest dialogue could only happen if the other side is also Honest. That is NOT the case with you, I'm afraid.
Oh, brother. Aretakis sounds like a fruit loop -- he clearly has not read the letter himself, and there's no way to know whether those who are "aware" of it have read it, either. He's basically spreading rumors, and not much more.
No matter what the actual merits of the case may be, I wouldn't want to have this Aretakis guy representing me.
BTW, what is the definition of "dilarious"? I couldn't find it in my dictionary. And what is a $6,000 exorcism of my body"?
Of course. And the dirty little secret is that Minkler's sister, who not only saw the suicide letter but likely has it, could release its contents to the press at any time.
Since this case has been classified as a suicide, by the coroner, there is no criminal investigation and no reason why the contents of the note could not be released.
If it is so incriminating, why hasn't she given it to Aretakis?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.