Comments:US federal judge and Florida judge clash over Scientology wrongful death case

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Judge Robert E. Beach has made some ... interesting decisions over time with regards to cases involving Scientology. Recently, US federal judge and Florida judge clash over Scientology wrongful death case, and previously, banning a film from distribution in the U.S., see Banned film 'The Profit' appears on Web. Thoughts?

Went back and refreshed my memory from that article... Intersting is the right word. The latest spat, in isolation, seems to be partly due to the perversities inherent in the US legal system - but the other decision is strange.

1. Banned film 'The Profit' appears on Web = Judge Robert E. Beach banned a film critical of the Scientology organization from publication.
2. US federal judge and Florida judge clash over Scientology wrongful death case = Judge Robert E. Beach sanctions a lawyer from representing a mother in a wrongful death lawsuit against the Scientology organization, to the tune of $130,000 plus $1,000 per day — with that money to be given to — the Scientology organization.

You are right, individually, they are each interesting. Together, they appear to be a pattern of oddness.

Agreed; though I note that going against the we-shalt-not-sue-each-other deal was either a very brave or a very silly decision. Presumably, he got pissed at them sitting on a rare example of somebody who'll take them on.

Yes, perhaps.

As far as I'm concerned, if you make a completely secret deal that no one knows about except the two parties involved, and you have no evidence that the deal took place in the first place, then you shouldn't be surprised when one of the parties breaks the deal. That's why you don't make secret deals:P.

At least, that's what I got from the article. By "secret" did they mean "not broadcast to the public at large, but notarized and otherwise witnessed by their respective legal teams" or did they mean "backroom handshake that no one else knew about"? I can see either one of those being true based on what's available in the article. I see nothing in the sources to indicate which is meant, either.

Judge Beach, the model of a judge who watches developments just a -little- too closely.

What a page full of hate for a good religion.

69.22.29.26 (talk · contribs) is a spammer, likely on behalf of the Scientology organization's intelligence agency the division Office of Special Affairs, see other verbatim comments spammed to pages on same topic, Special:Contributions/69.22.29.26.