|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Date: Aug 17, 2007 17:26
There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
about a movie about LRH. A few years
back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
release.
Uncle Bruce
|
| |
|
| | 53 Comments |
|
|
Author: Patty PieniadzPatty Pieniadz Date: Aug 17, 2007 23:06
> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
> about a movie about LRH. A few years
> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
> it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
> worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
> jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
> firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
> the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
> heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
> release.
>
> Uncle Bruce
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: QuaoarQuaoar Date: Aug 17, 2007 23:54
Patty Pieniadz wrote:
>> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
>> about a movie about LRH. A few years
>> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
>> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
>> it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
>> worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
>> jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
>> firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
>> the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
>> heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
>> release.
>>
>> Uncle Bruce
>
>
>
> Within hours of being notified by Luke Lirot (attorney for THE PROFIT)
> that ...
|
| Show full article (1.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 0MartyRathbun00MartyRathbun0 Date: Aug 18, 2007 00:07
On Aug 17, 10:54 pm, Quaoar tenthplanet.net> wrote:> Patty Pieniadz wrote:
>>> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
>>> about a movie about LRH. A few years
>>> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
>>> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I belive
>>> it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to get a
>>> worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to poison the
>>> jury pool. The website for the picture had a message from the law
>>> firm representing the producers saying that since the case was history
>>> the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon be released. Anyone
>>> heard what happened after that? I assume the CoS is still fitting its
>>> release.
>
>>> Uncle Bruce
>
>> Within hours of being notified by Luke Lirot (attorney for THE PROFIT)
>> that
>> CoS had finally withdrawn their Injunction against the movie, the ...
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZinjZinj Date: Aug 18, 2007 00:10
> Generally, the person who supplied the funding, i.e., either the
> majority stockholder or the majority creditor, calls the shots, like it
> or not. Minton is entirely within his rights if he qualifies as either
> of majority stockholder or majority creditor to demand corporate action.
>
> Minton might well be working for himself. TFC might have made a major
> error at the onset of the deal.
>
> Why, by the way, do you remain their ARS contact point?
>
> Q
Nobody
Cares
About
The
Profit
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 0MartyRathbun00MartyRathbun0 Date: Aug 18, 2007 00:45
On Aug 17, 11:10 pm, Zinj yahoo.com> wrote:>> Generally, the person who supplied the funding, i.e., either the
>> majority stockholder or the majority creditor, calls the shots, like it
>> or not. Minton is entirely within his rights if he qualifies as either
>> of majority stockholder or majority creditor to demand corporate action.
>
>> Minton might well be working for himself. TFC might have made a major
>> error at the onset of the deal.
>
>> Why, by the way, do you remain their ARS contact point?
>
>> Q
>
> Nobody
> Cares ...
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Patty PieniadzPatty Pieniadz Date: Aug 18, 2007 01:05
Quaoar wrote:
> Patty Pieniadz wrote:
>>> There was a discussion in the recent post on operation "snow white"
>>> about a movie about LRH. A few years
>>> back at the time of the Lisa McPherson case they shot a movie in St.
>>> Petersburg that was a thinly disguised story of scientology. I
>>> belive it was backed by Bob Minton. At the time the CoS managed to
>>> get a worldwide injunction against it due to it's potential to
>>> poison the jury pool. The website for the picture had a message
>>> from the law firm representing the producers saying that since the
>>> case was history the ban was to be lifted and the film would soon
>>> be released. Anyone heard what happened after that? I assume the
>>> CoS is still fitting its release.
>>>
>>> Uncle Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> Within hours of being notified by Luke Lirot (attorney for THE ...
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 18, 2007 01:10
I'm not quit sure what an "OSA whack job" is, but my interest in the
movie was more about freedom of speech and the CoSs' ability to keep
it from being shown.
As far as Mr. Minton is concerned I'm sure it was not his idea to stop
distribution of the film. Everyone realizes that he was compromised
by the CoS and no longer acts as a free agent in these matters.
As far as his corporate position goes he also has a fiduciary
responsibility to the corporation and if it can be shown that he is
acting under duress against the best interests of the corporation the
other board members can override his objections. In any case I will
continue to make up my own mind about what I do and do not care
about.
Uncle Bruce
On Aug 17, 6:10 pm, Zinj yahoo.com> wrote:>> Generally, the person who supplied the...
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AlertAlert Date: Aug 18, 2007 01:15
http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%%20letter%%20to%%20stop%%20release/PROFIT...
What does this letter mean?
What does the following mean?
"full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof."
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ZinjZinj Date: Aug 18, 2007 01:17
> I can't help it!!!!! I've been hypnotized by the Evil Gypsy Queen!
>
>
> Patty
Hypnotized by *something*, or you wouldn't repeatedly fall into
this cheezewhip-baited trap.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
