The EnlightenMeFree (EMF) Online Debate Forum

Today….
Judge Gary Tabor dismissed the case against me with prejudice.
This is very good news, but he denied the SLAPP motion.
The situation is confused as to what this 'dismissal with prejudice' actually means.
As soon as I have clarification from Joshua I will let you know,
But no doubt this is a partial victory.
I will post the court transcripts ASAP.
Thank you everyone for your ongoing support.....
David

Related:
Dismissed with prejudice

In general, an action taken with prejudice indicates misconduct on the party who filed the claim and forbids a party from refiling a case,
Prejudice (legal procedure) - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_

(SLAPP lawsuit)

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]
Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... ticipation

This sounds like very good news, David! So good to hear.

WITH PREJUDICE is how the lawsuit ended after two sessions in court in front of a judge for me and 16 ex-members in Houston in 1992. We were sued by Chung Moo Doe martial arts 'cult' after i gave a private worskshop for the ex-members.
I understood with prejudice to mean that there is a small window for re-opening the case IF the cult could offer new evidence based on same complaint, but they never did. It is highly unlikely that they could win or get the case into court again as they basically shot their wad [tried everything they could] on the first try.

I think RSE is in the same category---it would cost JZ a lot more money to get nothing more out of this.

Hi everyone, thanks for your posts.
This ruling will impact JZK's lawsuit against me in NZ.
I'm still waiting to hear back from Joshua and my NZ lawyers for a legal summation I can share with you all.
One thing is for sure..the tide is turning....

David

Great news! JZK Inc... You on your way out!

I have never been a woo hoo type of person, but this is called for WOO HOO David

Question... David... Just curious why Scamtha filed the 2 lawsuits... One in WA state and rhe one in New Zealand... Wonder why she she did the one in New Zealand if the WA one underway... Or were they for different reasons...

Question... David... Just curious why Scamtha filed the 2 lawsuits... One in WA state and rhe one in New Zealand... Wonder why she she did the one in New Zealand if the WA one underway... Or were they for different reasons...

Excellent questions Cedar ..Thank you....

Basically...
JZK tried to sue me in two countries ( NZ and the US) over the same RSE COP complaints. But this would have rendered the case 'res judicata'.
So JZK's lawyers devised the 'Does 1-20 EMF' ruse to get around that problem.
One of the JZK strategy was to drag me and EMF down into the 'JZ Knight Vs Virginia Coverdale' legal quagmire and pulled down in its undertow,
thus killing two innocent birds (whistleblowers) with one stone...
that fact is....JZK tried to deceived the court she did not know who defendants 'Does 1-20 / EMF' were? this was a lie.
Joshua Koltun proved conclusive JZK and her agents would have known from the start I was the owner of EMF.
Joshua successfully had the JZK US lawsuit against me dismissed with prejudice.
However....This has throw a huge spanner in the works for JZK in the NZ lawsuit standing that was aready on thin ice.
I bet her NZ lawyers are wondering what the hell have they gotten themselves into representing a 35,000-year-old Neanderthal fraud .....

David.

"Res judicata or res iudicata (RJ), also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion"."
Res judicata - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata

Related:
Order Dismissing Does wo Prej and McC with Prej
Right Click to download JPEG docs. Whistleblower - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

A civil matter which is "dismissed with prejudice" is over forever. This is a final judgement, not subject to ...
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_

Once again proving in spades that I'm no lawyer... I am a bit surprised that Knight / JZK, Inc. have standing in the NZ High Court to bring a suit based on the COP document. It does not seem like a strategy I would pursue, but there a many things that Kinight and JZK do that I would not do.

It is proof that Ramtha is only imaginary; were Ramtha real, Ramtha would deal with it, and there would be no need to engage in the legal embroilments.

26 May 2014

will have to mark my callendar. I hope that date sticks. dealing with changes in court dates can wear out defendants. I think it is part of a strategy. JZ lawyers will do everything to give David's team nothing in discovery and then hope the judges ignore their "mistake, ignorance, or inability to comply."

When is there going to be a Ramtha look-alike contest in Yelm?
I know that Hallowe'en is over. Maybe next year?

Thank for your posts everyone...

Alpha
JZK, Inc./JZ Knight has left quite a margin of time. If it's her strategy to whittle at you, just think like a sequoia.

Hi Alpha, You prompted me to ask my NZ lawyers regarding this issue....
They informed me it is the Civil Register of the NZ High court that sets the date of trails.
Both parties agreed to a time period for the trail, it was agreed five days should be a sufficient,
Trail date: Monday 26 May 2014.

Ockham
I am a bit surprised that Knight / JZK, Inc. have standing in the NZ High Court to bring a suit based on the COP document.

Hi Ockham, I am sure many are shaking their heads thinking the same....
Here is a copy of that RSE 1993 COP document… Left Click Enlarge - Right Click Download

Joe,
26 May 2014 will have to mark my calendar. I hope that date sticks

Thanks Joe...
I doubt very much JZK can drag this lawsuit on .... The NZ High Court will not be so easily manipulated.
We will see whose reach exceeds their grasp of reality!

David

_____________________________________________

Related:

(EMF) Online Forum • View topic - RSE's 2006 COP Document Registration Form
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=41&p=249#p249

(EMF) Online Forum • View topic - RSE COORDINATOR – ROLE AND PROTOCOL - NDA COP doc 2008
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2014&p=15753&hilit=COP#p15753

(EMF) Online Forum • View topic - JZK 'Conditions of Participation' (COP) RSE 1993
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2062&hilit=1993+COP

(EMF) Online Forum • View topic - RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawyers
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1594

To my under-informed brain, the way I read the 1984 COP is that you agree not to attempt to teach while you are a student on the RSE campus. The question to me is weather the document extends strictures to teaching, mentioning, etc. anything Ramtha related anywhere else at other times.

If one believes Ramtha is real, then the Ramtha who writes books certainly contradicted the COP statement in print after 1984, stating that the best way to understand the material is to teach it to somebody else. So which way is it?

Doesn't Judy Knight, supposedly channeling Ramtha, say again and again to turn to one's neighbor and repeat the lesson? One must assume the purpose of turning to the neighbor is for the purpose of imparting the lesson to the neighbor, otherwise it would be sufficient to merely recite to one's self. This, "... turn to your neighbor...," is heard in the Youtube videos that RSE itself posted on the Internet. Essentially, it is impossible to take a course on the RSE grounds and abide by the alleged strictures of the COP. How could anybody with reasonable mental faculties know when, if ever, the language of the COP applies: owing to the tortuous syntax of the document and contradictory behavior of RSE?

the Ramtha who writes books certainly contradicted the COP statement in print after 1984, stating that the best way to understand the material is to teach it to somebody else. So which way is it

Hi Ockham,
Can you direct me to the source of these statements? They may prove useful.
1984?
Although the practices at RSE have much in common with George Orwells tottalitarian State, 1984
I don’t think JZ Knight-R concocted any COP documents during that time?
But it wouldn't surprise me if it were so, One thing is for sure..... new recruits to RSE must surely be thinking twice about signing such a document.
Human rights cannot be just signed away to a corporate COP agreement no matter what those snakes is suits tell you is law...
Unless of course you are brainwashed at the 'Animal Farm'

David.

Related:

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyVJHpiHO8I

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work: Paul Babiak, Robert D. Hare: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When ... 0061147893

NO ONE CAN TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS ( Human Rights) - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17aWiGekIr4

Charlie Chaplin The Great Dictator - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FMNFvKEy4c

Hi David,

Creating Reality, 3rd Ed., 2004 quotes Ramtha as telling students to articulate the teachings. I don't recall exactly what page it is on; I believe it is about 2/3 of the way through the book. Ramtha talks about it being helpful to cement the understanding of, "his," teaching by articulating the teaching to somebody else. I don't know when the book was first published; it is supposedly derived from Ramtha audio recordings.

It looks like the COP form says (c) 1984 at the bottom. That is why I wrote, "1984," in the previous posting.

It looks like the COP form says (c) 1984 at the bottom. That is why I wrote, "1984," in the previous posting.

What a keen eye you have..... perhaps its JZK's generic copyright stamp? '1984' is very fitting.

Creating Reality, 3rd Ed., 2004 quotes

That's really helpful Ockham ..Thank you...
We will try and obtain a copy.
If any EMF members have this book or Tape? please contact me via PM or Email: enlightenmefree@gmail.com

Thanks....

David

Correction: the full title is, A Beginner's Guide To Creating Reality. Pages 153-154 is where, "Ramtha," talks about articulating the teaching to someone else helps one better master the material. In particuilar, the last paragraph on page 153, continued on page 154, is of importance to this discussion.

Also, a quote from a the middle of page 154 of the text: "I have taught you, to be able to draw it out, to be able to use your hands, simple as a child, and to be able to express what it is that I am teaching you, that you may express it to someone else."

To me, that's a pretty direct statement.

We now have a direct copy.
Thank you Ockham.....

That the COP says (c) 1984 at the bottom and the document may not have existed in 1984, may be a technicality or a typographical error may seem to be a small point, but it is a fact. This fact, it seems, could open the door to questioning verasity and validity of everything else in the document. To my non lawyer thinking, copyright is not retroactive and can not be claimed to have been held before a work exists.