High paid Lawyers at work

This forum will list the news articles relative to the topic of RSE, directly or indirectly.
User avatar
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Nevada

High paid Lawyers at work

Unread post by Robair » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:37 pm

Hello Everyone.
What kind of Lawyers would defend an person Like JZK ?

http://yelmonline.com/articles/2013/02/ ... 691078.txt

Local News

Subpoenas fly in RSE v. Coverdale case
0 112

By Steven Wyble

Published: Friday, February 8, 2013 4:08 PM PST

The court case between Yelm channeler JZ Knight’s company and Virginia Coverdale, a former student of Knight’s school, has evolved into a battle of depositions and religious freedom.

Last Friday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor limited the scope of a deposition of JZ Knight, president of JZK, Inc..

That deposition is scheduled for March.

Lawyers for JZK, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss Coverdale’s counterclaims of misrepresentation and fraud.

Coverdale’s lawyer subpoenaed Knight, while lawyers for JZK., Inc., subpoenaed or deposed more than a dozen people or organizations, according to court documents filed by Shawn Newman, Coverdale’s lawyer.

Those subpoenaed include Yelm pastor and Nisqually Valley News religion columnist Jeff Adams and Yelm doctor Brian Keay.

In addition to Knight, Newman said in an email he is attempting to schedule a video deposition of TV actress Linda Evans, who attended RSE in the past.

Coverdale and Knight are both scheduled to provide video depositions.

The case stems from videos Coverdale posted on YouTube showing Knight making derogatory statements about Catholics, gays, Jews, Mexicans and organic farmers.

JZK, Inc. is suing Coverdale for breach of contract because she signed a contract when she was a student at RSE saying she wouldn’t disseminate material she received from the school.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION to dismiss Coverdale’s counterclaims of misrepresentation and fraud argues that it’s a matter of spiritual beliefs.

A hearing on the motion is set for 9 a.m. Friday in Thurston County Superior Court.

“The First Amendment prohibits courts from judging the truth or falsity of one’s beliefs,” the motion states. “The United States Supreme Court has held that courts ‘enter a forbidden domain’ in undertaking this task. Here, Coverdale’s counterclaim for fraud and misrepresentation requires her to prove that the spiritual beliefs at the center of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment are false.”

“Should the claim be dismissed where the Court is constitutionally prohibited from making that declaration?”

In response, Coverdale’s lawyer argues the counterclaim should not be dismissed because the court limited Knight’s deposition to that counterclaim, and the deposition is not scheduled until March 15.

The counterclaim also has nothing to do with religion, argued Coverdale’s lawyer.

“This is not about religion but conduct … according to RSE own promotional materials, ‘Ramtha’s teachings are not a religion.’”

“Thus, this is about the conduct of a for-profit retail enterprise engaged in fraud and misrepresentation to prey on vulnerable and unwitting consumers. Coverdale’s counterclaim alleges that ‘Plaintiff advertised and represented as fact that JZ Knight channels for various spiritual figures, including Ramtha and Jesus.’”

“That allegation is presumed to be true for the purposes of this motion. Yet, JZ Knight testified before this court that she never channeled Jesus.”

In a footnote, the motion to dismiss Coverdale’s counterclaim states, “Though Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment is a for-profit school that does not hold itself out as a church or organized religion, the foundation of its teachings are spiritual and center around beliefs in the teachings of Ramtha, a 30,000-year-old warrior spirit channeled by Knight.”

TABOR RULED FRIDAY that the scope of JZ Knight’s deposition be limited to the allegations in JZK, Inc.’s complaint and paragraphs 10 and 11 in Coverdale’s affirmative defense.

Those paragraphs read, “The ‘Conditions of Participation’ was a product of misrepresentation or fraud,” and “Defendant Coverdale was fraudulently induced to enter into the alleged contract.”

Tabor limited Knight’s deposition to seven hours.

In the motion seeking the protective order, JZK, Inc,’s lawyers write that Knight and JZK, Inc. are concerned that Coverdale “will use the deposition process as an opportunity to interrogate Ms. Knight about topics beyond the legitimate scope of discovery action.”

The motion argues Coverdale’s questions would involve topics not relevant to the action or would be better addressed by other employees of JZK., Inc.

Coverdale engaged in “a concerted campaign to undermine, harass, and annoy Ms. Knight and her activities at RSE,”claim Knight’s attorneys.

Knight’s attorneys said her duties as president of JZK., Inc. are focused on “high-level strategic planning and executive decision making.” Day-to-day operations are handled by staff members.

“Subjecting Ms. Knight to questioning about matters for which she has little useful information will unfairly detract from her responsibilities as president of JZK, Inc.,” the motion states.

The motion argues Knight’s deposition should be limited to the allegations of JZK, Inc.’s complaint against Coverdale, Coverdale’s contacts with JZK, Inc., or RSE, or topics answered in response to Coverdale’s written discovery requests.

Before the hearing, Knight attorney Andrea McNeely said there’s a doctrine in law called the “Apex Doctrine” noting that the head of a corporation typically doesn’t have knowledge about day-to-day activities because that’s not their role.

Coverdale’s lawyer, Shawn Newman, argued in court documents that the Apex Doctrine doesn’t apply to Knight in this instance.

The doctrine requires the corporate officer to file an “affidavit denying any knowledge of relevant facts,” he stated.

“JZ Knight’s declaration states she has ‘very little, if any, useful information’ and argues it would ‘detract from my responsibilities as president of JZK, Inc.’”

“However, she fails to mention Coverdale’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims.”

Newman says in court documents that limiting the scope of Knight’s deposition undermines Coverdale’s defense and counter claims. He claims Knight’s role in the corporation is broad.

“It is undisputed that JZ Knight is the sole corporate director, officer and stockholder of JZK, Inc.”

JZK, Inc. has no corporate bylaws or meeting minutes, and as such, “JZK Inc. is the alter ego of JZ Knight,” Newman said.

Pastor Jeff Adams speculates that Knight’s attorneys may think he has copies of videos of Knight that Coverdale released on YouTube.

However, Adams said he believes the main purpose of the subpoenas is intimidation.

“I think the main point of this whole thing is to try to put fear into other people,” he said.

Adams said he won’t give up information given to him in confidence, and that he is protected from doing so by his position as a pastor.

“It is safe to take confidential information to your pastor or a pastor,” Adams said.

“A pastor should have the right to keep things that are said or given in confidence, unless he is compelled to give them to the proper authorities for some reason.”
I Value Things Not For What They Worth But For What They Represent

Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:10 pm

Re: High paid Lawyers at work

Unread post by Cheryl » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:51 pm

In my experience as a pink leader at R$E, I have to say I am amazed that JZ would claim that she is not involved in day to day activities! In my experience, it was exactly the opposite! Any green, blue, pink leader and red guard would tell you that she calls every morning of the event to instruct the green lead what to do! Wow! It makes me wonder and question about everything she is saying! Some questions filling my brain right now...Will she say anything to win? Do all the greens, blues, pinks, yellows, reds and camera crew feel a little uncomfortable about this when they read it in the paper like this? Does this show the staff her true cut throat colors?

Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Re: High paid Lawyers at work

Unread post by Tree » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:30 am

she knows VERY well, every detail of every day.
She has conversations, at LENGTH, with the green leader of the day, with feedback from the students,
down to every minute detail. Who said what? What did you hear? How did the students react?
And the green leader tells her what she wants to hear.

What her lawyer is saying is just pure, standard, American CEO bs.

Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: High paid Lawyers at work

Unread post by Rooster » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:44 am

It does not suprise me at all. I expected j.z. to blame anyone except herself and do all she can to wiggle out of the situation. It is typical of a sociopath. If I were one of her employee's and read the article, I would be very concerned. I would in no way would want to take the blame for her horse crap.

Post Reply

Return to “News Articles”