Re: Church behavior? editorial, May 26.
The message of your editorial is clear: that the state attorney shouldn't ever prosecute a crime committed against a Scientologist or by an attacker of the church, lest he submit himself to the Times' abuse.
As the Times is well aware, Sunshine Act documents revealed a 20-year pattern of having never prosecuted a single crime committed against the church. During that same time (and spurred on by the Times in every instance), the Clearwater Police Department obsessively investigated any allegation against the Church of Scientology in an effort to get them. This animus was confirmed in a precedent-setting decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals eight years ago.
The most recent concerned the prosecution of the Lisa McPherson case. Documents now revealed have confirmed every allegation made by the church regarding the improper manner in which that investigation was conducted, including the ignorance of overwhelming evidence disproving the allegations.
Since that time, we have merely tried to move forward. Both times the state attorney has prosecuted members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, the trial has become one on the church. The only "evidence" of a "set-up" was the silver-tongued words of a skilled criminal defense attorney trying to keep his client out of jail. The defense relied on a single "witness" who was another of Robert Minton's paid employees, kicked out of the church a decade ago. Now you have turned that innuendo into fact.
We appreciate the efforts of the state attorney. Cases of crimes and torts against the church in other jurisdictions tend to have a different result. Then again, they don't have the Times flanking the case in an attempt to prejudice jurors.
We don't believe anyone wants drug purveyors in town except their co-abusers and clients. Where does that leave the Times?
-- Mary Story, vice president, Church of Scientology, Flag Service Organization Inc., Tampa
Sound legal tactics
Re: Church behavior? May 26.
Your editorial regarding the tactics used by the Church of Scientology in its defense of the civil lawsuit filed by the Lisa McPherson family should be directed to the defense law firm and not the Church of Scientology. The lawyers for the defendant, church et al, not only have an obligation to defend their clients zealously, but have an absolute duty to do so.
As a civil liability defense lawyer -- in no way affiliated with the Church of Scientology -- our firm has used, and will continue to use, every legal tactic available to us to adequately defend our clients. Finding damaging evidence against plaintiff's witnesses is the first order of business, both before and after the deposition.
It is imperative for any defense attorney worth his/her salt, to determine any ulterior motives witnesses may have in their involvement in a particular cause of action, or whether the witness has a criminal history that goes to truth and veracity, or anything else that would permit the defense or plaintiff, for that matter, to discredit an adverse witness.
You may not like the Church of Scientology or their beliefs, but they are protected by the same First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects this newspaper's ability to print want it wants.
-- Paul J. Marino, Clearwater
Criticism is built on bias
Re: Church behavior? May 26.
By innuendo, your editorial suggests that Scientology should be condemned because a private investigator was utilized to determine whether Jesse Prince was violating the law. As you must know, there is nothing illegal or immoral about that concept.
The Church of Scientology did not charge Prince with a crime. Had law enforcement found that the church was in the wrong, Prince would have never been arrested. Had the state attorney found that the church was guilty of wrongdoing, Prince would have never been taken to court. Your hate of Scientology causes you to criticize a religion for doing something that is done every day by private citizens across this country.
Mr. Prince was charged with a misdemeanor offense of possession of marijuana, not with the felony offense of cultivation as so wrongly reported by your editorial.
Unfortunately, it is pretty obvious that your hate of Scientology causes you to color the truth.
Across this country, correct thinking people have recognized for years that Scientology is, in fact, a religion. That finding, however, has stuck in your journalistic craw ever since the Internal Revenue Service found that Scientology was indeed a religion.
Shame on you.
-- Ronald K. Cacciatore, P.A., Tampa