(OK to repost this on ARS, OCMB, etc.)
A brief analysis of the December 5, 2006 letter by
Scientology Attorney Helena Kobrin, reveals once again
her tendency to resort to half-truths and selective non-disclosure
(to support Narconon's intent to profiteer, while placing crackheads
and other criminals in the peaceful Leona Valley area of LA County).
Helena opens, with reference to a traffic study by Hirsch/Green
Transportation Consultants, that Narconon itself commissioned.
Not indicating that the results therefore may be biased towards
a paying client, she indicates that certain measurements are
objective -- including traffic counts -- but doesn't guarantee that
Narconon itself wouldn't generate traffic during high vehicle travel
times of the day.
Then she concludes that the requests of the Los Angeles County
land Development Division, for upgraded vehicle access and
upgrades to the section of the highway, are entirely biased
against the intended clients of the proposed Narconon facility
(and, as such, are violations of the Americans with Disability
Act, and other statutes).
Helena LIES here, when she introduces some selected portions
of US Appellate Court rulings, as "these LAWS (emphasis, mine)
protect recovering alcoholics and drug addicts." Helena's LIES
are that appellate court rulings are not laws, as laws are only
written by a statuatory body (like a state legislature or Congress).
Furthermore, a close review of these cited rulings, show that
Helena is only telling part of the story. Examples:
Regional Economic Community Action v. City of Middletown:
294 F.3d 35, 47
The court also stated, that there was an issue of fact in the
denial of a use permit, as there was a question of reserving
land for future industrial development, and the desire not to
have recovering addicts exposed to a nearby railroad
(including its noise and pollution). This case also only concerned
alcoholics, while Narconon's own literature emphasizes the
plurality of its clients are into street drugs: Meth, Cocaine, Heroin.
Bucklye v. Consolidated Edison Co.
155 F.3d 150, 154
This case, was about an employers ability to test known drug-abusing
employees, more frequently than other employees without an
abuse problem. The Court approved more frequent testing!
Teahan v. Metro-North Commuter R.R.
951 F.2d 511, 518
This case, approved an employer's decision to fire a cocaine-abusing
employee, on the grounds of his excessive absenteeism (not a
claim to protection for his own drug abuse). The employee in this
case, was also determined to have lied on the stand, and was determined
not to be credible in his testimony.
Rodgers v. Lehman
869 F.2d 253, 258
This decision, only cites alcoholism as being with the Section 504
of the US Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The 1973 Act itself only applies
to facilities receiving federal funding -- which Narconon in Los Angeles,
to this point, does not do (and does not admit it may do in the future,
in the course of its application for the Conditional use Permit 04-023).
And, again, most Narconon clients are not alcoholics!
Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh
811 F.2d 171, 182
This ruling said that a non-profit corporation providing treatment centers,
could file lawsuits on behalf of disabled persons (although the center
is not a person itself). However, this only applied to facilities that
receive federal funding (which Narconon in LA, at this point, does not do).
One law that was cited, H.R. No. 101-485 (II) at 51, is reviewed as saying:
"ADA was intended to apply to recovering drug addicts.." but that
intention was also to remove protection for persons who currently
use illegal drugs. Former clients and staff of Narconon, have said that
the staff at Narconon uses drugs, and incidents such as the alleged rape at
Narconon in Watsonville, California (by a staffer Brett Alan Lengstorf,
who was arrested just 6 weeks later for possession of crack cocaine,
methamphetamine, and drug paraphanalia), and the widespread nature
of claims such as this, demonstrate that narconon is not entitled to
this legal protection.
As an attorney, Helena Kobrin is obligated to know the distinction,
between selectively reading excerpts of court rulings and statuatory law.
Furthermore, Helena Kobrin's dishonesty in prior cases, such as
non-disclosure in the hearing leading to a search and seizure warrant
at the home of Scientology critic Arnie Lerma in the mid-1990's,
(leading to a judicial slapdown by presiding Judge Leonie Brinkema),
causes one to doubt that Helena has any intention of a fair and just
resolution of this matter.
Helena's husband is Michael Kobrin, the described Deputy Executive Director
of Narconon on Bouquet Canyon Road, and also is was a corporate
officer of the TradeNet Marketing Group, which was associated with
ATG/ATEG (a firm involved in marketing of products with fraudulent
claims). ATG/ATEG was cited by the Oregon Department of Justice,
as well as other consumer protection entities. Does Helena acknowledge
this in her letter, that she may have a financial interest in the success
of Narconon in Los Angeles County (as her husband is an officer
with that organization)?
No. Helena Kobrin, once again, does not indicate her own interests
with Narconon -- at the same time as she implicitly threatens a
county government agency (and attempts to overcome significant
opposition from rural neighbors, that does not Narconon to generate
vast profits by seling Scientology, while a collection
of drug addicts is placed in their own community).
Wow... very thourough post. Interesting comments on the ADA and Rehab Act of '73. ADA seems to be pretty vauge on wether or not alcohol dependence and drug dependence are "disabililites". I know that for some time recovering addicts were eligable for VR services here in Texas... but it seems some of that has changed.
mr.mac