n***@yahoo.com
2016-02-13 05:27:57 UTC
Following the Beast Who Is Her Master Onni Durst Practices Heavenly
Deception To Confuse All At To Whom The Real Beast Is. The greedy woman
didn't care about her follower; Durst wanted her money.
An interesting side note is how Damian purged this from the usenet
discussion when I posted it before.
The following are excerpts from a hearing held on October 27, 1999 in
Oakland, California, in the conservatorship of an adult Moonie woman who
jumped out of car going 60 on the freeway after going through am inner
struggle whether Moon had lied to her about what to expect from Moonie life.
Christina Morrison (Seher) was is the car. The woman has been in a coma
ever since. When Onni Durst petitioned the court to be appointed
conservator over the woman and to be in charge of her money, as well as
guardian over her children, Durst lied to the court. The lie was that Durst
did not know how to reach any of the woman's relatives even though two of
THE COURT: Mr. Greene, I have objections that have been filed on behalf of
[moonie woman's sister] to the petition for fees in the conservatorship.
. . .
THE COURT: Okay. I, at the beginning of this hearing, explained to Mr.
Goorjian what is troubling me about the petition for fees -- and I want to
say parenthetically, that I am not assessing any blame in this matter on Mr.
Goorjian; that I've looked at this purely in terms of what information Mr.
Goorjian has given by his client, Ms. Durst.
But as I stated earlier -- and Mr. Goorjian, I don't think you've
convinced me to the contrary -- I have real concerns about those statements
that Ms. Durst made in verified declarations that she -- and I'll quote it
from her declaration of, executed May 6th, 1999.
She said, "I was told by [Moonie woman] that both of her parents are
dead. I also believe that [Moonie woman] has siblings residing in China;
however, I do not know the names and addresses of those siblings."
And I'll be very honest with you. I have real problems with the
credibility of that statement. And I just cannot accept that statement,
based on all the other information that's been presented to me, which
includes the declaration of [moonie woman's daughter], the letters with the
return addresses of [moonie woman's sister] that have been presented, the
information that's been presented [moonie woman's brother] and the
information that's been presented by [moonie woman's sister].
And I understand the point that you're making that, regardless of
whether [moonie woman's sister] of Ms. Durst had presented the existence of
[moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother] to the Court, she
still would have gone ahead with the petition for guardianship. However, as
I've stated previously, if Ms. Durst had presented the information regarding
the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother] in her
declarations, I certainly would be more inclined to grant fees in this
matter.
And as I said, I'm not faulting you. I'm faulting Ms. Durst for not
giving you information that I believe she knew, and I believe she was aware
of the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother].
So -- the request for fees in both matters, for Mr. Goorjian's fees to be
paid out of the conservatorship estate, both of the guardianship matter and
the conservatorship matter, is denied. And the reason is, I've stated, that
I'm denying the request, is because I believe that Ms. Durst misrepresented
information to the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman's sister]
and [moonie woman's brother] , and I believe it's her responsibility to pay
Mr. Goorjian's fees and not the conservator's responsibility.
I want to add, again, that if Ms. Durst had been more forthcoming with
the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie
woman's brother] and explained the issue of the estrangement and explained
the issue of their existence and why she was petitioning, I certainly would
be inclined to grant fees. But I don't think she was forthcoming with the
Court.
. . .
I understand that this is a difficult pill to swallow. However, when I
believe that someone is being less that forthright with the Court in a
verified declaration, I think that pill needs to be swallowed.
. . .
MR. GREENE: Your honor, I would just -- the argument that I would make
against you issuing that order [allowing reimbursement of a babysitter] is
that you have made a finding with respect to a lack of candor and
credibility.
THE COURT: I agree.
Deception To Confuse All At To Whom The Real Beast Is. The greedy woman
didn't care about her follower; Durst wanted her money.
An interesting side note is how Damian purged this from the usenet
discussion when I posted it before.
The following are excerpts from a hearing held on October 27, 1999 in
Oakland, California, in the conservatorship of an adult Moonie woman who
jumped out of car going 60 on the freeway after going through am inner
struggle whether Moon had lied to her about what to expect from Moonie life.
Christina Morrison (Seher) was is the car. The woman has been in a coma
ever since. When Onni Durst petitioned the court to be appointed
conservator over the woman and to be in charge of her money, as well as
guardian over her children, Durst lied to the court. The lie was that Durst
did not know how to reach any of the woman's relatives even though two of
THE COURT: Mr. Greene, I have objections that have been filed on behalf of
[moonie woman's sister] to the petition for fees in the conservatorship.
. . .
THE COURT: Okay. I, at the beginning of this hearing, explained to Mr.
Goorjian what is troubling me about the petition for fees -- and I want to
say parenthetically, that I am not assessing any blame in this matter on Mr.
Goorjian; that I've looked at this purely in terms of what information Mr.
Goorjian has given by his client, Ms. Durst.
But as I stated earlier -- and Mr. Goorjian, I don't think you've
convinced me to the contrary -- I have real concerns about those statements
that Ms. Durst made in verified declarations that she -- and I'll quote it
from her declaration of, executed May 6th, 1999.
She said, "I was told by [Moonie woman] that both of her parents are
dead. I also believe that [Moonie woman] has siblings residing in China;
however, I do not know the names and addresses of those siblings."
And I'll be very honest with you. I have real problems with the
credibility of that statement. And I just cannot accept that statement,
based on all the other information that's been presented to me, which
includes the declaration of [moonie woman's daughter], the letters with the
return addresses of [moonie woman's sister] that have been presented, the
information that's been presented [moonie woman's brother] and the
information that's been presented by [moonie woman's sister].
And I understand the point that you're making that, regardless of
whether [moonie woman's sister] of Ms. Durst had presented the existence of
[moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother] to the Court, she
still would have gone ahead with the petition for guardianship. However, as
I've stated previously, if Ms. Durst had presented the information regarding
the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother] in her
declarations, I certainly would be more inclined to grant fees in this
matter.
And as I said, I'm not faulting you. I'm faulting Ms. Durst for not
giving you information that I believe she knew, and I believe she was aware
of the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie woman's brother].
So -- the request for fees in both matters, for Mr. Goorjian's fees to be
paid out of the conservatorship estate, both of the guardianship matter and
the conservatorship matter, is denied. And the reason is, I've stated, that
I'm denying the request, is because I believe that Ms. Durst misrepresented
information to the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman's sister]
and [moonie woman's brother] , and I believe it's her responsibility to pay
Mr. Goorjian's fees and not the conservator's responsibility.
I want to add, again, that if Ms. Durst had been more forthcoming with
the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman's sister] and [moonie
woman's brother] and explained the issue of the estrangement and explained
the issue of their existence and why she was petitioning, I certainly would
be inclined to grant fees. But I don't think she was forthcoming with the
Court.
. . .
I understand that this is a difficult pill to swallow. However, when I
believe that someone is being less that forthright with the Court in a
verified declaration, I think that pill needs to be swallowed.
. . .
MR. GREENE: Your honor, I would just -- the argument that I would make
against you issuing that order [allowing reimbursement of a babysitter] is
that you have made a finding with respect to a lack of candor and
credibility.
THE COURT: I agree.