Talk:Tim Bowles (attorney)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Bowles (attorney) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Article listed for deletion - AfD round 4[edit]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Bowles_(4th_nomination). Orsini 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for posting this, I had not even known that the deletion review was finished... Smee 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
- Come to think of it, there is probably enough material in citations from reputable secondary sources to do an article on Steven L. Hayes... [1], [2], [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38f698c71386.htm] Smee 07:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Fishman & Geertz[edit]
Is it true that Tim Bowles was the lead attorney during Church of Scientology v Fishman & Geertz ? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know, but I notice the lawyers.com site lists Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1981) as one of Tim Bowles' own cases. (I wanted to verify which round of Christofferson v. Church of Scientology it was before adding to the article. It was certainly a notable case, and not part of Moxon & Kobrin) AndroidCat 05:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this has been added to the article, with sourced secondary citation from WP:RS. Smee 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
American Lawyer, "The Two Faces of Scientology"[edit]
Tim Bowles appears to be identified in a 1992 American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology", as one of the lead lawyer's for the attempt to open up Narconon's Chilocco center. I can't seem to get hold of the actual article, however. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- mailed. --Tilman 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
attempt to shudder into silence[edit]
1992, Tim Bowles attempted to prevent a newspaper from reporting about the Corydon book. The newspaper reported anyway, and printed his letter too: [3] [4]. If needed, I do also have the article with the full letter. --Tilman 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've now added it. I see it was already in the article about the book, which I've slightly changed. --Tilman 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Was the letter and Bowles' actions only pertinent to the Corydon book, or others as well? Smee 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- No, only the Corydon book:
| “ | Re: Review of Bent Corydon Book
Dear Mr. Rahdert: I represent a number of Churches of Scientology. It has come to my attention that a Mr. Koff and perhaps others at the St. Petersburg Times are considering publication of a review of L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? by Bent Corydon. We have evidence that your paper has a deep-seated bias against the Church and that you intend to hit the Church hard with this review. You are the only even semi-major paper that is bothering to consider a review of this book. In light of this it is quite apparent and can be proved that your motives in reviewing this book are not literary or for putting forth "news," but are to attack and denigrate the Church through any vehicle you find available. Corydon's book is so scandalous, full of lies and unprofessional that no major publication has touched it. If you forward one of his lies you will find yourself in court facing not only libel and slander charges, but also charges for conspiracy to violate civil rights. If you publish anything at all on it, you may still find yourself defending charges in court in light of what we know about your intentions. We know a whole lot more about your institution and motives than you think. Very truly yours, Timothy Bowles. |
” |
--Tilman 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So Bowles intention was clearly to smash freedom of the press. His theme seems to harp on "Anything you say about us will harm us" I wonder what Bowles thinks the intentions of the St. Pete Times are? He makes the intentions of the CofS quite clear, to harass with lawsuits and threatening letters. Real nice institution that is.--Fahrenheit451 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- That letter is amazing.--Gloriamarie 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Not CEO of MRB Group[edit]
This Tim Bowles is not to be confused with Tim Bowles, former chief executive of MRB Group, the London-based parent of Simmons Market Research Bureau. --Bejnar (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Church of Scientology legal counsel[edit]
He personally states he worked as general legal counsel for Church of Scientology International for eight years, but doesn't specific the exact years. Does anyone have a source for the exact period of time he worked for CSI? Laval (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)