Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by JBWriter, Feb 4, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Today's hearing in the Texas lawsuit is likely to have many updates as the day progresses.

    To see what happened during yesterday's hearing, please visit this ESMB thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-RTC-Miscavige&p=900164&viewfull=1#post900164

    For breaking news and excellent coverage of this case (and ALL things related to Co$/scientology, imo) please visit the blog, The Underground Bunker link here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/04/it...-rathbun-vs-scientology-in-a-texas-courtroom/

    Leslie Hyman and Marc Weigand, attorneys who work on behalf of the Plaintiff, Monique Rathbun, are expected to present verbal argument at today's hearing.

    As was confirmed by our very own TG1 yesterday, it's okay to copy/paste the updates from The Underground Bunker to the ESMB forum. The first update begins @ 9:22.

    JB
     
  2. uncover

    uncover Gold Meritorious Patron

    To promote this thread a little bit, here is a nice reminder for the Squirrel-Busters and the Co$-law-benders:

    [​IMG]

    ..... ouch
     

    Attached Files:

  3. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I find the SLAPP , ANTI-SLAPP legislation hard to follow and even more so the discussion of it (as the terms are often reversed in usage as well as the switching of plaintiff and defendant in midstream of discussion. More on that in a bit.

    I really just want to lay my current opinion on this cocooned legal argument of Slapp Anti-Slapp and say I see it SOLELY as a tactical move. It is inserted (in bad faith) by the original defendants ( the COS entities) to trip up, and or delay the real or initial complaint which is asking for court ordered protection and compensation for torts enacted upon Mosey in the finer instance and society and the constitution in broader context and even the' reason d'etre' of law and jurisprudence themselves.

    It is a full demonstration of the evil intent seeded in the Scientology (scruptures) 'FAIR GAME' by a convoluted conning mind.

    The dilatory aspects of this Fair Gaming have the potential to
    A) overload the original plaintiffs
    B) as a result of A) bring about emotional and mental non optimum states upon the plaintiffs, plaintiff representative team and the court(judge)
    C) with the full intent to prohibit Justice.

    I am seeing evidence of the above in this case as I believe others also see..

    While I try to get my thoughts arranged in proper order and not have them constantly towards disarray I have run across the statement quoted below from included link, which may be of use to other readers and followers here.

    http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slapping/

    "....So today, I'm going to talk about what SLAPP motions are, and how they work, and why they are important.

    Edited to add: a few people have suggested that even the terminology is confusing. So, to start: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A malicious or frivolous lawsuit that chills speech is the SLAPP; the statute employed against it is the anti-SLAPP statute, and the motion under the statute is an anti-SLAPP motion. To make things more confusing, people who should know better (like me) often sloppily refer to anti-SLAPP motions as SLAPP motions, or anti-SLAPP statutes as SLAPP statutes....."
     
  4. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I am positively encouraged and welcome Leslie Hyman to the Mosey team.

    Here is a bit about her from her webpage. I hope I got the correct lawyer. http://www.pulmanlaw.com/attorneys/leslie-hyman.php

    Professional Recognition
    Martindale-Hubbell® AV® Peer Review Rating
    Recipient of the 2010 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Champion of Justice (Civic/Humanitarian) Award
    Scene in SA, "San Antonio's Best Lawyers," 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011
    Texas Super Lawyer, 2010, 2011, 2012
    Selected Publications
    "Antitrust Review," Texas Business Litigation Journal, Fall 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
    Co-author, SMU Law Review Annual Survey of Texas Law: Deceptive Trade Practices-- Consumer Protection Act, Summer 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011


    I am particularly interested in the Deceptive Trade Practises focus she has participated in. Although there are also encouraging other aspects to her career that would be pertinent to this case such as her appellate law knowledge as well as California law etc.

    Now over to see what is happening in the Underground Bunker

    http://tonyortega.org/
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
  5. The Sloth

    The Sloth Patron with Honors

    [video=youtube;yRhq-yO1KN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8[/video]
     
  6. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Re: Anti-SLAPP statute in Texas...

    From what's available online, it's only the middle section of the statute that's a bit tricky: Scheduling and Discovery.

    The statute's first part (Motion must be filed w/in the first 60 days) and the last part (Judge has 30 days to issue final ruling once s/he's heard the attorneys' arguments) are pretty easy to understand.

    The middle section, however, is not as clear as it could be.

    Basically, it says that once the Motion has been filed, hearings have to occur and be finished within 60 days.
    (Motion Filed December 17, 2013 + 60-ish days = February 18, 2014 hearing deadline.) <----Please see EDIT below.

    Except the statute adds the 'Tricky Part #1' which provides an extension if the Court's docket is full.
    We've not yet heard anything about Judge Waldrip's docket (case load/calendar) so this probably won't be an issue in this case.

    The statute's middle section also has 'Tricky Part #2' where it mentions discovery and how it should be handled.

    Basically, it says discovery in the case should stop altogether while this Motion is 'in play'....
    unless the Court wants to approve limited discovery to help him/her understand Motion-related issues.

    If limited discovery is authorized by a Judge, (as was done in this case) 'Tricky Part #2' kinda-sorta-maybe gives the Court the power to extend the we-must-get-this-finished-by-date beyond the original 60 day hearing process, but it depends on how 'tricky part #2' is read/interpreted.

    'Tricky Part #2' is vague enough to go either way and, because the higher, Appellate-level courts haven't yet given lower-level Texas judges/courts their interpretation of exactly what 'Tricky Part #2' really means, it's debatable at this point.
    Ergo, confusion among the attorneys, Judge Waldrip, and those of us in the bleacher seats. (We're prettiest, tho.)

    Today's hearing is important for lots of reasons, and I sure hope Judge Waldrip provides all of us with his interpretation of the trickier parts of the Anti-SLAPP statute. It'd sure help. :thumbsup:

    If anyone would like to announce their new product, "Anti-SLAPP Git Gone! Spray", please put me down for 2 cans on the pre-order list. Tks.

    JB - learning how to play "Oh, Babe, What Would You Say?" on the ukelele while we wait for updates. Feel free to hum along. :)


    EDIT: This evening, an update @ The Underground Bunker mentioned that, per Judge Waldrip, the hearing portion will end on February 14, 2014. I've updated the calendar here at ESMB to reflect this new info. - JB.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014
  7. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    In response to the emotional flare up yesterday in court I thought I would add support to my opinion of the Fair Gaming of Judges.

    I don't see any evidence that Scientology has become less vicious in recent years. So out of respect to Judges and Lawyers who Honour Jurisprudence I will point out what they can be up against. I would love feedback if anyone see's any of this occurring in the Mosey case.

    http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/am-lawyer-1980.html

    Scientology's War Against Judges

    By James B. Stewart, Jr.
    (The American Lawyer, December 1980)

    On September 5, 1980, as U.S. District Court Judge Charles Richey was recuperating from two pulmonary embolisms and exhaustion, lawyers for the Church of Scientology and the Justice Department gathered before Judge Aubrey Robinson, Richey's successor in the two-year-old conspiracy case against 11 members of the Church of Scientology. Judge Richey had already convicted and sentenced nine of the original 11 defendants, but the remaining two, recently extradited from England, were about to go on trial. "Particularly from the standpoint of your Honor's feelings about these defendants who are members of the Church of Scientology..." began John Shorter, Jr., a lawyer for one of the defendants. He was interrupted by Judge Robinson. "You want to raise a motion to recuse?" the judge asked. He knew what Shorter's remark foreshadowed, having witnessed the Scientologists campaign to drive Judge Richey off the case. "Is this a fishing expedition?"

    Robinson is the fourth D.C. district court judge to preside over the Scientology case and the latest target of the Scientologists' self-proclaimed " attack" litigation strategy. Their strategy amounts to an all-out war against the D.C. district court judges, a war much more sophisticated, better financed and more successful than the bizarre tactics used by some other groups against their courtroom adversaries, such as Synanon's attempt to murder an opposing counsel by putting a rattlesnake in his mailbox.
    .....

    ....much more in the article
     
  8. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    I see that she is in Cappuccio's same firm. She also specializes in appellate law. I can see why Ray and Cappuccio wanted her on board now.

    Graduated from Brandeis and the Univ. of California's Hastings Law College.

    I could tell yesterday that she is impressive. She also has a very pleasant manner. I bet she delivered a knock-out presentation this morning.
     
  9. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I told my girlfriend I wouldn't need her 'blush' today as I am totally 'adrenaline flushed' to the hilt even before the court has convened. :biggrin:
     
  10. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    She's a partner in that law firm. A real grown-up.
     
  11. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Revenge of the Videographers

    Comments posted in last 10 mins at http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/04/it...logy-in-a-texas-courtroom/#comment-1230838847


    anonsparrow • 6 minutes ago
    A question: Jeffrey showed the one minute video clip w/o audio that the Church provided, and then showed the full ten-minute clip with audio to show they cut it down. Where did the ten minute video come from? Was it Israel, that other videographer?


    Jimmy Threetimes anonsparrow • a few seconds ago
    [QUOTING ORTEGA] Back in October, we told you about the crazy chance meeting between Marty Rathbun and Israel Cardoza, a videographer who had worked for Scientology to film the Rathbuns before the Squirrel Busters operation. Well, Mr. Cardoza had footage to share with Monique’s legal team, and it shows that the evidence Scientology turned over last week is missing key moments that tend to show Scientology in a bad light.
    In other words, busted.​


    For more info about that "chance meeting" between Rathbun and Cardoza, see
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/14/scientology-payback-revenge-of-the-videographers/


    Heh, heh, heh.
     
  12. uncover

    uncover Gold Meritorious Patron

    So Tony Ortega wrote:
    Now it is 14:05 EST, three hours later and no report. Even Lone Star´s handy was working properly today.

    Did Tony Ortega die ? Or was the court building busted ? ......
     
  13. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    Really have to give a big thanks to both Israel Cardoza and Bert Leahy for their humanity in coming forward to Marty and Mosey and the courts with their evidence. It shows how caring individuals can make contributions to fairness and justice in our society.

    In comparison :scnsucks::owned:
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
  14. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    I'm not there today. If it started at 10:00 CST, then I would look for the Judge to recess at 1:30 at the latest just based on his time schedule in the past hearings. He doesn't usually go more than 3 and a half hours without a break.

    I'm sure Nick has a ton of notes to call in to Tony. It may not be until almost 2:00 before anything is posted.
     
  15. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    This update just in from the Bunker....

    2:19 pm EST Just talked to Nick, who’s going back in after a lunch break.
    He says Wiegand and Hyman spent the morning laying out all the personal harassment that the Rathbuns experienced, including being followed, photographed, and disrupted in their daily lives. Monique’s co-workers and family members were contacted.
    These activities have nothing to do with the church’s free speech rights. They emphasized that the lawsuit is not about the right of the Squirrel Busters to protest or make films. It’s about the day to day surveillance that the Rathbuns had to endure.

    Nick may not give more to Tony O. until it's over today. Unless he's busy posting more right now.
     
  16. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Okay he is posting more right now....

    2:24 pm EST Nick said that Leslie Hyman really seemed to score some points when she took on Scientology’s argument about trademarks.
    Scientology says it has a right to surveil Marty Rathbun because it needs to protect its copyrights and trademarks, and when Marty was counseling outside the church, he was in violation of that.
    But Leslie pointed out that if that were true, why didn’t the church sue Marty over trademark infringement? They didn’t do that when they had the chance, and the statute of limitations on that ran out and the church was still surveilling him.
    Nick said it seemed like a very impressive argument.
     
  17. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Slappy is an idiot.

    Yes, we knew that already.

    But here's why it's worth pointing out right now:

    Slappy has no in-house lawyers, at least not any who have retained even a shred of legal ethics they promised to behave in accordance with back when their respective Bar Associations admitted them to practice law.

    Consequently, the CoS has long operated with regard to legal matters by doing whatever the hell it wants, including destroying, altering and hiding evidence the court has ordered them to produce.

    And since these unethical lawyers who probably do two things illegal every day before breakfast and other non-lawyer idiots salute and do whatever they're told to do, Slappy now finds himself in a pickle of his very own design.

    It was broadly, publicly known by CoS that videographer Israel Cardoza was a potential witness for Monique Rathbun and that any video he had shot was potentially compromised.

    But what did Slappy's obedient idiots do? They altered video that Cardoza had shot and produced it as "evidence" in response to Judge Waldrip's orders.

    And since outside counsel for CoS, RTC and Miscavige are being held at arm's length by Slappy and have, thus far, taken ZERO responsibility to ensure that their client complies with the law in discovery, they have also been caught with their pants down.

    At this point in the game, the judge's typical move is to turn to defendants' counsel and say, very slowly so counsel can understand him:

    "Counsel, from now on you must do whatever you need to do to certify that your own clients are complying with all discovery orders that I issue. And if in the future you certify that the evidence your clients provide to this court is complete and I later find out that your client has hidden, altered or destroyed evidence, then your ass is grass. And what will then happen is that I will sanction not only your clients, but I will also sanction you. Do you understand what I'm saying? If so, please say, 'Yes, I understand, Your Honor!'"

    Hey, Scientology and Scientology counsel ... the old playbook ain't workin' anymore. There's a new sheriff in town. His name is Dib.
     
  18. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    LOL....


    2:27 pm EST
    From J. Swift on the morning’s proceedings: “Marc Wiegand is arguing that the Squirrel Busters did not engage in protected free speech. They rather engaged in intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy while attempting to justify it as making a documentary.
    “Wiegand showed a photo of the Squirrel Busters in the paddle boat in the canal behind the Rathbun home, and Lamont Jefferson visibly cringed.” --Tony Ortega
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014
  19. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Has Lamont actually been hiding under the bed all this time, hoping NOT to find out what his client actually did?!?

    Damn.
     
  20. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Now the next question is ... if that photo of the Squirrelbusters in the paddleboat shows the Squirrelbusters videoing Mosey and Marty, was THAT video included in The Terrabyte?