Judge Waldrip grants Monique Rathbun’s discovery request, snubbing Scientology

[uncover]

.
As I already wrote here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?34567-Jan-8th-Rathbun-Hearing&p=894138#post894138

You have to know, that a judge doesn´t get paid per hour, he has to handle (and hopefully finish) an special amount of cases. So if he needs for a case 1 hour or 100 hours he gets the same wage. So they come up with a complex juridical argumentation together with a lot of filings in the hope that the judge will be scared and rule in favour of them so that he can close the case and avoid that his judgement will be reversed from a higher court.

But I think with Waldrip this could be the wrong strategy.....

So - as estimated - the Co$-lawyer-strategy has backfired and now this is Waldrip´s way to respond to the Co$-lawyer strategy very friendly with:

"Sorry, but not in my courtroom."

​

The only good thing with "such" lawyers is that they take tons of money from Co$/Miscavige.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Scientology EXPOSED! Judge Orders Church To Reveal Secret Records In Court

Radar Online: Scientology EXPOSED! Judge Orders Church To Reveal Secret Records In Court
http://radaronline.com/2014/01/scientology-exposed-judge-orders-release-secret-records/

Still more of Scientology’s darkest secrets are set to be exposed in court, after a judge issued a bombshell ruling on Tuesday ordering the court to turn over scores of secret “recordings, videos, photographs … emails, and/or text messages” and more by January 27.

The ruling came Tuesday as part of Monique Rathbun‘s ongoing harassment lawsuit against the Church of Scientology and its leader, David Miscavige. Rathbun has attempted for months to obtain records of the years the church allegedly spent monitoring her life with husband, former Scientologist Marty Rathbun, and now the judge in the case has stepped in.

Court documents published on TonyOrtega.com reveal that Judge Dib Waldrip “ordered that the [Church of Scientology] shall provide to [Rathbun] the following materials generated or obtained between January 1, 2009, until August 16, 2013.”

First, the order states, the church will have to cough up “all recordings, videos, photographs, or any supporting medium (film, digital, electronic, etc.)” concerning Rathbun and her spouse. In addition, they will surrender “all records and/or recordings, if any, of any surveillance of [Rathbun's] conversations, telephone calls, e-mails, and/or text messages.” Third, they must reveal “all records and/or notes regarding communications by or on behalf of [The Church of Scientology] with [Rathbun's] employer.”

 

[JBWriter]

JB, he wants all the squirrel fuckerz shit, it will be interesting to see what they come up with, at the very least, it should be every damned thing they made even remotely public, and everything from their hat-cams from the git-go, should be interesting. I think the judge is simply doing some in-depth reviewing.

True, Og, he does want all of the info re: squirrel busters produced/handed over, but he's not (yet) entitled to demand that RTC and David Miscavige turn over any squirrel busters info (or anything else) in their possession to Ray Jeffrey.

If there's an email from a CSI staff member to, say, John Allender (<---squirrel buster on video, not named as a defendant in this case) that tells him to 'go out in the golf carts again and zoom around Mrs. Rathbun's house', then that email must be turned over to Ray Jeffrey.

If there's an email from the COB of RTC that calls John Allender a 'counter-intentioned, ser-faccy idiot', that email, per Judge Walrip's Order, does not have to be turned over to Ray Jeffrey. Yet.

Monique Rathbun filed her Petition in August 2013 which named certain people/entities as defendants. To do this, she swore-out a statement that says she believed everyone she named as a defendant, to the very best of her knowledge, had caused her harm. Simple enough.

Except...

RTC and David Miscavige entirely reject her labeling them. They want Judge Waldrip (or his boss) to declare that neither RTC nor David Miscavige fit the legal definition of the word "defendant". They do not believe Mrs. Rathbun has the legal right to call RTC/DM "defendant" and they do not believe Judge Waldrip - or any other Judge in Texas - has ANY judicial authority over them.

The RTC/DM position is "She can't call us that and you're not the boss of us, Waldrip!"

I'm a 'never-in'.

If a scientologist calls me an "SP" and says that crime in Manhattan exists because of my pts-ness and that I should now do a-e steps to atone for my 'crimes', first, I'd have to reject the label "SP".
Why?
Because (a) I don't fit the definition; and, (b) I don't accept hubbard's dictionary.
Until the scientologist and I hash-out whether the definition does or does not fit/pertain to me, it's too early to address the crime statistics in Manhattan.

RTC/DM reject the label "defendant".
Once that label issue is hashed-out by the attorneys and judges, the issue of whether or not Mrs. Rathbun suffered harm in Texas because of RTC/DM can be examined.

Now - imagine Judge Waldrip watching the squirrel busters videos.
Does he use one still or more for his new screen saver?
Bonus question: Is he more of a belly-laugh kind of guy or more of a snort-&-snicker type?

JB

ETA: Additional info at a later post in this same thread which describes another way to view Judge Waldrip's latest Order that directs discovery be provided to TeamRathbun here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-Scientology&p=895410&viewfull=1#post895410

 

[JBWriter]

Thanks JB and others who offered above clarification and reminders about the meanig of this order.

In other words, the Judge has ordered them to provide ALL video shot by any of their cameras. (As long as it's not RTC's or DM's camera/video.)

I am wondering why Bert Leahy's testimony hasn't been submitted or at least referenced. My recollection from long, long ago is that Lubow (or a senior member of the Squirrel Busters team) told him that their goal was to make the Rathbuns' life a living hell.

That certainly goes against the "first amendment" and "religious" defenses the cult has put up. I don't think that one's first amendment right to express your opinion includes assault and harassment. And "make someone's live a living hell" certainly falls into the neighborhood of assault and harassment.

TG1

My red above.
Re: Bert Leahy

Ray Jeffrey filed the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery & for Continuance on December 2, 2013. In that Motion, Mr. Jeffrey refers to Bert Leahy's declaration and attached it, too. (The Order by Judge Waldrip is in response to this Motion, btw.) IIRC, Mr. Leahy's declaration was previously posted to The Underground Bunker separate from, and well before, this court filing.

In the declaration, Bert Leahy states, among other things, that he was hired by "David Stotter" who turned out to be David Lubow, a named defendant in this case, and that John Allender, not a named defendant, left voicemail messages for him (Leahy).

See The Underground Bunker, December 11, 2013 and click on the "motion for continuance" scribd link there to see what-all was attached/filed at that point. Link: http://tonyortega.org/2013/12/11/te...as-monique-rathbuns-lawsuit-is-back-in-court/

JB

 

[NoName]

We need a wise black-robe man meme...

Wise black robe man
His rulings are wise
His black robe is judicial.

 

[JBWriter]

JB,

I'm looking for the depo transcripts of the SO dudes whom Ray Jeffrey deposed a month or so ago. Do you have a link for those anywhere handy?

Thanks in advance,

TG1

Here's an ESMB link to the original (giant-sized) Anti-SLAPP Motion filed by TeamScio/CSI: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...e-Rathbun-case&p=863853&viewfull=1#post863853

"SO dudes"? Like Cartwright, McShane, and Davis?
If so...

The Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration, filed December 31, 2013 by RTC/DM's attorneys - Lamont Jefferson, Rachel Ekery, and Wallace Jefferson - included:

Exhibit B: deposition transcript - Allan Cartwright
Exhibit C: deposition transcript - Warren McShane
Exhibit D: deposition transcript summary - Monty Lynn Drake
Exhibit E: deposition transcript - David Gregory Sloat
And...
Tommy Davis' deposition transcript, too.
To read them, see The Underground Bunker here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/02/th...ents-filed-in-scientology-lawsuit/#more-12426


Are these the ones you wanted to see, TG1?

JB

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

where's Face with his cool Texas Rangers posts?

There's a saying that began with the Texas Rangers that sprang from their early years protecting the 1,254 mile Rio Grande border between the new Republic of Texas and Mexico (the Rangers were Founded in 1823, over a decade before the Texas War of Independence) and is the highest compliment a Ranger can say about another man..."He'll do to ride the River the with".

Dib will do to ride the River with.

Face

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

[video=youtube;lNTOi6Fh3ZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNTOi6Fh3ZE[/video]

The Rangers are very appreciative of Chuck for that TV Show as they use "Walker" episodes to help train new Rangers...exactly what NOT to do.

Face

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I've been thinking about Face this evening, too. This is the kind of Texas judge he was predicting Waldrip was.

TG1

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

...snip..., stuff is probably being pulped even as we speak.

I expect to see such or other methods of destruction of evidence as attempts to obstruct justice and I am of the opinion the parties involved in such activities not only are setting themselves up for criminal charges, but will be found guilty of such charges. This will cycle back to corroborate the civil charges and many parties will fall to both civil and criminal convictions. For any attorney, OSA accomplice, or other affiliated party to believe, that any attempt to destroy or hide pertinent evidence and thus they will be successful at avoiding justice, is badly underestimating the layers of evidence trails that already exist.

I believe the cat is already in the bag and the only way to lessen the forthcoming justice penalties are to let go of denying, and aid and facilitate the prosecution in its task of carrying out the foregone conviction.

 

[degraded being]

.
.
.

This is what I am wondering:

If the cult and their lawyers say they do not have records of hundreds (thousands)
of interactions about their harassment of Ms Mosey, there will be a lot of it that
Mosey does have records of. I am not just talking about videos, which are things that can be argued to have not been kept by the cult.

For example. some of the things the lawyers have been arguing about in defending the cult as protecting their religion, must only be able to be argued about if they actually have records on computers etc. There must be other records like this: things that are not able to be argued away as non-existent or not having been "kept". The judge allowed for a lot of scope - computer files, email, notes on paper, text messages, it would involve communication between third parties who were acting on the cults behalf, and Marty has probably gone around and photocopied lots of it already, himself, and will be able to show it exists. So when the COS yells Ve HAZ Nuziiiing!!! Marty will give it to Mosey's lawyers and the cult will be up shit creek more than they are now.

I am posting this as a response to what I read on Ortega's page really, where there is talk of the COS saying they do not have the things asked for in the discovery order.

Does it make sense?

 

[JBWriter]

Here is the Judge's bitchin' great order:


It is further ORDERED that the Anti-SLAPP Movants shall produce to Plaintiff the following materials generated or obtained between January 1, 2009 through August 16, 2013, and/or shall serve a privilege log concerning same, by January 27, 2014:

1. Regardless of format — including the “native” format, all recordings, videos, photographs, and any supporting medium (film, digital, electronic, etc.), if any, taken by, at the direction of, or on behalf of the Moving Parties or if any in care, custody or control of the Moving Parties, of Plaintiff inside her residence or within a 10-mile radius of her residence;

2. Regardless of format, all records and/or recordings, if any of any surveillance of Plaintiff’s conversations, telephone calls, e-mails, and/or text messages;

3. Regardless of format, all records and/or notes regarding communications by or on behalf the Moving Parties with the Plaintiff’s employer up to and including April 30, 2011; and

4. Regardless of format — including the “native” format, all recordings, videos, photographs, and any supporting medium (film, digitial, electronic, etc.), if any, taken by, at the direction of, or on behalf of the Moving Parties or if any in car, custody or control of the Moving Parties, of the Squirrel Busters or any and all other affiliated individuals affiliated generated or obtained within a 10-mile radius of the Plaintiff’s residence.


Just could not be better!

TG1

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who is very, very smart.

Remember everything I've written about the distinction:

defendants = CSI/Bryan/Lubow/Sloat (TeamCSI)
"don't-call-us-defendants" = RTC/DM (TeamRTC/DM)

Good - please push that thought to the side for a moment?

#1. TeamCSI* filed the original Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss. (*TeamCSI = CSI, Bryan, Lubow, and Sloat.)

#2. Judge Waldrip got all of the attorneys to verbally agree in open court that a little discovery could proceed to help him decide how to rule on the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.

#3. TeamRathbun filed a motion for more time to obtain discovery and to compel CSI&Company to produce more discovery in order to properly respond to the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.

#4. Judge Waldrip, in open court and by written Order told the attorneys that as part of discovery, David Miscavige is permitted to be deposed.

#5. TeamRTC/DM filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration of #4, the Order directing that DM be deposed in connection with the originally filed Anti-SLAPP Motions in #1.

If, on behalf of a client, an attorney 'moves' the court to do anything in connection with the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss, then isn't that attorney representing a "moving party"?

My dear friend pointed out that these phrases, "Anti-SLAPP movants" & "moving parties", seemed 'odd' and not at all what he sees regularly in his work as an appellate-level litigator.

To him, Judge Waldrip's Order directs TeamCSI and TeamRTC/DM...since they've all "moved" the court (filed motions) in connection to the (giant) Anti-SLAPP motions...to turn over the discovery material to TeamRathbun.

It's almost as if Judge Waldrip is saying,

"Okay, you don't want to be called "defendant"? You don't like that label? Fine. Now everyone's an 'Anti-SLAPP movant'. I got me a label maker and I damned well know how to use it, hoss! How you like me now, Captain Phonypants?"

So.

There remains an important distinction in this case between who is or is not (yet) a "defendant".
It's sure clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamCSI agrees that "defendant" is correctly applied to CSI, Bryan, Lubow, & Sloat.
Just as it's clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamRTC/DM vehemently disagrees to the label "defendant".
If his latest Order, which gives some of what TeamRathbun asked for in #3 above, was intended to tell only TeamCSI to turn over the discovery, then why not simply write "defendants"? Easy-peasy.

In the actual Order (the part not shown above in TG1's quote box*) Judge Waldrip begins with a bit of historical background about the filings and he uses the phrase, "moving defendants" when describing TeamCSI alone.
He didn't direct the "moving defendants" in the Order; rather, he used "moving parties" and "Anti-SLAPP movants".
See the distinction?
I didn't.
But I'm sure glad I picked-up the phone!
YMMV.

JB

(*Link to The Underground Bunker to see the embedded scribd Order here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/16/ju...hbuns-discovery-request-snubbing-scientology/ )

 

[Lone Star]

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who is very, very smart.

Remember everything I've written about the distinction:

defendants = CSI/Bryan/Lubow/Sloat (TeamCSI)
"don't-call-us-defendants" = RTC/DM (TeamRTC/DM)

Good - please push that thought to the side for a moment?

#1. TeamCSI* filed the original Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss. (TeamCSI = CSI, Bryan, Lubow, and Sloat.)

#2. Judge Waldrip got all of the attorneys to verbally agree in open court that a little discovery could proceed to help him decide how to rule on the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.

#3. TeamRathbun filed a motion for more time to obtain discovery and to compel CSI&Company to produce more discovery in order to properly respond to the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.

#4. Judge Waldrip, in open court and by written Order told the attorneys that as part of discovery, David Miscavige is permitted to be deposed.

#5. TeamRTC/DM filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration of #4, the Order directing that DM be deposed in connection with the originally filed Anti-SLAPP Motions in #1.

If, on behalf of a client, an attorney 'moves' the court to do anything in connection with the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss, then isn't that attorney representing a "moving party"?

My dear friend pointed out that these phrases, "Anti-SLAPP movants" & "moving parties", seemed 'odd' and not at all what he sees regularly in his work as an appellate-level litigator.

To him, Judge Waldrip's Order directs TeamCSI and TeamRTC/DM...since they've all "moved" the court (filed motions) in connection to the (giant) Anti-SLAPP motion...to turn over the discovery material to TeamRathbun.

It's almost as if Judge Waldrip is saying,

"Okay, you don't want to be called "defendant"? You don't like that label? Fine. Now everyone's an 'Anti-SLAPP movant'. I got me a label maker and I damned well know how to use it, hoss! How you like me now, Captain Phonypants?"

So.

There remains an important distinction in this case between who is or is not (yet) a "defendant".
It's sure clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamCSI agrees that "defendant" is correctly applied to CSI, Bryan, Lubow, & Sloat.
Just as it's clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamRTC/DM vehemently disagrees to the label "defendant".
If his latest Order, which gives some of what TeamRathbun asked for in #3 above, was intended to tell only TeamCSI to turn over the discovery, then why not simply write "defendants"? Easy-peasy.

In the actual Order (the part not shown above in TG1's quote box*) Judge Waldrip begins with a bit of historical background about the filings and he uses the phrase, "moving defendants" when describing TeamCSI alone.
He didn't direct the "moving defendants" in the Order; rather, he used "moving parties" and "Anti-SLAPP movants".
See the distinction?
I didn't.
But I'm sure glad I picked-up the phone!
YMMV.

JB

(*Link to The Underground Bunker to see the embedded scribd Order here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/16/ju...hbuns-discovery-request-snubbing-scientology/ )

I wonder how many times Wallace Jefferson has said and thought, "FUCK!" after reading this order?

 

[JBWriter]

I wonder how many times Wallace Jefferson has said and thought, "FUCK!" after reading this order?

Find the number of stars in the sky, multiply it by his firm's hourly billing rate, and then divide by 36*.
That many times.
And I don't envy him, either.
This Order's too tersely-worded to wrangle over...aka 'too tight to bite'...so Wallace Jefferson's got little to gnaw/nibble on.
But - he'll file an appeal anyway, methinks.

JB (*36 = height, in number of inches, of Captain David "TheWeeOne" Miscavige.)

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

I haven't read the bunker on all this yet but YEP, as I posted above. I very much agree with you. The smoking guns, the shell casings, are spread far and wide and I believe many have been recovered from places that the cult completely forgot about or doesn't have access to. It will be very interesting to see what does come forth as evidence in court. I also am of the conviction that a number of parties/individuals who do have knowledge of the harassment and the attempted cover-ups and are online reading/monitoring are beginning to realize a 100 lawyers can't protect them and they are screwed and will BLOW and will provide 'states evidence'. Remember, 11 top executives from the GO did go to prison, and that was without the 100's of ex scientologists, dozens of court cases and investigations laying out much of the B1 and dirty tricks tech, helping reveal the hows and wheres and whos.

.
.
.

This is what I am wondering:

If the cult and their lawyers say they do not have records of hundreds (thousands)
of interactions about their harassment of Ms Mosey, there will be a lot of it that
Mosey does have records of. I am not just talking about videos, which are things that can be argued to have not been kept by the cult.

For example. some of the things the lawyers have been arguing about in defending the cult as protecting their religion, must only be able to be argued about if they actually have records on computers etc. There must be other records like this: things that are not able to be argued away as non-existent or not having been "kept". The judge allowed for a lot of scope - computer files, email, notes on paper, text messages, it would involve communication between third parties who were acting on the cults behalf, and Marty has probably gone around and photocopied lots of it already, himself, and will be able to show it exists. So when the COS yells Ve HAZ Nuziiiing!!! Marty will give it to Mosey's lawyers and the cult will be up shit creek more than they are now.

I am posting this as a response to what I read on Ortega's page really, where there is talk of the COS saying they do not have the things asked for in the discovery order.

Does it make sense?

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

LOL, how can anyone measure slappy's height right now with all the jumping up and down he is sure to be doing..

And as regards to you last 2 posts and the Judge's order...I have two words I am focused on 'AFFILIATES' and 'Avail' ...we will see...

Find the number of stars in the sky, multiply it by his firm's hourly billing rate, and then divide by 36*.
That many times.
And I don't envy him, either.
This Order's too tersely-worded to wrangle over...aka 'too tight to bite'...so Wallace Jefferson's got little to gnaw/nibble on.
But - he'll file an appeal anyway, methinks.

JB (*36 = height, in number of inches, of Captain David "TheWeeOne" Miscavige.)

 

[JBWriter]

LOL, how can anyone measure slappy's height right now with all the jumping up and down he is sure to be doing..

And as regards to you last 2 posts and the Judge's order...I have two words I am focused on 'AFFILIATES' and 'Avail' ...we will see...

Good choices, DChoice.

Anyone care for a quick head spin?

Every single word contained in this (relatively) short Order, has all of the following...

...a plain definition, per Webster's dictionary
...a legal definition, per Black's law dictionary
...a legal definition, per Texas civil statutes
...a legally-interpreted definition, per Texas caselaw* (*judicial opinions)
...a legally-interpreted definition, per US caselaw
...the potential to be newly-defined by Judge Dib Waldrip.

Now, pretend to be Wallace Jefferson (or whomever drafts the appeal) and yank 1 short phrase out of Waldrip's Order.
Any phrase at random.
How about the phrase: "generated or obtained"?

First, get the multiple definitions for each of the 3 words: generated - or - obtained.
Look at the definitions for the word "generated". Assess how the definitions for this 1 word differ.
Use only the definition most favorable to the bs position you're writing about when using the word "generated", but don't tell the appellate judge which definition you're using.
Why?
Because that's the appellate judge's job, not yours.
Let the appellate judge figure it out since the trial judge didn't clearly indicate each definition used in the trial-level Order in the first place.
The trial judge thought everyone who could read/comprehend plain English would understand and comply with his Order.
The appellate judge's decision will let the trial judge know whether or not 'plain English' is too difficult for Co$ attorneys to read/comprehend.

And by-the-by, if you're really not happy with any of a word's multiple definitions, make up a completely brand new definition of "generated", put it in your bs appellate papers and give it to the appellate judge - for free!
If the appellate judge likes it and uses it, other lawyers and judges will use your brand-new definition, too!
You're awesome!

Here's a question:

What if your client simultaneously generated AND obtained photos of Mrs. Rathbun? (Your client has super-powers. Ahem.)
The Order as phrased says "or", not 'and'.
If your client generated or obtained the photos, they get turned over to Mr. Jeffrey, per a simple reading of the Order.
Has any Court in Texas or the US ever defined the phrase "generated and obtained" which included 'simultaneousness' before?
If not, those photos of Mrs. Rathbun have a better chance of going in the next issue of Freedom magazine than Ray Jeffrey's inbox.

Too many words here in this post, probably;
but too many definitions in law, certainly.


JB - who won't even bother to feign surprise at seeing the word 'simultanaity' used to describe the new state of achievable beingness which only results from 8 hours spent at the "Eau de Whiff-It, Sniff-It, Be-It" wall @ the Super Power building in an upcoming Facebook success story posted on the 'there's a thetan in my mirror' thread. I will laugh, though.

 

[Lulu Belle]

Good choices, DChoice.

Anyone care for a quick head spin?

Every single word contained in this (relatively) short Order, has all of the following...

...a plain definition, per Webster's dictionary
...a legal definition, per Black's law dictionary
...a legal definition, per Texas civil statutes
...a legally-interpreted definition, per Texas caselaw* (*judicial opinions)
...a legally-interpreted definition, per US caselaw
...the potential to be newly-defined by Judge Dib Waldrip.

Now, pretend to be Wallace Jefferson (or whomever drafts the appeal) and yank 1 short phrase out of Waldrip's Order.
Any phrase at random.
How about the phrase: "generated or obtained"?

First, get the multiple definitions for each of the 3 words: generated - or - obtained.
Look at the definitions for the word "generated". Assess how the definitions for this 1 word differ.
Use only the definition most favorable to the bs position you're writing about when using the word "generated", but don't tell the appellate judge which definition you're using.
Why?
Because that's the appellate judge's job, not yours.
Let the appellate judge figure it out since the trial judge didn't clearly indicate each definition used in the trial-level Order in the first place.
The trial judge thought everyone who could read/comprehend plain English would understand and comply with his Order.
The appellate judge's decision will let the trial judge know whether or not 'plain English' is too difficult for Co$ attorneys to read/comprehend.

And by-the-by, if you're really not happy with any of a word's multiple definitions, make up a completely brand new definition of "generated", put it in your bs appellate papers and give it to the appellate judge - for free!
If the appellate judge likes it and uses it, other lawyers and judges will use your brand-new definition, too!
You're awesome!

Here's a question:

What if your client simultaneously generated AND obtained photos of Mrs. Rathbun? (Your client has super-powers. Ahem.)
The Order as phrased says "or", not 'and'.
If your client generated or obtained the photos, they get turned over to Mr. Jeffrey, per a simple reading of the Order.
Has any Court in Texas or the US ever defined the phrase "generated and obtained" which included 'simultaneousness' before?
If not, those photos of Mrs. Rathbun have a better chance of going in the next issue of Freedom magazine than Ray Jeffrey's inbox.

Too many words here in this post, probably;
but too many definitions in law, certainly.


JB - who won't even bother to feign surprise at seeing the word 'simultanaity' used to describe the new state of achievable beingness which only results from 8 hours spent at the "Eau de Whiff-It, Sniff-It, Be-It" wall @ the Super Power building in an upcoming Facebook success story posted on the 'there's a thetan in my mirror' thread. I will laugh, though.

God, JB. Your post reminds me so much of my Key to Life course. It's scary.

 

[Udarnik]

I wonder how many times Wallace Jefferson has said and thought, "FUCK!" after reading this order?

I wonder how many times DM has yelled "FUCK" over the phone in Wallace Jefferson's ear since this?

 

[Lone Star]

I wonder how many times DM has yelled "FUCK" over the phone in Wallace Jefferson's ear since this?

Actually he yells at Monique Yingling and then she in turn yells at the hired attorneys.

Right now she's close to learning about where Shelly is.