ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

04/09/14 Austin Appeals Court Hearing regarding DM's Deposition Order

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by Lone Star, Apr 9, 2014.

  1. Karen#1

    Karen#1 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Mike Bennitt rushed me this summary to upload to my YouTube Channel ~~

    Mike Bennitt summary of ~
    Writ of Mandamus appeal. Wallace Jefferson represents David Miscavige who DOES not, under any condition want to face tough hard questions about his directing Black Ops from his execution arm Office of Special Affairs International.
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
  2. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    tough. think ya meant tough. execution arm? possibly ya meant executive?


  3. secretiveoldfag

    secretiveoldfag Silver Meritorious Patron

    OK but someone somewhere (DM) is passing on lies which are passed on to the court. If this is not perjury it is only round the corner.

    I am looking forward to the day when the truth about Scientology is finally brought out into the light of day, whatever it takes, and the lies are laid to rest. IMO the purpose of court hearings is to sort out what is probably true from what is known to be untrue.

    What is written below is as near as we can currently get to the truth, using Scientology's own published information.
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
  4. Pooks


    Thank you all-- Lone Star, Derek, Mike B. Karen and whoever else is involved in getting us this info. I so love watching the demise of Scientology. Your efforts to keep us informed are much appreciated.

  5. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    I thank Derek for coming along. His summary post was as good as I expected it to be. Much better than what I could do with my early onset dementia and everything. Ha!!

    Three weeks ago I emailed him and asked him if he was coming to the hearing. At the time I thought it was only a week and a half a way, instead it was 2 and a half weeks away. I was chomping at the bit. LOL..

    I certainly wanted him to come because he has a sharp mind. He is able to retain and then accurately summarize the proceedings. I could see that last year when he came to one of the Comal county hearings and reported for Tony O.
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
  6. tetloj

    tetloj Silver Meritorious Patron

    You give us plenty of color and character commentary LS :coolwink:
  7. Intentionally Blank

    Intentionally Blank Scientology Widow

    Dunno what Frankie would do but DM has a long and glorious history of papal misdeeds from which to draw

    A smattering:

    I'd say DM makes a damn fine pope.

  8. ThetanExterior

    ThetanExterior Gold Meritorious Patron

    Why is Miscavige's team continually allowed to tell the court that Scientology is a "major religion"? Why doesn't someone tell the judge that they are lying?

    Tell them to produce the documents that show it is a "major religion" and when they fail to do so, charge them with something. Make them pay a fine or put them in jail. That should shut them up.
  9. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    It's not a jailable offense. I don't think the judges pay much attention to these claims. In fact I'm pretty sure Waldrip knows it's untrue. Yesterday's judges probably don't buy it either. But it's not all that important to the issue at hand. Has nothing to do with how they rule.

    But it irritates the hell out of me too.
  10. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    I think it's safe to say that if you need to go back 1,000 years to find a [STRIKE]handling[/STRIKE] justification for evil, you're clutching at straws .. community standards aren't like they used to be back then.

    :eyeroll: :clap:
  11. Intentionally Blank

    Intentionally Blank Scientology Widow

    I'm not sure how my statement could be taken as a justification for evil rather than the comparison it was meant to be. But if you would like something more recent to suggest DM would, again, make a damn fine pope:

    Maybe DM can [strike]work[/strike] lie,cheat, and bribe his way to the top of another religion when scn goes down.

  12. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    OK. But first, IANAL.

    When Lone Star and Adam told me yesterday that the three judges had many more questions for Leslie Hyman (Monique's lawyer) than for Wallace Jefferson (RTC's and CSI's lawyer), I said that I thought that was not necessarily a bad sign and could even be a good sign.

    Jefferson -- his qualifications, his arguments, the way he thinks through legal matters -- is a known quantity to them. He is a very respected jurist and lawyer. Trust counts for a lot with everyone.

    Hyman -- her qualifications, arguments, how she thinks through legal matters -- are much less familiar to the panel.

    In order to rule against the guy who used to be THE highest judge in Texas, they're really going to have to get their legal ducks in order. Therefore, if they had already found Hyman's arguments faulty, they might not have spent much time or energy questioning her. But they did question her. A lot.

    I found this behavior encouraging.

    Once again, I A N A L.

  13. Adam7986

    Adam7986 Declared SP

    I think the point is DM is named in the lawsuit. So it has nothing to do with whether or not his hands are dirty. It has to do with the fact that he isa named defendant in a lawsuit that is claiming immunity to deposition under the apex doctrine. That's an impossible argument! Their other argument is that the state of TX has no jurisdiction over Miscavige.
  14. Adam7986

    Adam7986 Declared SP

    I actually talked to Ray about this and he acknowledged that it must be tough for me to sit through BS like that (I am paraphrasing, he was much more diplomatic), but he said of course a certain amount leeway is given in a courtroom and that there are rules that must be followed. I told him that we (meaning the ex/watcher community) are all appreciating the amount of truth that he is able to get out in court. He also recognized the fact that where it has been so hard in the past, he is really making an impact by getting the church to tell the truth in a courtroom, in a governmental setting and in the public eye. I told him that listening and reading the things that he says in the courtroom is very cathartic for me, because it's nice that we don't have to watch the church's ridiculous claims go unchallenged like they used to. We were all laughing about how they always find some way to bring up the "huge, growing religion" thing in the courtroom. It's just their desperate attempt to save face.

  15. Adam7986

    Adam7986 Declared SP

    You also made the good point on the phone that Leslie is asking to set a precedent/create a new interpretation of existing law and that could also be a reason for the scrutiny. I don't think that Wallace's former position has any bearing on the way in which is arguments are viewed in court. Even judges in SCOTUS have disagreements on interpretations of existing law, so you can imagine that it would not be surprising at all for any of the judges on the bench yesterday to dismiss or ignore Wallace Jefferson's argument regardless of his former position. As t1kk at the Bunker said, Wallace's position is extremely weak at the moment.
  16. Adam7986

    Adam7986 Declared SP

    As I said on the Bunker today

    My Catholic and Southern Baptist friends and extended family stood by me while my parents and siblings who are Scientologists turned their backs on me. So personally, idgaf how you feel about religion but you can eat it if you want to compare Catholics/Christians to Scientologists.
  17. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Let me pose it this way:

    If you were DM, and you had "clean hands", why would you pay 22 lawyers to getting yourself from being deposed?

    If you were DM, and had "clean hands", why not just allow yourself to get deposed? IE, DM says, sure, ask me any questions you want, I have "clean hands" so I have nothing to hide.
  18. Lulu Belle

    Lulu Belle Moonbat

    I hope you're right, but in my experience, things don't necessarily play out that way in life.

    If any of these judges know the guy, play golf with him, socialize with may be hard for them to make a ruling against him.

    I'm sure that's what COS is counting on, which is why they hired him in the first place.
  19. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I think it has to do with a couple of things.

    1. Hubbard said that when the COS is growing and expanding it drives the SP's nuts, or something like that.
    You see we all know the great expansion by the COS is a pack of lies, so the COS lies about its so called expansion to drive us crazy. Don't take the word "crazy" literally, more like it drives us ex members really annoyed.

    2. I think the lawyers are also trying to establish "ethos", which means credibility.

    "Ethos (Credibility): The ethical appeal establishes the authority and credibility of the speaker; it may concern the speaker's relevant experience or link the speaker (or the speaker's argument) to an established authority. This can mean anything from having Chuck Norris approve your car commercial, to quoting scripture, to citing your degrees and accomplishments. The point, though, is always the same: to let your audience know that they can trust you, because you are connected to other people/ideas that they already trust."

    This is why Hubbard established his own credibility by saying he was a nuclear physicist, a writer, a photographer, a barnstormer, world traveler, etc.

    Hubbard studied "Rhetorical writing" and learned it well. I myself never have, I was never taught about rhetoric writing, not to be confused with a rhetorical statement or rhetorical question, and I am now just looking into it, delayed education on my part, LOL

    Anyways, how do I know Hubbard knew rhetorical writing?

    Well, it was because of this posting on the SA blog and this one line in Hubbards 1936 letter to his teacher of rhetorical writing, who wrote two books back in the early 1900's and used his books to teach.

    Here is the letter:

    Here is the line from the letter that got me to research "rhetorical writing":

    "Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it."

    "very battered now" would mean Hubbard used Dean Wilbur's book quite a bit.
  20. Lulu Belle

    Lulu Belle Moonbat

    I totally agree. I can imagine, as an ex-Sea Org member, how it must feel to watch this.

    I believe I would "line charge". :happydance: