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 www.exscn2.net.



9/24/14: Rathbun v. Scientology: Appeals court hearing, everything on the line

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by CommunicatorIC, Sep 24, 2014.

  1. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    For those new to the forum (and/or the case), Tony also posted this as well a couple hours ago:


     
  2. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Bert Leahy will be the star witness on this. The non-Scilon cameraman who was hired to help "film the SB documentary", but who later quit disillusioned. He witnessed the process of DM giving daily orders to the PIs and the Squirrel Busters by phone, even though DM doesn't have a phone, or know where Texas is. LOL...
     
  3. Never In 99

    Never In 99 New Member

    Actually, I think I've found the answer to my original question is the Bunker Jan. 4 2014 article. It is a very long one, with transcripts of extended text conversations between DM and Mike Rinder. http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/04/mo...bmits-scientology-leaders-foul-mouthed-texts/

    "...In order to prove that Miscavige actually micromanages Scientology’s legendary retaliation campaigns, Monique yesterday filed stunning information — text messages sent in 2007 between Miscavige and two of his top former spokesmen, Tommy Davis and Mike Rinder. In those texts, Miscavige not only comes across as obsessed with tracking a BBC journalist, John Sweeney, but berates his underlings with foul language in a way that doesn’t fit his self-professed image as a detached, ecclesiastical leader.

    Monique filed her lawsuit in August after what she says were four years of harassment caused by Scientology. She was never a church member herself, but her husband, Mark “Marty” Rathbun, was once the church’s second-highest-ranking official, working directly for Miscavige. Marty defected in 2004 and then began speaking critically about his former boss with a well-read blog in 2009. That brought extraordinary attention upon the Rathbuns in the form of private investigators chasing them around the Corpus Christi area, culminating in a bizarre, 199-day siege of their home by a strange intimidation squad that called themselves “Squirrel Busters.”

    Scientology has taken the surprising step of admitting to sending and financing the Squirrel Busters and also hiring the other private investigators who not only surveilled the Rathbuns in their Corpus Christi-area home but also in their new home outside San Antonio. Why is Scientology admitting to that bizarre behavior? Because Miscavige himself wants out of the lawsuit. He filed a “special appearance,” arguing that he has never done any business in Texas and should be let out of the suit on jurisdictional grounds. Since then, the Scientology entities that are defendants in the lawsuit have been working hard to take the blame for the spying and harassment on the Rathbuns while claiming that a religious leader like Miscavige would never concern himself with something as distasteful as a dispute with Scientology detractors.

    For a couple of months, Monique’s legal team has been attempting to gather testimony and documents which would prove that Miscavige was untruthful when he made a sworn declaration about having no connection to Texas, and also to show that Miscavige is actually obsessed with former members and other critics of Scientology. But the church, Monique says, is unfairly keeping her from the information she’s asked for..."
     
  4. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Yeah, but they deposed a few execs as well (though IMO they should have deposed Laurese) who (if I recall) fell on the sword, or flat out lied. Truth? Truth? We don need no stinkin truth. ( since Scn is higher than mere wog law. ) Mimsey
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Karen#1

    Karen#1 Gold Meritorious Patron

  6. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

  7. Northern Shewolf

    Northern Shewolf Patron Meritorious

    While I am happy that Monique gets her dues, I cannot but wonder at Marty's new-found virtue: silencio....

    One cannot but wonder at the rationalisations that went into shutting him up of late.....
    I still would like to hear his truth, and the assorted storylines he witholds on Lisa Mcpherson's death, the real reason he blew in 1995 (was it?)...and many more interesting $ciloonery folklore.
    One day...one can only hope....one day!
    Shewolf:coolwink:
     
  8. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    Yes always - like fanatics :confused2:

    Isn't it the best way to humiliate, degrade, and muzzle a person..either find some ''sexual pseudo-issue'' or fabricate one.

    My recall is that LRH wrote a policiy on it..amirite ????

    They only succed to display their fanatic hate and bully to people who dare to critic them.
    Good job on sinking the boat. Anyway, all that hate toward Marty and Monique resulted in more people leaving. Apparently Monique is busy with her new life and can certainly find some relief especially with the friendship she built around her and with family support.

    Sad...for CO$ haters who again, paint themselve in the corner!
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2015
  9. Northern Shewolf

    Northern Shewolf Patron Meritorious

    Sexual obssession is the province of not getting any!
    As to Co$, Shewolf hates it as she hates all mind-prisons!
    IMOH, and entitled to it.:yes:
     
  10. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Scientology's Surveillance Is Not Free Speech

    Scientology's Surveillance Is Not Free Speech

    Courthouse News: Scientology's Surveillance Is Not Free Speech

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/11/10/scientologys-surveillance-is-not-free-speech.htm

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Scientology's Surveillance Is Not Free Speech | Courthouse News Service

    The Church of Scientology's monitoring of a Texas woman, supposedly ordered by leader David Miscavige, is not protected by free speech, a Texas appeals court ruled.

    The Third Court of Appeals in Austin handily rejected the church's argument that the alleged harassment of Monique Rathbun, the wife of a former high-ranking Scientologist, was a protected right of free speech and free association.

    "It strains credulity to consider the harassing conduct that Rathbun complains of as having any direct relationship to this issue," Justice Scott Field wrote for the appeals court.

    Rathbun's legal battle with the notorious church began in 2013 when she claimed in an explosive lawsuit that the church mounted a three-year campaign of "ruthlessly aggressive misconduct" against her as she and her husband sought seclusion in the Texas Hill Country.

    She claims it all started after her husband, Marty Rathbun, fled the church in 2004, after 27 years on the inside. He was known as Scientology's number two executive, behind Miscavige, according to court records.

    Her husband spoke out against Miscavige's "criminal mistreatment of Scientology clergy" in 2009, Rathbun says in the original complaint.

    [snipped]

    While church officials pushed for dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that their actions are protected rights of free speech, they did not directly address Rathbun's specific complaints, including threats made about her safety to family and friends and closely following her daily movements, the appeals court found.

    "Moreover, other than deny having done so, the Scientology defendants do not address Rathbun's allegations that they sent a sex toy to her at work and sent flowers with a 'romantic' message purportedly from her to a female co-worker," Field wrote.

    The judge ruled that Scientology officials did not prove that Rathbun's allegations arise from their exercise of free speech or association.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
     
  11. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Scientology harassment is not a constitutionally protected form of free speech

    Scientology harassment is not a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

    San Antonio Express-News: Court rejects Scientology motion

    http://www.expressnews.com/news/news_columnists/brian_chasnoff/article/Court-rejects-Scientology-motion-6620577.php


    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Harassment is not a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

    This might seem obvious, but it wasn’t to the Church of Scientology.

    Last week, a Texas appeals court rejected the church’s attempt to fend off a lawsuit alleging it relentlessly harassed the wife of a former high-ranking church official. The church argued that the lawsuit revolved around its rights of “free speech” and “association” and the right “to petition.”


    Here are some of the bizzare acts alleged in court documents by Monique Rathbun, wife of church dissident Marty Rathbun.

    Scientologists appeared at Rathbun’s Comal County home after dark to “interrograte her aggressively” and fled when she called police.

    Scientology operatives approached Rathbun and her husband in a golf cart with up to six cameras, “filming them and shout(ing) insults and rude questions.”

    The church sent a sex toy to Rathbun at her workplace and published claims on websites that she was a transgender male and a “sexual pervert.”

    A Scientology private investigator leased a residence across from the Rathbuns’ Ingleside on the Bay home and “installed high-powered still and video cameras pointed at and into” their home.

    After the Rathbuns moved to a wooded lot in Comal County, a Scientologist leased undeveloped property next to their home and installed a surveillance camera directed at their property.

    Marty Rathbun has spoken out against the church since he left in 2004 as its second-highest-ranking official. In the HBO documentary “Going Clear,” he criticized the erratic behavior of current Scientology leader David Miscavige.

    “When he got absolute power, he went absolutely bonkers,” Rathbun said.

    In court documents, the church claimed its actions against the Rathbuns were acts of protest and an attempt to produce a documentary about issues of “public importance, including importance to Scientologists.”

    To back its claim, the church cited the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a “relatively new law (that is) supposed to protect citizens from being abused by powerful organizations when they exercise their constitutional rights,” said Ray Jeffrey, an attorney for Rathbun.

    “The Scientologists turned that law on its head,” Jeffrey added. “And this multi-billion dollar organization was seeking to use it as a weapon against one lady of no means who was trying to sue them to protect herself.”

    An attorney for the church did not return a call requesting comment.

    Jeffrey’s “weapon” metaphor is apt.

    “The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK,” wrote Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, more than five decades ago.

    That philosophy is reflected in the church’s current “operations manual,” which describes how it deals with dissidents.

    “These persons can always lose their jobs,” the manual states, according to court documents. “If the person’s job is not valuable to him or if he cannot be made to lose his job, something can be found which he is seeking to protect and it can be threatened.”

    Apparently, the church has identified Marty Rathbun’s family as something worth threatening.

    By brazenly acknowledging its actions, though, the church has likely hastened a legal ruling that such harassment is not only wrong, but also illegal.


    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
     
  12. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    :wow: :clap:

    This is great news!:thumbsup:

    However, although I'm relieved and happy for Mosey, I'm not at all that surprised. :no:

    Just for self-serving grins, a few of some my Posts from over a year ago regarding all this that are, IMO, germane...


    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...or-harrassment&p=894310&viewfull=1#post894310

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-to-be-deposed&p=896678&viewfull=1#post896678

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-to-be-deposed&p=896712&viewfull=1#post896712


    IMHO, the Cof$ (DM) is gonna play this out to the hilt and spend, spend, spend to try and keep Minnie Me from being deposed or standing in the Witness Box. IMO, DiMinutive Numb Nuts might possibly consent to being deposed and lie his ass off as a stalling action. However, the Da Monster will "do a bunk" a la El Ron and run to Lower Slabovia where he's safe from Extradition and having to testify and be cross examined in open US Court of Law. :yes:

    It'll al be played out to the Faithful as, "Just like the CommodeDoor, Chairman of the Bored has taken action to prevent the Jackals from Dev-Ting, Enturbulating and hindering with Entheta his 'Production'." :eyeroll:

    Face:)
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015
  13. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    In my opinion...the part I bolded in your post Karen allows a sufficient lead in to the loss of the 501(c) (3) tax exemption for the church of scientology. (yes I know it is not a church but I want google spiders to be able to find this under 'church of scientology' ).

    The reason I say this is based upon

    A) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

    Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libels liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism", though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States,[1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory.[2]

    Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

    and

    B)Compliance with federal and state law is a responsibility of 501 (c)(3) status.

    and

    C) http://sweetness-light.com/archive/501c3-charities-cannot-break-the-law

    ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ILLEGAL OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY

    1. Introduction

    Exempt purposes may generally be equated with the public good, and violations of law are the antithesis of the public good. Therefore, the conduct of such activities may be a bar to exemption. Factors that have to be considered in determining the effect of illegal activities on an organization’s qualification for exemption are the paragraph of IRC 501(c) under which the organization is exempt or is applying for exemption, and the nature and extent of the illegal activities engaged in by the organization.

    2. IRC 501(c)(3) and IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations

    A. Charity Law

    Exemption recognized under IRC 501(c)(3) is unique in that, unlike exemption under other paragraphs of IRC 501(c), it is grounded in charity law, so that denial of exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) may be based on charity law.

    (1) Substantiality Test

    Violation of constitutionally valid laws is inconsistent with exemption under IRC 501(c)(3). As a matter of trust law, one of the main sources of the general law of charity, planned activities that violate laws are not in furtherance of a charitable purpose. "A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal … if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy…. Where a policy is articulated in a statute making certain conduct a criminal offense, then …, a trust is illegal if its performance involves such criminal conduct, or if it tends to encourage such conduct." IV Scott on Trusts Section 377 (3d ed. 1967). Thus, all charitable trusts (and by implication all charitable organizations, regardless of their form) are subject to the requirement that their purpose may not be illegal or contrary to public policy. Rev. Rul. 71-447, 1971-2 C.B. 230; Restatement (Second) of Trusts, Section 377, Comment c (1959). Moreover by conducting criminal activities, an organization increases the burden of government and thus thwarts a well recognized charitable goal, i.e., relief of the burdens of government.

    Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1) states that an organization will not be regarded as operated "exclusively" for IRC 501(c)(3) purposes if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. The presence of a single non-charitable purpose, if substantial in nature, will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or importance of truly charitable purposes. Better Business Bureau v. United States, 326 U.S. 279 (1945). Therefore, if an organization engages in illegal acts that are a substantial part of its activities, it does not qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3)



    Of course there is more than just libel included in this 'harassment' case. Those other items could also be delineated and used to show the non-charitable purposes of this criminal and fraudulent 501(c)(3). And that is being charitable !
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015
  14. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Scientology Cannot Get Dismissal of Harassment Suit Under Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Scientology Cannot Get Dismissal of Harassment Suit Under Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute.

    The legal blog The Religion Clause has the story.

    Scientology Cannot Get Dismissal of Harassment Suit Under Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute

    http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2015/11/scientology-cannot-get-dismissal-of.html

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCEPT * * * * *

    In Sloat v. Rathbun, (TX App., Nov. 6, 2015), a Texas appellate court held that the Church of Scientology and its officials cannot invoke the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to obtain dismissal of a lawsuit against them alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and tortious interference with contract. TCPA is designed to allow rapid dismissal of unmeritorious lawsuits challenging individuals' exercise of their rights of speech, petition or association. Here plaintiff, the wife of a former high ranking Scientology official who spoke out against Scientology, claims that the Scientology defendants subjected her to relentless abuse, harassment and surveillance. The court held that defendants have not shown that the alleged activities relate to the exercise of free speech or the rights of association or petition:


    [With one exception] the Scientology Defendants do not directly address the specific conduct Rathbun complains of, which includes following her while she went to and from work, shopping, out to dinner with friends, and walking her dog. Nor do they explain how alleged visits to Rathbun’s family members, friends, and coworkers during which they allegedly gave warnings about Rathbun’s personal safety while married to Marty Rathbun, constitute conduct covered by the TCPA. Moreover, other than deny having done so, the Scientology Defendants do not address Rathbun’s allegations that they sent a sex toy to her at work and sent flowers with a “romantic” message purportedly from her to a female co-worker.



    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *