A legal question re: The (increasingly famous) Marty Rathbun Affidavit

[TG1]

How do you know that?

the laywers I have worked with and known are pretty good joes.

Very much my experience, too.

 

[Lone Star]

How do you know that?

the lawyers I have worked with and known are pretty good joes.

....and janes.

 

[Gib]

....and janes.

my bad.

 

[Udarnik]

I've known both kinds. The good far outnumber the bad, in my experience, but in certain kinds of tort law, there is a higher concentration of bad.

The ones I work with (Patent Lawyers) are almost universally good. I've also got a friend who is a Public Defender, and there is no fucking way I could do his job.

 

[NoName]

That was never my theory (that he wanted to take over the entire Church of Scientology once he forced DM out). Never was in that camp.

We're all only expressing our opinions here as the peanut gallery, and none of us is Marty. But from where I sit, I think Marty is about as sick of Scientology and Scientologists as I am.

And I think when this trial is over, he'll be even sicker of the subject and its adherents.

Wouldn't you be?

TG1

Depends on if I have conscience and how much money I could make.

 

[Udarnik]

Depends on if I have conscience and how much money I could make.

Or how much conscience and how much money. That's usually a sliding scale, right? And the two variables are not independent.

 

[NoName]

You are probably correct. However the concept of brainwashing is established
as real, mental hospitals are full of people who self damage etc. However I doubt iether side is going to wish to call expert witnesses. Less Marty/Mosey call on Dr Martha
Stout. This post does show Marty's viewpoint of DM, also shows several areas where DM is very vulnerable and indicates Marty/Mosey will go for all of them.

The flaw in your reasoning is that brainwashing is not an established legal concept - that's sort of the point with the Laura DeCrescenzo lawsuit.

I agree that brainwashing is a very real phenomenon, but courts don't recognize it. Not in the US anyway. Just ask Patty Hearst how well her brainwashing defense worked out.

 

[Terril park]

The flaw in your reasoning is that brainwashing is not an established legal concept - that's sort of the point with the Laura DeCrescenzo lawsuit.

I agree that brainwashing is a very real phenomenon, but courts don't recognize it. Not in the US anyway. Just ask Patty Hearst how well her brainwashing defense worked out.

The law is not my strong suit.

However it seems the thrust of Marty's affidavit is to give evidence that DM
controls all aspects of CO$ everywhere and in particular in Texas, and thus to
give good reason for the Judge not to Rule that DM needn't be deposed.

Nor does it limit what other evidence Marty may wish to give.