What's new

APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spying

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
From Tony Ortega:

http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...ur-coverage-of-them-legitimates-their-spying/

And here’s that new twist we mentioned — Scientology suggests that our Village Voice coverage of the Squirrel Busters siege of the Rathbun home is proof that Scientology’s goon squad was accomplishing its goal. Wow.

Rathbun was such a threat, Scientology suggests, the church pretty much had no choice but to hire some private investigators and some lawyers to consider possible litigation.

One of the most interesting results in Waldrip’s decision was that because Scientology kept insisting it was protecting its “trademarks” when it was surveilling the Rathbuns, then it was acting like a business protecting its turf. And a business protecting its turf cannot fall back on an anti-SLAPP motion. Naturally, Scientology is griping about that, and says “the court ignored the IRS’s contrary finding that the Church has an exlusively charitable and religious purpose.”

Scientology also says Waldrip erred because he didn’t consider this a free speech case. Scientology counters that it is a speech battle, and one that is “a matter of public concern.” Their evidence? Once again, it’s our press interest in their harassment of the Rathbuns. Fascinating.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229415666/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-Appeal-Brief

Wonderful shoop here. I'm not going to hotlink it, worth a click:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...-legitimates-their-spying/#comment-1432828739
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

TX Lawyer's opinion:

TX Lawyer TX Lawyer • an hour ago

I've read the whole brief now, and here's how I see it. Keeping in mind that we haven't seen Team Monique's brief yet (which isn't due for another 30 days), this is a really well done, persuasive, and quite possibly winning brief. At the end of the day, I don't think Judge Waldrip did himself any favors by issuing that lengthy order stating the grounds for his ruling, as it enabled Scientology to attack the specific weaknesses in the ruling rather than having to shoot down each and every reason that the trial court might have had to deny the motion.

If you read his order, Judge Waldrip decided that Mrs. Rathbun's lawsuit was not eligible for anti-SLAPP treatment because of a couple of exceptions written into the statute: (1) that it was a lawsuit "brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, if the statement or conduct arises out of the sale or lease of goods [or] services . . . or a commercial transaction in which the intended audience is an actual buyer or customer," and (2) that it is a lawsuit "seeking recovery for bodily injury." With respect to the commercial speech exception, the brief argues persuasively (and with good legal authorities) that the exception only applies to speech that is directly offering or advertising goods or services. That argument is particularly persuasive because the statute itself says that speech about "a good, product, or service in the marketplace" is one of the categories of speech that is eligible for ant-SLAPP protection.

With respect to the "bodily injury" exception, the brief argues persuasively that mental anguish and headaches just don't fit the bill. Texas courts are extremely reluctant to allow plaintiffs to recover money just because somebody feels bad about how they've been treated by the defendant, so I expect that argument to carry some weight with the appellate court. The brief also points out, quite rightly, that mental anguish is one of the standard categories of damages for defamation plaintiffs, and shoehorning it into the exception for "bodily injury" would basically amount to the exception swallowing the rule.

With those exceptions out of the way, the brief then moves on to arguing that the case does fit the bill for eligibility under the anti-SLAPP statute because (1) it arises out of the defendants' exercise of free speech or free association, and (2) it relates to a matter of public concern. I think the Church is on weaker ground arguing that Monique (as opposed to Marty) is a "public figure" whose activities are a matter of "public concern," but they still have a pretty solid argument that Scientology and the practice thereof is a matter of public concern. Although Tony makes light of their circular argument that the press attention to the Squirrel Buster activities shows the whole thing to have been a matter of public concern, the fact that we're all watching the Church (hopefully) implode kinda sorta makes the point pretty well.

So if the case is within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, and the exceptions don't apply, what does that mean? Well, the way the statute works is that if the statute applies, then the plaintiff has to come forward with "clear and specific evidence" of each element of her causes of action, or those claims have to be dismissed. This section of the brief is pretty brutal, because the facts here really don't fit Monique's claims particularly well. On the invasion of privacy claim, the brief argues persuasively that she didn't come forward with any evidence of her private information (as opposed to Marty's) being exposed to the public. The attack on the related claim for "Invasion of Privacy for Intrusion on Seclusion" is less persuasive. Scientology takes the position that this claim involves either physical trespass onto private property or eavesdropping with the aid of wiretaps or microphones. They are correct that such cases are the typical example of cognizable intrusion on seclusion claims, but my O'Connor's Causes of Action shows some Dallas Court of Appeals authority that the tort also applies to harassing and following the plaintiff. Still, that's another potentially clean shot for the Church.

The tortious interference with contract claim is also weak. Mrs. Rathbun is claiming that the Church wrongfully interfered with her employment contract, but the fact is that she is the one who quit her old job. I expect that her attorneys will argue she quit because of the Church's interference, but it's hard to say that the Church caused her any contractual harm when it was her own decision to terminate the contract. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is also tough, as that tort is strongly disfavored in Texas and is only available in exceptionally egregious circumstances where no other cause of action would apply. Here, Monique is already asserting several causes of action based on the same facts, which makes it hard to say that she doesn't have any other ability to sue the bastards.

Like I said at the top, this is a really strong appellate brief. If I were on Team Monique (which I'm not), I would want to strongly emphasize all the non-speech aspects of the Church's activities here. Honestly, they might have been better off disclaiming any reliance on the content or messages of the defendants' speech, and instead expressly limited themselves to the harassing conduct. But they didn't do that, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the COA dismisses some or all of the claims against the defendants in this appeal.

Please understand, this is in no way a defense of Scientology's actions with respect to the Rathbuns. Those actions were and remain completely disgusting. I'm just looking at this as a lawyer, and recognizing that they don't easily fit into something actionable. I hope that Monique's brief persuades me otherwise.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...-legitimates-their-spying/#comment-1433159873
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

Good to have some news. Glad for action - not ...
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

Okay....looks like the cult will prevail in court yet again over a "little guy". Shit...fuck....damn. Reading TX Lawyer's rundown feels like a gut punch. Deep down I know he's right.

Looks like the legal actions against Narconon's insurance fraud has the best chance for a win.

But in America if a 501c3 organization wants to ruin your life as an individual, well too fucking bad. Got any real money? No? Well then fuck off and die.

Suckers walk......

If getting raped by a cult or corporation is inevitable then you might as well lay back and enjoy it.....bitch.
 
Last edited:
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

I wouldn't give up on Ray just yet. The church does conduct itself like a business, and there any number of Hubbard's policies where he urges them to Make Money, get stats up, the fixed fees (donations) for services, trademarks etc. - it comes across as a business dispute. There is the matter of Why would a religion stalk someone? What other religion does that? I have faith that Ray (with Mike and Marty's input) can cut them off at the knees.

Keep the faith brothers.

Mimsey
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

This trial isn't over by a long shot, Ray Jeffries & Judge Waldrip are on to $cientology's tactics.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

This trial isn't over by a long shot, Ray Jeffries & Judge Waldrip are on to $cientology's tactics.

No it's not over, but at this stage it has nothing to do with Ray J or Judge Waldrip. It's in the hands of the Texas Appeals Court which is notoriously pro-bidness and screw the little guy.

I live in Texas and as much as I love it, I'll be the first to admit that it's judiciary is all fucked up. It's politics is all fucked up. The pendulum has swung so far right it's unbelieavable. The cult usually does well in a far right wing environment. Note how most of the politicians in their back pocket are far right loonies? That's cuz the cult knows how to play to the "less guvmint mo freedumb" argument. They, along with their high dollar lawyers play it very well.

TX Lawyer's assessment of the CSI's brief regarding the anti-SLAPP motion confirms my long suspicions and concerns. Most, if not all, of Mosey's suit will probably get thrown out. Just like Marc Headley got screwed.

Now the Narconon insurance fraud action? That's where it's gonna be, it seems to me. That's got the potential to really shut the show down. You don't fuck with the sacred insurance system in this country on that kinda scale and get away with it. We're talking about stealing from the institutional thieves now who have the power behind them. Homies don't play dat. :no:
 
Last edited:

Purple Rain

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

No it's not over, but at this stage it has nothing to do with Ray J or Judge Waldrip. It's in the hands of the Texas Appeals Court which is notoriously pro-bidness and screw the little guy.

I live in Texas and as much as I love it, I'll be the first to admit that it's judiciary is all fucked up. It's politics is all fucked up. The pendulum has swung so far right it's unbelieavable. The cult usually does well in a far right wing environment. Note how most of the politicians in their back pocket are far right loonies? That's cuz the cult knows how to play to the "less guvmint mo freedumb" argument. They, along with their high dollar lawyers play it very well.

TX Lawyer's assessment of the CSI's brief regarding the anti-SLAPP motion confirms my long suspicions and concerns. Most, if not all, of Mosey's suit will probably get thrown out. Just like Marc Headley got screwed.

Now the Narconon insurance fraud action? That's where it's gonna be, it seems to me. That's got the potential to really shut the show down. You don't fuck with the sacred insurance system in this country on that kinda scale and get away with it. We're talking about stealing from the institutional thieves now who have the power behind them. Homies don't play dat. :no:

If the court allows the Scientology Goliath to accuse David of bullying then the people who drafted the Anti-SLAPP must have been morons. If it can be that abused - and used as the very antithesis of what was intended - then the lawmakers need to go back to law drafting kindergarten. Seriously. Scientology will be making a mockery of all of them. If that is justice then give me injustice, because it's all the same thing.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

If the court allows the Scientology Goliath to accuse David of bullying then the people who drafted the Anti-SLAPP must have been morons. If it can be that abused - and used as the very antithesis of what was intended - then the lawmakers need to go back to law drafting kindergarten. Seriously. Scientology will be making a mockery of all of them. If that is justice then give me injustice, because it's all the same thing.

At first blush the anti-SLAPP law sounds noble and great. Protecting little Davids from big 'ol mean Goliaths. But, in the good ole 21st century USA corporations aren't just persons, they are the most important persons. The Supreme Court under the guidance of that John Roberts has certified it. (It's no surprise that he "turncoated" and voted that Obamacare is constitutional. He loves fascism, which is exactly what Obamacare is).

Anyway, the judicial court system in the US, and especially Texas, is geared to fuck regular individuals and reward corporations. Sure there are exceptions every now and then, but not many. It's getting worse.

You see, in their twisted viewpoint "We The People" are the Goliath and the corporations need protection in the interest of bidness. Do the courts care about the fine line between the cult being a religion or a bidness? Nope. Don't give a flying fuck. Not their concern.

There's too much "dangerous precedence" on the line if Mosey wins this case. Our court system is based on precedence. The Scilon lawyers know how to speak to the judges in a way that makes them understand what's on the line.

This lawsuit, or a very big chunk of it will be thrown out.

I'd love to be wrong. Hope I am.
 
Last edited:

RogerB

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

Nah, don't go off "half-cocked" . . . the brief by the cult is only one half of the equation, and of course it has been written "persuasively" . . . that's the job of lawyers . . . and TXLawyer is simply making a comment on the one half of the submissions that will hit the Appellate Court.

Wait for the other side of the argument from plaintiff . . . it will likely counter and shoot down the "persuasive points" in defendant's submission . . . for which I am glad they got theirs in first so it could be countered point by point.

The issue of that the IRS has held the cult to be a not for profit, etc., is rather irrelevant to the cause of this case and the conduct of the cult . . . the anti-SLAP thing in being judged on and applied to the ACTIONS and BASIS of the cult's actions . . . not on who and/or what the IRS holds them to be.

Big difference in that point . . . I suspect plaintiff with successfully argue that point that this case is about the ACTIONS and the BASIS of those actions by the cult: not what and who they are held to be by the IRS.

R
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

If the court allows the Scientology Goliath to accuse David of bullying then the people who drafted the Anti-SLAPP must have been morons. If it can be that abused - and used as the very antithesis of what was intended - then the lawmakers need to go back to law drafting kindergarten. Seriously. Scientology will be making a mockery of all of them. If that is justice then give me injustice, because it's all the same thing.

Hi Purple, Ron already uses law as the very antithesis of what is intended as lawsuits can be used to harass instead of to win...exhaust the "enemies" financial "war chests". That's all the IAS war chest is about. Because of the greed of attorneys we now live in a world where Ron can use the legal system to perpetrate a crime spree.

However, thank God for the internet in that it has enough freedom that any and all of Scientology's "wins" are hollow victories. In the eyes of the US public they've already lost, merely look to the emptying orgs.

Go Mosey!!!
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

According to Scientology lawyers, John Wilkes Booth was merely exercising his "Free Speech" that night at Ford Theatre.

They actually believe that the rest of the world is as batshit crazy as they are.

Mosey and Marty can be awarded millions in damages without relinquishing their rights to free speech.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

Nah, don't go off "half-cocked" . . . the brief by the cult is only one half of the equation, and of course it has been written "persuasively" . . . that's the job of lawyers . . . and TXLawyer is simply making a comment on the one half of the submissions that will hit the Appellate Court.

Wait for the other side of the argument from plaintiff . . . it will likely counter and shoot down the "persuasive points" in defendant's submission . . . for which I am glad they got theirs in first so it could be countered point by point.

The issue of that the IRS has held the cult to be a not for profit, etc., is rather irrelevant to the cause of this case and the conduct of the cult . . . the anti-SLAP thing in being judged on and applied to the ACTIONS and BASIS of the cult's actions . . . not on who and/or what the IRS holds them to be.

Big difference in that point . . . I suspect plaintiff with successfully argue that point that this case is about the ACTIONS and the BASIS of those actions by the cult: not what and who they are held to be by the IRS.

R

Kidding me? I'm not going off half cocked....I got all my hyperbole barrels blazing! That's how I roll.....LOL....
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi

TX Lawyer TX Lawyer • an hour ago

I've read the whole brief now, and here's how I see it. Keeping in mind that we haven't seen Team Monique's brief yet (which isn't due for another 30 days), this is a really well done, persuasive, and quite possibly winning brief.



A 'good' brief always sounds like a winning one,
especially a hypnotically written one.

To Deacon Blue:
"Written laws are like spiders’ webs; they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but would be torn in pieces by the rich and powerful." Anacharsis (approx 500BC discussing Solon's laws)
 
Last edited:

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: APPEAL BRIEF: Scientology argues that our coverage of them legitimates their spyi


To read all 5 of the individually submitted Appellant's Briefs, the Texas 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals' website has kindly uploaded each in pdf format.
Here's the direct link: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-14-00199-CV

In the section that says "Briefs" the individual appellants aren't named so, beginning at the top:

Defendant Sloat
Defendant Bryan
Defendant Drake
Defendant CSI
Defendant Lubow

JB <----about to brew a pot of coffee before settling in to read these *cough* 'masterpieces'. :dizzy:
 
Top