Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 2014

freethinker

Sponsor
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

These people prepare Writs of Mandamus. They lay out what is done, what is required and what will happen.

It appears they prepare them for any court in the country.

Anyway I found a few points interesting -

http://www.appealsparalegal.com/writsofmandamus.htm

2. Form and Contents of Petition

All factual statements in the petition must be verified by affidavit made on personal knowledge by an affiant competent to testify to the matters stated. The petition must, under appropriate headings and in the following order, contain:



[...]



G. ACTION ON PETITION

The court may deny the petition with or without a response. The court, however, will not grant mandamus relief unless a response has been filed or request. The court may request full briefing. The court may grant relief without oral argument. When denying relief, the court is not required to issue an opinion. When granting relief, however, the court must issue an opinion.


[...]


I. TEMPORARY RELIEF

The relator may file a motion to stay any underlying proceedings or for any other temporary relief pending the court’s action on the petition. The relator must certify to the court that if has notified or made a diligent effort to notify all parties by expedited means (such as phone or fax) that a motion for temporary relief has been or will be filed. A bond may be required to protect the parties affected by the temporary relief. The court may grant temporary relief on its own motion. Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided. Any party may move to reconsider the grant of temporary relief.

J. SANCTIONS

On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may – after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond – impose sanctions on a party or attorney who is not acting in good faith as indicated by any of the following: (a) filing a petition that is clearly groundless; (b) bringing the petition only for delay of an underlying proceeding; (c) grossly misstating or omitting an obviously important and material fact in the petition or response; or (d) filing an appendix or record that is clearly misleading because of the omission of obviously important and material evidence or documents.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I find it hard to fathom that under Sanctions section , item D) could possibly succeed. Key word MISLEADING

On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may – after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond – impose sanctions on a party or attorney who is not acting in good faith as indicated by any of the following: (a) filing a petition that is clearly groundless; (b) bringing the petition only for delay of an underlying proceeding; (c) grossly misstating or omitting an obviously important and material fact in the petition or response; or (d) filing an appendix or record that is clearly misleading because of the omission of obviously important and material evidence or documents.
 

J. Swift

Patron with Honors
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

...The most important thing they ignore (or maybe they don't and just don't care) is that all these filings remain in the public domain and on the Internet FOREVER now for everyone to see.

Yes, and the case seems to be a blueprint in how to sue the Scientology Criminal Group Inc. What stands out to me is that David Miscavige aka RTC aka CSI cannot, and will never, file a countersuit against the Rathbun's because he has unclean hands. Miscavige cannot, and will never, defend the copyrights of the Scientology Criminal Group Inc. because he is dirty and cannot withstand a deposition.

I note that a Google search for "Writ of Mandamus Texas" gives us this paper written by Jefferson's firm. Hence, this appears to be DM's playbook: http://www.haynesboone.com/files/Up...blications/Mandamus-the-Hurdles-to-Relief.pdf

MANDAMUS: THE HURDLES TO RELIEF
KAREN S. PRECELLA
Haynes and Boone, LLP
201 Main Street, Suite 2200
Fort Worth, Texas 76102



INTRODUCTION
A successful petition for writ of mandamus must overcome multiple hurdles to secure relief.

First, the court must have jurisdiction to issue a writ as to the party against whom relief is sought.

Second, the petition and related filings must meet the Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 and e-filing requirements. That hurdle is more difficult than it may sound and is often the basis for denial without a party even realizing it.

Third, the petition and related filings must establish that there would be no adequate remedy by appeal for the alleged trial court error. That task is also more difficult than it seems. Courts currently use a balancing (or sometimes an “exceptional or compelling circumstances”) test for the inadequate remedy by appeal requirement. The balancing is whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review. That standard might provide a broader standard that allows review of more incidental trial court rulings than had been true historically.

Fourth, the petition must show an abuse of discretion (or the violation of a legal duty imposed by law) — the error of the ruling from which relief is desired.

Fifth, in the supreme court, a showing that your issue is important to the jurisprudence of the state may be advisable, even if not clearly required.

This paper primarily discusses the first three requirements and a few examples of the current trends or hot topics in the mandamus area based upon opinions issued over the last several years. The fourth and fifth requirements are case specific and an additional opportunity to show your advocacy skills!
 

Karen#1

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

One of the characteristics inside the Church, is the utter franticness, desperation and frenzy for IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION, immediate stats, immediate sales, immediate humiliation and immediate abuse, immediate SP declares (40 of the in South Africa) etc. etc etc. Never has the franticness, the immediate do or die URGENCY been so flagrant as the last 15 years. It is perpetual cliff-hanging motion at 300mph and if you slow down....:::ahem:::: there are escalating penalties for that.

There is NO time to wait. No time to sleep on it, no time to evaluate the bigger picture. Its a race for action NOW NOW NOW. The race for Thursday 2pm stats is something to behold. There is no weighing value of a staff member, one is as good as last week's stats, and the immediate hysterical demand for NOW stat, A now RESULT.

Therefore members are cannibalized, clobbered, driven away, who cares? the money was extorted for Now Now Now. No thinking long range. Immediate gratification ONLY.

And so it appears with the Lawyers. And this writ of Mandamus. What they are saying is going to bite them in the ass in later litigation, words out of their own mouth will hang em high, the deception, the lies, the bogus embellishments of fact, but in the immediate rush to get Miscavige out of deposition Now Now Now, they are rushing to the Texas Third Court of Appeals with a TRO still in place, with a yet unruled SLAPP motion and lying through their teeth to an Appellate court. .

"Millions of members" "Miscavige works 100 hours a week !" pretending and lying in Writ of Mandamus that Miscavige does not run everything with an iron hand. Any Sea Org member will tell you past or present, that David Miscavige runs EVERYTHING. I cannot tell you how many times between 2000 and 2010 I heard the phrase internally "This order is Straight from COB !"

The spin put out makes one see falsity in almost every line. Deceptive, Misleading, "sharp practices" but what can be expected in a defendant who is unethical with a "war chest" of funds making it a wealthy corporate defendant that slick expensive lawyers will defend with 87 page write ups.

I look look forward to reading Monique (Mosey)'s opposition brief.

This will be easily knocked down by a very skillful legal writer with TRUTH.

 
Last edited:

freethinker

Sponsor
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

Wallace is hanging this petition for Mandamus on the First Amendment but that amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

Congress does not make the laws for Texas, Texas makes the laws for Texas so the way I see it we are dealing with Texas Law and not Congresses. How can I say that?

The Supreme Court has said that.

U.S. Supreme Court
CARTER v. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=298&invol=238

 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

Wallace is hanging this petition for Mandamus on the First Amendment but that amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

Congress does not make the laws for Texas, Texas makes the laws for Texas so the way I see it we are dealing with Texas Law and not Congresses. How can I say that?

The Supreme Court has said that.

U.S. Supreme Court
CARTER v. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=298&invol=238

I don't have the time to write an extensive article right now, but please, trust me, the First Amendment applies to state laws and state governmental actions under the incorporation doctrine.

Ok, don't trust me, but please follow the link. :coolwink:
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I agree with you Karen.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/19/sc...avid-miscavige-from-being-deposed/#more-13346

I was reading Tony's blog article and as I got into his very first quoted sentence from the writ:

Contrary to the theatrical caricature the Plaintiff has pleaded below, the Church of Scientology is a recognized religion, practiced in thousands of churches and missions by millions of followers in more than 150 countries.

I immediately saw in it just as you say; words out of their own mouth will hang em high, the deception, the lies, the bogus embellishments of fact

uhmmm 'THOUSANDS OF CHURCHS AND MISSIONS' UHHH okay please provide the names, addresses and names and contact numbers of staff who can be reached to verify this statement at let's say two time points. Last fiscal year ending and comparatively Jan 1st 2014. The court will randomly contact 300 of these staff and ask for their affidavits. If we find this any pattern of falsehood....writ denied... if the staff are not available, writ denied.


The second quote by tony left me re-reading its second sentence 3 times, as it is simply disjointed. To quote;

He has led a global campaign to ensure that each Church of Scientology is “ideal in location, design, quality of religious services and social betterment programs”; a multi-year project to restore and preserve the integrity of fundamental Scientology scripture as written or recorded by L. Ron Hubbard, the religion’s founder, and the development of a comprehensive Scientology counseling and ministerial-training program.


What the hell? Who the hell wrote that sentence? .. in a writ of mandamus? Which judge wants to be an English teacher to the author, and send them to the same English class, as this author(dchoice) needs to be in. LOL

RE-peat
repeat
repeat

and rinse for each phrase or partial phrase contained in the writ.

Seems the Scn attorneys have not realized that writing documents for Judges is a real world activity requiring facts and not a scn course room wherein prevarication is the 'rule of law'
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

Wallace is hanging this petition for Mandamus on the First Amendment but that amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

Congress does not make the laws for Texas, Texas makes the laws for Texas so the way I see it we are dealing with Texas Law and not Congresses. How can I say that?

The Supreme Court has said that.

U.S. Supreme Court
CARTER v. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=298&invol=238


I concur. I also ran across that recently. My layman translation of it is that essentially each state gets to have their own law and if they omitted something, then the fall back is to the Federal law.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I concur. I also ran across that recently. My layman translation of it is that essentially each state gets to have their own law and if they omitted something, then the fall back is to the Federal law.
Honestly, this is wrong when it comes to the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Like I said above, I don't have the time to write an extensive article right now, but please, trust me, the First Amendment applies to state laws and state governmental actions under the incorporation doctrine.

Ok, don't trust me, but please follow the link. :coolwink:

Seriously, the idea that the State of Texas, or any State, is not governed and limited by the First Amendment is simply wrong.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I don't have the time to write an extensive article right now, but please, trust me, the First Amendment applies to state laws and state governmental actions under the incorporation doctrine.

Ok, don't trust me, but please follow the link. :coolwink:


Okay, I admit it. Time for me to step down from the bench as I might need to do a little more study and article work before I make such declarations. LOL.
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I am a legal ignoramus and have only read the snippets on Tony's blog. But surely the writ should be truthful, or the lies at least cloaked in some truthfulness?

Millions of members? How can that be proven as the truth? Where does the responsibility lie in respect to the truthfulness of court documents? The lawyers? Do the lawyers have a duty to tell the court the truth or a resemblance of it, however it gets twisted? Twisted and stretched truth would be expected in the battle.

Can they say that they are the figures given by the church and it was put in the document in good faith?

Why would they risk the suit by putting in a blatant lie? I don't understand the legal logic at all. The point could have been made by saying "many thousands".

Like I say, legal ignoramus.
It is really amusing that Miscavige even has his lawyers parroting the official press lines of hundreds of churches and millions of members. I wonder if they are going to be trying Shermanspeak and rolling thunder two hour soliloquies next.
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I am a legal ignoramus and have only read the snippets on Tony's blog. But surely the writ should be truthful, or the lies at least cloaked in some truthfulness?

I refer to the commentary on Tony's Blog by a Texan lawyer

Scientology lolyers have presented as facts in the case that DM is an ecclesiastical mission very busy opening orgs blah blah blah millions of follower blah blah blah

Monique's team have not disputed these facts in the case record to date

Therefore the appeal will assume that these are undisputed facts for the purpose of the appeal

However the membership size will have little to do with this appeal being upheld or not
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

Contrary to the theatrical caricature the Plaintiff has pleaded below, the Church of Scientology is a recognized religion, practiced in thousands of churches and missions by millions of followers in more than 150 countries.

This is from Scientology's Prayer, copied from Tony Ortega's blog today.

This is perhaps a good moment to repeat the results of a meticulous study of Scientology churches and missions carried out some time ago by members of this board. The results were published on ESMB at the link below. On the basis of their own data we can say with confidence that what they claim is a lie. Scientology does not have thousands of churches or millions of follower in 150 countries.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ALLELED-GROWTH-SINCE-2004&p=813951#post813951

SITUATION OF CoS in January 2013.

At that time they were claiming more than 11,000 Scientology Churches, Missions and affiliated groups in 167 nations.

These are purely imaginary figures.

True facts: in January 2013, giving them the benefit of any doubt, using their own lists of active orgs and missions, they had at most 465 'churches' in 60 countries. That's 465 orgs and missions instead of the 11,000 they claim.

Their membership was reckoned to be at most 60,000 and declining quite rapidly especially in Europe and North America.

If anyone is looking for a blatant lie, there it is.
 
Last edited:

l whip

Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

What is the prayer of Scientology? They haven't got a prayer! Now that sounds like a joke, but it's not.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

What is the prayer of Scientology? They haven't got a prayer! Now that sounds like a joke, but it's not.

Check on Tony's blog (one of the four links given above). The Prayer is their Last Hope and if this is why Wallace gave up his job I think he might live to regret it.

Then I read, in the mandamus application:
[The rodent] has led a global campaign to ensure that each Church of Scientology is “ideal in location, design, quality of religious services and social betterment programs”; a multi-year project to restore and preserve the integrity of fundamental Scientology scripture as written or recorded by L. Ron Hubbard, the religion’s founder, and the development of a comprehensive Scientology counseling and ministerial-training program...

Does anyone else find it odd that at the same time they claim DM doesn't micromanage the cult, I mean 'church', and has no idea what is going on in Texas but at the same time works 100 hours a week to micromanage the cult?

Seems to me he can't have it both ways.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20




Karen, what a beautiful photo. A study in serenity and love.

Monique Rathbun - I truly hope that at some time soon you have the opportunity for a peaceful life with your family.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

<snip>

Does anyone else find it odd that at the same time they claim DM doesn't micromanage the cult, I mean 'church', and has no idea what is going on in Texas but at the same time works 100 hours a week to micromanage the cult?

Seems to me he can't have it both ways.

IMO, you and many others are correct.

This is why the CofS will fight hard to prevent DM from being subject to a legal deposition.

In a legal deposition, DM will either have to lie (then be found out and then be prosecuted)
...OR...
DM will have to tell the truth (and then be prosecuted).

He would lose either way and CofS attorneys know this.
 

DeeAnna

Patron Meritorious
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I'm thinking that perhaps the CO$ lawyers are on some kind of a little "bonus system" - where they get their base hourly fee and then a "reward per word" for their filings. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


Regarding the stats given within the documents, I don't think Judge Waldrip is going to care whether there are 10 million or 10 billion members of the CO$. It isn't going to make any difference in what he needs to consider. Although, the 10 million member figure might not fit well into the anti-SLAPP motion, since it is designed to protect the little guy from big entities.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

IMO, you and many others are correct.

This is why the CofS will fight hard to prevent DM from being subject to a legal deposition.

In a legal deposition, DM will either have to lie (then be found out and then be prosecuted)
...OR...
DM will have to tell the truth (and then be prosecuted).

He would lose either way and CofS attorneys know this.



"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

:whistling:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Breaking: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Defendants Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 20

I'm thinking that perhaps the CO$ lawyers are on some kind of a little "bonus system" - where they get their base hourly fee and then a "reward per word" for their filings. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


Regarding the stats given within the documents, I don't think Judge Waldrip is going to care whether there are 10 million or 10 billion members of the CO$. It isn't going to make any difference in what he needs to consider. Although, the 10 million member figure might not fit well into the anti-SLAPP motion, since it is designed to protect the little guy from big entities.

I think it is a very reasonable estimate to say that each of the Jefferson brothers will personally earn $1M each this year from Miscavige.

All things considered, it's pretty cool to be a sociopath and have exhilarated cult members giving you all their money so that you can continue to do evil shit.
 
Top