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

This is what I am saying and maybe didn't state it very well in my first post on this as I was a bit impassioned on what I was saying.



The Bill of Rights has always applied to the states because the states ratified the constitution so it made it law for the state as well as federal government; the law of the land.

How the Bill of Rights is applied by the states is exactly the same as the federal government.


The courts, including the Supreme Court has misinterpreted what that Clause means.

My point and hope is that the states get it right( I called it Texas law but it is really the duty of all the states and federal government to get the meaning of that amendment right) and apply it the way the founding father, Madison, put it.

The way I see what he said is that you can believe and do what you want right up to the point where it is shy of harming others rights and you can go no further and that is when freedom of religion is curtailed, when it violates others rights.



IMO, too many times, the courts take it to the extreme to mean you can do anything in the name of religion without fear of rebuke because it is that protected.

I thoroughly disagree with that interpretation.


Maybe I misunderstood you. I understood you to say that the application of the First Amendment to state laws, state governmental action, etc. is different than the application of the First Amendment to federal laws, federal governmental action, etc. If that is what you were, and are, saying, then I'm telling you that you are incorrect. The First Amendment was incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in the Cantwell v. Connecticut case cited and quoted above. That is the law whether you think it ought to be the law or not.

If you were, and are, not saying that the application of the First Amendment to state laws, state governmental action, etc. is different than the application of the First Amendment to federal laws, federal governmental action, etc., then I don't know what you are saying.
 

MissWog

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

Here are all the TX Lawyer comments since yesterday.. You'll have to read between the lines some bc I'm only pasting his comments without context of what comment he may have been replying too. Hope this is helpful.. I know a lot of folks, like me, have technical trouble with Discus when wading through 995 comments... You may want to start at the bottom and work back up.
Source: http://disqus.com/embed/profile/?di...#{"user":{"id":"91941811"},"fullscreen":true}

Scott Pilutik helps us evaluate Scientology’s petition to Texas appeals court


TX Lawyer • an hour ago
I believe that was Cedillo, the lead guy for CSI. And to me -- having been in comparable circumstances -- that reaction sounded like a lawyer who's just found out his client did something bad, but he doesn't know exactly what happened and so is is only offering a weak, generic excuse. If he has known about the tape-doctoring in advance, I am sure he would have been prepared with some kind of colorable justification, like they're only producing video that shows interactions with Monique, or that was just a copy that had been previously edited and they're still working to collect the original videos.




TX Lawyer • 3 hours ago
I certainly agree that the cult's editing of that one video was sanctionable misconduct. Do you have any reason to conclude that WBJ, or any of the other lawyers for that matter, were involved in or even had knowledge of that editing? It's inconceivable to me that Jefferson played any part in that particular abuse. Of course, we'll likely learn more about it whenever Ray Jeffrey's motion for sanctions goes back to court.




TX Lawyer • 3 hours ago
But none of those things are at issue in the Rathbun lawsuit, and even accused murderers and kidnappers have the right to an attorney. Are all of those lawyers bad people too?




TX Lawyer • 10 hours ago
I have seen no argument or evidence that a violation of criminal law -- the kind that sends people to prison -- has occurred with regard to Monique Rathbun. I happily invite anyone with evidence to the contrary to put it forward. I am 50-50 whether something compensable under civil law has occurred. I hope Monique prevails, but it is not a foregone conclusion that she will.




TX Lawyer • 11 hours ago
I am not a criminal law attorney, so I can't answer that question with any confidence. I can say that I have not read about anything re: Monique R. that would be a criminal act (i.e., defendant goes to jail). Whether the facts alleged would be actionable at civil law (i.e., defendant pays money to compensate plaintiff for actionable harm) is a different question, but I'd probably end up on the plaintiff's side if the internet provided the evidence and I was on the jury.




TX Lawyer • 11 hours ago
I've represented any number of clients without understanding their "sordid legal history." I've represented, and currently represent, clients as part of a "20 lawyer team." I've personally been entirely responsible for "blatantly altering evidence and possibly not disclosing information" through application of Sharpie-tech (i.e., blacking out privileged information in otherwise-discoverable documents). I have represented clients in situations where delay was a welcome side-effect of asserting the client's legal rights. But if you think any of the above should be unavailable to you because you are special and obviously beyond questioning by others, please irrevocably waive your legal rights by stating so herein.


Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, I am not offering any of you legal advice, and you are not acting wisely if you follow my suggestion. Seek legal counsel if you are even remotely thinking about waiving anything.


We're, what, five months into a high-stakes lawsuit with major money and consequences on the line? Have some patience, this stuff takes a while (i.e., a few years).




TX Lawyer • 11 hours ago
I can say it isn't a crime because you, who asserts that it is, cannot show otherwise.


The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts a crime has occured.




TX Lawyer • 11 hours ago
Please do. I have more where that came from.




TX Lawyer • 11 hours ago
Graciousness don't enter into it. But you're wecome. :)




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
Proceeding from the conclusion is always simple. Asserting that others should proceed from the same starting point is myopic.


Discussion on The Underground Bunker


Scott Pilutik helps us evaluate Scientology’s petition to Texas appeals court


TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
Assume he does spend half an hour, or even a couple hours, tracking down "Scientology." Do your search results definitively yield pure evil? Or just a bunch of deluded believers who voluntarily open their wallets for their objectively weird church? And can you distinguish that from, say, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
I don't think less for one moment of J. Swift or anyone else on here who was "in," nor would I alter my arguments in any way due to their relationship with the cult. If anything, I think better for them form having overcome it. But I do come at this lawsuit from a different angle than most people here. My primary interest is "What should the law be, given these facts?" People who have experienced the cult more directly and got the hell away from it can obviously be expected to be more interested in what the lawsuit might do to the cult, regardless of what the law might otherwise be.




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
My point was more along the lines of this: Bad lawyers are more likely to make bad law. Good layers (including Ray Jeffrey!) are more likely to make good law. Good law is better for everyone than bad law.




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
My apologies, but I must have missed the part of the lawsuit where Jefferson was helping someone "get away with a crime," by working the system or otherwise. Would you mind identifying the crime that was allegedly perpetrated against Monique Rathbun (whose harassment makes my blood boil, incidentally)? And can you also point me towards the "miscarriage of justice" that has occurred so far in this case? I'm afraid that appearing as counsel and filing stuff don't really qualify for the description.




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
Exactly. Perspective is crucial. If you start from the assumption (entirely warranted!) that everything the church does is fraudulent and/or malicious, you've already skipped eleventy million* steps in the cognitive process of anybody who has never given a second thought to the cult or just thinks Scientology is some dumb Hollywood thing.


*(c) 1968 LRH




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
I too am hoping justice will prevail. I just have some insight into how and whether it might happen, and am happy to share.




TX Lawyer • 12 hours ago
Let's not just agree to disagree here, because I think we're hitting on something important. With all due courtesy, because I genuinely like your posts.


Assume with me that it's perfectly legal to videotape somebody in public. (Angry Gay Pope might well agree, though I obviously can't speak for him.) Assume also that the person being videotaped in public sues for invasion of privacy. Assume further that the defendant's hobby is kicking puppies while stealing children's candy (or worse -- let your imagination run wild, even unto the Hole and slave labor in the holds of wherever the hell the Freewinds is drydocked). The defendant has the means to pay for a kick-ass attorney to fight the charge of public videotaping.


Is the attorney who agrees to take the case a bad person?


If good people should not take the case, and the defendant loses as a result of that lack of kick-ass legal representation, how do you feel about the precedent of locking people in jail for videotaping people in public?


If bad people take the case, do you feel better knowing that a person of poor moral character and low scruples will be representing the defendant?




TX Lawyer • 13 hours ago
I probably wouldn't have taken on the representation myself, but I've read up on and have enough interest Scientology enough to hang around this place. For the public at large, it's just some dumb religion with a few celebrity members. Don't assume that Jefferson knows anywhere as much about the cult as you and I do, even if it's probably safe to assume that he knows they have an unsavory reputation.




TX Lawyer • 13 hours ago
He may be the lead guy on appeal, but he is an attorney for Miscavige and RTC in front of the trial court as well. If Miscavige (or a surrogate) tries to get the trial lawyers to do anything improper or unethical, WBJ will be on the hook along with the rest of the trial team.




TX Lawyer • 13 hours ago
Sorry, I obviously mixed up you and AGP there. But were you upset about his arrest? I thought it was b.s., myself. And yet I also think what the cult did with its its surveillance of Monique Rathbun (and Marty too) is reprehensible. If only there were some sort of system that could straighten out why or whether one situation was different from the other. Perhaps a system of neutral arbitrators, established principles of criminal and civil responsibility, and advocates for the parties to help them present their case?


If you just don't like attorneys who represent bad people, that's okay by me. But using the representation as grounds to conclude that the attorney must be responsible for other bad things -- sanctions! fraud! liar! -- is absurd.


Discussion on The Underground Bunker


Scott Pilutik helps us evaluate Scientology’s petition to Texas appeals court


TX Lawyer • 13 hours ago
The man won two cases in front of the United States Supreme Court BEFORE he ever became a judge. That's the sort of thing that leads to pretty impressive hourly rates and plenty of clients waiting in the reception area. If cashing in was his goal in life, he could have easily done that without ever putting on a black robe. Is he able to charge more now because of his service and reputation as Chief Justice? Sure, although you also have to take into account all the things he could have achieved if he had been in private practice. Will he even come close to making up for the income that he would have earned during 13 years of public service? I highly doubt it.




TX Lawyer • 13 hours ago
I seem to recall [edit: I recall incorrectly] that you got tossed in jail a while back for having the temerity to aggressively videotape cult members in public. Do you feel like that was an abuse of the judicial system? If so, why would you assume that an attorney who defends a person or group of people who stand accused of similar conduct (albeit with a few extra cameras and sex toys) is a morally degraded human being?




TX Lawyer • 14 hours ago
Which means that for the last 13 years of his professional life, Jefferson missed out on at least several million dollars of additional compensation that he would have earned practicing in the private sector. His willingness to forego that additional money in order to serve the public of this state should speak volumes as to his character.




TX Lawyer • 14 hours ago
Wallace Jefferson is anything but an immoral whore. He's an excellent judge, a skilled advocate, and a fundamentally decent human being. Do not conflate an attorney with his client. Everybody is entitled to legal representation, and deep pocketbooks can afford to pay for the best. There are legitimate, important, and quite possibly winning principles on the defense side of this case. If you think that an attorney is necessarily an immoral whore for defending an unpopular, immoral, or even murderous client by aggressively asserting legitimate procedures and arguments, then your real beef is with the same system of justice that is currently threatening to squash David Miscavige like a bug on a windshield.




TX Lawyer • 15 hours ago
Sure it would help him. If CSI can't be liable because its harassment squad's activities are protected as free speech, then it stands to reason that Miscavige and RTC could not be held liable for directing their activities. They wouldn't be able to get out via anti-SLAPP, but all they would have to do is file a motion for summary judgment arguing that there is no fact issue because the court has already ruled the alleged conduct to be protected speech.




TX Lawyer • 15 hours ago
No. It is not generally known in Comal County (or anywhere else) and the accuracy of a newspaper story can be reasonably questioned.




TX Lawyer • 16 hours ago
A newspaper story would be inadmissible hearsay unless you could find some applicable exception to the hearsay rule. Judicial notice gets facts into evidence, not texts. You could consult a reference book to confirm that Augusta is the capital of Maine, but that doesn't mean the book itself is evidence in the case. You could confront the witness with the newspaper story in order to impeach his testimony or refresh his recollection, but that doesn't make it admissible evidence, You'd need to obtain testimony from the reporter or somebody else who had personal knowledge of the facts stated in the story, rather than just the story itself.




TX Lawyer • 16 hours ago
Defaulting wouldn't prevent him from being deposed. He'd still be a fact witness, not to mention a representative of RTC and/or CSI. He only avoids depo if the whole lawsuit goes away, including all claims against all of the defendants.




TX Lawyer • 16 hours ago
It is neither a fraud on the court nor is it even remotely sanctionable for Jefferson to assert that the church has millions of members. One or more of the affidavits submitted by the church swore that there are millions of members, and Ray Jeffrey apparently didn't offer any evidence to the contrary. There is nothing whatsoever wrong about citing the evidence in the record, even if someone else disagrees with that particular evidence.


Seriously, folks, chill out on the Wallace Jefferson hate.




TX Lawyer • 16 hours ago
Judicial notice is only appropriate if the fact is "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" or it is "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Neither one of those standards would apply to Wright's book, no matter how good it was.


Discussion on The Underground Bunker


Scott Pilutik helps us evaluate Scientology’s petition to Texas appeals court


TX Lawyer • 16 hours ago
You're right that it is a massive inconsistency to only have Miscavige and RTC claiming ecclesiastical immunity from being sued in court, while the entity that cops to the supposedly ecclesiastical harassment has no complaint about being haled into court (while disputing its liability, of course). But it shouldn't affect the court of appeals' analysis of the mandamus petition, since they will only be focusing on the issues and parties that are presented to them in that petition.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
I do wish that people would stop speculating about bad motives on the part of Wallace Jefferson. He's a fine judge, a skilled lawyer, and a genuinely good person. I am happy to see him on the case, as I am confident that he is perfectly capable of quashing any attempt to use him as the vehicle for any unethical litigation conduct.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
Mandamus is a common and well-established part of Texas legal practice. Texas is quite unlike other states and the federal courts in that respect. It is not "the last refuge of the criminal." It is a means of enabling courts to correct abuses of trial courts' discretion that could not otherwise be remedied by an ordinary appeal after the case has been completely litigated and a final judgment has been entered. You can say whatever you like about the merits of this particular mandamus petition, but the fact that it is a mandamus petition at all says nothing about anything (other than Miscavige's desire not to be deposed).




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
Monique's status as a never-in is not key to the anti-SLAPP motion. The question isn't whether it was legitimate for CSI to send people to protest -- remember, protest is very definitely speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether their actions went beyond simple speech and became something actionable under tort law, specifically invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
Bankruptcy would be pretty risky. Much more is known now about the sham nature of the various Scientology entities, and that kind of evidence could easily prompt a bankruptcy court to start piercing corporate veils, up to and including the copyrights to Hubbard's publications.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
A court can only grant relief vis-a-vis the parties that are actually before it. Judge Waldrip can issue an injunction preventing the defendants from harassing Monique R., but he can't order them to stop harassing other people.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
I would says that it's rhetorically inconsistent, but not substantively inconsistent. Saying that CSI can satisfy any award of damages is not the same thing as saying it will pay anything for its actions. It's more like saying CSI can pay damages if it is liable for them. The reason it's rhetorically inconsistent is because they're trying to persuade the court of appeals that Monique doesn't need Miscavige in the case because she already has CSI in the case, even though CSI is doing its best to get itself out. It's a minor point, not anything of real significance. But yes, defendants get crosswise in their strategies all the time in multi-party cases.




TX Lawyer • 17 hours ago
They've certainly put the church's membership numbers at issue in the case, so I don't see why it wouldn't be subject to discovery. Of course, I wouldn't trust them to actually ever produce anything even remotely accurate on that subject, so you'd probably have to resort to testimony of defectors to dispute the real numbers, combined with whatever other evidence might be out there (e.g., the leaked docs Mike Rinder posted recently, pictures of empty buildings, etc.) to show that the church is actually small and shrinking.




TX Lawyer • 21 hours ago
You could never get a class action certified for all the people who have been defrauded by Scientology. There would be too many questions that could only be decided on a person-by-person basis. What were you told? How did you rely on that statement? How much money did you give them? What persuaded you to give it to them? What benefits did you get back from the church? Class actions are only viable when a large number of people have been injured in exactly same way, e.g., by a cable company overbilling its customers by $0.50 every month. If you have to start looking at the facts of each individual's case, there can't be any class action.
 

DagwoodGum

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

The left hand fighting the right hand, the right brain fighting the left brain. I hope it's a long, bloody battle.
 

TG1

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

Here are all the TX Lawyer comments since yesterday.. You'll have to read between the lines some bc I'm only pasting his comments without context of what comment he may have been replying too. Hope this is helpful.. I know a lot of folks, like me, have technical trouble with Discus when wading through 995 comments... You may want to start at the bottom and work back up.
Source: http://disqus.com/embed/profile/?di...#{"user":{"id":"91941811"},"fullscreen":true}

Thank you, Miss Wog!

That is enormously helpful.

:thumbsup:

TG1
 

freethinker

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

It's definitely a great luxury to have TXL (Texas Lawyer) spending his/her time to evaluate the situation from a non-skewed-vested interest-ex cult member viewpoint because it brings the reality of what the judge is looking at through his eyes instead of ours.

I think TXL is correct about Wallace in that he was a fine judge and a good lawyer and we probably should stop being biased towards him just because he is on the "bad side"

Truth is he wrote an excelllent mandamus and if DM/RTC gets denied for it it will most likely shoot down any possibility that DM/RTC can claim inadequate representation from their lawyers.

I would rather see Mohammad Ali go up against Smokin Joe Fraser or George Foreman and win than to go up against some guy who threw a lucky punch.

I am particularly fond of the "sguashed bug on the windshield" analogy, I loved that.

Without TXL we would all probably be more confused and dismayed at the proceedings so Rock On TXL.
 

MissWog

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

Ditto @Free Thinker!

I especially liked how TXL points out that even if you DO spend time googling Scn how much can you expect to learn? It takes years to understand this situation. I started in like 2005 and just as quickly as I started I stopped again till the Cruise video in 2008. In 2005 I was bored one night surfing the web and ran out of things to read. I have no idea why I thought of scientology but I did and found the story about Lisa. That led me to something called Xenu.net and Operation Clambake..I was so confused by all the shit I was looking at I gave up and walked away. I remember that night in bed with my laptop like it was yesterday..I couldn't believe what I was reading about people being locked up and starved? It was all too much to comprehend.

I remember seeing one of Tory's first videos and thinking this is just another pissed off culti nut (I'm so embarrassed to even admit that!) but I subscribed to her videos anyway and from time to time I would watch one and I they sure made a difference! It was only like 2010 that I realized what the significance of the clam in clambake was so I went back to the site again. And for the life of me I thought this dude with the beard (Mark Bunker) is just as crazy as the Scions are, why else is he always following them around and making videos? It really was only around 2008 or 2009 that I even understood what the LMT was.

So we have to be patient..there is sooooo much out on the web & it is a lot to absorb and I find myself still reading things that jog a reference from years ago and only now does it make sense. How many hours have I invested, countless...how the hell is a paralegal or an Atty going to get the scope of what they are dealing with unless they make it their full time job to research Scn as a belief system and then it's history under LRH & DM? I think that would take 60hrs a week for at least a month .. And that is before even getting to a forum like here to ask questions.

edit: I do remember why I searched that night! I had just been to visit an old friend back in LA and her mom and I asked her mom why she used to make me go back to the spot where I fell when I skinned my knee or something roller skating as a kid..she told me it was bc she used to be involved in Scientology and to stay away from those people. She didn't really want to talk about it anymore but that is what made me curious. But it took months for me to think about that again and actually search. Hell it was only like after I joined here that I realized my grandfather's friends were the Elfmans..up to that point I only thought of them as the parents of the guy from Oingo Biongo. Small world ehh?
 
Last edited:

ILove2Lurk

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

Here are all the TX Lawyer comments since yesterday.

<snip>

We're, what, five months into a high-stakes lawsuit with major money and consequences on the line? Have some patience, this stuff takes a while (i.e., a few years).

<snip>

So you've discovered how to best capture and read (and copy) an individual's comments on Discus, which I had trouble with too. Discus is very annoying . . unless you know the trick.:yes: :coolwink: :coolwink:

Those posts by TXL were really a Cliff Notes education for someone like me, who knows little about lawyering in the real world. Just excellent.

The only thing that's distressing is the probability of this whole legal action possibly taking years, which I've been trying not to think about. Sure, it's fun to watch . . . but wears me out at times. Like an endless 50-year war.

Thanks for all that. Went well with my morning coffee. :thumbsup:
 

Intentionally Blank

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

Ditto @Free Thinker!

So we have to be patient..there is sooooo much out on the web & it is a lot to absorb and I find myself still reading things that jog a reference from years ago and only now does it make sense. How many hours have I invested, countless...how the hell is a paralegal or an Atty going to get the scope of what they are dealing with unless they make it their full time job to research Scn as a belief system and then it's history under LRH & DM? I think that would take 60hrs a week for at least a month .. And that is before even getting to a forum like here to ask questions.

Even for me, who's lived with a scn for a long time, it's still hard to sort it out and keep it straight. I can't imagine having to do a crash course in a couple of weeks. There's no way, actually. You would not be able to absorb the emotional impact and how that affects decision making and life choices.

Blanky
 

Random guy

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

So we have to be patient..there is sooooo much out on the web & it is a lot to absorb

Quite. This shows the wisdom of the first thing Anonymous say you should do: Informn yourself, then Inform those closest to you.

Good and comprehensible info is hard to come by, even the Wikipedia entry is kind of rambling,
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Rathbun v Miscavige Appeals Court - Update February 27, 2014 - Response Requested

Just to let everyone know, the Texas 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has requested (invited) Ray Jeffrey to submit a written Response to the petition originally filed by TeamRTC+DM on February 14, 2014.

In its letter dated yesterday, the Appeals Court asks that Mr. Jeffrey submit a Response to the Petition and also a response to TeamRTC+DM's request for oral argument. They'd like Mr. Jeffrey to file his responses on or before March 7, 2014.

I wonder if Ray Jeffrey's going to agree with the request for oral argument? That'd sure be a humdinger of a court proceeding!

JB (Tip: Use the TAMES link to read the pdf letter itself.)
 

HelluvaHoax!

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

...

The case is fascinating to watch unfold.

What it really comes down to are these essential questions. . .

* Can Team Mosey legally prevail on the claim that her personal rights were abused by a harassing cult that has carefully crafted many layers of legal deniability/defense (religious rights, free speech, investigation of trademark infringement, producing a documentary, et al).

* Can Team Scientology shroud their multi-faceted campaign of well honed lies sufficiently well to cause Team Mosey to fail to meet its legal burden.​

I think there are some real smoking guns that Scientology is going to have some a hell of a time trying to spin.

How do they explain away the wog videographer's testimony that he was told they were there "...to make (Rathbun's) life a living hell"?

How do they explain away the conflicting testimony that they were there "to do a documentary" and also "working for an attorney"?

How are they going to handle the court orders to produce a mountain of surveillance and operational evidence, which they are clearly hiding or have destroyed?

What about the altered videotape?

How do they explain the perjury of Scn execs who swore that Miscavige and/or his Communicator never were involved in managing/texting operatives, when Rinder has already produced verifiable Blackberry text messaging proof of the contrary?

How do they deal with all the former Int execs, turned witnesses, who have detailed the volumes of COB written orders for which compliance had to be sent by many other entities than RTC? And those witnesses will testify in trial to the same--so how are they going to try and impeach every single (credible) witness as a liar?

Maybe the biggest bombshell that could go off in the church's/RTC's face is what will happen when their own star witnesses (Int Execs) get up on the stand and perjure themselves about COB's involvement in management. How can all those coached witnesses possibly hold up under world class cross examination with decades of history and witnesses that will testify to the truth?​

Perhaps if Scn is not able to knock the case out (vs RTC/COB) the essential battleground will be whether the court/plaintif can compel production of documents/records. Scn seems intent on stonewalling and producing virtually nothing. How long can that charade play out before they are called to task or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Scn is relying (as they always do and have done) on lying as their chief strategic weapon.

Scientology is scrambling for its life and it reminds me of all those thousands of reality videos showing criminals getting busted--and their desperate last moments of lying and trying to talk their way out of it just before the cops lock down the handcuffs and haul them off.

Scn believes it can wriggle or lie its way out of anything because they have been so successful at it for so many decades. I don't think it is wishful thinking to opine that this time sure looks like that game is coming to an end. Ray beat them twice before and he's much better prepared this time, particularly since the entire weight of the ex-scn execs and a mountain of evidence is lining up against them for a death fight.

Wishing Team Mosey great success.
 
Last edited:

ILove2Lurk

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

The case is fascinating to watch unfold.

What it really comes down to are these essential questions. . .

<snip>

Perfect!!!! You covered all aspects of this thorny case eloquently and clearly.

Props! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :yes:
 

ILove2Lurk

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

. . .
Another church in big turmoil and controversy.

Not exactly a derail . . . perhaps a brief soliloquy. :biggrin:

I watched a new PBS special today, The Secrets of the Vatican.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...f-the-vatican/

It's on again a couple times over the upcoming weekend.

I was floored how similar some of this church's legal strategies, political problems, and attempted coverups are so parallel, sometimes identical, to those of the COS. I found the program somewhat riveting for that reason.

Here's a couple quotes from the show:

Victim: They very much were trying to intimidate me and to beat me down and to hold me out as the example, saying, “This is what will happen to you if you come forward and tell your truth.”

Narrator: He has long argued that Milwaukee is following procedures laid down in Rome.

Attorney: When it comes to the Vatican and its role in this crisis, all I have ever seen them do is talk, both denying responsibility and saying that they’re doing something, when in fact, they’re doing nothing other than what they’ve done in the past for decades and centuries, which is to deny, minimize blame, keep secrets and protect themselves.

Attorney: Intimidation is the strategy. It’s not part of it, it is the strategy. “You’ve exposed this part of us. We’re coming after you. We’re coming after you, and no one’s going to dare to file a lawsuit again.” And it’s meant to intimidate and make people afraid.

Just scary parallels. I had no idea. :omg:

Big religion. Big money/donos. Big power.

A lot on the line for both religions.

PS:
I just remembered one of my main takeaways. No matter how egregious the crimes, there will always be supporters and contributors. And that is an unsettling thing to see.
 

Karen#1

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

Truth is he wrote an excellent (Wallace Jefferson) mandamus .


Yes, Wallace Jefferson carefully avoiding denying anything written in Mike Rinder affidavit.

Jefferson also carefully navigated away from the Miscavige vulgar text messages.
Carefully avoided that Miscavige was directly and *ecclesiastically* running the BBC operation on John Sweeney as the head of the Church in operations.

Other than glaring omissions of denial it was an OK writ of Mandamus.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

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

...
1
The case is fascinating to watch unfold.

What it really comes down to are these essential questions. . .

* Can Team Mosey legally prevail on the claim that her personal rights were abused by a harassing cult that has carefully crafted many layers of legal deniability/defense (religious rights, free speech, investigation of trademark infringement, producing a documentary, et al).

* Can Team Scientology shroud their multi-faceted campaign of well honed lies sufficiently well to cause Team Mosey to fail to meet its legal burden.​

I think there are some real smoking guns that Scientology is going to have some a hell of a time trying to spin.

How do they explain away the wog videographer's testimony that he was told they were there "...to make (Rathbun's) life a living hell"?

How do they explain away the conflicting testimony that they were there "to do a documentary" and also "working for an attorney"?

How are they going to handle the court orders to produce a mountain of surveillance and operational evidence, which they are clearly hiding or have destroyed?

What about the altered videotape?

How do they explain the perjury of Scn execs who swore that Miscavige and/or his Communicator never were involved in managing/texting operatives, when Rinder has already produced verifiable Blackberry text messaging proof of the contrary?

How do they deal with all the former Int execs, turned witnesses, who have detailed the volumes of COB written orders for which compliance had to be sent by many other entities than RTC? And those witnesses will testify in trial to the same--so how are they going to try and impeach every single (credible) witness as a liar?

Maybe the biggest bombshell that could go off in the church's/RTC's face is what will happen when their own star witnesses (Int Execs) get up on the stand and perjure themselves about COB's involvement in management. How can all those coached witnesses possibly hold up under world class cross examination with decades of history and witnesses that will testify to the truth?​

Perhaps if Scn is not able to knock the case out (vs RTC/COB) the essential battleground will be whether the court/plaintif can compel production of documents/records. Scn seems intent on stonewalling and producing virtually nothing. How long can that charade play out before they are called to task or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Scn is relying (as they always do and have done) on lying as their chief strategic weapon.

Scientology is scrambling for its life and it reminds me of all those thousands of reality videos showing criminals get busted--and their desperate last moments of lying and trying to talk their way out of it just before the cops lock down the handcuffs and haul them off.

Scn believes it can wriggle or lie its way out of anything because they have been so successful at it for so many decades. I don't think it is wishful thinking to opine that this time sure looks like that game is coming to an end. Ray beat them twice before and he's much better prepared this time, particularly since the entire weight of the ex-scn execs and a mountain of evidence is lining up against them for a death fight.

Wishing Team Mosey great success.

Wonderfully Composed, Wonderfully HoaxFree. HelluvaPost. :thumbsup:
 

Free Being Me

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

...

The case is fascinating to watch unfold. >snip<

I agree. The real time unfolding of distraction, delay, and desperation by the cult while lying profusely. May it fall soon. Excellently written, Hoax.
 

HelluvaHoax!

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

I agree. The real time unfolding of distraction, delay, and desperation by the cult while lying profusely. May it fall soon. Excellently written, Hoax.



I find it stunning to this day that I was once part of an organization that is run from top to bottom by incorrigibly corrupt, trained liars.

This is the legacy of L. Ron Hubbard. Liars.

And we are not talking about people who were duped by a hoax. They are knowingly and willingly lying about everything they think they can get away with. The lies aren't even consistent! The stories keep changing. The Scientologists don't.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

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

Yes, Wallace Jefferson carefully avoiding denying anything written in Mike Rinder affidavit.

Jefferson also carefully navigated away from the Miscavige vulgar text messages.
Carefully avoided that Miscavige was directly and *ecclesiastically* running the BBC operation on John Sweeney as the head of the Church in operations.

Other than glaring omissions of denial it was an OK writ of Mandamus.

I am too tired to find all the LIES in this Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Some one have a Sea ORG contract? to give to Ray Jeffrey? to show the lies in this one small part of the Petition....

From page 30 (51 of the PDF) I copy paste

"But the “Sea Org” is not a
corporate entity; it has no physical or legal existence. It is not incorporated or
established pursuant to legal formalities. It has no constitution, charter or bylaws,
and no formal or informal ecclesiastical, corporate, or other management structure.
It has no directors, officers, managing agents, or other executives; no employees,
staff members, or volunteers; no income; no disbursements, no bank accounts or
other assets; no liabilities; no stationery; no office, home, address, or telephone
number. It does not create or maintain any financial, personnel, or other records.

And what was it said about tommy on a leave of absence or somesuch similar in his deposition.?

:sleepy:

LOL and on Page 29 RTC has its own officers, directors, facilities, and personnel, which it does
not share with CSI or any other entity.


uhmmm how many physical locations and bodies could be shown to prove the lies in this also.
 
Top