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.



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

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by JBWriter, Feb 18, 2014.

  1. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

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


    TX Lawyer
    an hour ago If he denies it under oath in the Rathbun lawsuit, he could potentially be referred to the district attorney's office for possible prosecution for perjury. That would be highly unlikely, in my experience. If the lawsuit were still ongoing, he could be sanctioned by the court or held in contempt, which also carries the possibility of jail time (you can be jailed up to 6 months for civil contempt in Texas) -- but jail time for contempt would be highly unusual these days. Most likely, he'd either get a relative slap on the wrist (since the topic isn't really germane to Mrs. Rathbun's lawsuit) or, if the lawsuit is already over, nothing whatsoever would happen on the legal end.

    As a practical reality, courts are well aware that somebody in the typical civil suit is lying to them. Unless it's really bad, and the proof of perjury is indisputable, not much happens.



    TX Lawyer
    4 hours ago
    Admitting to a fact doesn't mean they are admitting to a cause of action. Sending the SB's to
    Texas does not establish that the SB's did anything that is legally actionable by Monique R.





    • TX Lawyer5 hours ago He wouldn't need to be extradited. The judge in California or Florida or wherever would just have him brought to the courthouse or some other location so his deposition could be taken. But we're getting awfully far down the line of speculation here. I would wager money that after Miscavige has exhausted his mandamus and other procedural options to attack this order, he will appear for a jurisdictional deposition at which he will deny everything and attempt to say as little as possible, then have his lawyers do everything possible to keep that deposition out of the public record.



    TX Lawyer
    5 hours ago Right. But when you're trying to convince the court of appeals that Miscavige's deposition is necessary and appropriate, why would you make it sound like the evidence already conclusively establishes his responsibility for directing the harassment campaign?
     
  2. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

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

    Here's another good article about Hubbard and his death (cold, alone, and hiding in a mobile home): http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/2628/l-ron-hubbards-last-refuge/
     
  3. Bea Kiddo

    Bea Kiddo Crusader

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

    The more I read shit like that, the angrier I get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Watch out for the exclamation points, the Scientologist in me is coming out! EW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    Fucking wasted 32 years of my life to that craphead. :angry:
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  4. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Rathbun v Miscavige -- Mandamus Appeal -- March 18, 2014

    This current tussle @ the TX 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is about whether or not Judge Waldrip overstepped his judicial authority in connection with his Order to permit a severely narrowed deposition of Captain David Miscavige.

    If the Appeal Court (3 judges) agree with TeamRathbun, as a practical matter, it only means that Judge Waldrip's Order will be valid. :)

    Judge Waldrip's Order only permits TeamRathbun to ask Miscavige questions* that relate to one topic: jurisdiction. Nothing else, folks.

    The primary reason Judge Waldrip originally issued his Order was to (finally!) obtain specific information about DM/RTC so that he, Judge Waldrip, can decide for himself whether or not he has legal authority over DM/RTC. Remember, DM/RTC both strenuously reject the label 'defendant'.

    If the Appeals Court upholds Judge Waldrip's Order; and,
    if the severely narrowed deposition of DM occurs; then,
    Judge Waldrip's next task is to decide whether or not he has legal authority (jurisdiction) over DM/RTC.

    If Judge Waldrip decides that, yes, enough evidence exists to show that DM/RTC are properly/legally required to answer the charges in his courtroom, he will issue his decision. <----We can all expect TeamRTC+DM will file an immediate appeal @ the TX 3rd Circuit again.

    Leslie Hyman's Response was especially uplifting to me today because it was very well-written, but more than that, it quelled a few concerns I had about whether TeamRathbun would be able to effectively argue @ the appellate level in Texas. Those concerns are greatly diminished. :)

    Thanks to all for posting the comments from "The Bunker" over here. :thumbsup:
    Such information sure helps to untangle legal knots.

    JB

    *Not to imply that a transcript of a severely narrowed deposition of Miscavige won't provide lulz. <---That's a sure thing.:yes:
     
  5. shanic89

    shanic89 Patron Meritorious

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

    Reading people say things like this boils up a emotional storm within me, I hate it that such a thing happened to you and to anyone else.
     
  6. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Re: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Mandamus Appeal -- March 18, 2014

    see, this is what cracks me up. I understand the legal knots and aspect.

    But you see in scientology we were educated into telling the truth. And the truth in scientology is known as the exact time, place, form and event.

    So therefore, a scientologist should ask themselves why won't DM allow himself to be deposed? We scientologists assume and trust he tells the truth.

    And furthermore, why would DM spend tons of money on lawyers to defend himself, in actuality?

    scientologists should ask themselves this question? For if he had clean hands, he would just allow himself to be deposed.

    A deposition, in actuality, is just a sec check in scientology terms, but w/o an e-meter.

    So DM is refusing a sec check. LOL

    Declare that sucker as it is a high crime to refuse a sec check. :laugh:
     
  7. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    32 Years - BeaKiddo

    The words of others here should and will hold much more weight than anything I can offer.

    But this is true, too:

    Over the next 32 years, no one you care about
    - not your children, not your spouse, not your friends, not your co-workers/colleagues, not your neighbors, not your acquaintances - will ever suffer the negative & harmful effects of being unduly influenced.
    None of those people ^^^^ will be able to out-argue, out-reason, out-fox, or even outrun a woman with 32 years of actual experience.
    None of 'em.

    You beat the "tech", you beat "scientology", you beat "miscavige", you beat "hubbard" and by so doing? You beat them at their own game.
    The very best of you beat the very best they had; and you, BeaKiddo, won so much more than just their twisted game.
    Freedom & Full Autonomy - that's what's to be enjoyed-&-employed by you/yours every day and every night for the next 32 years.

    Respectfully,

    JB
     
  8. Miss Ellie

    Miss Ellie Miss Ellie

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

    The US legal system is one thing... the TEXAS legal system is something else. We my dear friends are in an old fashioned Texas Pissin' Contest.

    As a good ol' Texas girl myself I have seen a few of these contests and been in a few.... the Texas system is a little shorter on temper & tends to run towards "just grow the hell up".

    I will be so glad when the real "trial" starts - by that time all parties will be ready to let it rip.

    :p
     
  9. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

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

    TXL made the comment that Judge Waldrip said that the Anti-SLAPP wasn't frivolous but what Judge Waldrip said was that he wouldn't go so far as to call it frivolous. There is a difference there.



    Leslie Hyman did an unvbelievable job of piercing the veil of Captaim Miscaviges 52 card pick-up Mandamus. She is damn smart.



    I found the below in red very interesting because I am positive Leslie does her homework.:yes:


    2

    This limited information about Mr. Rathbun is offered solely to provide context for the facts that follow. Contrary to Relators’ description, this case is not about Mr. Rathbun or any legitimate dispute that the Church of Scientology may have with him. By declining to engage with Relators on irrelevant facts, however, Mrs. Rathbun does not intend to concede the facts as Relators describe them are accurate. By way – only of example, it is not true that Mr. Rathbun was demoted in 2003, he did not launch a “media campaign” against Scientology, and he does not use Scientology’s “trademark protected” materials or technology.
     
  10. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Rathbun v Miscavige -- TX Court of Appeals - Appellate Attorneys

    There are a few new attorney names to add to the 'cast of characters' list.

    Here are the attorneys of record @ the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals re: the Writ of Mandamus request filed by TeamRTC/DM...

    Relator: RTC
    Benjamin L. Mesches
    Rachel Anne Ekery
    Lamont A. Jefferson
    Hon. Wallace B. Jefferson

    Relator: David Miscavige
    Hon. Wallace B. Jefferson
    Rachel Anne Ekery
    Benjamin L. Mesches

    Real party in interest: Monique Rathbun
    Leslie Sara Hyman
    Etan Tepperman
    A. Dannette Mitchell
    Ray B. Jeffrey
    Marc F. Weigand
    Elliott S. Cappuccio

    At the April 9, 2014 hearing, (pursuant to a letters sent to the 3rd Circuit Clerk,)
    Leslie Hyman
    will present oral argument for Mrs. Rathbun and
    Wallace Jefferson will present oral argument for RTC & David Miscavige.

    Note to self:
    Order popcorn.
    Many much popcorn.

    JB
     
  11. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    Re: Rathbun v Miscavige -- TX Court of Appeals - Appellate Attorneys

    Thank you JB!

    April nine is gonna be a very fun day on ESMB

    :yes:

    :drama:
     
  12. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Re: Rathbun v Miscavige -- TX Court of Appeals - Appellate Attorneys

    The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is located in Austin, Texas (about 50 miles north of New Braunfels).
    I'm hoping the Austin-based media outlets take notice.
    Texans would be well-served to learn that scientology's "Mr. Big (Who Ain't)" is afraid of answering questions. :whistling:

    {*sigh* If only Xenu could be freed from the volcano to testify as a character witness for Captain Miscavige. #FreeXenu4Truth!}

    JB
     
  13. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

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

    You made me do it. It's not my fault I had to use "study tech" and look the word up. And use it in a sentence: "That damn relator is one messed up tiny dude." And another: "the relator was served a subpoena when he showed up for his deposition by an embittered apostate he punched out." One more for the road: "It will be a cold day in hell if the realtor's writ is approved by the court" Happy now? Mimsey
     
  14. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

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

    I was born happy*, Mimsey.

    Many thanks for providing the definition of 'relator' for all to learn. :clap:

    (*Mom insisted.)

    JB <----Still so happy I annoy-by-joy all my nearest/dearest. <---Grouches!:yes:
     
  15. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

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

    Heh. I am a grouch most of the day, but I wake up cheerful. That annoys the crap out of children it is my duty to rouse from slumber. :biggrin:
     
  16. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: Rathbun v Miscavige -- TX Court of Appeals - Appellate Attorneys

    Well maybe there will be great truth in the rhyme that ALL the kings men couldn't put dumb humpty back together again. :biggrin:
     
  17. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

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

    Do you fly in your dreams?
     
  18. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

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

    No. What dreams I remember are usually confusing, disturbing or both.
     
  19. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

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

    Have you dreamt of posting on ESMB?


     
  20. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

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

    No. They usually involve firearms and / or the KGB.