Re: Rathbun v Miscavige -- Miscavige + RTC Filed In Appeals Court - Feb 14, 2014
Most fortunately, today's article at
The Underground Bunker provides excellent legal commentary by very smart people about the Writ of Mandamus petition filed by RTC + DM.
Here's the link:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/20/sc...ntologys-petition-to-the-texas-appeals-court/
My
original thread title used the word "
defendants" and, technically speaking, this is wrong.
RTC + Captain Miscavige reject that label entirely; and, as neither has been deemed a "defendant" by a judge in this case as yet, they remain "named parties" who communicate with the courts via "special appearance".
My bad - no harm intended, I promise. I've changed the thread title in
this post, but cannot change the thread title in the
original post.
I'm still reading the petition + supporting documents filed in the Appeals Court by TeamRTC+DM and haven't yet read TeamCSI's filing in the Trial Court re: 'findings of fact/conclusions of law' which relates to the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss, but I certainly appreciate
all of the points/theories raised here at ESMB and
The Underground Bunker and wanted to thank everyone for helping me to better understand this legal tangle. Snarls aplenty in this litigation - ugh!
Early this morning, while reading the newspaper, I thought:
A real chairman-of-the-board would never be permitted to throw such obscene amounts of money on legal fees.
Such waste goes far beyond fiscal irresponsibility; in fact, it's fiscal
irrationality.
Real COBs are mindful of the consequences attached to any breach of their fiduciary duties, which is why they act with prudence.
Of course, it's
not the COB of Co$ spending boatloads of money/time/effort to thwart a (relatively) minor legal challenge in Texas.
It's the Captain of the Sea Organization that's calling the shots here.
That COB of Co$ + CPT SO are the same person is, imo, what needs to be highlighted to EVERY judge in connection with this litigation...and all future litigation.
Especially so in light of TeamRTC+DM's argument re: apex discovery doctrine.
Can TeamRathbun press this 'blurred role' issue with a request to
separately depose COB-Co$
and CPT-SO?
Depose Captain Miscavige and let him answer the questions.
Next...depose COB Miscavige and let him answer the questions.
The apex discovery doctrine
may shield COB from a deposition. The Appeals Court will make that decision.
But is the CPT-SO similarly shielded? Maybe...but
only if the Appeals Court is
made aware of this
separate role as played/performed by DM.
JB