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.