Not in the least. I strongly suspect much of what is happening behind the scenes is dependent on this.
IANAL but I strongly suspect that this is the primary point, not only for the two MRs but for Cook as well.
What I
THINK is happening is that
IF Cook can win her case, or even be shown as likely to win in such a fashion the church will be willing to negotiate,
AND IF it can be well established that Miscavige himself bears responsibility for any transgressions, loss of reputation on behalf of the church, and financial losses to the church resulting from the former
THEN a case exists for elimination of David Miscavige as operating head of the church.
Now,
IANAL, but I believe that which is being put to test by the plaintiffs in this matter is that as a Corporate Officer Miscavige has certain
legal requirements & responsibilities towards the reputation and standing of the corporation he heads. By putting him up front and center accused of abuse and damaging the reputation of the institution he heads I see the plaintiffs as attempting
to force the hand of the board of directors to 'throw david under the bus'.
I'm not sure on the specific legal principles involved here but I
believe there are provisions under corporate law which
require the board of directors to act to remove directors or executives who are deemed to be damaging their respective institutions. In suitable instances a failure to act on the part of a board could be used to hold the entire board accountable and subject to removal themselves through appropriate government intervention. The thing about corporate institutions,
whether religious or not, is that they are bound to adhere to the laws regulating corporate behavior or else face
involuntarily dissolution under the law.
It would require an attorney familiar with matters of corporate law to address these questions as to whether this would be a feasible line of attack against Miscavige under the requirements of corporate rules & regulations, but this is what I suspect is happening:
a scenario is being created in the Cook countersuit where the board of directors either willingly negotiates a settlement with Cook involving the removal of Miscavige from his controlling position in the church, or alternately they are forced by legal circumstance to do so as a result of a finding of his personal culpability.
For such an approach to work, given the degree of effective internal control that Miscavige has been able to maintain, requires that Miscavige be held directly & personally responsible for the church's difficulties and with no prospect of a
'plausible deniability' which could be used to justify his retention by the board. A sharing of blame would
not be as likely
to force removal as there would be doubt and effective 'wriggle room' for maneuvering. Hence, the importance of
directly implicating Miscavige in the events.
Rathbun would certainly consider such a result as a definitive
'win' against Miscavige, as would those others such as Cook & Company for whom Miscavige is seen as the
'only problem' with the church of scientology.
Mark A. Baker