FORMER SCIENTOLOGY SPOKESMAN TOMMY DAVIS SUBPOENAED BY MONIQUE RATHBUN

Lavalyte

Patron with Honors
This is what it means to be a Scilon spokeshole.

You tell lies to cover up the lies you told earlier and then more lies to cover those.

Pretty soon you can’t remember what is a lie and what is the truth. I’m betting that Tommy will be desperately reading what he said before and trying to memorise it so he can keep to the script.

I’m betting he will say the same thing and if asked about McShane’s statement to the police, pretend to have no knowledge about it. It would be great if he spilled the beans, but I’m guessing Miscavige has too much dirt and more importantly paid him handsomely for his cooperation.

Ax

One of the flaws in Hubbard's TRL is that it wasn't designed for an age of accurate reporting and instant and universal playback. TRL teaches you to lie convincingly *now*. Which might be effective in private circumstances. But it doesn't take into account the need for consistency in the lies.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Our son was also in preschool when he was 4 as well as a whole class room of kids. At 5 one goes to Kindergarden.

My daughter has been going to daycare since she was 2 months old. She is now three and the class she is in is called preschool.

I think preschool is: potty trained, learning to read and write. She can write her name, count to 50, identify at least 20 colors, 10 shapes with names of them (including trapezoid, which I had to look up!), say the entire alphabet.

I would say its between toddler and Kindergarten. Ages 3 to 5.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
From Tony Ortega's blog earlier this morning:

Fight Brewing Over Tommy Davis Subpoena

We called Monique Rathbun’s attorney Ray Jeffrey to ask him about the latest in the big depositions brewing in Monique’s harassment lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. He said that because the church responded within three days, it was able to quash the subpoena which ordered former church spokesman Tommy Davis to be deposed on October 14. (Jeffrey explains that the quash is automatic in those initial days.) But Jeffrey now has a court date, October 8, during which he’ll get the opportunity to convince Judge Dib Waldrip to reinstate Tommy’s subpoena. Jeffrey says he also expects Scientology to try and quash the subpoena for Leah Remini, who has agreed to be deposed in Los Angeles on October 15, and Jeffrey says he’s prepared to fight for that one, too.

http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/04/wo...entology-a-video-by-tiziano-lugli/#more-10680
 

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mimsey Borogrove said:
My question is this: If they prove that Tommy Davis perjured himself by lying in the Headley case, can the Headleys reopen the law suit? Mimsey
yes

No, they - themself - can NOT reopen the law suit. They can only file for a reopening of their case, but no judge really likes to do this.

So they can file for reopening because Tommy Davis lied in court (= criminal). The Headley-judge has to decide if this is really the case. So he send all the files to the prosecution for further action. If the prosecution doesn´t open a criminal case for lying in court because they say "Not enough evidence" or some other reason the Headley judge get´s informed and decides: "Dear Headleys, the prosecution found not enough evidence that Tommy Davis acted criminal therefore there is no reason for the reopening of the case. Sorry, no bonus".

50 years ago the prosecution would have opened a criminal case for lying in court - if they would do this today with every liar in court, they couldn´t do anything else. Sad but true.

So the real chance that the Headley-case could be reopened is near zero - it´s wasted time to try.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
No, they - themself - can NOT reopen the law suit. They can only file for a reopening of their case, but no judge really likes to do this.

So they can file for reopening because Tommy Davis lied in court (= criminal). The Headley-judge has to decide if this is really the case. So he send all the files to the prosecution for further action. If the prosecution doesn´t open a criminal case for lying in court because they say "Not enough evidence" or some other reason the Headley judge get´s informed and decides: "Dear Headleys, the prosecution found not enough evidence that Tommy Davis acted criminal therefore there is no reason for the reopening of the case. Sorry, no bonus".

50 years ago the prosecution would have opened a criminal case for lying in court - if they would do this today with every liar in court, they couldn´t do anything else. Sad but true.

So the real chance that the Headley-case could be reopened is near zero - it´s wasted time to try.


Really? I believe it could be successful, considering how much judicial time and expense this band of psychos has consumed...... It would be a public service, rendered in the public interest, for the good of man. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander...considering that:

Scientology opened a criminal case in Boston court against Robert Minton for perjury in the McPherson case...which was remanded to Pinellas 'because all the case docs were there" and Moxon acted as prosecutor... and Bob's Boston attorney beat it on a technicality.. this was what pushed Bob to have to recant... to avoid a conviction for a felony - which criminal perjury happens to be in Florida and Massachusetts, I dunno about Texas...or California

Kendrick Moxon's Biggest Flub

Bob Minton was sued in Boston Superior Court for criminal perjuries in the Florida cases,, in hopes they could get a judgement against his property, his home in Boston. That case was remanded to the Clearwater Court, because all the doucments were already there, (and I bet the Boston court sure didn't want to deal with it). Moxon conducted the prosecution of that criminal case in front of Judge - shit, a lady judge, name escapes me at moment ) He introduced exhibit after exhibit of instances of perjury by Bob... and finally rested his case.

Bob was sweating bullets. A criminal conviction for perjury is a felony and Bob would no longer be able to work as an investment banker, and at the time he was hurting for cash he could spend in the US. I think it was Judge Shaeffer... anyway, Moxon rested his case. Then Bob who by this time had finally done what he should have done long before, had called in his expensive Boston lawyers, sounds like Mc Pfenny ?? (anyone recall his name?) something or other, stood up having not said anything during the whole proceedings, and asked the Judge if the prosecution had rested their case. The Judge nodded yes they have. Then Bob's lawyer, read from the Florida statute for Criminal perjury conviction, which stated, and I am paraphrasing from memory - That there is a statutory requirement that an affidavit be filed in the instant case, however Moxon only filed exhbits from the McPherson case and copies of depositions and testimony transcripts.

So Bobs Lawyer told the Judge, "So I ask that the charges be dismissed"

The Judge said "You got me" and Dismissed the charges....

The same statute re perjury states that if a person recants all prior perjurys in a case, at anytime before the case goes final, then that person cannot be found guilty of criminal perjury, and by this point after all the money drains, Mr Minton simply had to be still able to earn a living as an investment banker...which a conviction would preclude.

When Bob's lawyer finally stood up and got the case dismissed on that technicality, is the moment Bob saw God. He called me that night and relayed everything I have typed here for you and told me he was going to have to do a recant and might ruin the McPherson case. I told him as long as he would be telling God's truth that he would have my blessing to proceed.

Arnie Lerma


PS: I took a lot heat, and was called a liar, when I first described this case because it did not show up in the CW Court docket... which was, it turned out, because the case was brought in Boston Superior and then remanded to Pinnellas Court for trial, which I did not know when I first talked about it years ago.
 
Top