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.



Hearing Jan 22 Miscavige still to be deposed

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by The Sloth, Jan 23, 2014.

  1. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Looking forward to a report by Tony tomorrow or day after.

    TG1
     
  2. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    And Tony O. has delivered:

    http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...series-on-scientology-ethics-with-a-reprieve/

    Excerpt:

    Ray Jeffrey: “The Church of Scientology produced materials to us digitally, but has designated those materials as ‘attorney’s-eyes only,’ so we can’t even let our own client and her husband view those materials and help us prepare for the hearing,” he says. “We have challenged this designation, and we will bring it up to the court on Monday before the continuation of the Anti-SLAPP hearing. And we will most likely be asking for a continuance to ask for the designation to be removed.”
     
  3. MissWog

    MissWog Silver Meritorious Patron

    I am anxiously awaiting dchoice & JB's comments on this.. As well as the rest of you :) heck it would be great if we could get Tikk in here too!

    Is this a normal thing to label for atty eyes only? How can they justify this as anything but a stall tactic? How will the judge view this? Blah blah blah... All the questions y'all are thinking already and don't really need me spelling out for you :p
     
  4. koki

    koki Silver Meritorious Patron

    yeah.... especially tikk s comment.... :melodramatic:
     
  5. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    And here's t1kk's comment at Tony O's blog:

    Designating a document as "attorneys eyes only" prevents the receiving attorney from doin

    g much with the document if an expert or your client is the only person who can make sense of or bring context to the document. It's usually reserved for instances to protect trade secrets or the like when the litigants are competing entities; which makes some sense because otherwise discovery would be abused as an anti-competitive business tactic. I'm guessing the rationale, if they even bothered expressing one, is some variant on We're A Religion, but I don't see how it'll hold up in this instance (at least as a blanket for *all* the produced docs) because the sorts of documents I expect were produced are the sort that will either bolster or refute arguments that have already been made. It's necessary that these documents be put on the table. Let Scientology make confidentiality arguments on a doc-by-doc basis.

    Comment and following discussion there at http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...gy-ethics-with-a-reprieve/#comment-1223533840
     
  6. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Gold Meritorious Patron

    Attorney-eyes-only was used extensively in RTC vs Lerma not just for the xenu rubbish but for statements regarding how much various $cientology attorneys were paid during their unsuccessful effort to get a judgement against me for attorney fees, for which Judge Brinkema awarded -zero-.
     
  7. MissWog

    MissWog Silver Meritorious Patron

    thank you TG1!!! It's hard for me to wade through Discus..very much appreciate the copy & link!
     
  8. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Re: Hearing Jan 22 Miscavige still to be deposed - Attorneys' Eyes Only Issue

    Thanks to TG1 for posting this -- and to T1kk for once again educating us all. :thankyou:

    Just wanted to add this...

    October 19, 2013 - The Underground Bunker reported about the original (and ridiculous, imho) Anti-SLAPP Motion that was filed by CSI. (The other defendants joined in this motion later.) This was and continues to be an enormous development in this case -- especially since so many mini-issues have sprung up as a result.

    October 16, 2013 - The Underground Bunker reported that CSI filed Motions In Limine & for a Protective Order. I think the Anti-SLAPP Motions overshadowed the significance of this smaller pre-trial maneuver.

    Here's a link to the blog post: http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/16/sc...finalisty-for-national-book-award/#more-10992

    Excerpt:

    If I'm reading the excerpt correctly, what happened in October 2013 was that...

    #1. TeamCSI demanded the right to mark certain material as viewable only by Mrs. Rathbun + her attorneys.
    #2. Ray Jeffrey, obviously, disagreed.
    #3. This issue was expected to be ironed-out in Court.

    Months later, on/before January 27, 2014, CSI reportedly marked discovery materials "attorneys' eyes only".

    Does this mean that "attorneys' eyes only" actually means Mrs. Rathbun + her attorneys?
    If so, does that mean the issue was ironed-out in Court? (Anyone see this anywhere?)
    If so, did the judge issue an Order? (Anyone see this anywhere?)
    But - if so, then why would Mr. Jeffrey find this objectionable now, after this issue's been ironed-out?

    Or...

    Does "attorneys' eyes only" mean that CSI marked the discovery material as such* because the issue was NOT ironed-out in Court?
    This makes sense as to why Mr. Jeffrey intends to ask Judge Waldrip for help on this issue on February 3, 2014 @ the next hearing.

    We can all guess at what "attorneys' eyes only" means -- but the only correct interpretation is the one offered by Judge Waldrip.
    If he's provided it already, I haven't seen it and would sure appreciate a copy/link.
    If he hasn't provided it, then it had better come soon. Deadlines loom.

    *Part of Co$/scientology mgmt's standard we-do-whatever-we-want-because-we-can longstanding pre-trial litigation tek.

    "All rights reserved; your rights trampled." - Co$ legal playbook, page 1.

    JB
     
  9. uncover

    uncover Gold Meritorious Patron

    The answer is very simple: "delay tactics"

    The court order from Jan 14, 2014 clearly states:

    Plaintiff is Monique Rathbun and not their lawyers. If the church limits it to the lawyers it doesn´t fulfill the court order (".... produce to Plaintiff...") risking (only) ineffective sanctions (financial penalty - who cares about that in the Co$ ? The 22 lawyers cost more per hour).

    Otherwise its a trap for Ray Jeffrey. If he says: "Who cares about this limitation ?" and shows it to his client (neglecting the limitation), the Co$-law-benders can try to get Ray Jeffrey removed from the case because of violation of professional standards (another delay). It takes strong nerves to deal with such ******

    Obviously the Co$-law-benders are very much aware that they don´t have any chance to win this case - therefore they risk the misemotion of Waldrip (hoping that he will make a mistake which can be fought with an appeal).
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2014