Diamond Invictus SP
Here's a good post from one of the attorney's over at the Bunker (posted earlier this morning):
t1kk • 4 hours ago
Scientology's lawyers' theory of the case is that months-long surveillance of Marty Luther was warranted because Marty, by his internet and real-world activity (offering auditing services), represents a significant enough threat to the Church of Scientology to merit such extraordinary attention, *yet* the ecclesiastical leader of said church, David Miscavige, has little to no interest in Marty Luther because Mr. Miscavige is too busy, for instance, appearing in documentaries explicitly produced to be viewed by Texas judges overseeing harassment suits brought by the wife of Marty Luther.
This leaves a logical hole in the Scientology narrative because it begs the question who is actually directing/managing/overseeing this particular bit of relentless harassm--er, first amendment activity. They need a Who to patch the logical gap in order to plausibly explain why Marty is, on one hand, important enough to merit serial harassment of his wife, and on the other, unimportant enough that David Miscavige has barely heard of all this despite his minute-to-minute micromanagement of similar recent projects. But there is no other Who, and 15 attorneys can't fill this gaping abyss of unreason and illogic.
Ms. B. Haven • 2 hours ago
"They need a Who to patch the logical gap in order to plausibly explain…"
The Who will be easy to find. Just look to see Who is thrown under the bus. Of course this won't be the real Who, but it will be good enough to offer the Kool-Aid connoisseurs and maybe squeeze a few more sympathy bucks out of the masses to fend of this Psych/Big Pharma backed attack on Captain Blackheart.
t1kk • 2 hours ago
It's not nearly so easy, b/c the Who cannot be someone who can be plausibly viewed as an agent of Miscavige. A number of people speculate about Laurisse being thrown under the bus but for the purposes of this particular legal issue, such a tactic wouldn't help him.
That does not mean that Laurisse's actions, if, hypothetically, they were illegal, necessarily renders Miscavige liable; but for jurisdictional purposes, an agent with apparent but not actual authority can be a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. There's probably a Texas case suggesting a similar principle, but in New York there's FORD v. UNITY HOSP., 39 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dep't. 1972) (unauthorized act in NY by foreign agent held to be sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction).