Jan 8th Rathbun Hearing

TG1

Angelic Poster
Pshaw, JB!

BTW, remind me (if you know), what is Judge Waldrip's deadline for ruling on the Church's anti-SLAPP motion?

Thanks,

TG1
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Jan 8th Rathbun Hearing - Anti-SLAPP Ruling Due By February 16, 2014

Pshaw, JB!

BTW, remind me (if you know), what is Judge Waldrip's deadline for ruling on the Church's anti-SLAPP motion?

Thanks,

TG1

February 16, 2014 is the agreed-upon deadline for the Anti-SLAPP -- although it could be rendered earlier.
Here's the calendar: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...January-3-2014&p=894921&viewfull=1#post894921

Also, in Texas, an "immediate appeal" is statutorily provided-for, so no matter who 'wins' or 'loses' that Motion, either/both should be expected to formally appeal Judge Waldrip's decision.

Anyone know the speed with which Texas state Appellate-level appeals are managed?

JB
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
What do you think the danger of "Blackheart" is? (I don't even think it'll become a serious meme, by the way.)

I also don't think Ricardo Cedillo uttered that with any great meaning or significance.

But what are your thoughts about it?

I think Cedillo is trying to pair two concepts: Pope (religious leader) and Black Heart. We all agree that DM is Black Heart. By pairing this concept with the Pope concept, he hopes to infer agreement on the Pope concept. This buys him religious status exempting the case from state and ultimately federal jurisdiction.

It is like a wrestling match. The Black Heart identification is offered as a "sugar foot". The opponent can't resist going for. The lunge for the offered limb creates a momentum which is aligned towards a take-down or reversal by the one offering the temptation. The ability of Scientology to hold its jurisdiction is threatened by this case. DM et-al accept this challenge and are playing to establish case law which ultimately strengthens their client's freedom from wog jurisdiction. Money is no object. The lawyers on this team are not stupid. Lawyers dream of playing a part in a case which will be cited into the future. We are all dancing around in our party hats, in gleeful wonder at their foolishness. The team is happy we see them that way.

They see this chess game scores of moves into the future and are fine with taking this case to the Supreme Court. A win there will be a win comparable to IRS 1993.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I think the exact words were "....he has a blackheart..."
"He is a blackheart would be safer if it was supposed to be reference to a fictional? character because DM cannot be somebody else, so the humour would be more explicit, but "is a blackheart" can be separated from other characters completley. I don't have any strong memories with a "Blackheart" character from stories -perhaps very vague ones so the phrase to me hits me more as a direct reference to a persons character, although it is obviously an old fashioned way to do it. I am quite fascinated with this bit from the court.

It seems there is now a regular pattern of 'admission' or whatever it is, where bad things that never would have been conceded before, are being conceded. One of them was when they conceded that they did actually go after Mosey - but it was because....etc. Then there was the concession that it was COS entities....CSI or whoever...(but not DM).Now this Blackheart thing. That bleach they are using will reach the darkest stains if this continues.


I'm too lazy (and in a rush) to try and find it but I thought it was more "even if he has a blackheart ... the reality is clear that it is of a religious origin" (or some such nonsense) ... but I hadn't realised he said it more than once.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Jan 8th Rathbun Hearing - "Epithetical Leaderness"

Yes I should've been linked up with JB at those hearings in order to be in constant communication with her. I think that would've been invaluable in order for her to share her insight here in real time.

She could've been code name "Lou".

And if I messed up she could've communicated, "YS YS YS", and "YSCOHB", and of course "CSMF". Oh, and "Are you going to BT?"


:lol:

After having read all of the 2007 texts re: BBC's Panorama program about Co$, I'm inclined to think that Captain David Miscavige's title of "ecclesiastical leader" should rightly be replaced with the more apt "epithetical leader".

If what I posted earlier in this thread about RTC &/or Miscavige having the requisite legal authority to have sent PI Monty Lynn Drake to Texas in 2007 is true...then it appears the only defense DM can claim is this:

"Dear Your Dibness: Look at all the 2007 text messages! I was WAY too busy micro-managing Rinder & Davis & everyone else to stop John Sweeney/BBC from reporting on scientology, so I didn't have time to micro-manage the Drake-Rathbun-Texas2007 operation, too! Lou had to give my fingertips, like, a gabillion 'touch assists' because I had so many blisters! C'mon, Dibster! I've got 'command intent', here! If this Drake guy was acting as my agent in Texas in 2007, then you'd be able to judge me! ME! No one outranks THIS captain, man! Lou has a potty mouth, okay? SHE wrote the 2007 texts about the BBC - NOT me! I was opening orgs! Cutting ribbons! I can't even SPELL blackberry! I can't even 'clay demo' "jurisdiction"! Wait, "juris" plus "diction"...um...is that a guy named Juris who, like, pronounces words clearly? Dibby, please! In 2007...lemme think. Oh yeah. In 2007 I wasn't even IN this lifetime. I was, yeah, now I remember, I was TOTALLY someone else in, like ALL of 2007 and part of 2008. I, uh, can't remember my other name, but I know I was, like, VERY tall and had TONS of hetersexualness. I was, like, TOTALLY exteriorized that WHOLE time, so whatever my puny meat body did with Lou and anyone else who broke the law while my other AWESOMELY macho meat body was busy, uh, working as a LUMBERJACK - I just remembered! I had so much HAIR! - doesn't count! See?! Whatever happened in 2007 CAN'T count against me, Dib-man. Why would I lie about 2007? My 'theta' ROCKED 2007, dude! Felling trees, shaving, like, 20 times a day, living in the forest - it was the BEST! And, between you and me, dude? The women were lined-up around the friggin' block. Oh. Yeah, right next to the forest was a block. Totally out of place, but like, it wasn't my forest, so I didn't say anything. Anyway, we're clear on 2007, right? That just because there's a metric f*ck-ton of texts from me micro-managing the BBC operation, and just because I am the only person who could have micro-managed the Drake-Rathbun-Texas2007 operation, I was totes busy doing manly stuff, right? Great! Much manly love, "I-Who-Must-Not-Be-Deposed"."

Not trying to derail - just thought we might want a giggle while we wait for more info.

JB
 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
What do you think the danger of "Blackheart" is? (I don't even think it'll become a serious meme, by the way.)

I also don't think Ricardo Cedillo uttered that with any great meaning or significance.

But what are your thoughts about it?

On the Black Heart thing I have a several thoughts as usual for me.

One is it's simply a ploy to show how one's opinion doesn't matter with regard to the law. Like he figure's the Judge has heard many bad things about scn. duh

He's trying to sidestep the ugly texts. lol.

But the main one I figure is that Cedillo guy is having a hard time in his mind "selling" scn just like we all did. Remember that little thought in the back of your mind when you were trying to convince someone of how great scn is? lol. I do.

As an aside, I've only known a couple lawyers in my life, and they were both pretty cool. This Cedillo guy, and I did watch the videos, seems like a dud.


And a giant shout out to Lone Star for the reporting, I really appreciate it. I am following this. This is a blast.

Oh..and where are the troops like back in my day at Portland? lol. I was there doing my job. The damn outfit didn't even bother to tell us we lost. I didn't find that out till reading things on this great site.

Rock on Mosey and Ray.
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
On the Black Heart thing I have a several thoughts as usual for me.

One is it's simply a ploy to show how one's opinion doesn't matter with regard to the law. Like he figure's the Judge has heard many bad things about scn. duh

He's trying to sidestep the ugly texts. lol.

But the main one I figure is that Cedillo guy is having a hard time in his mind "selling" scn just like we all did. Remember that little thought in the back of your mind when you were trying to convince someone of how great scn is? lol. I do.

As an aside, I've only known a couple lawyers in my life, and they were both pretty cool. This Cedillo guy, and I did watch the videos, seems like a dud.


And a giant shout out to Lone Star for the reporting, I really appreciate it. I am following this. This is a blast.

Oh..and where are the troops like back in my day at Portland? lol. I was there doing my job. The damn outfit didn't even bother to tell us we lost. I didn't find that out till reading things on this great site.

Rock on Mosey and Ray.


In Criminal law there is the concept of "Mens Rea" He is trying to make the point that in the world of "anti-slapp" law, Mens Rea is not a relevant topic of discussion. He could have made the point without throwing his client under the bus, perhaps he, too, is experiencing “projective identification” in one form or another.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I haven't seen/heard it on video, (i have trouble with RuTube) but someone said it was repeated several times. I am curious about why it was repeated several times. It sounds like the sort of thing a lawyer would never slip on by saying it even once. So it sounds like it was supposed to "impinge". I wonder why it was used at all and why the repetition.

Allthough it is true, my opinion as to why it was mentioned more than once was because it was a bait to the plaintiffs team. It was meant to distract/divert attention from the real issue of the Anti-slapp. As I see it the anti-slapp law is there to level ( well appease, but that is a whole discussion in itself) the legal playing field of out of reach affordability ( time, money and emotional wise) of legal respresentation.

Of course the monstrosity of the Cof$ and dirty tricks doesn't need to avail itself of this law....but it is doing so in its push to destroy ANY naysayers.

It doesn't matter in regards to the Anti-slapp law whether or not either party has a white or black heart, the sole subject at least as I understand it of the anti-slapp is to at least lessen the inequity of a legal game.

So the Cof$ knows using the anti-slapp action is off the f^*king wall, and it cannot be argued succesfully so they slide out, or morph it very smoothly I must say, to a different issue which is in the total game but not the part of this 'down' or 'play' which is also related to the initial complaint...

More of the conman's tricks in action right there in court. Ray and Judge Waldrip have a real challenge. Just as all scientologist have. Watch out :omg: for the poison/lies/deception/diversion to be injected frequently inside :yes: what otherwise would be a valid discussion/reasoning/activity.

Pure slime in my opinion.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Jan 8th Rathbun Hearing - "Epithetical Leaderness"

JB I don't think channeling DM is good for your mental health... :omg::dieslaughing:

After having read all of the 2007 texts re: BBC's Panorama program about Co$, I'm inclined to think that Captain David Miscavige's title of "ecclesiastical leader" should rightly be replaced with the more apt "epithetical leader".

If what I posted earlier in this thread about RTC &/or Miscavige having the requisite legal authority to have sent PI Monty Lynn Drake to Texas in 2007 is true...then it appears the only defense DM can claim is this:

"Dear Your Dibness: Look at all the 2007 text messages! I was WAY too busy micro-managing Rinder & Davis & everyone else to stop John Sweeney/BBC from reporting on scientology, so I didn't have time to micro-manage the Drake-Rathbun-Texas2007 operation, too! Lou had to give my fingertips, like, a gabillion 'touch assists' because I had so many blisters! C'mon, Dibster! I've got 'command intent', here! If this Drake guy was acting as my agent in Texas in 2007, then you'd be able to judge me! ME! No one outranks THIS captain, man! Lou has a potty mouth, okay? SHE wrote the 2007 texts about the BBC - NOT me! I was opening orgs! Cutting ribbons! I can't even SPELL blackberry! I can't even 'clay demo' "jurisdiction"! Wait, "juris" plus "diction"...um...is that a guy named Juris who, like, pronounces words clearly? Dibby, please! In 2007...lemme think. Oh yeah. In 2007 I wasn't even IN this lifetime. I was, yeah, now I remember, I was TOTALLY someone else in, like ALL of 2007 and part of 2008. I, uh, can't remember my other name, but I know I was, like, VERY tall and had TONS of hetersexualness. I was, like, TOTALLY exteriorized that WHOLE time, so whatever my puny meat body did with Lou and anyone else who broke the law while my other AWESOMELY macho meat body was busy, uh, working as a LUMBERJACK - I just remembered! I had so much HAIR! - doesn't count! See?! Whatever happened in 2007 CAN'T count against me, Dib-man. Why would I lie about 2007? My 'theta' ROCKED 2007, dude! Felling trees, shaving, like, 20 times a day, living in the forest - it was the BEST! And, between you and me, dude? The women were lined-up around the friggin' block. Oh. Yeah, right next to the forest was a block. Totally out of place, but like, it wasn't my forest, so I didn't say anything. Anyway, we're clear on 2007, right? That just because there's a metric f*ck-ton of texts from me micro-managing the BBC operation, and just because I am the only person who could have micro-managed the Drake-Rathbun-Texas2007 operation, I was totes busy doing manly stuff, right? Great! Much manly love, "I-Who-Must-Not-Be-Deposed"."

Not trying to derail - just thought we might want a giggle while we wait for more info.

JB
 
One of my partners won an anti-SLAPP motion yesterday in Los Angeles. It wasn't my own client, and I didn't draft the motion, but I advised and edited, and I was very proud to be on the team. There are very few things in civil practice as satisfying as winning a SLAPP motion.

Then it occurred me: I talk about anti-SLAPP motions around here a lot, and ask people to support anti-SLAPP legislation. But I've been assuming that everyone knows what they are and how they work and why they are important. Reading commentary elsewhere suggests that's not the case.

So today, I'm going to talk about what SLAPP motions are, and how they work, and why they are important.

Edited to add: a few people have suggested that even the terminology is confusing. So, to start: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A malicious or frivolous lawsuit that chills speech is the SLAPP; the statute employed against it is the anti-SLAPP statute, and the motion under the statute is an anti-SLAPP motion. To make things more confusing, people who should know better (like me) often sloppily refer to anti-SLAPP motions as SLAPP motions, or anti-SLAPP statutes as SLAPP statutes.
This is taken from this site: http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slapping/

So let me see if I got this correct: A) The church considers Monique's a frivolous or malicious law suit ( a SLAPP ) and so they are employing the Anti - SLAPP motion to rid them selves of her suit - right? B) The church feels Monique's suit is wrong because it hinders the church's right to free speech in the form of Squirrel Busters, protests, stalking, intimidation and fair gaming her in general to make her husband shut up and stop stealing their parishioners. C) The church also feels her suit is a religious matter and the state can't touch this ( shades of MC Hammer) The church's legal beagle is therefor saying it don't matter what kind of a nasty S.O.B. Capn' is, or why he is being such a dick ( intentionally, accidentally, negligently etc.) (mens rea) Mosey doesn't have the rank (right) to sue the Church. And while we are at it, D) the anti - SLAPP law says you can't do any depositions of Blackie till the Anti-SLAPP motion is decided yea or nay.

Thus Ray has to prove ( to Dib at least ) that is isn't a frivolous suit, it has merit, it ain't about free speech or religion, but criminal behavior pure and simple.

Further, since Dib has said to schedule the depo, he's taking a dim view of the Anti - SLAPP motion brought by the church, and we hope he has an appeal proof reason ( or reference) to justify his position.

Do I have the skinny on this?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't see it that way Mimsey.. yes your defining it out is correct. I agree with that. But I believe that you also got diverted in your A,B,C from the real purpose of the anti-slapp legislation and accepted into it 'B' and 'C'.

'A' is okay I follow but 'B' introduces something that doesn't belong in that legislation and then because 'B' is accepted then you get further off track 'C' , off of the core of the legislation into an issue 'B' and 'C' that is NOT part of the Slapp/anti-slapp legislation. See my post # 308 just a bit before yours.

I also find it tricky not to get it backwards regarding Slapp and anti-slapp but I do think I have got it straight for a couple of weeks now.

This is taken from this site: http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slapping/

So let me see if I got this correct: A) The church considers Monique's a frivolous or malicious law suit ( a SLAPP ) and so they are employing the Anti - SLAPP motion to rid them selves of her suit - right? B) The church feels Monique's suit is wrong because it hinders the church's right to free speech in the form of Squirrel Busters, protests, stalking, intimidation and fair gaming her in general to make her husband shut up and stop stealing their parishioners. C) The church also feels her suit is a religious matter and the state can't touch this ( shades of MC Hammer) The church's legal beagle is therefor saying it don't matter what kind of a nasty S.O.B. Capn' is, or why he is being such a dick ( intentionally, accidentally, negligently etc.) (mens rea) Mosey doesn't have the rank (right) to sue the Church. Thus Ray has to prove ( to Dib at least ) that is isn't a frivolous suit, it has merit, it ain't about free speech or religion, but criminal behavior pure and simple.

Do I have the skinny on this?

Mimsey
 

NonScio

Patron Meritorious
I think Cedillo is trying to pair two concepts: Pope (religious leader) and Black Heart. We all agree that DM is Black Heart. By pairing this concept with the Pope concept, he hopes to infer agreement on the Pope concept. This buys him religious status exempting the case from state and ultimately federal jurisdiction.

It is like a wrestling match. The Black Heart identification is offered as a "sugar foot". The opponent can't resist going for. The lunge for the offered limb creates a momentum which is aligned towards a take-down or reversal by the one offering the temptation. The ability of Scientology to hold its jurisdiction is threatened by this case. DM et-al accept this challenge and are playing to establish case law which ultimately strengthens their client's freedom from wog jurisdiction. Money is no object. The lawyers on this team are not stupid. Lawyers dream of playing a part in a case which will be cited into the future. We are all dancing around in our party hats, in gleeful wonder at their foolishness. The team is happy we see them that way.

They see this chess game scores of moves into the future and are fine with taking this case to the Supreme Court. A win there will be a win comparable to IRS 1993.

Cedillo's major problem is that the real Pope, i.e. the Roman Pontiff, is head of a sovereign State...Vatican City. As far as I know, Hemet has not
seceded from The United States or California.

No world "ecclesiastic leader" ...other than the Pope of Rome and maybe the "Grand Ayatollah" of Iran, are
Heads of State. If Miscavige is proven to be Pope of Scientology (was there a conclave who elected him?), so what? He is subject
to the laws of the nation he operates in. Harassment and stalking are neither religious rights nor rites. It is not an ecclesiastic matter
beyond reach of the law...it is a civil and perhaps criminal matter.
 
I don't see it that way Mimsey.. yes your defining it out is correct. I agree with that. But I believe that you also got diverted in your A,B,C from the real purpose of the anti-slapp legislation and accepted into it 'B' and 'C'.

'A' is okay I follow but 'B' introduces something that doesn't belong in that legislation and then because 'B' is accepted then you get further off track 'C' , off of the core of the legislation into an issue 'B' and 'C' that is NOT part of the Slapp/anti-slapp legislation. See my post # 308 just a bit before yours.

I also find it tricky not to get it backwards regarding Slapp and anti-slapp but I do think I have got it straight for a couple of weeks now.

I see your point re. B) and C), and agree they are not part of the Anti SLAPP motion, but they are part and parcel of the churches over all defense, and if the Anti SLAPP falls on it's face, those are the next swords they'll wield. As I read more of the blog on the SLAPP and Anti SLAPP, it points out the automatic appeal "ploy" which leads me to this question:

Are these the Anti-SLAPP options?

A) the judge finds Monique's suit valid, and the church appeals with the Anti SLAPP automatic appeal provision
B) the judge agrees with the church their suit is frivolous and Monique would be responsible for the attny fees the 15 lawyers are billing Blackie
C) the judge says the Anti SLAPP motion is without merit, and does not find it applicable to the instant case, and thus denies it and proceeds to try Moniques lawsuit against Blackie et. al?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:
Cedillo's major problem is that the real Pope, i.e. the Roman Pontiff, is head of a sovereign State...Vatican City. As far as I know, Hemet has not
seceded from The United States or California.

No world "ecclesiastic leader" ...other than the Pope of Rome and maybe the "Grand Ayatollah" of Iran, are
Heads of State. If Miscavige is proven to be Pope of Scientology (was there a conclave who elected him?), so what? He is subject
to the laws of the nation he operates in. Harassment and stalking are neither religious rights nor rites. It is not an ecclesiastic matter
beyond reach of the law...it is a civil and perhaps criminal matter.
Hemet is a satellite state of Target 2 and is outside jurisdiction of any of Teegeack's laws. Mimsey
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
Cedillo's major problem is that the real Pope, i.e. the Roman Pontiff, is head of a sovereign State...Vatican City. As far as I know, Hemet has not
seceded from The United States or California.

No world "ecclesiastic leader" ...other than the Pope of Rome and maybe the "Grand Ayatollah" of Iran, are
Heads of State. If Miscavige is proven to be Pope of Scientology (was there a conclave who elected him?), so what? He is subject
to the laws of the nation he operates in. Harassment and stalking are neither religious rights nor rites. It is not an ecclesiastic matter
beyond reach of the law...it is a civil and perhaps criminal matter.

I hope you are right but the Sea Org was born at sea beyond the jurisdiction of any government. I hope you are correct, but I think DM is hoping to adjust the reality you describe through a supreme court appeal of this case. I hope I am wrong.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I see your point re. B) and C), and agree they are not part of the Anti SLAPP motion, but they are part and parcel of the churches over all defense, and if the Anti SLAPP falls on it's face, those are the next swords they'll wield. As I read more of the blog on the SLAPP and Anti SLAPP, it points out the automatic appeal "ploy" which leads me to this question:

Are these the options?

A) the judge finds Monique's suit valid and the church appeals
B) the judge agrees with the church and Monique could be responsible for the attny fees the 15 lawyers are billing Blackie
C) the judge says the Anti SLAPP motion is without merit, and does not find it applicable to the instant case, and thus denies it and proceeds to try Moniques lawsuit against Blackie et. al?

Mimsey

Egaddzzz Mims, it is 3:14am here and the court house library is closed for the weekend and my docket is full till ice fishing is over. After that you can bring the frying pan and campfire wood and we will see what kind of fish we can fry up.

:cheers:
 
Egaddzzz Mims, it is 3:14am here and the court house library is closed for the weekend and my docket is full till ice fishing is over. After that you can bring the frying pan and campfire wood and we will see what kind of fish we can fry up.

:cheers:

Yeah, I guess it was a bit unclear... is this any better?

Are these the Anti-SLAPP options?

A) the judge finds Monique's suit valid, and the church appeals with the Anti SLAPP automatic appeal provision
B) the judge agrees with the church their suit is frivolous and Monique would be responsible for the attny fees the 15 lawyers are billing Blackie
C) the judge says the Anti SLAPP motion is without merit, and does not find it applicable to the instant case, and thus denies it and proceeds to try Moniques lawsuit against Blackie et. al?

Mimsey

keyword-research-guide-intro.png
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
Think of the Anti-Slapp like a total thread derail. Whereas the the initial topic was DM as a controlling entity of the Siege of Ingleside as complained about by a "non-combatant" (remember Monique?); the introduction of the Anti-Slapp motion (a TOTAL perversion of the law, but hey, there is no "Keeping Justice Working" ethos) allows inconsequential arguments and diversionary statements to be entered in, AND it allows the defendants to alter the timing and pace of the proceedings. So the conversation has shifted away from the defendants, and tries to victimize the victims.


It is time to say "Enough of this", and I think this judge "gets" it. I'd like to see all of these lawyers sanctioned massively, and DM's deposition go forward.
Of course I don't expect DM to EVER be deposed, but seeing the contortions his lawyers will go through might be entertaining.
 
Think of the Anti-Slapp like a total thread derail. Whereas the the initial topic was DM as a controlling entity of the Siege of Ingleside as complained about by a "non-combatant" (remember Monique?); the introduction of the Anti-Slapp motion (a TOTAL perversion of the law, but hey, there is no "Keeping Justice Working" ethos) allows inconsequential arguments and diversionary statements to be entered in, AND it allows the defendants to alter the timing and pace of the proceedings. So the conversation has shifted away from the defendants, and tries to victimize the victims.


It is time to say "Enough of this", and I think this judge "gets" it. I'd like to see all of these lawyers sanctioned massively, and DM's deposition go forward.
Of course I don't expect DM to EVER be deposed, but seeing the contortions his lawyers will go through might be entertaining.
That makes sense. Did he put up such a stink in his previous deposition / court appearance? (was there more than one?)

Some times I think he's pissed Ray beat him twice and "it's not gonna happen again, damn it!" other times I think it is "fuck you Marty and the horse you rode in on" and there are times I think the stakes are too high - if he is proven to be the micromanaging leader he is, it destroys the whole corp. shell game, and he is wide open to any manner of law suit, RICO, class action.

Mimsey
 

NonScio

Patron Meritorious
I hope you are right but the Sea Org was born at sea beyond the jurisdiction of any government. I hope you are correct, but I think DM is hoping to adjust the reality you describe through a supreme court appeal of this case. I hope I am wrong.

Depends on which country's flag sea org vessels fly....a ship is NOT a sovereign state unto itself. In international law, a ship (in international waters),
is considered a territorial extension of the sovereign state which flags the vessel...and as such the laws of that nation apply to all those on that
ship. The "Freewinds", for example, is registered in Panama and as such is Panamanian territory subject to Panamanian law.
 
Top