Legal Follow up to the SP Times articles

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Now that today is Monday, we need some reporters getting statements from Pinellas county officials in Florida on what they plan to do about the destruction of evidence in the Lisa McPherson Trial, and any other legal and real-life follow up to actually get something done here about David Miscavige and the cult he runs.

Legal Followup.

Not just reporting.

Come on!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Now that today is Monday, we need some reporters getting statements from Pinellas county officials in Florida on what they plan to do about the destruction of evidence in the Lisa McPherson Trial, and any other legal and real-life follow up to actually get something done here about David Miscavige and the cult he runs.

Read part 2. Statute of limitations re destruction of evidence is three years. Legally it's over. But not PRwise. :)

Paul
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
I wuz sort'a looking forward to the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology to sue Rathbun, Rinder, Scobee and Voght.. And their relatives.. And the reporters.. And St.Pete Times.. And all their freinds.. And their kids.. And their dentists.. And a choice cellection of psychiatrist that has been proven to be within a 3 mile radius of any of the aforementioned persons or entities.

Hmm.. Will they do it? - Or do they play possum?

:confused2:
 

Wisened One

Crusader
I wuz sort'a looking forward to the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology to sue Rathbun, Rinder, Scobee and Voght.. And their relatives.. And the reporters.. And St.Pete Times.. And all their freinds.. And their kids.. And their dentists.. And a choice cellection of psychiatrist that has been proven to be within a 3 mile radius of any of the aforementioned persons or entities.

Hmm.. Will they do it? - Or do they play possum?

:confused2:

:lol: :laugh: :thumbsup:
 

Tim Skog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I wuz sort'a looking forward to the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology to sue Rathbun, Rinder, Scobee and Voght.. And their relatives.. And the reporters.. And St.Pete Times.. And all their freinds.. And their kids.. And their dentists.. And a choice cellection of psychiatrist that has been proven to be within a 3 mile radius of any of the aforementioned persons or entities.

Hmm.. Will they do it? - Or do they play possum?

:confused2:

This is actually a good question Schwimmie. I've been wondering about this myself. Would the Church just sue the St. Pete Times, or just the four exes, or all of them? Also, a lot of other papers and wire stories are carrying the St. Pete Times report, so will the Church sue them as well?

The other thing I've wondered about is that the Church wasn't really the issue in the St. Pete Times piece. It was really about DM being a tyrant. Can the church sue without having DM listed as a plaintiff in the suit?

I don't think DM would want to be a plaintiff because he would have to submit to deposition.

For now I think that DM continues to use Tommy as his yapping chihuahua.

But, I guess we'll have to wait and see if this thing goes to a legal fight.
 

Ex_SaintHill

Patron with Honors
I wuz sort'a looking forward to the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology to sue Rathbun, Rinder, Scobee and Voght.. And their relatives.. And the reporters.. And St.Pete Times.. And all their freinds.. And their kids.. And their dentists.. And a choice cellection of psychiatrist that has been proven to be within a 3 mile radius of any of the aforementioned persons or entities.

Hmm.. Will they do it? - Or do they play possum?

:confused2:

lets see what happens. I hope not
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
I'm damned sure they won't ever sue! - That is a can of worms and they know it. It is a totally unwinnable case for them.. Offhand I can recall at least a dusin witnesses who have either seen the beatings or have been beaten. That's just people who are out and posting on the boards already.

And that's the tip of the iceberg.. If such a case would ever be started, there would be witnesses growing from the woodwork like something outta a Lovecraft nightmare!

But most importantly.. Tommy Davis has actually confirmed and described the violent nature of Scientology and the Sea Org. Trying to blame Ratbun for creating a reign of terror, but by that token admitting that they kept Rathbun in a top echelon post for decades to do just that! - Tommy Davis has shot any hope of winning a case over this to hell for Scientology!

But let's not forget Marc 'Blownforgood' Headleys case. This issue is part of that case. - And Tommy Davis' will be of great help there!

I guess Miscavige will flee to Bulgravia one of these days!

:yes:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Statute on destruction of evidence might be expired, but what about assault?

I have no doubt that Marty is acting on legal advice to only answer for crimes which can no longer be pursued while he sets himself up as a source. As soon as an immunity agreement is received, I would expect the stuff he could still be charged with (if he weren't immune) to be confessed.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Statute on destruction of evidence might be expired, but what about assault?

I have no doubt that Marty is acting on legal advice to only answer for crimes which can no longer be pursued while he sets himself up as a source. As soon as an immunity agreement is received, I would expect the stuff he could still be charged with (if he weren't immune) to be confessed.

Since there was (obvious to even the most naive) a conspiracy to hide the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, statute of limitations doesn't apply.
---------------------------------------

652 Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

An individual's "withdrawal" from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. "Withdrawal" from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).


Zinj
 
Since there was (obvious to even the most naive) a conspiracy to hide the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, statute of limitations doesn't apply.
---------------------------------------

652 Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

An individual's "withdrawal" from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. "Withdrawal" from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).


Zinj

These are all federal cases. I don't think the feds care right now. Is the statue of limitations the same in Florida? And I also think that rinder said it was his decision alone. Only the poor saps below him would get charged.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
These are all federal cases. I don't think the feds care right now. Is the statue of limitations the same in Florida? And I also think that rinder said it was his decision alone. Only the poor saps below him would get charged.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well, I don't know what the Florida statute is, but, I would expect some kind of equivalent version. However, the Scientology conspiracy is an interstate (and transnational) one, so the *correct* venue would be in federal court anyway.

There is however, no way that Marty Rathbun could have *alone* destroyed the evidence, considering that the people who *originated* it also knew.

Zinj
 
Be A Force For Good In The World

From a post on OCMB:
Quote-
"If you are an eyewitness to "members locked up," It would be an incredibly brave thing for you to contact the FBI in Southern California and give them your story. A useful lead you can give them is: I saw Person X imprisoned by Persons Y and Z on June XX, 20XX in Building XX at Golden Era Studios near Hemet, CA.

Any other wrong-doing that you witnessed (beatings, illegal wiretapping, etc) would be useful.

If you worry that you will be charged with crimes yourself, get a lawyer first and negotiate for immunity for turning states' evidence. It would be better than waiting for the eventual FLOOD of panicky CoS staffers trying to get to the FBI and rat on their co-workers, including YOU." -Endquote

FBI Los Angeles Field Office
11000 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90024
(310) 477-6565
----------------------------------
FBI Lancaster Resident Agency
1206 Avenue J, #211
Lancaster, CA 93534
(805) 948-9399
----------------------------------
FBI Long Beach Resident Agency
One World Trade Center, Suite #1400
Long Beach, CA 90831
(310) 432-6951
------------------------------------
FBI Palm Springs Resident Agency
601 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 320-0800
------------------------------------
FBI Riverside Resident Agency
3480 Vine Street
Riverside, CA 92507
(909)-686-0335
------------------------------------
FBI Santa Ana Resident Agency
901 Civic Center Drive, Suite 330
Santa Ana, CA 92703
(714) 542-8825
------------------------------------
FBI Santa Maria Resident Agency
2400 Professional Parkway, Suite 200
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-2444
------------------------------------
FBI Ventura Resident Agency
2075 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
(805) 642-3995
------------------------------------
FBI Victorville Resident Agency
13911 Park Avenue, Suite 202
Victorville, CA 92392-2407
(760) 951-7119
------------------------------------
FBI West Covina Resident Agency
1050 Lakes Drive, Suite 350
West Covina, CA 91790
(626) 919-3434From Post
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree with Tim and Schwimmy that there is no way the CoS will ever sue over the articles in the SP Times. They might have thought about threatening to before the articles were published, but it’s too late to intimidate now.

They simply could not allow a case like this to come to court. Mostly because this would mean that Miscavige would have to give evidence in a court of law. Then, he would have the stark choice of either admitting that he did beat up staff members and be exposed as the bully that he is and thus lose any credibility amongst the Scientology public or, he would have to lie to cover himself and then run the very real risk of being jailed for perjury.

Also, if such a case were to happen, this would open the floodgates to many more ex-staff to come forward with their stories. This would be in the news for weeks - the CoS cannot afford that sort of negative publicity. Although, some might say that the public reputation of Scientology couldn’t sink any lower. :)

Axiom142
 
Top