Here's a link to the
entire Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in August 2013 in connection with Mrs. Rathbun's lawsuit in Texas:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/161973862/Monique-Rathbun-Temporary-Restraining-Order
This TRO continues to be in force per Judge Waldrip, btw.
Quoted portions of the TRO follow.
Blue = who the TRO applies to.
Brown = action(s) prohibited by the TRO.
Green = protected persons.)
"...Defendants and any of their agents, servants, and attorneys, and those persons acting in concert with them, cease and desist from harassing and invading the privacy of the Plaintiff, Monique Rathbun.
Specifically, the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those in active concert or participation with them are restrained and temporarily enjoined from performing or engaging in any of the following acts pending a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction..."
"4. Contacting or harassing Mrs. Rathbun's employer, her co-workers, her family members, or her friends."
Who did what to whom?
1. Well,
Mr. Rathbun absolutely falls under the '
family members' category, so that's easy-peasy: He
is covered under the TRO.
2. Does the conduct displayed by of any/all of the 3 individuals in the video depict "
contacting" or "
harassing" Mr. Rathbun?
3. What relationship do any/all of the
3 individuals in the video have to the
specific people and/or
types of people as described in the TRO?
Let's suppose a judge is asked to see this video to determine if the TRO was violated.
Theoretically, a judge
could look
only at the conduct displayed, determine neither contact nor harassment existed, and toss the video evidence entirely.... without ever delving into the question of whether the
3 individuals had ties to anyone else specifically prohibited by the TRO.
Would an ordinary judge, when tasked with the question -
Who did what to whom? -
only look at the "
did what" portion and leave the "
who" and "
to whom" unresolved?
I don't think so.
I think a judge is likely to permit attorney inquiry into finding out:
(1) exactly who the 3 individuals are; and,
(2) what, if any, relationship exists between the 3 individuals and each named person + every category of persons specifically described within the TRO.
It's reasonable to think that the
who portion be determined to a judge's satisfaction before the
conduct itself is to be considered (i.e., what are the legal definitions of 'contact' & 'harassment', must the 'contact' or 'harassment' be intentional, etc.).
If this video does make its way to a Texas judge,
then, at the very least, 3 more people will be subject to legal authority - in all its breadth & width.
With this latest development, TeamCSI+RTC have added 3 more people to the already large group upon whose shoulders their defense rests.
The larger the group, the higher the risk of defection and/or disaffection.
Each person within that entire group possesses the individual power to bring TeamCSI+RTC into legal ruin.
And when, not if, one person in the group realizes that simple truth? Game over, folks.
Which person will awaken first? I surely don't know, but caeks are baking in anticipation.
JB
]
