This is all one Holy WTF? for me. :confused2:
TX Lawyer says kinda where I'm at...The Folks that got you here are the best bet to get you the rest of the way.
Oye Effen Vey...It's not my shot to call and Gawd knows weeze don't gots all of the story. I'm sure Mosey has had enough of this crap already and that's her prerogative and we'll just have to wait and see how all this shakes out...There's always more to the fox than the tail.
Poor Monique...She, like the rest of Us, had no idea what she was stepping into and I wish her the best.
However, IL2K, going "Mutual out-ruds" with your "Marty out-rud", let me paraphrase/restate what I have Posted numerous times on ESMB over the last 6 or so years re: Spinnin' Marty:
I personally knew and interacted with Marty. I read his Blog for awhile (but had too much pride to buy his books). I didn't trust Marty back "in the days", I don't trust Marty now and never will, no matter what. Marty has Posted on the Net far too many bald face lies, self-serving prevarications and outright falsehoods about good and decent Folks I personally knew, events I personally witnessed and history that I personally lived and has never retracted, redacted or regretted ONE of those statements as he's "Walked his Path" to "Truth", "Enlightenment" and "Righteousness".
Having said all that, when you get your $32K I'll throw you the biggest, bestest, bawdry bash you've ever seen.
Once you open a can that big, it is your obligation to carry it through because it isn't just about you anymore.
I don't care if Mosey was in Scientology or not, she brought an issue with enormous ramifications to the line to be decided upon and dropped it. In dropping it she left everyone in America flat on a very crucial issue that may never reach this stage ever again and if someone can talk her out of it before the motion is decided, that would be the best thing for everyone as well as her.
Mosey made this far bigger than herself to leave it now.
Regarding that post Marty made a few months ago about distraction.
It made me wonder just how crazy $cn. Was driving him at the time.
I don't think our intelligence services missed 9-11 because they were too obsessed with Scientology. The notion is somewhat laughable.
Mosey never suggested that she was doing this for anybody other than herself, because of a situation that was very distressing for herself and her family. Even though it would have had a major impact for future litigants if she'd continued to trial and won, given the history of trials like Wollersheim's, that GO ON FOR YEARS, I understand perfectly why she'd want to settle as quickly as she can, and if I were in her position, I would do the same.
It would have been a thin line between her being some kind of hero, or a sacrificial lamb, if the CoS psychologically destroyed her with the trial, and dragging it out. As it is, if she settled or is just bowing out, at least she did something.
What you wrote does actually lay out my own puzzlement at this situation. Her lawyer had, seemingly, shown in the Cook case that he was solely interested in the best result for his client (and for himself of course) and not interested in addressing the larger "CofS" issues or at least, only in the pursuit of the case.
It would appear that Monique has let them go without suggesting that the lawyers did anything wrong.
The only scenario that I can think of that makes sense would be that the cofs approached them with a settlement and the legal team figured that the offered 'range" was way below what they could expect to get later on and recommended turning it down. Maybe Monique decided it was just time to cut the crap, get a meaningful settlement and get out of town.
I am not sure that Marty's blog could even be included in the settlement could it? It is not a part of monique's case and does not belong to her.
It isn't costing them any money. The lawyers only get paid when the case is won or there is a settlement.
That short article on his blog was reflective of Marty's mindset over two months ago: "Why are people picking on the poor Church of Scientology when there are all these terrorists running around?"
Sounds like a Freedom Magazine article.
'When distraction becomes destructive': https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/when-distraction-becomes-destructive/
This is not just an apparent settlement arising from necessity. This is a change of mind by Marty, a change of mind that occurred months ago.
Let's hope this is not what it seems, and that we don't see an audio message from Marty similar to the one from Jon Zegel in his infamous (written by Scientology Inc. and well rehearsed by Zegel) "Tape Number 4" of 1987:
I don't know US/Texas law, however isn't there still a TRO still in force? If so, it's fairly unlikely that the C of S would have approached Monique directly. It would have gone through their attorney. Any settlement offer made to their attorney, he/she is obligated to take to their client.
What I do know about negotiation is that one gets the best deal from a position of power, not weakness. They were in a fairly strong position legally, so it's difficult to know what happened and why it happened.
Well I have to think that if I were in the cofS position and I wanted to get out of this tarbaby situation and I were looking to close it down I would point out that the cofs would appeal ANY ruling until the bitter end, that it took 10 years (I think, not sure) before Wollersheim saw any money from his settlement and that a reasonable settlement now would be a whole lot better than a decade long fight.
Marty would know the truth of that position if anyone would.
it's about the only scenario I can think of that seems to make sense at least to me.
Here's what I think may be going on: < ...... >
The lawyers have absolutely no right or power to "not accept" or reject a settlement offer. The client has the sole right and power to accept or reject a settlement offer.The lawyers might have said we will not accept such a settlement, because it can't even cover our costs.
The lawyers have absolutely no right or power to "not accept" or reject a settlement offer. The client has the sole right and power to accept or reject a settlement offer.
Theoretically, if the amount of a offered settlement would not cover "costs" (a well-defined term in law -- e.g., filing fees, fees for service of process, etc., and NOT compensation for time worked), the lawyers could threaten to go after the client for the amount of such costs not covered by the settlement amount. That almost never happens for two reasons. First, the clients simply don't have the money, and may declare bankruptcy. Two, the lawyers would ruin their reputation in the area of contingent fee law. The advertising in this area tends to be along the lines of "You don't pay unless you win," or "We don't get paid unless you win." If clients realize they might have a downside monetary risk -- that they could be out-of-pocket -- they will pick another law firm. For this reason, the general, almost universal rule is that contingent fee attorneys "eat"" their costs rather than try to get them from their clients.
Yes, I'm sure. She was giving rather shocking evidence about The Hole and then the case ended, and she was bound by the agreement, the contents of which are confidential but it's fairly safe to assume that she signed a gagging clause.
It should be kept in mind that SHE was the defendant in this case, so assumptions could be made.
Of course it wouldn't be disclosed the amount of the settlement as it would be sealed.
It makes no sense to fire attorneys on a contingency basis to bring one on who is going to charge by the hour, so that’s probably not going to happen. Is there another attorney who is going to come in and work on a contingency basis? That’s possible, but the enormity of the case would mean that it would take weeks for a new attorney to get up to speed. And Monique doesn’t really have that much time.
On February 19, the defendants in the lawsuit face a deadline of turning in their petition to the Texas Supreme Court. They have already received two extensions, and this last time, they were told that an additional extension would be “disfavored.” It’s very hard to see David Miscavige instructing his attorneys to miss that deadline and a chance to petition the Texas Supreme Court without a settlement worked out. That leaves very little time for a settlement to happen, and our best information tells us that those talks have not even begun.
http://tonyortega.org/2016/02/02/th...ion-to-fire-her-attorneys/#comment-2492209270Hamtaro • 6 hours ago
Now that the speculation is dying down a bit, it might be a good time to remember some general rules about Scn court watching:
1. once a case is filed, Scn will work night and day to create rifts on the plaintiff's side. Both between the plaintiffs and their attorneys and between the plaintiffs themselves. Unless you've been a plaintiff in one of these cases, you can't imagine how aggressive, devious and relentless those attacks can be. Anyone who has studied Sun Tzu will remember that the first (and best) way to attack an opposing army is to "destroy their alliances."
2. a normal lawsuit is resolved in 18 months-3 years. A Scn suit takes 5, 7, 10 or even 20 years. Because there will always be endless Scn appeals of every issue. And those take a lot of time.
3. there are some things Scn simply can't and won't allow to happen: certain precedents that inhibit its ongoing criminal behavior and the deposing of DM (and a few other notables). With a multi-billion dollar war chest, Scn can always, repeat always, offer plaintiffs enough money to end the suit. When faced with an upcoming significant finding, like the one coming up in Mosey's case, Scn will commonly offer 5X or 10X their previous settlement amounts. Everyone has a price to settle and that's not a bad thing. This is a court case and money is how corporations apologize. This isn't God's wrath, as much as we might like it to be.
4. once plaintiffs get 2-3 years into the case they start to realize it might go on nearly forever. And nobody wants to be the next Larry Wollersheim. Who wants to spend the bulk of the productive years of their life fighting an endless battle against Scn in court? As a life choice, it simply doesn't make sense for most people.
5. we're probably never going to know the details of how most of the cases end. Settlement agreements nearly always contain strict confidentiality clauses. That's just a simple fact. God bless anyone who eventually leaks them.
6. most of us will probably not live long enough to see DM deposed. Even billionaires like Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump get deposed. But they have business with the general public and public reputations to uphold; such as they are. DM has neither. All he cares about is staying out of trouble and he has a huge bank account with no real restrictions to help him achieve that goal.
I know these are not very viscerally satisfying points, but they're gleaned from 25 years of following Scn court cases and if you accept them up front you'll feel a lot less upset when they come to pass in each Scn case you follow closely and care about deeply. Staying optimistic while following Scientology litigation is often a matter of managing expectations; especially if you don't want to feel constantly frustrated and angry.
I really hope Monique ends up with a huge check. Then she never thinks about Scn again for the rest of her life. She absolutely deserves it for what Scn has done to her and her family.
Here's what I think may be going on:
<snip excellent analysis>