Rathbun vs Misavige + Scientology: Motion For Contempt Of Court - Feb 21, 2014

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Litigation For Scientology Is A Blood Sport

Radar Online: ‘Litigation For Scientology Is A Blood Sport’: Monique Rathbun Files Motion To Hold Church In Contempt Over Their ‘Abuse’ During Case
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/02/monique-rathbun-motion-scientology-contempt-court/

Excerpt:
Monique Rathbun sued the Church of Scientology for harassment last August, but she says they’re still making her life a living hell. The wife of former high-ranking Scientologist Marty Rathbun filed a motion Friday asking the judge in her ongoing case to hold the Church and its leader, David Miscavige, in contempt for what she calls a campaign of “abuse” mean to delay justice. In addition, she’s also requesting sanctions.

According to the motion, obtained by Radar, Scientology and Miscavige ”have engaged in a pattern of intentional abuse of the discovery process” and Rathbun claims in her motion that the Church of Scientology, together with Miscavige and Scientology legal counsel Allan Cartwright “have disobeyed and/or caused CSI to disobey a direct order from this Court.”


Read The Documents Here
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Okay, I've read the 2004 pdf article that you linked earlier, Freethinker. :thumbsup:
The portion of that 2004 article that deals with writs of mandamus and when petitions for same should be granted relies upon the Texas Supreme Court's decision in the Walker v Packer case.

In 2005, however, the Texas Supreme Court's decision in another case, In Re Prudential, threw the 2004 decision in Walker for a loop! :yes:
Link to 2005 pdf, start @ page 7: http://www.tex-app.org/articles/62893_01.pdf

The 2005 article goes on at length to describe the Walker and Prudential decisions, how they differ from one another, and discusses what the contrasting opinions will really mean in the everyday sense for people practicing law in 2005 and thereafter.

In a nutshell, 2005's Prudential opinion further blurred the Court's already-blurry interpretation in their own 2004 Walker opinion as to writs of mandamus & when (and in what circumstances should/could) petitions for writs of mandamus must be submitted/granted.

Was the legal dispute between the Walker and Prudential opinions eventually sorted out in Texas?
Probably -- and I'll bet there are more articles on that website that will describe exactly how the wrinkles were ironed out. :thumbsup:

Instead of going to the legal articles to find out which category TeamRTC+DM can/cannot use in order to file its petition, I went to the actual Writ petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

In their papers, they state the authority for filing their petition comes directly from the "Texas Government Code section 22.221(b)".
That's the statutory authority TeamRTC+DM provided directly to the Texas Appeals Court.
No
"category" -- either expressed in a cited portion from a particular Rule of Civil Procedure or extracted from binding caselaw -- was submitted as proof to the Appeals Court for why the petition should be accepted.

So.

If the Texas Appeals court doesn't think that TGC section 22.221(b) is the correct authority upon which to submit a petition for a Writ of Mandamus by TeamRTC+DM, then they will reject the petition on that basis.

My guess? The petition has been accepted based upon 22.221(b) and whatever category TeamRTC+DM's "special appearance" fits into or doesn't fit into matters little.
This petition seeks to vacate a deposition Order because RTC and DM claim religious privilege ("apples") via the apex witness doctrine ("oranges").

Best part about reading the actual petition submission from TeamRTC+DM?
They refer to their own client as "Special Appearance Defendant". SAD! :roflmao:

YMMV. :)

JB

I haven't read any of the case law nor the statutes but from what you said it seem like DM and RTC keep trying to bring in a religious issue of which this case is NOT about. This case at it's core is solely about civil matters. Seasoning as in spicing up the case with any religious matters it simply misdirection as far as I am concerned. I hope all the judges keep that in focus in their reasoning and decisions and that the uncivil anti-social cult and DM in his civil participation, regardless of any possible religious beliefs, is what on trial here.

Yes yes, I know DM nor the cult appear to be acting in what would be commonly called religious manner, but again that is not the issue.

Since we are making up acronyms. Here is one for the judges and Ray to religiously chant during their work. Distractions, Diversions, Deception = DDD :yes:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I haven't read any of the case law nor the statutes but from what you said it seem like DM and RTC keep trying to bring in a religious issue of which this case is NOT about. This case at it's core is solely about civil matters. Seasoning as in spicing up the case with any religious matters it simply misdirection as far as I am concerned. I hope all the judges keep that in focus in their reasoning and decisions and that the uncivil anti-social cult and DM in his civil participation, regardless of any possible religious beliefs, is what on trial here.

Yes yes, I know DM nor the cult appear to be acting in what would be commonly called religious manner, but again that is not the issue.

Since we are making up acronyms. Here is one for the judges and Ray to religiously chant during their work. Distractions, Diversions, Deception = DDD :yes:

It's confusing, isn't it, DChoiceIsAlwaysrs?
There's the 'legal' stuff and the 'scio' stuff and the 'indie' stuff and the 'what-would-i-do-if-a-guy-wearing-a-headcam-knocked-on-my-door' stuff and more and more and more. Yikes!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To anyone who's reading about Rathbun v Miscavige/scientology in the many threads here @ ESMB....

When it becomes too weird (for lack of a better word) I try to break things into small, separate, practical issues.

In one linear sense, this legal case is about determining which is the mightier right: religious expression (CSI) or personal privacy (Monique Rathbun)?

In another linear sense, this legal case is about determining whether or not scientology: can only be sold by CSI-authorized dealerships. (What muddies the water here, of course, is: define scientology for a judge. Is it what hubbard said/wrote? Is it what DM says/writes? Is it what Mr. Rathbun says? Is it what JBWriter says? Is it legally undefinable because it's an individual, subjective definition that varies from person to person?

In yet another linear sense, this legal case is about determining the exact dates when CSI's rights of religious expression began and ended.
Did it only exist for 199 days within the town limit's of Ingleside-by-the-Bay? Or did it somehow magically reactivate when Monique Rathbun moved away from Ingleside to Comal County? Could it have started in 2007 when CSI/RTC sent a PI to Texas to see if Marty Rathbun was alive or dead and continue forever?

Of course, there are probably a thousand more simple thought-scenarios to ponder, but the above examples are offered only to help to see the interesting themes that run through this very odd case (sans the opposing attorneys' hyped-up, fun house mirror versions). These themes, free from anyone's agenda, are, imo, worth a bit of time to consider by and for yourself. :)

JB
 
Last edited:

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's confusing, isn't it, DChoiceIsAlwaysrs?
There's the 'legal' stuff and the 'scio' stuff and the 'indie' stuff and the 'what-would-i-do-if-a-guy-wearing-a-headcam-knocked-on-my-door' stuff and more and more and more. Yikes!

When it becomes too weird (for lack of a better word) I try to break things into small, separate, practical issues.

In one linear sense, this legal case is about determining which is the mightier right: religious expression (CSI) or personal privacy (Monique Rathbun)?

In another linear sense, this legal case is about determining whether or not scientology: can only be sold by CSI-authorized dealerships. (What muddies the water here, of course, is: define scientology for a judge. Is it what hubbard said/wrote? Is it what DM says/writes? Is it what Mr. Rathbun says? Is it what JBWriter says? Is it legally undefinable because it's an individual, subjective definition that varies from person to person?

In yet another linear sense, this legal case is about determining the exact dates when CSI's rights of religious expression began and ended.
Did it only exist for 199 days within the town limit's of Ingleside-by-the-Bay? Or did it somehow magically reactivate when Monique Rathbun moved away from Ingleside to Comal County? Could it have started in 2007 when CSI/RTC sent a PI to Texas to see if Marty Rathbun was alive or dead and continue forever?

Of course, there are probably a thousand more simple thought-scenarios to ponder, but the above examples are offered only to help to see the interesting themes that run through this very odd case (sans the opposing attorneys' hyped-up, fun house mirror versions). These themes, free from anyone's agenda, are, imo, worth a bit of time to consider by and for yourself. :)

JB

I don't see it as confusing nor complex. Sure as the case progresses, lol maybe I should say forms into various whirlpools and eddies to prevent it from progressing, the attention and efforts at arguing other issues create a dispersal away from the reason d'etre for the case itself. Any themes entered into the case that lie outside, as interesting and arguable as they may be, the laws already in place as I believe were noted in the initial complaint, are in my opinion dilatory and although being argued are not on trial here.

Perhaps I could state it another way. If there is a law on the books that say you cannot break my arm and if you do then you are to be tried for that fact. Not if you used a hammer, threw me out of a plane, or hugged me so hard it broke my arm and I might actually in your case think it was worth it. Not, whether or not you thought you were entitled to use a hammer or throw things out of a plane or give wonderful hugs. ad infinitum. The issue is the law and was it broken. Guilty as charged! Consequences! Next case..lol

Now if you want to change the law, then change the law, but don't say you didn't break the law as it existed. And to change the law you may have to call upon other laws in place and show their inter-influence within the great subject of jurisprudence, but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the extant law.

Now, on the last phrase you gave. I have read a fair bit, most certainly not as much as I would like or that could rule out a conclusion different than I have made, but I have given it a bit of time and considered what I have read by and for myself, but, and surely I am misunderstanding you, I am receiving your statement 'consider by and for yourself ' essentially as STFU :ohmy: lol. Turns up the music and dances :yes:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
My comments in blue below.

I don't see it as confusing nor complex. Sure as the case progresses, lol maybe I should say forms into various whirlpools and eddies to prevent it from progressing, the attention and efforts at arguing other issues create a dispersal away from the reason d'etre for the case itself. Any themes entered into the case that lie outside, as interesting and arguable as they may be, the laws already in place as I believe were noted in the initial complaint, are in my opinion dilatory and although being argued are not on trial here.

Perhaps I could state it another way. If there is a law on the books that say you cannot break my arm and if you do then you are to be tried for that fact. Not if you used a hammer, threw me out of a plane, or hugged me so hard it broke my arm and I might actually in your case think it was worth it. Not, whether or not you thought you were entitled to use a hammer or throw things out of a plane or give wonderful hugs. ad infinitum. The issue is the law and was it broken. Guilty as charged! Consequences! Next case..lol

Great analogy with the hammer/broken arm, DC. :)
The problem is, however, that the law today DOES say some people are "entitled" to use the hammer.

The US Supreme Court interpreted certain laws and their interpretation of those laws is what all lower courts must apply.
If I go to your home, sit on the sidewalk filming your comings/goings, you can call the police and I'll be charged with harassment/public nuisance.

If Reverend JBWriter goes to your home, sits on the sidewalk filming your comings/goings, you can call the police, but RevJB will BEAT the charges of harassment/public nuisance as long as RevJB claims the sidewalk-sitting & filming were done under the guise of 'religious expression'.
See the difference?

Now if you want to change the law, then change the law, but don't say you didn't break the law as it existed. And to change the law you may have to call upon other laws in place and show their inter-influence within the great subject of jurisprudence, but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the extant law.

Now, on the last phrase you gave. I have read a fair bit, most certainly not as much as I would like or that could rule out a conclusion different than I have made, but I have given it a bit of time and considered what I have read by and for myself, but, and surely I am misunderstanding you, I am receiving your statement 'consider by and for yourself ' essentially as STFU :ohmy: lol.

DC - I've edited my post to show that I neither meant nor intended my comments be directed at you. Rather, it was at anyone who, like me, has a difficult time trying to understand all of the twists/turns of this Texas case. I'm very sorry if I caused you any discomfort and will do my best to write more clearly in future. JB
Turns up the music and dances :yes:

Dance? I'm in! :thumbsup:

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Thanks JB, that was very helpful to me. I read through that document and it provided much incite to me as regards what will happen with the mandamus.

First off, walking into a Texas court, to me, is a crapshoot and how you fare depends mainly on what judge you get, especialy on appeal.

Judge Waldrip IMO has applied Texas Rule 120a exactly right per these proceedings.

Ray Jeffrey's has applied Rule 13 quite correctly in his contempt motion.

But there was some really scary reading in that document.

One of the first scary things is that the legislature has a greater power over Mandamus than the Supreme Court.

This is scary because the country was founded on Separation of Powers and if the legislature can dictate what the Supreme Court can do then we have no separation.

It appears quite clearly, to me, that the courts (Apppelate and Supreme) still use Walker to make their decisions in particular areas such as adequate remedy after trial and that they still follow that doctrine but they are considerably less vociferous about it and just refer to prior court decisions rather than engage in debate.

By looking over the cases since Prudential, I see, by their inclinations on certain issues that mimic but don't match the existing circumstance in the current case but lead me to believe that Mandamus will not be granted for Miscavige.

It's just my feeling but again it is based on what panel of judges you get that day because these guys seem to make decisions by whim and experiment.

For example,

Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v. Wittig contains similar jurisdictional issues and ruled that there was inadequate remedy under ordinary appeal but the court also said that the trial court "was not faced with voluminous record of contradictory evidence".

In Rathbun v Miscavige, the trial court is certainly faced with voluminous amounts of contradictory evidence. I don't think I have to point them out.

The dissenting opinion in Nat’l Indus. Sand Ass’n. v. Gibson predicted the path in which Mandamus on Special Appearance would take and it happened as he predicted in Tilton v. Marshall where Mandamuswas used to correct Summary Judgement ; where Summary Judgement was granted on mandamus because, from what I understand, you can't fact find belief.
An interesting and IMO correct dissenting opinion in that case was this "The dissent argued that the majority, to reach its
result, had elevated religious constitutional rights above other constitutional rights such as the right to free speech."

I couldn't agree more and have stated so.

This is a case post Prudential and backs up my sentiments on who you get for a judge.


In re West Texas Positron, L, No. 07-04-0506-CV, 2005 WL 146968 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 20, 2005, orig. proceeding)(memorandum opinion). This opinion deniedmandamus in an action seeking to vacate anorder compelling production of documents. The case cite Prudential only for theproposition that mandamus is not issued as a
matter of right, but as a matter of discretion.





This case, to me, shows relevence more in Moniques favor than Miscaviges.

In re Dominion Resources, Inc., No. 13-04-00536-CV & 13-04-00622-CV, 2005 WL310778 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 10,2005, orig. proceeding) (memorandumopinion). The court granted mandamus tovacate the trial court’s stay order preventingscientific tests that the defendants stated theyneeded in connection with their defenses to a​
toxic tort case. The court cited Prudential
for the language that an appeal is adequatewhen the benefits to mandamus review areoutweighed by its detriments.​
Id. at *1. Thecourt’s discussion of Prudential was limited
to that single statement.


This final statement sort of sums up Prudentials effect on appelate decisions.

All in all,​
Prudential does not appear to havehad a significant effect on mandamusjurisprudence in the courts of appeals.Reports are not available yet to show whetherthere has been an overall increase in thenumber of mandamus filings or the numberof mandamuses granted. With time, we willbe better able to determine whether
Prudential is leading to an increase either in​
the filing of or the granting of mandamuses.

Okay, I've read the 2004 pdf article that you linked earlier, Freethinker. :thumbsup:
The portion of that 2004 article that deals with writs of mandamus and when petitions for same should be granted relies upon the Texas Supreme Court's decision in the Walker v Packer case.

In 2005, however, the Texas Supreme Court's decision in another case, In Re Prudential, threw the 2004 decision in Walker for a loop! :yes:
Link to 2005 pdf, start @ page 7: http://www.tex-app.org/articles/62893_01.pdf

The 2005 article goes on at length to describe the Walker and Prudential decisions, how they differ from one another, and discusses what the contrasting opinions will really mean in the everyday sense for people practicing law in 2005 and thereafter.

In a nutshell, 2005's Prudential opinion further blurred the Court's already-blurry interpretation in their own 2004 Walker opinion as to writs of mandamus & when (and in what circumstances should/could) petitions for writs of mandamus must be submitted/granted.

Was the legal dispute between the Walker and Prudential opinions eventually sorted out in Texas?
Probably -- and I'll bet there are more articles on that website that will describe exactly how the wrinkles were ironed out. :thumbsup:

Instead of going to the legal articles to find out which category TeamRTC+DM can/cannot use in order to file its petition, I went to the actual Writ petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

In their papers, they state the authority for filing their petition comes directly from the "Texas Government Code section 22.221(b)".
That's the statutory authority TeamRTC+DM provided directly to the Texas Appeals Court.
No
"category" -- either expressed in a cited portion from a particular Rule of Civil Procedure or extracted from binding caselaw -- was submitted as proof to the Appeals Court for why the petition should be accepted.

So.

If the Texas Appeals court doesn't think that TGC section 22.221(b) is the correct authority upon which to submit a petition for a Writ of Mandamus by TeamRTC+DM, then they will reject the petition on that basis.

My guess? The petition has been accepted based upon 22.221(b) and whatever category TeamRTC+DM's "special appearance" fits into or doesn't fit into matters little.
This petition seeks to vacate a deposition Order because RTC and DM claim religious privilege ("apples") via the apex witness doctrine ("oranges").

Best part about reading the actual petition submission from TeamRTC+DM?
They refer to their own client as "Special Appearance Defendant". SAD! :roflmao:

YMMV. :)

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Thanks JB, that was very helpful to me. I read through that document and it provided much incite to me as regards what will happen with the mandamus.

First off, walking into a Texas court, to me, is a crapshoot and how you fare depends mainly on what judge you get, especialy on appeal.

Judge Waldrip IMO has applied Texas Rule 120a exactly right per these proceedings.

Ray Jeffrey's has applied Rule 13 quite correctly in his contempt motion.

But there was some really scary reading in that document.

One of the first scary things is that the legislature has a greater power over Mandamus than the Supreme Court.

This is scary because the country was founded on Separation of Powers and if the legislature can dictate what the Supreme Court can do then we have no separation.

It appears quite clearly, to me, that the courts (Apppelate and Supreme) still use Walker to make their decisions in particular areas such as adequate remedy after trial and that they still follow that doctrine but they are considerably less vociferous about it and just refer to prior court decisions rather than engage in debate.

By looking over the cases since Prudential, I see, by their inclinations on certain issues that mimic but don't match the existing circumstance in the current case but lead me to believe that Mandamus will not be granted for Miscavige.

It's just my feeling but again it is based on what panel of judges you get that day because these guys seem to make decisions by whim and experiment.

For example,

Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v. Wittig contains similar jurisdictional issues and ruled that there was inadequate remedy under ordinary appeal but the court also said that the trial court "was not faced with voluminous record of contradictory evidence".

In Rathbun v Miscavige, the trial court is certainly faced with voluminous amounts of contradictory evidence. I don't think I have to point them out.

The dissenting opinion in Nat’l Indus. Sand Ass’n. v. Gibson predicted the path in which Mandamus on Special Appearance would take and it happened as he predicted in Tilton v. Marshall where Mandamus was used to correct Summary Judgement ; where Summary Judgement was granted on mandamus because, from what I understand, you can't fact find belief.
An interesting and IMO correct dissenting opinion in that case was this "The dissent argued that the majority, to reach its
result, had elevated religious constitutional rights above other constitutional rights such as the right to free speech."

I couldn't agree more and have stated so.

This is a case post Prudential and backs up my sentiments on who you get for a judge.


In re West Texas Positron, L, No. 07-04-0506-CV, 2005 WL 146968 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 20, 2005, orig. proceeding)(memorandum opinion). This opinion denied mandamus in an action seeking to vacate an order compelling production of documents. The case cite Prudential only for the proposition that mandamus is not issued as a
matter of right, but as a matter of discretion.

This case, to me, shows relevence more in Moniques favor than Miscaviges.

In re Dominion Resources, Inc., No. 13-04-00536-CV & 13-04-00622-CV, 2005 WL310778 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 10,2005, orig. proceeding) (memorandum opinion). The court granted mandamus to vacate the trial court’s stay order preventing scientific tests that the defendants stated they needed in connection with their defenses to a
toxic tort case. The court cited Prudential
for the language that an appeal is adequate when the benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by its detriments.
Id. at *1. The court’s discussion of Prudential was limited
to that single statement.

This final statement sort of sums up Prudentials effect on appelate decisions.

All in all,
Prudential does not appear to have had a significant effect on mandamus jurisprudence in the courts of appeals.Reports are not available yet to show whether there has been an overall increase in the number of mandamus filings or the number of mandamuses granted. With time, we will be better able to determine whether
Prudential is leading to an increase either in​
the filing of or the granting of mandamuses.



Great stuff, FreeThinker -- insightful, comprehensive, and well-worth thoughtful consideration. :thumbsup::clap::thumbsup:
(We all might have to call you Professor FreeThinker soon!)

Have you had a chance to look at the cases cited in Mr. Jefferson's actual Petition for the Writ and compare them against the cases cited in the 2004 & 2005 articles?
He didn't cite Walker or Prudential, which makes me suspect both cases might have been dulled in the intervening years. :confused2:

It will certainly be an education for everyone when/if Ray Jeffrey files a Response to the Petition -- we'll get to see which cases he (Jeffrey) cites.

After that, of course, once the TX Appeals Court issues an Opinion on whether or not Judge Waldrip's Order was an abuse of discretion, they'll cite the cases they relied upon to make their decision. Then we'll all know which cases are valid/reliable.

It'll be interesting either way, but like you, I don't see this Petition to vacate a deposition Order being granted by the TX Appeals Court.

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
You're right JB, I should look at those. I would bet a dozen jelly doughnuts , right now, that Wallace carefully selected those cases.

It seems that the Appelate and Supreme Court have a lot of "Discretion" in how they decide things and don't engage so much ,these days, in debate which, in itself, is a little scary because if they grant it (Mandamus) then they can just say it's cosistent with Blah v Blah.

That would piss me off, I want a full explanation for letting creepo off the hook. :angry:
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
I honestly think that the "church" does not care if these filings win or lose. Delay, delay, delay.

War of attrition. That is all they are doing.

Delay, delay, delay.

Bowing out now.... :coolwink:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
You're right JB, I should look at those. I would bet a dozen jelly doughnuts , right now, that Wallace carefully selected those cases.

It seems that the Appelate and Supreme Court have a lot of "Discretion" in how they decide things and don't engage so much ,these days, in debate which, in itself, is a little scary because if they grant it (Mandamus) then they can just say it's cosistent with Blah v Blah.

That would piss me off, I want a full explanation for letting creepo off the hook. :angry:

IMO, it was time well spent to read the 2004/2005 articles to learn, generally, about how Texas courts (upper and lower) view Writs of Mandamus.
With the knowledge gleaned from the reading those articles, it's much easier to 'know what to look for' in the cases cited within the actual Petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

Mr. Jefferson cited the cases most favorable to his clients.
Mr. Jeffrey, if he is permitted* to file a Response, will also cite the cases which favor Mrs. Rathbun.
The Appeals Court is free to reject or embrace any cited case submitted to them by either attorney while crafting their decision on this Petition.

*Per the Rules, the TX Appeals Court is free to make their decision based upon the Defendants' filed Petition alone, without any Response from the Plaintiff's attorneys. They may or may not invite TeamRathbun to file a Response.

JB

ETA: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to submit a Response to the original Petition. See this link for details: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=908974&viewfull=1#post908974
 
Last edited:

freethinker

Sponsor
No, you're right, they just want to drag it out until it's too dark and everyone has to go home,

But,
they have been doing this for a long, long, long, time and everything comes to an end some day.

Now seems like a good time.:)
I honestly think that the "church" does not care if these filings win or lose. Delay, delay, delay.

War of attrition. That is all they are doing.

Delay, delay, delay.

Bowing out now.... :coolwink:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Which rule JB?

I ask because that is contrary to the concept that we are a nation of laws and not men. It is in the Massachusetts Constitution and has been cited by the Supreme Court many times.

That rule seems contrary to all reason.

How is one supposed to know the law when it is arbitrarily decided by three old men who's wives pissed them off that day?

IMO, it was time well spent to read the 2004/2005 articles to learn, generally, about how Texas courts (upper and lower) view Writs of Mandamus.
With the knowledge gleaned from the reading those articles, it's much easier to 'know what to look for' in the cases cited within the actual Petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

Mr. Jefferson cited the cases most favorable to his clients.
Mr. Jeffrey, if he is permitted* to file a Response, will also cite the cases which favor Mrs. Rathbun.
The Appeals Court is free to reject or embrace any cited case submitted to them by either attorney while crafting their decision on this Petition.

*Per the Rules, the TX Appeals Court is free to make their decision based upon the Defendants' filed Petition alone, without any Response from the Plaintiff's attorneys. They may or may not invite TeamRathbun to file a Response.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Which rule JB?

I ask because that is contrary to the concept that we are a nation of laws and not men. It is in the Massachusetts Constitution and has been cited by the Supreme Court many times.

That rule seems contrary to all reason.

How is one supposed to know the law when it is arbitrarily decided by three old men who's wives pissed them off that day?

It's on the TAMES website and also in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I don't have the links handy atm, but I know I read it twice.:)

ETA: Here's the TAMES link - look at the info bar on the right-hand side to search Rules: TAMES Appellate-level docket search: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/CaseS...?coa=coa01&s=c

ETA #2: Here's a direct link to the applicable Rules: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/traphome.asp

ETA #3: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to file a Response. For details please see this link: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=908974&viewfull=1#post908974

Q: Does anyone (specifically FreeThinker and DChoice) have a problem if the Mods are asked to move Posts 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, and 38 about the Appeal to the other thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=905283&viewfull=1#post905283 ?

It's entirely my fault for muddying this thread -- I just don't want people reading to get confused about what's what. The Appeal discussion really doesn't belong on this thread about the Contempt/Sanctions Motion.

JB
 
Last edited:

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Dearest JB, I don't know about anyone else but I have little chance of understanding the complexities of which motion/sanction/whatever is doing what! I do enjoy reading it all though, like which piece on a chess board is going to be moved next, even if I don't understand why that piece was moved or even play chess! You are doing an outstanding job - and the others too, of keeping us informed and I mostly just wait for the next move and hope it's explained enough for me to grasp.

In other words, what can we expect to hear next? :biggrin:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Dearest JB, I don't know about anyone else but I have little chance of understanding the complexities of which motion/sanction/whatever is doing what! I do enjoy reading it all though, like which piece on a chess board is going to be moved next, even if I don't understand why that piece was moved or even play chess! You are doing an outstanding job - and the others too, of keeping us informed and I mostly just wait for the next move and hope it's explained enough for me to grasp.

In other words, what can we expect to hear next? :biggrin:

I'm learning from everyone, too, FreeToShine; and, with so many smart people freely sharing their wisdom/knowledge/know-how, the benefits are exponentially more valuable and cherished. :)

Here's a recap of where things stand now.

Trial Level
Motion for Contempt/Sanctions = Filed/Pending --- Filed by TeamRathbun on 2/21/14, No Response (yet) from TeamCSI & TeamRTC+DM.
Motion for Sanctions = Pending --- Filed by TeamRathbun awhile back, assume a Response was filed. May be combined w/above ^^^.
Anti-SLAPP Motions To Dismiss = Decision Expected --- On/before March 20-ish, 2014. <----Opinion will come from Judge Waldrip.
Motions (Unknown* Filer) = Pending -- The online docket shows entries with the word "Motion" but no other descriptive words follow.
(*One of them is a Motion for Change of Venue, but that information came from filed exhibits, not the docket itself.)

Any of the above-referenced Motions, except the Anti-SLAPP Motions, may prompt Judge Waldrip to hold a hearing in his courtroom.
If he does schedule hearing(s), I'd guess it would be after he's finished writing his Opinion on the Anti-SLAPP Motions -- maybe April 2014? :confused2:

Appeals Level
Petition for Writ of Mandamus = Filed/Pending -- Judge Waldrip's Order for DM to be deposed was appealed by TeamRTC+DM 2/14/2014.

What can we "expect" next?
Anything. :yes:

Given the litigation tactics attorneys for Co$ have used in the past, only a fool would expect this case to proceed in an orderly fashion.
Barring settlement by & between the parties...
Motions and more Motions and more Appellate-level Motions will continue to be filed during this pre-trial phase of the litigation.

And if this case somehow does wind its way to the actual trial phase?
More Motions will be filed.
But we'll ALL be a lot smarter by then - including the Texas judiciary.

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Totally fine as far as I am concerned. I think it was me that changed the subject of this thread so, sorry.

It's on the TAMES website and also in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I don't have the links handy atm, but I know I read it twice.:)

ETA: Here's the TAMES link - look at the info bar on the right-hand side to search Rules: TAMES Appellate-level docket search: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/CaseS...?coa=coa01&s=c

ETA #2: Here's a direct link to the applicable Rules: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/traphome.asp


Q: Does anyone (specifically FreeThinker and DChoice) have a problem if the Mods are asked to move Posts 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 33 about the Appeal to the other thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=905283&viewfull=1#post905283 ?

It's entirely my fault for muddying this thread -- I just don't want people reading to get confused about what's what. The Appeal discussion really doesn't belong on this thread about the Contempt/Sanctions Motion.

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Would that be...

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/TRAP/trap-all.pdf#s2r43

and

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/TRAP/trap-all.pdf#s4r60

?

It's on the TAMES website and also in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I don't have the links handy atm, but I know I read it twice.:)

ETA: Here's the TAMES link - look at the info bar on the right-hand side to search Rules: TAMES Appellate-level docket search: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/CaseS...?coa=coa01&s=c

ETA #2: Here's a direct link to the applicable Rules: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/traphome.asp


Q: Does anyone (specifically FreeThinker and DChoice) have a problem if the Mods are asked to move Posts 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 33 about the Appeal to the other thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=905283&viewfull=1#post905283 ?

It's entirely my fault for muddying this thread -- I just don't want people reading to get confused about what's what. The Appeal discussion really doesn't belong on this thread about the Contempt/Sanctions Motion.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien

Somewhere in the Rules I linked to (and you've provided sub-links for above) and/or on the TAMES link itself, it says that the Appeals Court has the authority to issue a decision on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus based solely upon the Petition itself. I distinctly recall reading that the Appeals Court can "invite" the non-filing party to file a Response. The non-filing party waits for the "invitation".

You don't have to take my word for it, FreeThinker. If I happen to read it again, I will certainly provide the direct link, quote the portion and ensure it's highlighted so this procedural step is nailed down. Sound fair?


ETA: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to file a Response. For details, please see this link: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rt-Feb-14-2014&p=908974&viewfull=1#post908974

JB
 
Last edited:

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for your reply of post #25 JBWriter. You are correct. I should have just quoted you and struck out "yourself" and put 'oneself" in for that is how it made sense to me and what I thought you meant.....but I am not a big fan of re-writing history or otherwise being a 'revisionist'. Which leads me ....to the Supreme Court....uhmmm the 'revisionist Supreme Court' if I can be so bold to state such an honest opinion! Well, I did 'state it' and I'll gladly stand before the Supreme Court to see if they can argue 'their right' to re-write an additional part (amendment) of the Constitution. I am willing to hear from what 'higher law' they would be '[STRIKE]standing[/STRIKE]' prevaricating.**

Basically what I am saying is the Supreme Court's MIS-interpetration of the 1st amendment was an error, and it shows up in the subsequent confusions and further flawed
subsidiary decisions leading to the 'in this case guise' incorrectly claiming to be standing/resting upon a pillar of law which in itself faulty as it rests upon a illusionary or incorrectly interpreted/installed 'foundation plate'. I will admit, the amendment upon which this 'foundation plate' came into being due to a lacking of precision in stating/writing the 1st amendment.

** Pink sheet issuance to SCOTUS will just have to wait till "next time around" :coolwink::biggrin:

Note to self on tentative utilitarian clarification of 1st amendment to the constitution :

Despotic definition of "expression" = "act upon with full exclusion to other portions of this document"
Social definition of "expression" = "act with benevolent inclusion to other portions of this document"
(from imaginary discussions with Epicurus, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith) Be sure to enlist Socrates as devils advocate to all
posits)


Further note: Once US law is properly placed upon its foundation, return to thread and hurry up and try to catch up with the rest of the class. :)
Where was I, oh I think maybe post 20 or earlier? :hysterical::yes:
 

DeeAnna

Patron Meritorious
Is there a site set up anywhere to donate directly to Ray Jeffrey to offset his costs in this matter? Or would that be illegal on his part to accept donations? I do not know how these things work, but I would donate to HIM if I could.
 
Top