JBWriter
Happy Sapien
On February 21, 2014, attorneys for Plaintiff Monique Rathbun filed a Motion for Contempt of Court, Motion for Sanctions, along with a Proposed Order To Show Cause, with the Comal County court in New Braunfels, Texas.
To review the filed documents & attached exhibits, and to read Tony Ortega's excellent commentary, here's the link to this afternoon's The Underground Bunker: http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/24/mo...-for-contempt-against-scientology-defendants/
There are many threads here at ESMB which discuss/educate people about the goings-on in this case.
(Tagged: "rathbun v miscavige" & "rathbun v scientology" for easier searching.)
This new thread (hopefully) will better track this Motion's evolution from initial filing all the way through the administrative process to its final conclusion.
Online legal websites describe the general filing guidelines of civil procedure vis-a-vis court motions to be:
Motion -- Filed by Party A. (In this instance, Plaintiff. File date: February 21, 2014.)
Response to Motion -- Filed by Party B. (Within ____ number of days. 21 is the norm.)
Reply -- Filed by Party A (Replying to Party B's Response. Within ____ number of days. 14 is the norm, if Reply is allowed*.)
Sur-Reply -- Filed by Party B (Replying to Party A's Reply. Within ____ number of days. 5 is the norm, if Sur-Reply is allowed*.)
*Some courts do not permit Replies and/or Sur-Replies.
At some point, after the court has received the filings, a hearing may be held in the courtroom which permits attorneys for each side to verbally argue their respective positions in front of the judge.
If the judge does not think a hearing is necessary for him/her to make and issue his/her ruling on the Motion, then no hearing will be scheduled. The judge can issue his/her decision based solely "on the papers". (<----Term of art in law.)
(No hearing is scheduled on the online court docket for this Motion at the moment, but it's still early and a hearing date may yet be entered.)
Attached to the Motion for Contempt of Court, Ray Jeffrey, the lead attorney for the Plaintiff, is the proposed Order To Show Cause ("OTSC").
The proposed OTSC is yummy because if Judge Waldrip signs it, then it requires the named individuals to appear, in person, in the Texas courtroom.
Captain David Miscavige is one of the named individuals in the proposed OTSC.
Per the legal websites on the net, Motions filed in civil litigation often attach proposed OTSC, so it's not a novelty by any means.
The websites generally agree that a judge will typically accept and review the filings, hold a hearing, and then, if the judge agrees with the OTSC, it gets signed and enforced pretty quickly. <---Yummy part.
There are at least Motions currently pending before Judge Waldrip and it's easy to get confused about which-Motion-is-at-which-stage in the process.
#1. Motion For Sanctions (Filed by Plaintiff's attorneys. May be combined with the new Motion for Contempt?)
#2. Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss (Original filed by TeamCSI, enjoined by other Defendants' attorneys.)
Once the judge has Ruled on a Motion, remember, the 'losing' side has the right to appeal the decision.
JB
To review the filed documents & attached exhibits, and to read Tony Ortega's excellent commentary, here's the link to this afternoon's The Underground Bunker: http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/24/mo...-for-contempt-against-scientology-defendants/
There are many threads here at ESMB which discuss/educate people about the goings-on in this case.
(Tagged: "rathbun v miscavige" & "rathbun v scientology" for easier searching.)
This new thread (hopefully) will better track this Motion's evolution from initial filing all the way through the administrative process to its final conclusion.
Online legal websites describe the general filing guidelines of civil procedure vis-a-vis court motions to be:
Motion -- Filed by Party A. (In this instance, Plaintiff. File date: February 21, 2014.)
Response to Motion -- Filed by Party B. (Within ____ number of days. 21 is the norm.)
Reply -- Filed by Party A (Replying to Party B's Response. Within ____ number of days. 14 is the norm, if Reply is allowed*.)
Sur-Reply -- Filed by Party B (Replying to Party A's Reply. Within ____ number of days. 5 is the norm, if Sur-Reply is allowed*.)
*Some courts do not permit Replies and/or Sur-Replies.
At some point, after the court has received the filings, a hearing may be held in the courtroom which permits attorneys for each side to verbally argue their respective positions in front of the judge.
If the judge does not think a hearing is necessary for him/her to make and issue his/her ruling on the Motion, then no hearing will be scheduled. The judge can issue his/her decision based solely "on the papers". (<----Term of art in law.)
(No hearing is scheduled on the online court docket for this Motion at the moment, but it's still early and a hearing date may yet be entered.)
Attached to the Motion for Contempt of Court, Ray Jeffrey, the lead attorney for the Plaintiff, is the proposed Order To Show Cause ("OTSC").
The proposed OTSC is yummy because if Judge Waldrip signs it, then it requires the named individuals to appear, in person, in the Texas courtroom.
Captain David Miscavige is one of the named individuals in the proposed OTSC.
Per the legal websites on the net, Motions filed in civil litigation often attach proposed OTSC, so it's not a novelty by any means.
The websites generally agree that a judge will typically accept and review the filings, hold a hearing, and then, if the judge agrees with the OTSC, it gets signed and enforced pretty quickly. <---Yummy part.
There are at least Motions currently pending before Judge Waldrip and it's easy to get confused about which-Motion-is-at-which-stage in the process.
#1. Motion For Sanctions (Filed by Plaintiff's attorneys. May be combined with the new Motion for Contempt?)
#2. Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss (Original filed by TeamCSI, enjoined by other Defendants' attorneys.)
Once the judge has Ruled on a Motion, remember, the 'losing' side has the right to appeal the decision.
JB
Last edited: