Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing

Chris Shelton

Patron with Honors
The document purports to be an amendment to an existing agreement. (The agreement itself was not uploaded along with all of the other Motion-related documents, so it's reasonable to think it wasn't filed with the Court.)

I read that amendment and drew certain conclusions, which I stand by, unless/until additional information is made available to consider.

What do you think the amendment says?
I downloaded and read it. Interesting to say the least. I think it's legal maneuvering, mainly because it seems to serve the arguments and purposes of David Miscavige right to say that this agreement existed since 2009. I can't think of any reason they would have added this authority to CSI back then.

Regardless, it certainly is interesting that Miscavige did this, whether he did it then or now. Without a doubt, no one within Scientology knows this information who doesn't absolutely need to. Because it totally invalidates RTC's entire reason for existence.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I downloaded and read it. Interesting to say the least. I think it's legal maneuvering, mainly because it seems to serve the arguments and purposes of David Miscavige right to say that this agreement existed since 2009. I can't think of any reason they would have added this authority to CSI back then.

Regardless, it certainly is interesting that Miscavige did this, whether he did it then or now. Without a doubt, no one within Scientology knows this information who doesn't absolutely need to. Because it totally invalidates RTC's entire reason for existence.

If I were "JB COB" of RTC, I'd have danced a jig at seeing that page.

It would allow me to claim that I had no legal authority to order anything to be done about 'trademark stuff' after June 1, 2009.
It would also allow me to claim that, prior to June 1, 2009, if anything was done about 'trademark stuff' it was either the other RTC mgmt and/or CSI mgmt.

Of course, I'd need someone to ask me directly so I could make these claims using my tone 40 voice. Or through my attorneys. Same-same.
Oh, and I'd LOVE it if RTC mgmt and CSI mgmt filed declarations all saying they were TOTALLY doing 'trademark stuff' and "JB COB" never knew anything about it.

Still....

I'd have to make damned sure there's no paper trail or other evidence that directly links "JB COB" to ordering/authorizing people to do things about 'trademark stuff' for the last, say, 10 years. Otherwise...I'm toast. :yes:

Oh, well.
I'm not "JB COB".
Wow - I feel cleaner.
Odd, that.

JB
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
I downloaded and read it. Interesting to say the least. I think it's legal maneuvering, mainly because it seems to serve the arguments and purposes of David Miscavige right to say that this agreement existed since 2009. I can't think of any reason they would have added this authority to CSI back then.

Regardless, it certainly is interesting that Miscavige did this, whether he did it then or now. Without a doubt, no one within Scientology knows this information who doesn't absolutely need to. Because it totally invalidates RTC's entire reason for existence.

I wonder if it was reported to the IRS? If so, when?
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/taxanalysts/secretagreement.txt

2. Modifications of organizational documents. The Annual Report shall
describe any amendment or other change in any organizational document
of any of the following organizations: (i) any organization whose
tax-exempt status is recognized under this Agreement, other than
subordinate entities under the group exemptions provided in section
III. paragraph C.; (ii) those entities described in paragraph B.2 or
D.2, below. For purposes of this paragraph, an organizational document
includes any document that is necessary for inclusion in a Form 1023.
Thus, articles of incorporation, articles of association,
constitution, bylaws, trust instrument or indenture or similar
document, including any board or trustee resolution interpreting such
document are organizational documents.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
I downloaded and read it. Interesting to say the least. I think it's legal maneuvering, mainly because it seems to serve the arguments and purposes of David Miscavige right to say that this agreement existed since 2009. I can't think of any reason they would have added this authority to CSI back then.

Regardless, it certainly is interesting that Miscavige did this, whether he did it then or now. Without a doubt, no one within Scientology knows this information who doesn't absolutely need to. Because it totally invalidates RTC's entire reason for existence.

The RTC had a reason to exist in the first place? Hmm. Seems I need to lurk more. Thanks.
 

Gib

Crusader
If I were "JB COB" of RTC, I'd have danced a jig at seeing that page.

It would allow me to claim that I had no legal authority to order anything to be done about 'trademark stuff' after June 1, 2009.
It would also allow me to claim that, prior to June 1, 2009, if anything was done about 'trademark stuff' it was either the other RTC mgmt and/or CSI mgmt.

Of course, I'd need someone to ask me directly so I could make these claims using my tone 40 voice. Or through my attorneys. Same-same.
Oh, and I'd LOVE it if RTC mgmt and CSI mgmt filed declarations all saying they were TOTALLY doing 'trademark stuff' and "JB COB" never knew anything about it.

Still....

I'd have to make damned sure there's no paper trail or other evidence that directly links "JB COB" to ordering/authorizing people to do things about 'trademark stuff' for the last, say, 10 years. Otherwise...I'm toast. :yes:

Oh, well.
I'm not "JB COB".
Wow - I feel cleaner.
Odd, that.

JB

sorry, what does JB COB mean?
 
I guess that makes me a Testicular American? OY! Say, Mz COB, I thought they were going to drag Tommy through the coals for lying in his depo yesterday. What happened to that? Any idea when the ax falls?

Mimsey
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I have re-read the Addendum JB and I am still arguing with myself as to whether or not

1) if "RTC and CSI shall cooperate in the enforcement of rights under the Marks = CSI shall enforce the rights under the Marks.

and

2) if "shall join as co-plaintiffs in any legal action = shall have the right to initiate suit or engage in other enforcement procedures

and

3) clause B is tricky as it is wanting in referential meaning ..to clarify ....in accord with its function, .......should be individually responsible of the trademarks in its own name. "

when I say referential meaning, I mean what does the rest of the license say? Do RTC and CSI have different "SETS" of Marks and thus different "SETS" of Marks and are dealing with different Marks?

That said, I emphatically believe that this trademark and rights related thereto 'Platform' is a 'PRETENDED REASON/MOTIVE' being pushed by DM, et al. That in fact the real purpose of the whole fair game and its Squirrel Busters subset is to ACT WITHOUT REGARD TO LAW.

IT is a created philosophical attitude which scientology members or certainly 'leadership' believe gives them the right to inject into society and thus set itself above or "SAY" what is the law and essential subsume the balance striven for in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

My reasoning behind that is that there are already remedies already 'at law'. Those laws were not availed of, and the scientology egregious social behaviour in the community and society is more than ample evidence of the scientology entities once again showing its primitive stature.

Then they further attempt to use the law to hide under its Slapp skirts! Diabolical through and through.

These diversionary tactics are ubiquitous with scientology.

just a reminder to all, and what I wish it was headlines at least once a week as a gradient justice action;

David Miscavige leader of scientology and its senior organizations are STILL UNDER A TRO to prevent them from anti-social behavior towards a Marvelous US citizen.

How many days has it been now?

Go Monique!
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I have re-read the Addendum JB and I am still arguing with myself as to whether or not

1) if "RTC and CSI shall cooperate in the enforcement of rights under the Marks = CSI shall enforce the rights under the Marks.

and

2) if "shall join as co-plaintiffs in any legal action = shall have the right to initiate suit or engage in other enforcement procedures

and

3) clause B is tricky as it is wanting in referential meaning ..to clarify ....in accord with its function, .......should be individually responsible of the trademarks in its own name. "

when I say referential meaning, I mean what does the rest of the license say? Do RTC and CSI have different "SETS" of Marks and thus different "SETS" of Marks and are dealing with different Marks?

That said, I emphatically believe that this trademark and rights related thereto 'Platform' is a 'PRETENDED REASON/MOTIVE' being pushed by DM, et al. That in fact the real purpose of the whole fair game and its Squirrel Busters subset is to ACT WITHOUT REGARD TO LAW.

IT is a created philosophical attitude which scientology members or certainly 'leadership' believe gives them the right to inject into society and thus set itself above or "SAY" what is the law and essential subsume the balance striven for in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

My reasoning behind that is that there are already remedies already 'at law'. Those laws were not availed of, and the scientology egregious social behaviour in the community and society is more than ample evidence of the scientology entities once again showing its primitive stature.

Then they further attempt to use the law to hide under its Slapp skirts! Diabolical through and through.

These diversionary tactics are ubiquitous with scientology.

just a reminder to all, and what I wish it was headlines at least once a week as a gradient justice action;

David Miscavige leader of scientology and its senior organizations are STILL UNDER A TRO to prevent them from anti-social behavior towards a Marvelous US citizen.

How many days has it been now?

Go Monique!

Here's the most important thing about the amendment, imo.
(Your post above, in fact, perfectly illustrates it, too.)

Plainly put: it's friggin' legalese!

That one single page can be interpreted in 100 different ways by 3 average off-the-clock-attorneys in 1 hour using only 1/2 their individual brain-power while sipping coffee at a table in Starbucks.

And because it's so densely written, a person who did not graduate high school might well get away with claiming he didn't understand what it says.

So.

In the court room...
Opposing attorneys, all working for $500.00+ per hour for their respective clients, will do their level best to 'educate' a judge as to what that one page means. The judge will ultimately decide what it means.

On ESMB...
Different people, all unpaid, will do their level best to 'educate' themselves and other members as to what that one page means. We're each 'right' about what it means - whether we convince one another or not - because we haven't a judge here. Just people reading + learning as we go.

A broader point made by this amendment is that it's been made public voluntarily by CSI.

How fortunate a time this is, 2014, to sit back and read a document that, if it's actually real, has been squirreled-away in a file cabinet somewhere for 5 years without any non-Co$-related person perusing it at will.

And if it's not real? If it's been back-dated and/or fraudulently drafted-crafted-executed?
Oh, my. Any evidence that proves such a dastardly deed as that would be just scrumptious.

All of the documents filed by CSI, RTC, and the other defendants should be pored over by every ex-scientologist because they're hard-won 'gifts' that Co$ would NEVER want anyone to see. And, selfishly, I think that ex-scientologists who read the documents will find errors -- meaningful errors -- that could help in this, and other legal cases, as well as helping to get the 'history' of this insidious organization accurately/comprehensively recorded.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I guess that makes me a Testicular American? OY! Say, Mz COB, I thought they were going to drag Tommy through the coals for lying in his depo yesterday. What happened to that? Any idea when the ax falls?

Mimsey

Are you referring to the Motion for Sanctions filed by Ray Jeffrey?
True, that was what it said on the court's online docket; instead, Judge Waldrip opted to give the attorneys time for oral arguments regarding the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss.

Axes fall when axes fall, Mimsey, I've no idea when anything will happen in this case. :)
But it sure is a privilege to watch + learn.

JB
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
I downloaded and read it. Interesting to say the least. I think it's legal maneuvering, mainly because it seems to serve the arguments and purposes of David Miscavige right to say that this agreement existed since 2009. I can't think of any reason they would have added this authority to CSI back then.

Regardless, it certainly is interesting that Miscavige did this, whether he did it then or now. Without a doubt, no one within Scientology knows this information who doesn't absolutely need to. Because it totally invalidates RTC's entire reason for existence.

Another organization that has had its reason for existence totally invalidated is the IAS.

Their stated purpose is "To protect Scientology and Scientologists". I bought into this and became a Patron.

When I woke up I wrote them a letter outlining how they are a non-LRH (squirrel) organization that is allowing non-LRH (squirrel) tech to flourish in the CofS and they are allowing any Scientologist who protests, such as myself, to be Declared.

I got all of my money back.:yes:
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
(snip)
How fortunate a time this is, 2014, to sit back and read a document that, if it's actually real, has been squirreled-away in a file cabinet somewhere for 5 years without any non-Co$-related person perusing it at will.

And if it's not real? If it's been back-dated and/or fraudulently drafted-crafted-executed?
Oh, my. Any evidence that proves such a dastardly deed as that would be just scrumptious.

I wonder if it was reported to the IRS? If so, when?
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/taxanalysts/secretagreement.txt

2. Modifications of organizational documents. The Annual Report shall
describe any amendment or other change in any organizational document
of any of the following organizations
: (i) any organization whose
tax-exempt status is recognized under this Agreement, other than
subordinate entities under the group exemptions provided in section
III. paragraph C.; (ii) those entities described in paragraph B.2 or
D.2, below. For purposes of this paragraph, an organizational document
includes any document that is necessary for inclusion in a Form 1023.
Thus, articles of incorporation, articles of association,
constitution, bylaws, trust instrument or indenture or similar
document, including any board or trustee resolution interpreting such
document are organizational documents.

(cough)
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I just compared RTC's web site to a 13 May 2009 copy using the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20090513052057/http://www.rtc.org/guarant/index.html versus http://www.rtc.org/guarant/index.html). This page looks exactly the same apart from the copyright date at the bottom of the page. You'd think that if something so basic had changed their web site would reflect that.

I didn't check every page but figured if they hadn't changed that page then there wasn't much point in looking further.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
And if it's not real? If it's been back-dated and/or fraudulently drafted-crafted-executed?
Oh, my. Any evidence that proves such a dastardly deed as that would be just scrumptious.

I don't think there would be any problem in finding several, dozens even, ex-SO people who have personally signed in their "Board of Directors" capacity "minutes of meetings" that never happened. Not as an extraordinary measure but as a routine happening because "that's always been the way it is done here."

Not just at Int but ANY individual CofS corporation.

This isn't the same as conclusive evidence that that one particular document is fraudulent, but as a pattern of behaviour spread over decades and many different corporations in the CofS it would be pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

Paul
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
^^^^ Thank you, JBWriter, The Sloth and Dulloldfart.

This is just classic Co$ incompetence and arrogance. It's also a classic example of spoliation of evidence!

I think COB has just screwed himself.

See http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...h-2014-Hearing&p=901128&viewfull=1#post901128 and http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...h-2014-Hearing&p=901129&viewfull=1#post901129

cc: Ray Jeffrey
Elliott Cappuccio
Leslie Hyman
Marc Wiegand

Those 4 attorneys have done a masterful job thus far and it's near-certain in my mind that they recognized the importance of that amendment within moments of its receipt. And, too, they've probably done a fair bit of digging into its provenance.

I know zilch about the reporting requirements to the IRS or any other governmental agencies, but it seems reasonable to think that the above attorneys, as Officers of the Court, would make the necessary notification(s) if this amendment (or anything else they've received) warranted such action. I wouldn't want to be @ Co$ mgmt HQ if a governmental agency learned of a notification deficiency from an outside source because Co$ mgmt failed to notify that agency first. (Is there an RPF's RPF's RPF? Run!)

A dear friend read it a few days ago and he looked over at me and said,
"It says anything and nothing; but it also says just enough to ably support any position that need be taken.
Not mere mumbo-jumbo, more like Gumby-meets-Jabberwockian. Gumby-wockian?"


We haven't seen, and may never see, the agreement itself, which would undoubtedly be a mind-blower. Or other amendments? Yikes!

The amendment's date is too convenient, to my mind.
The amendment's language is too slippery, to my mind.
The amendment's existence is too easily a sword for others to fall onto, to my mind.

My skepticism doesn't mean the amendment is anything other than a routine document with no 'oiliness' attached;
I've been wrong about lots of things, lots of times. :)

If the task set before the document's drafter was: 'Give me an all-purpose alibi that only saves 1 person' then I'd say that goal was achieved.
But - it's only one document. It cannot stand against paper trails and e-mail trails and honest accounts of real events.

Side note: The court's online docket shows "Motion to Dismiss" entered on Feb 4, with an e-transfer fee entry from Mr. Sloat's section at around the same time. If that Motion to Dismiss really is on his behalf, does anyone know if that filing will prompt another hearing? Or does Mr. Jeffrey merely have to file a written Response ?

JB - Born to be wrong, 'til I get it right. Or right-ish. Eventually. :)
 
Top