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

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
No, Mike. JB is much smarter than us. She was never in.

Can't you tell?

:coolwink:

TG1

Never-in...true.

Often stupid, frequently a dumbass, but never ignorant enough to think I would have been immune to the coercive practices of Co$/scientology.

JB = never-in due to dumb luck. Really.
 

aegerprimo

Summa Cum Laude
Never-in...true.

Often stupid, frequently a dumbass, but never ignorant enough to think I would have been immune to the coercive practices of Co$/scientology.

JB = never-in due to dumb luck. Really.

... and Humble!

22669932_400x400.jpg
 

still here

Patron with Honors
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Issue

I've been involved in a few trademark disputes and in a few planning meetings on such subjects as how to construct logos so as to avoid infringement on things as simple as color scheme. I've also done competitive and linguistic analyses for potential trade names.

Trademark law is one of the very, very few areas of the law where I even have a passing acquaintance.

The whole RTC thing just boggles my mind, because with a minimum of competence, they could have kept their stranglehold on the materials.

I saw this once at a company I used to work for. Management was enamored of "process". The business process had to be just right. There were checklists and process improvement committees and all kinds of horse shit. I was, fortunately, working on a team that ignored all that, because our VP was kinda Kha Khan from a previous success. There was another team developing something that was slightly ahead of our timeline. We offered them some space at our trade show booth about a year before they were supposed to launch their product - we were almost 2 years out, but prepping the market. They refused our offer - they had no materials for the public developed at that time. We had our logos, product description, description of the technical issues, all ready to go. I was flabbergasted. This team was held up as a positive example of meeting all the process hurdles again and again, and here they had done nothing but that - being totally internally, politically focused, they dropped the ball on what mattered - the customer.

I think it's the same with the Co$. Always a Hill 10, always a fire drill, always hitting that Thursday at 2 PM, only looking at the stats DM gives a shit about, and not at the ones the wog world cares to measure. Maybe they would have fared better if the trademark renewal date had fallen on a Thursday?

I'm reminded of that old caution about only using a limited set of metrics to evaluate performance - you get what you measure.

This is a really good post. :thumbsup: I totally agree.

One of things that always amazed me once I had moved on from the green on white rubbish, was how incompetent and inadequate it was.
After escaping I did a business studies degree and although the SO had managed to give me a strong aversion to statistics, I found I loved them in the real world.

I have continued to in my professional career, but in nothing like the way Scn uses them.

Your final caution was also useful to me, and a slight variation which also fits Scientology is known as "You get what you inspect, not what expect"
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
I just checked the online court docket and see it's been updated with...

multiple entries for "OBJECTIONS",
one "Motion", (<---I think from Defendant CSI)
one "Motion to Dismiss", (<----I think from Defendant Sloat)
one "Order", (<----Dying to know!)
but I didn't see Jethro Tull listed. :coolwink:

Still, it's probably a good idea to let the thread sleep. :)

Derail portion here...
JB <-----Texan-by-blood (Mom insists this is biologically transmitted, "per God's grace an' the ghost of ol' Sam Houston".)
JB <-----Yankee by choice (Mom insists this is worse than enlisting @ 18 and atheism combined.)
JB <-----3 MOS total. (2 AIT, 1 OJT all MI Branch)(<----ASVAB measures aptitude, not intellect. My aptitude chromosome RULZ! Tks, Dad!)

/derail.

JB

Ah. A 35er.

Not surprised.

I will ask no more.

Oh, wait. One more question: was the OJT 35M? :hysterical:

I, too, am a Yankee by choice. Sorta. It was where the jobs were.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Issue

This is a really good post. :thumbsup: I totally agree.

One of things that always amazed me once I had moved on from the green on white rubbish, was how incompetent and inadequate it was.
After escaping I did a business studies degree and although the SO had managed to give me a strong aversion to statistics, I found I loved them in the real world.

I have continued to in my professional career, but in nothing like the way Scn uses them.

Your final caution was also useful to me, and a slight variation which also fits Scientology is known as "You get what you inspect, not what expect"

Oh yes. Or the alternative in the form of a directive: inspect what you expect.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
If DM were female, I'd consider leaving the gender altogether.
Who wants that on their team? Ick.
I'm already embarrassed on behalf of my species in that he exists, OneOne;
please don't add another woe, even if it's just a wee woe.

To never know real achievement, real success, or real life in all its breadth and wonders?
That sad, sad, wee little man.

JB

So if DM got a sex change so would you? Wow.

So if you were a man, and DM is a man, you would get a sex change?

I'm a man. Wait. Do you mean I... I ... on noes. Not that. Please not that.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
I juzz LUVZ U-man & JBW...Y'all bring so much sustenance in well prepared, appetizing, nutritious dishes--culinated from first quality fresh ingredients--to our Moveable Feast. :thumbsup::yes::clap:

Sooo glad they are here with all of Us. :coolwink:

Face:)
 

aegerprimo

Summa Cum Laude
I just checked the online court docket and see it's been updated with...

multiple entries for "OBJECTIONS",
one "Motion", (<---I think from Defendant CSI)
one "Motion to Dismiss", (<----I think from Defendant Sloat)
one "Order", (<----Dying to know!)
but I didn't see Jethro Tull listed. :coolwink:

Still, it's probably a good idea to let the thread sleep. :)

Derail portion here...
JB <-----Texan-by-blood (Mom insists this is biologically transmitted, "per God's grace an' the ghost of ol' Sam Houston".)
JB <-----Yankee by choice (Mom insists this is worse than enlisting @ 18 and atheism combined.)
JB <-----3 MOS total. (2 AIT, 1 OJT all MI Branch)(<----ASVAB measures aptitude, not intellect. My aptitude chromosome RULZ! Tks, Dad!)

/derail.

JB

Ah. A 35er.

Not surprised.

I will ask no more.

Oh, wait. One more question: was the OJT 35M? :hysterical:

I, too, am a Yankee by choice. Sorta. It was where the jobs were.

What the hell are you people saying?

OJT

NQR

ABT

OIK

Huh?

I had to Google some hearsay on this alphabet soup. I know how the military loves its acronyms. Here is what I found, correct me if I got any wrong JB and/or Udarnik (I have never been in the military).

MOS - Military Occupational Specialty (US Army)

OJT – On Job Training

NQR - Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (also means National Qualifications Register)

ABT - Air Combat Training

OIK - ????? (could only find British derogatory terms)

35P - Cryptologic Linguist
35Q – Cryptologic Network Warfare Specialist

ASVAB - Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is a multiple-aptitude test that measures developed abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational success in the military.

HUH? – :confused2:

/derail continued
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
What the hell are you people saying?

OJT

NQR

ABT

OIK

Huh?

Sorry, TG1.
Didn't intend to confuse anyone - was just trying to answer Udarnik's question.

ASVAB = Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
(The written tests a civilian enlistee-candidate takes to assess the military jobs for which s/he is best suited.)

AIT = Advanced Individual Training
(After Basic Training, the enlisted Service Member ("SM") attends their AIT course for his/her particular job<--- called an MOS.)

Once the SM has worked a bit in a unit performing that particular MOS, s/he can apply to obtain a different MOS. If the application is approved, the SM is sent to AIT again, and is now authorized to work in either MOS. Most enlisted SMs remain in their original MOS for the duration of their service.

OJT = "On the Job Training" (<----Yes, it should be OTJT. But it's not.) If an SM with a brand-new MOS of 71L10, (clerk) for example, is sent to a unit that already has every clerk position slotted & filled, then the SM can be sent to work in a different position and learn the 'job' by actually doing it. If that same SM performs the 'job' very well, the SM's chain of command (superiors) can give a 'job proficiency test' at unit-level, and if the SM scores well, the test results are sent all the way up the chain of command to DA (Dept of the Army) and the secondary MOS is awarded, even though the SM learned that MOS it via OJT.

Branch = Service classification. Engineers, JAG, Infantry, Military Intelligence, Medical Corps, Military Police, etc.
(If Army = Hogwarts, then Branch = Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, etc.) Enlisted personnel can change branch of service, but I don't know of anyone personally. It does happen in the Officer ranks every now and again, however.

Dry stuff, I know.

FunFact: I stood in a packed room of about 300 people, all of us waiting to raise our hands and be sworn-in. While we were waiting, the speaker in the ceiling tile above my head began to play, "Stupid Girl" by Garbage, and I glanced up, nodded along to the beat, smiled brightly and thought, "wow - great tune!"

I didn't see the irony until much, much later.
But, I still smile every time I hear that song.
Every. Time.

/derail

JB

EDIT: Forgot something, my apologies, folks.

Udarnik: You worked with Officers. (35s) JB=Enlisted.
 
Last edited:

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
JBW,

You are precious, and such an asset here.

Thanks for caring about the carnage left by this nasty cult.

It is appreciated.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
But, as we all know, us ex members all know, and it is obvious to every scientologists, that who runs scientology is the Sea Org, which DM is in charge of. BUT, legally, there is no significant attached to this, and this is what stumps Judges and lawyers and the legal system, because there is no legal entity known as the Sea Org and the head of it is in charge of everything. It's a hidden, it's as Hubbard said, the hardest thing to spot is the omitted.

It is meaningless to talk about "corporate structure" with respect to Scientology, for similar reasons to why it's meaningless to talk about the corporate structure of the Mafia, or the Cali cartel.

Corporate structure is all about who is legally authorized to issue orders to who. But the law does not have relevance in the day to day operations of Scn, or the Mafia. What has relevance is who has the power to do unpleasant things to whom.

In the context of Scientology, it comes down to:
1) Who has the power to cause SP declares to be issued.
2) Who has the power to cause Sea Org members to be RPF'ed
3) Who has the power to come to your space and beat the crap out of you.

A careful analysis of the true lines of power in Scn, would reveal it is all one entity, controlled absolutely by the damn midget.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
Sorry, TG1.
Didn't intend to confuse anyone - was just trying to answer Udarnik's question.

ASVAB = Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
(The written tests a civilian enlistee-candidate takes to assess the military jobs for which s/he is best suited.)

AIT = Advanced Individual Training
(After Basic Training, the enlisted Service Member ("SM") attends their AIT course for his/her particular job<--- called an MOS.)

Once the SM has worked a bit in a unit performing that particular MOS, s/he can apply to obtain a different MOS. If the application is approved, the SM is sent to AIT again, and is now authorized to work in either MOS. Most enlisted SMs remain in their original MOS for the duration of their service.

OJT = "On the Job Training" (<----Yes, it should be OTJT. But it's not.) If an SM with an brand-new MOS of 71L10, (clerk) for example, is sent to a unit that already has every clerk position slotted & filled, then the SM can be sent to work in a different position and learn the 'job' by actually doing it. If that same SM performs the 'job' very well, the SM's chain of command (superiors) can give a 'job proficiency test' at unit-level, and if the SM scores well, the test results are sent all the way up the chain of command to DA (Dept of the Army) and the secondary MOS is awarded, even though the SM learned that MOS it via OJT.

Branch = Service classification. Engineers, JAG, Infantry, Military Intelligence, Medical Corps, Military Police, etc.
(If Army = Hogwarts, then Branch = Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, etc.) Enlisted personnel can change branch of service, but I don't know of anyone personally. It does happen in the Officer ranks every now and again, however.

Dry stuff, I know.

FunFact: I stood in a packed room of about 300 people, all of us waiting to raise our hands and be sworn-in. While we were waiting, the speaker in the ceiling tile above my head began to play, "Stupid Girl" by Garbage, and I glanced up, nodded along to the beat, smiled brightly and thought, "wow - great tune!"

I didn't see the irony until much, much later.
But, I still smile every time I hear that song.
Every. Time.

/derail

JB

No wonder you caught on to sci-speak so fast! ;)
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
OMG! Look what I have found!

View attachment 6675 View attachment 6676

Lamont Jefferson was an award-winning linebacker at his San Antonio high school and later at Rice University, before attending law school.

http://quinmcwhirter.com/quinmarti/homepage/1981LamontJefferson.html

Come on, Lamont. You're so much better than this. We know you know it.

(sigh)

TG1

Obviously, Lamont is a real smart feller...Rice University is a private institution in the same academic category as Harvard & Stanford and, although there are athletic scholarships at these schools, there are no "gimmies" at them for academic acceptance for athletes. :yes:

IMO, the stakes in this Case for the Cof$, whether they realize it or not, may well be the highest in their loooong history of litigation. Scn has the finest lawyers money can buy and have "dug in" for an "anything goes" fight, and if they settle or don't prevail are facing "Open Season" on their ass...at least in Texas. Also, IMO, the longer the Cof$ goes on with this the more they will lose as "The Media" will more and more cover the carnage and salacious details..."If it bleeds, it leads". :thumbsup:

I have know idea, outside of the dough (which may well have been Numero Uno), why Lamont took this Case, but I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts there were some other factors we'll probably never know that were part of his decision...including the fact that he didn't fully fathom the basal amoral morality of his Client. :no:

I think Lamont has realized he's potentially got himself in real pickle and serious fight that is more than he bargained for but is gonna give his professional all and do his job for the Team. :ohmy:

We are watching History unfold and I'm most grateful I found my way here to see and share it with all Y'all. :clap:

Face:)
 

freethinker

Sponsor
My take on the amendment is that the only thing that changed was that prior to that amendment CSI could not enforce against violations without RTC and after that amendment they could enforce without RTC but there is nothing there that RTC has given up any of their rights nor does it say that CSI can enforce without informing RTC of what is going on. In order to make a determination on that then one would have to see the entire agreement and the Judge can ask for that just to clarify.

IMO it is merely a smoke screen and was put there to be noticed but not scrutinized because if it is scrutinized then it will show that the only thing that changed was that CSI could enforce on there own. I don't think this does anything to help RTC because in order for such an agreement to be legal, it has to be recorded somewhere in the public meaning the whole agreement is out there somewhere recorded by a county recorder or court.

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. :)
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
My take on the amendment is that the only thing that changed was that prior to that amendment CSI could not enforce against violations without RTC and after that amendment they could enforce without RTC but there is nothing there that RTC has given up any of their rights nor does it say that CSI can enforce without informing RTC of what is going on. In order to make a determination on that then one would have to see the entire agreement and the Judge can ask for that just to clarify.

IMO it is merely a smoke screen and was put there to be noticed but not scrutinized because if it is scrutinized then it will show that the only thing that changed was that CSI could enforce on there own. I don't think this does anything to help RTC because in order for such an agreement to be legal, it has to be recorded somewhere in the public meaning the whole agreement is out there somewhere recorded by a county recorder or court.

Excellent points, Freethinker. :thumbsup:

#1 - The entire agreement needs to be thoroughly reviewed by Plaintiff's attorneys, at the very least, to support TeamRTC-DM's oft-repeated assertion that CSI is wholly separate from RTC. A few sworn statements saying 'they're separate entities, honest!' just doesn't cut it.

#2 - The agreement isn't legal if it hasn't been recorded? I didn't know that. Anyone know where such a document is ordinarily filed?:confused2:

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I would think with the County Clerk.

One of the first things I noticed about that Amendment is that it isn't notarized.
Excellent points, Freethinker. :thumbsup:

#1 - The entire agreement needs to be thoroughly reviewed by Plaintiff's attorneys, at the very least, to support TeamRTC-DM's oft-repeated assertion that CSI is wholly separate from RTC. A few sworn statements saying 'they're separate entities, honest!' just doesn't cut it.

#2 - The agreement isn't legal if it hasn't been recorded? I didn't know that. Anyone know where such a document is ordinarily filed?:confused2:

JB
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
Obviously, Lamont is a real smart feller...Rice University is a private institution in the same academic category as Harvard & Stanford and, although there are athletic scholarships at these schools, there are no "gimmies" at them for academic acceptance for athletes. :yes:

IMO, the stakes in this Case for the Cof$, whether they realize it or not, may well be the highest in their loooong history of litigation. Scn has the finest lawyers money can buy and have "dug in" for an "anything goes" fight, and if they settle or don't prevail are facing "Open Season" on their ass...at least in Texas. Also, IMO, the longer the Cof$ goes on with this the more they will lose as "The Media" will more and more cover the carnage and salacious details..."If it bleeds, it leads". :thumbsup:

I have know idea, outside of the dough (which may well have been Numero Uno), why Lamont took this Case, but I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts there were some other factors we'll probably never know that were part of his decision...including the fact that he didn't fully fathom the basal amoral morality of his Client. :no:

I think Lamont has realized he's potentially got himself in real pickle and serious fight that is more than he bargained for but is gonna give his professional all and do his job for the Team. :ohmy:

We are watching History unfold and I'm most grateful I found my way here to see and share it with all Y'all. :clap:

Face:)


The money is a major factor. With one kid in college and two more on the way, the State's pay grade didn't cut it.

I think perhaps the "hook" for him was the religious angle\1st Amendment issues. Things are heating up in that area, what with ObamaCare mandating that, for example, nuns be provided contraceptives. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/u...-blocking-contraception-mandate-for-nuns.html) That is currently stayed at the Supreme Court level, but up for hearings I think in June. Being a Defensive Player, and somewhat of an idealist, he may have dreamed himself into taking this case as a "greatest good" kind of gig. However, as he is learning the hard way, you can NEVER trust anything the "CoS" presents as fact. I kind of feel sorry for the guy. Cedillo, not so much. I think he doth protesteth too much about 'criminal sanctions'. And the overt doth speak loud in the accusation....
 
Top