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

Lone Star

Crusader
This must have been the point you were getting at when you were asking about who CSI is.

I can see the point you are moving to next:

If the CSI is a buffer for the RTC, and if the RTC's role is to protect intellectual property, and if they lawyers have admitted in court that the CSI is responsible for protecting intellectual property, then how can the RTC and CSI be said to be meaningfully separate entities?

So if the CSI has engaged in criminal behaviour, how can the RTC be insulated from this?

Was this what you were getting at Bea?

I guess it depends on what your definition of the root word 'mean' means. :unsure:



:lol:
 

Gib

Crusader
More more more...

Game....Set....Match by our new favorite Lady Leslie.....



7:56 pm Nick said that Leslie Hyman had several more amazing moments than the one J. Swift told us about earlier.

At one point, she objected to the way Scientology was characterizing Monique’s arguments about the Squirrel Busters.

Waldrip asked, are you complaining about the videotaping or aren’t you?
We are, Hyman said, as part of the whole campaign, the whole picture. “What they did was so outrageous, it demands remedy,” she said.

And then, she really went in for the kill in regards to the trademarks argument that Scientology is continually pushing.

Nick says she told the judge, “If I’m investigating you about trademarks, I don’t have to talk to your wife about your mother.”

Whoa. That was a reference to private investigators trying to upset Monique by telling her about Marty’s mother, who suffered from mental illness and ultimately killed herself. Monique says they were clearly trying to intimidate her about her own husband, trying to convince her that he was unstable.

“If it’s a trademark question, why do I have to go talk to your family members about your husband?” Hyman asked.

Monique has said that Dave Lubow would show up to her father’s house with a binder of information about Marty, again to try and upset her family about the man Monique married.

It seemed a devastating argument, Nick says.

I would hope that binder would be part of the discovery info that the Dave Lubow submitted to Sugar Ray?

And what is in that binder? Marty's Sec Check information, so called priest privilege info?
 

Anonycat

Crusader
I guess it depends on what your definition of the root word 'mean' means. :unsure:



:lol:

I don't even know what that means.

dm241.jpg%3Fw%3D500
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Whadda day! :melodramatic:

I've been busy with IRL "stuff" today and just finished reading through this Thread. Thanks to all Y'all for the analysis, information and great stuff...I need to go back through this thread later and click a whole buncha "Thanks, Likes and LOL's"!

I love the smell of exploded sawdust soaked in nitro coated with graphite (gunpowder) in the afternoon from Scn footbullets. :happydance:

What is very apparent to me is that the Children of the Corn's penultimate product is way in over his ethanol soaked head and, at this point, lacks the cranial capacity to fully fathom just what is going on, the corner he's painted himself into and how to get out of the box. :no:

There is no doubt that Scn has Highly Reputable, Accomplished, Cream of the Crop Lawyers...There's also no doubt that those Lawyers are realizing they have a Scum Sucking, Lying, Head of Medusa Client. :nervous:

Face:)
 
Last edited:

Anonycat

Crusader
Whadda day! :melodramatic:

I've been busy with IRL "stuff" today and just finished reading through this Thread. Thanks to all Y'all for the analysis, information and great stuff...I need to go back through this thread later and click a whole buncha "Thanks, Likes and LOL's"!

I love the smell of exploded sawdust soaked in nitro coated with graphite (gunpowder) in the afternoon from Scn footbullets. :happydance:

What is very apparent to me is that the Children of the Corn's penultimate product is way in over his ethanol soaked head and, at this point, lacks the cranial capacity to fully fathom just what is going on, the corner he's painted himself into and how to get out of the box. :no:

There is no doubt that the Scn has Highly Reputable, Accomplished, Cream of the Crop Lawyers...There's also no doubt that those Lawyers are realizing they have Scum Sucking, Lying, Head of Medusa Client. :nervous:

Face:)

All those lawyers? They can't resist those Children of the Corn Chips and salsa!

heres-the-giant-pile-of-money-and-guacamole-esurance-is-giving-away.jpg
 

freethinker

Sponsor
OK here is a link to a website where at the bottom is a PDF that explains a lot about the TCPA, the Anti-SLAPP including who wrote it, how it was passed, how there is hardly any legislative intent, how the law is not doing what it was purported to do, the problems the appeals courts are having with it. why a Writ of Mandamus is filed for this, why the CO$ lawyers are pushing for a ruling and how it could all work against them.

Have at it, it's worth the read.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/updated-version-the-texas-anti-slapp-st-14614/
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
This must have been the point you were getting at when you were asking about who CSI is.

I can see the point you are moving to next:

If the CSI is a buffer for the RTC, and if the RTC's role is to protect intellectual property, and if they lawyers have admitted in court that the CSI is responsible for protecting intellectual property, then how can the RTC and CSI be said to be meaningfully separate entities?

So if the CSI has engaged in criminal behaviour, how can the RTC be insulated from this?

Was this what you were getting at Bea?

Sort of. Unfortunately I fear I am getting into lingo and acronyms too much... the names of the different organizations that are part of CSI.

RTC is simple. It is one group of people, whose task is only to oversee... they hold the trademarks as well, but they are supposed to oversee.

Too many times I have seen RTC get more involved in day to day affairs. Especially the RTC Reps. They tried to pretend they did not know about the daily activites, but they did. I can give plenty of examples of this, but this is not the point.

-----

CSI is a GROUP of organizations. It is not one set group of people. It is, to be simple, all of management orgs that deal with Scientology and its entities (WISE, SMI, etc) on the International Level.

It seems to me, for the purposes of this case, they are specifically referrring to OSA Int, which is a portion of CSI. Really, it's a division of CSI. A small section. OSA Int, to be simple, is the legal department of the church.


-----

And CSI does not hold the trademarks. RTC does. So why would CSI or OSA be after them for trademark violations? This, per the purpose of RTC, IS WHAT RTC IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING.

My point is they are contradicting themselves. Once the Judge sees that it is RTC's job to protect trademarks, things are going to again make no sense. CSI is saying they did it to protect trademarks, but that is not their job.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Great Links

OK here is a link to a website where at the bottom is a PDF that explains a lot about the TCPA, the Anti-SLAPP including who wrote it, how it was passed, how there is hardly any legislative intent, how the law is not doing what it was purported to do, the problems the appeals courts are having with it. why a Writ of Mandamus is filed for this, why the CO$ lawyers are pushing for a ruling and how it could all work against them.

Have at it, it's worth the read.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/updated-version-the-texas-anti-slapp-st-14614/

Thanks for posting the link to that terrific article here on this thread, Freethinker. :thumbsup:

Also, if/when anyone's interested to see if TeamCSI/TeamRTC-DM filed a Writ or other pleading(s) at the appellate-level...

Here's the link: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/CaseSearch.aspx?coa=coa03
First, click on the little box that says "all courts".
Next, scroll down to where it says "trial court county", use the drop-down box & click on "comal".
Next, click "search".

Every case that's appealed from Comal County will appear on the new screen. :)
Since there really aren't very many filed, it's easy. :biggrin:
(Plus, you don't have to search for "csi" and "rtc" and all the other possible search terms.)

JB
 

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
And CSI does not hold the trademarks. RTC does. So why would CSI or OSA be after them for trademark violations? This, per the purpose of RTC, IS WHAT RTC IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING.

My point is they are contradicting themselves. Once the Judge sees that it is RTC's job to protect trademarks, things are going to again make no sense. CSI is saying they did it to protect trademarks, but that is not their job.
And that´s exactly why Waldrip yesterday (Feb 3, 2014) said:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/03/mo...-anti-slapp-motion-in-court-today/#more-13038

Tony Ortega said:
2:50 pm
.....
Judge Waldrip said to the Scientology team that at some point, he was going to need an explanation for what these different entities - CSI, RTC, etc. - actually do.

Yeah, we’d like an explanation too, judge.
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thank you everyone...I'm late to the party but have thoroughly enjoyed your comments and observations.

This all seems to be unravelling nicely for Team Mosey.

I still can't decide whether the suits on Scientology's side are thoroughly dishonest or very naive. :confused2:
 

Gib

Crusader
Sort of. Unfortunately I fear I am getting into lingo and acronyms too much... the names of the different organizations that are part of CSI.

RTC is simple. It is one group of people, whose task is only to oversee... they hold the trademarks as well, but they are supposed to oversee.

Too many times I have seen RTC get more involved in day to day affairs. Especially the RTC Reps. They tried to pretend they did not know about the daily activites, but they did. I can give plenty of examples of this, but this is not the point.

-----

CSI is a GROUP of organizations. It is not one set group of people. It is, to be simple, all of management orgs that deal with Scientology and its entities (WISE, SMI, etc) on the International Level.

It seems to me, for the purposes of this case, they are specifically referrring to OSA Int, which is a portion of CSI. Really, it's a division of CSI. A small section. OSA Int, to be simple, is the legal department of the church.


-----

And CSI does not hold the trademarks. RTC does. So why would CSI or OSA be after them for trademark violations? This, per the purpose of RTC, IS WHAT RTC IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING.

My point is they are contradicting themselves. Once the Judge sees that it is RTC's job to protect trademarks, things are going to again make no sense. CSI is saying they did it to protect trademarks, but that is not their job.

while in the legal laws of the land, we have separation legally of corporations. So RTC is legally separate from CSI.

Hubbard said to handle the IRS it was only necessary to assign the significant before the IRS did. Thus if you claimed a tax deduction for such and such (which means assigning the significance before the IRS does, you can get away with it)

Same thing with the legal structure of the whole of scientology with all their incorporations known as CSI, RTC, Flag, whatever. Assign the legal separation sigificance before they do.

That's why Judge Dib asked some questions and wanted to know what RTC does actually do.

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.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
while in the legal laws of the land, we have separation legally of corporations. So RTC is legally separate from CSI.

Hubbard said to handle the IRS it was only necessary to assign the significant before the IRS did. Thus if you claimed a tax deduction for such and such (which means assigning the significance before the IRS does, you can get away with it)

Same thing with the legal structure of the whole of scientology with all their incorporations known as CSI, RTC, Flag, whatever. Assign the legal separation sigificance before they do.

That's why Judge Dib asked some questions and wanted to know what RTC does actually do.

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.

There is another reason for the legal separation of these organizations, besides for the IRS. And that is to make so many corporate entities that even if you sue and take one organization down, there are many others still there. It was done so that Scn could never legally be dismantled. It was done to protect Scientology from attacks.

I would guess it would be the same with the finances. Hmmm.... that brings up another interesting question... where (which one of these legal entities) does the settlement money come from for these cases that settle?

Has CSI ever paid to settle an RTC case or vice-versa?
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
...There's also no doubt that those Lawyers are realizing they have Scum Sucking, Lying, Head of Medusa Client.
Are they really? I worry sometimes.

I'm not too bright on the lawyer stuff. Help me here a bit.

  • What are the lawyers thinking when all the big foot bullets are firing into the floor
    and all the patently obvious ridiculousness is being unveiled into clear view?
  • Is there any chance of any of them bailing so not to get soiled by a case and client like this?
  • Do any of them have regrets about sitting in there . . . or is the money just too soothing for that.
  • Do any of them have any consciences?
As I said, I'm a bit naive. :confused2:
 

Gib

Crusader
There is another reason for the legal separation of these organizations, besides for the IRS. And that is to make so many corporate entities that even if you sue and take one organization down, there are many others still there. It was done so that Scn could never legally be dismantled. It was done to protect Scientology from attacks.

I would guess it would be the same with the finances. Hmmm.... that brings up another interesting question... where (which one of these legal entities) does the settlement money come from for these cases that settle?

Has CSI ever paid to settle an RTC case or vice-versa?

all good.

and that's also why the "yelp" website known as ESMB, ex scientology kids, ocmb, Tony O, and a bunch of others

feedback sites on the no-wonders of scientology are important. :thumbsup:
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
Am I the only one whose phone is going nuts with regges tonight? I'm just wondering if this is somehow related to the day's events or if it's just an unusual night where they're all calling me.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Are they really? I worry sometimes.

I'm not too bright on the lawyer stuff. Help me here a bit.

  • What are the lawyers thinking when all the big foot bullets are firing into the floor and all the patently obvious ridiculousness is being unveiled into clear view?
  • Is there any chance of any of them bailing so not to get soiled by a case and client like this?
  • Do any of them have regrets about sitting in there . . . or is the money just too soothing for that.
  • Do any of them have any consciences?
As I said, I'm a bit naive. :confused2:

I'll take a crack at IMAGINING what they are thinking/feeling, although it's obvious they're them and I'm not.

[*]What are the lawyers thinking when all the big foot bullets are firing into the floor and all the patently obvious ridiculousness is being unveiled into clear view?

Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, etc.


[*]Is there any chance of any of them bailing so not to get soiled by a case and client like this?

Not likely. For one thing, bar association rules are pretty strict about not bailing and leaving a client in the lurch in the middle of a case -- even if the client is an asshole, evil or guilty. There are reasons they can ethically do so, most of which boils down to the lawyer doesn't feel s/he can help the client or the client won't take the lawyer's best advice.


[*]Do any of them have regrets about sitting in there . . . or is the money just too soothing for that.

Yeah, I reckon they do have regrets. (See oh fuck, oh fuck etc. above)

And yeah, the money is pretty soothing. One of the reasons the cult pays so well is that they know there are firms out there that will NOT represent them. So they pay top dollar (without requiring any rate discounts). That's particularly soothing to these lawyers' firms. If you look at each of these firms' finances, you'll find they're all under pressure to perform better financially. Cedillo's firm was rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy before Scientology appeared on the horizon with a money halo. Lamont Jefferson's firm isn't on the verge of bankruptcy, but it has done better in the past than it's doing now. Wallace Jefferson is only a few months into private practice and hungry for any new clients he can find. He's in a law firm where everyone is pretty much responsible for finding their own clients, and his brother, Lamont, came riding to the rescue with this POS client who happens to pay magnificently.


[*]Do any of them have any consciences?

Oh, for sure. What most people who aren't lawyers don't understand is that a lawyer doesn't differentiate much between "right" or "wrong" once they decide to represent a client. They are focused on representing that client, no matter whether that client is guilty or innocent, creepy or charming, good or evil, to the very best of their ability and on representing that client's interests as well as they can. Their bar association's ethics rules require them to do that, once they accept the client.

So the bigger decision they make is: Will I represent this client? And once they decide to represent a client, like the saying goes ... they're in for a penny, in for a pound.

That's why you see things in courtrooms like what was reported today. Lamont Jefferson, upon seeing a photo of the Squirrelbusters videotaping the Rathbuns house from a paddle boat in a canal behind their house, "cringed visibly." But he was in for a penny (of disgust), and now he's in for a pound of it.

Most lawyers who have represented Scientology once don't go back for seconds. It's the ones who represent them over and over that I wonder about. Monique Yingling, for instance, must have to medicate herself every night to get any rest at all.
 
Last edited:

Miss Ellie

Miss Ellie
The lawyers have a client, the lawyers are paid by the client, the lawyers are paid to protect the "interests" of the client.

The client, good or bad, gets their services for a price. As long as the price is paid the lawyers will do their best. If the client puts them at risk for loosing their license they will handle the client/issue or move on.

Back in the early 80's the lawyers "that believed" so much in the "cause" got paid weekly by cash or money order - never a check. If the money did not appear neither did they. The lawyers do not have to believe the client or believe in the client/cause.

Trust me these lawyers are getting paid well for their services - as they learn more about this client & the secrets.... the higher the price will go. The sciobots will pay one way or another....

This is better than a movie... all we need is popcorn! :happydance:
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I'll take a crack at IMAGINING what they are thinking/feeling, although it's obvious they're them and I'm not.


[*]What are the lawyers thinking when all the big foot bullets are firing into the floor
and all the patently obvious ridiculousness is being unveiled into clear view?


Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, etc.



[*]Is there any chance of any of them bailing so not to get soiled by a case and client like this?


Not likely. For one thing, bar association rules are pretty strict about not bailing and leaving a client in the lurch in the middle of a case -- even if the client is an asshole, evil or guilty. There are reasons they can ethically do so, most of which boils down to the lawyer doesn't feel s/he can help the client or the client won't take the lawyer's best advice.



[*]Do any of them have regrets about sitting in there . . . or is the money just too soothing for that.


Yeah, I reckon they do have regrets. (See oh fuck, oh fuck etc. above)

And yeah, the money is pretty soothing. One of the reasons the cult pays so well is that they know there are firms out there that will NOT represent them. So they pay top dollar (without requiring any rate discounts). That's particularly soothing to these lawyers' firms. If you look at each of these firms' finances, you'll find they're all under pressure to perform better financially. Cedillo's firm was rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy before Scientology appeared on the horizon with a money halo. Lamont Jefferson's firm isn't on the verge of bankruptcy, but it has done better in the past than it's doing now. Wallace Jefferson is only a few months into private practice and hungry for any new clients he can find. He's in a law firm where everyone is pretty much responsible for finding their own clients, and his brother, Lamont, came riding to the rescue with this POS client who happens to pay magnificently.

<snip>

And Wallace Jefferson has acknowledged that he's stepping down from the State Supreme Court due to "financial pressures".


"He added that having one son in college and two sons in high school had placed financial pressure on his family. Jefferson earns $170,000 annually as chief justice."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/texas-chief-justice-quits/2013/09/03/id/523600

 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Tek

<snip for brevity>

And CSI does not hold the trademarks. RTC does. So why would CSI or OSA be after them for trademark violations? This, per the purpose of RTC, IS WHAT RTC IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING.

My point is they are contradicting themselves. Once the Judge sees that it is RTC's job to protect trademarks, things are going to again make no sense. CSI is saying they did it to protect trademarks, but that is not their job.

That's what everyone thought, BeaKiddo, until attorneys for RTC/DM attached a single-page document to a filing they submitted to the Court very early on. (I think Tony Ortega/The Undeground Bunker reported the story on September 1, 2013.)
(EDIT: It was also attached as an exhibit with CSI Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss in December 2013. See link below.)

The document is purported to be an amendment to an agreement between CSI and RTC, with RTC giving trademark/copyright enforcement authority to CSI.

IIRC, the amendment is dated June 1, 2009.

If the amendment document is true/authentic, it basically means that prior to June 1, 2009 CSI and RTC possessed shared the legal authority to protect/maintain/enforce trademark/copyright rights; after that date, only CSI possessed legal authority.

The amendment document's date is, erm, suspicious, because that date would very easily enable RTC to point an accusatory finger at CSI as the entity that 'called ALL the shots' for Operation Harass Monique Rathbun....which allegedly began after June 1, 2009.

Also suspicious...the amendment doesn't say, for example, that CSI must seek approval from RTC before it does anything in connection with trademark/copyright enforcement authority. Nor does is say that when one takes action (CSI) it must notify the other (RTC).
For an organization that is obsessed with org boards, chain-of-command, & pecking order, such an omission is highly unusual, yes?

What's oddest, to me at least, is that no matter who's in charge of trademark/copyright rights management - RTC or CSI or both - the result is clear: epic, consistent failure.
Why?
Because I can read online about Xenu and OTVIII and L's and all manner of other 'super sekrit' stuff due entirely to the abject failure of Co$/scientology mgmt to conduct any measure of trademark rights enforcement. They can slap an 'all rights reserved' blurb on whatever they like, but it's meaningless since they haven't lifted a finger in the last 5-8 years to protect those very same rights.

Co$/scientology mgmt, for all practical purposes, appears to be deeply involved in the camera placement business. Trademark Tek, not so much.

JB

2nd EDIT: An earlier post on another thread puts this issue in context with dox/links here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...athbun-Hearing&p=894459&viewfull=1#post894459

EDIT: Thanks to Cakemaker, who found/posted the link to the amendment referenced above. Link here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/177348757/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-s-Anti-SLAPP-Motion-part-1


 
Last edited:
Top