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

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped for brevity--

Hiring videographers
"to make their
life a living hell"
is not religious



Nor can it have any possible relevance to the protection of copyrights/trademarks. I think this mandate to cult operatives remains the single most important ticking time bomb in the entire case.

If the cult follows the play book, they will have carefully coached their operatives to lie and deny they ever said that. However, it won't be believable because the videographer who blew the whistle badly needed the income and left a lucrative client after a crisis of conscience. He has been and will continue to be a compellingly credible witness.

If Mosey was a taxi driver, the fare meter would read all zeroes--because her cult passenger in the back seat just exceeded the highest number the meter could register ($ 9,999,999)

The settlement amount is going straight up and vertical! LOL
 
Most lawyers are completely detached from the guilt or innocence of their clients, instead deferring to the greater merits of an adversarial judicial system where every client has the consitutional right to a vigorous defense. And where every manner of legal challenge can and should be launched to test the strength of the prosecution or plaintive's case.

In this sense, lawyers are no different than doctors. Imagine a bank robber who was shot multiple times and caught by police--after he murdered several employees at the local savings and loan. Would the emergency room doctors even give any thought as to his guilt or innocence before administering medical aid?

Would you like me to pay cash or check?
Would you like me to start on Day or Foundation? :biggrin:
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
For those of you who really want to follow the legal aspects of this trial AND you have a Disqus account, you should seriously consider following the commentary by "TX Lawyer" on Tony O's blog.

S/he is the real deal.

Here is the compilation of TX Lawyer's comments over there:

http://disqus.com/disqus_jJsVRJrKba/

One of TX Lawyer's comments is:

"I'd be shocked if they could get it to trial in less than two years from filing, given all the opportunities for delay that the defendants have here."

TG1
 
Last edited:

dchoiceisalwaysrs

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

Oh, no. This is not for public viewing.

I could be mistaken, but I do remember this being issued and had one in my hands in the late 80's. It was on a very high weight high gloss multi- folded broadsheet. Just a rough estimate, it would have unfolded out to perhaps 4 feet or more by 3 or more feet. Probably widely enough distributed that someone somewhere still has a copy in storage or even up on their wall. LOL
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
snipped

Jeffrey seeks "Justice under the Law" for his Client...Scn's attorneys seek "Justice under the Law" for their Client and they all know that, in the end, "Justice" is in Dib's hands, the hands of appellate judges and, hopefully some day by God's Grace, a Jury of Mosey's Peers.

And I suppose all lawyers deal with the fact that their clients lie to and mislead them

When you sup with the devil and all that....
 

cakemaker

Patron Meritorious
I'm pretty sure it was attached to the original "special appearance" docs filed for RTC & DM.
It was the ONLY piece of actual discovery produced for long while, too.
(I've written about it recently and actually linked to the doc itself, but I can't find that post atm. Grrr.)


Meanwhile...

:scnsucks:



JB

Look for the post "SCIENTOLOGY DROPS A BOMB ON MONIQUE RATHBUN’S HARASSMENT LAWSUIT" at the Underground Bunker.
Page 3 has some docs attached to it. Look at the Allan Cartwright one.
http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/19/scientology-drops-a-bomb-on-monique-rathbun-harassment-lawsuit/3/
It's in there.
I'd post it but am in a hurry right now. :yes:
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
<snip>

Spying and Stalking is not religious
Screaming and yelling and intimidating and covertly surveilling is not religious.
Hiring videographers "to make their life a living hell" is not religious
Making a hate web site stating Mosey (Monique) is a transgendered male is not religious.
Sending a male penis (dildo) to Mosey's workplace is not religious.
.

<snip>

Really, Karen, shame on you!

I was already busy gathering a few [STRIKE]gangsters and thugs[/STRIKE] friends from the "other" side of the legal fence, so that we could move to USA and found the [STRIKE]religion[/STRIKE] applied religious "philosophy of the illegal arts" which declares any and all kinds of illegal activity to be religious sacraments and therefore fully protected by any and all USA-laws, and now you have to burst my bubble just like that?

Seriously, Karen, how evil are you?



:giggle:

Sorry for the derail, guys. The evil SPs made me do it. :biggrin:
 

Dulloldfart

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

It's all so hard to keep straight. I've seen this document numerous times, and still I have to refer to it. The Corporations of Scientology: http://www.mediafire.com/view/fxn7smp9lwru9js/the-corporations-of-scientology.pdf

Here is the page for the Wikileaks copy of the glossy "Command Channels of Scientology" booklet: https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Command_Channels_of_Scientology

http://wlstorage.net/file/command-channels-of-scientology.pdf (PDF)

The PDF includes the pull-out chart.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Issue

Yeah, I thought of your master list when I read Udarnik's post.

All those trademarks were allowed to lapse. I wondered why a nano-moment before realizing that they were essentially just advertising "copy" for limited-use marketing campaigns.

They only need those breathlessly hyperbolic descriptives until cult members figure out that they don't work--at which time Scientology mg't can offer up something even better that will surely save mankind this time, really! LOL

I think they just dropped the ball for a couple of years, probably because they didn't have a nifty chart like mine showing when they needed to file the next lot of paperwork! And the person responsible was in the Hole or something.

Paul
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Since CSI and its various entities are tax-exempt organizations, surely they must have to periodically produce accounts of income and expenditure to be scrutinized by some authority?

If so, doesn't anyone query the huge legal bills that they pay every year?

The amount spent on lawyers fees must be enormous in comparison to other tax-exempt "religious" organizations. I don't understand why this doesn't cause them problems with the relevant authorities.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Tek

Here is the page for the Wikileaks copy of the glossy "Command Channels of Scientology" booklet: https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Command_Channels_of_Scientology

http://wlstorage.net/file/command-channels-of-scientology.pdf (PDF)

The PDF includes the pull-out chart.

Paul


You might have an out-of-date copy of the Scientology Command Channel.

Here is the latest standardized and accurate one for all 7 Divisions depicting the flow of particles:



stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg

stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg

stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg

stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg


stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg

stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg

stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
stock-vector-happy-cartoon-dog-pooping-vector-illustration-84381037.jpg
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Since CSI and its various entities are tax-exempt organizations, surely they must have to periodically produce accounts of income and expenditure to be scrutinized by some authority?

If so, doesn't anyone query the huge legal bills that they pay every year?

<snip>


Frankly: No. When you have a ... let's say a plumbing business with a few employees, your state's tax inspector (or whatever they're called) will dutifully check and verify and double-check each and every bill you've ever received as well as the ones you've ever written.

But, when they're dealing with a wild mixture of interwoven legal business entities, all they see is cost-factors. They see costs like:

RTC:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance


CSI:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance sheet


for each and every one of the cults entities:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance sheet

Not one tax-inspector, no matter how loyal and honest he is, will ever be willing and able to untangle that global mess of epic proportions. :no:

Mafia was a pretty narrow organization but was it severely affected when the state agencies finally managed to nail Al Capone down for "tax irregularities"? The cult with all its "independent" sub-entities, front groups and whatnot would be an even harder nut to crack.

EDIT:
Why was it that the IRS caved in in the first place?
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Frankly: No. When you have a ... let's say a plumbing business with a few employees, your state's tax inspector (or whatever they're called) will dutifully check and verify and double-check each and every bill you've ever received as well as the ones you've ever written.

But, when they're dealing with a wild mixture of interwoven legal business entities, all they see is cost-factors. They see costs like:

RTC:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance


CSI:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance sheet


for each and every one of the cults entities:
- costs for legal representation (e.g. lawyers)
- costs for external consultants (e.g. more lawyers, PIs, whatever)
- costs for advertising (the squirrel buster movies could be hidden here)
- costs for license fees (!)
- more costs being hidden in other sub-sections of the balance sheet

Not one tax-inspector, no matter how loyal and honest he is, will ever be willing and able to untangle that global mess of epic proportions. :no:

Mafia was a pretty narrow organization but was it severely affected when the state agencies finally managed to nail Al Capone down for "tax irregularities"? The cult with all its "independent" sub-entities, front groups and whatnot would be an even harder nut to crack.

EDIT:
Why was it that the IRS caved in in the first place?

If I recall correctly, part of the IRS agreement with Scn is that there will be a yearly audit done by an independant company. I am pretty sure that Scn has to pay for it.

When I was at CCI, we did get yearly audits - this was in the 90's.
 

Bea Kiddo

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

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.)

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 only RTC possessed the legal authority to protect/maintain/enforce trademark/copyright rights; after that date, CSI and RTC possessed shared 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

Thank you JB.

Uh, chances of this document being a back-dated document: 102%
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
If I recall correctly, part of the IRS agreement with Scn is that there will be a yearly audit done by an independant company. I am pretty sure that Scn has to pay for it.

When I was at CCI, we did get yearly audits - this was in the 90's.

You really put any trust in the works of IRS-auditors? I don't, and here's why: I've worked for some of the biggest producers/vendors of business/accounting-related software. While being sent to some of their customers for software-updating, trouble-shooting etc, I've seen quite a few million bucks having been stashed away where no tax auditor would/could ever find them. That's all I'm willing to say about that, but if you want to find out more, you can always sign up for an "advanced creative bookkeeping" course in a business school near you. They can show you some nice tricks, there. :biggrin:
 

Gib

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

Originally Posted by Udarnik
It might be a vary interesting addition to their case to note how many marks have expired due to RTC negligence.



Yeah, I thought of your master list when I read Udarnik's post.

All those trademarks were allowed to lapse. I wondered why a nano-moment before realizing that they were essentially just advertising "copy" for limited-use marketing campaigns.

They only need those breathlessly hyperbolic descriptives until cult members figure out that they don't work--at which time Scientology mg't can offer up something even better that will surely save mankind this time, really! LOL

Lest not forget what Marty said:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...athbun-Hearing&p=894298&viewfull=1#post894298
 

Bea Kiddo

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


I find it hard to believe that they can say that Marty was not second in command. If he wasn't, he sure as hell convinced all of the Sea Org bases that he was. As minions we knew that he was way up in RTC. Was he D/Inspector General RTC? That seems to be to me the post title (position) that I recall that he had.

If I had any instructions from the RTC Reps, and instructions from D/Inspector General RTC, I would pick the latter first to do!!! He was way up there, in the Sea Org minions eyes. And I am sure that was not just in his imagination.

The Sea Org motto: "We said it was just so, and therefore it is true!".

Welcome to the real world, where people ARE allowed to question things.
 
Top