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

Lone Star

Crusader
Deleted.....It wasn't yesterday's video after all. The 4th's video isn't up yet.


Actually I doubt there is a video for Tuesday the 4ths hearing. Since it was a continuation of Monday's hearing they probably got right back into the rest of Marc Wiegand's presentation with no opening comments. The Judge only allows opening comments to be recorded.
 

Lone Star

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.

Of course it's a lie. Which takes me to the old saying....."How do you know a Scientologist is lying?" :biggrin:

His or her lips are moving.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
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.

Marty Rathbun - IG Ethics
Ray Mithoff - IG Tech
Marc Yager - IG Admin

That's what I remember.

I think things changed around the mid 90s; these three were busted off their posts, and Greg Wilhere became D/IG RTC. But my memory is very fuzzy on this.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
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:

Yes, Alan Cartwright's affidavit is an interesting one. I am glad it is on record with the court.

The statement by Alan in section 5 states. " I knew and worked with Mark Rathbun for more than 20 years. For most of that time period, Rathbun was a staff member of Religious Technology Center (RTC")......"

So how is it that Alan worked with Marty if they were in 'separate' organizations?
Where are the 'CSI produced documents/ communications' regarding CSI discovery of Marty's Jan 21st 2009 posting mentioned in item 6?
Who ordered and worked out the plans to add CSI to RTCs trademark and service marks 'investigation chartered duties? Where are those docs and whose signatures are on them?
 

Bea Kiddo

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

Marty Rathbun - IG Ethics
Ray Mithoff - IG Tech
Marc Yager - IG Admin

That's what I remember.

I think things changed around the mid 90s; these three were busted off their posts, and Greg Wilhere became D/IG RTC. But my memory is very fuzzy on this.

The last time I saw or heard from Ray Mithoff, he was the Senior C/S Int (which is not RTC, it is CMO International, for those not familiar). That was in 1999 at Flag. He looked very pale and unhealthy.

Marc Yeager has not been visible from mid-90's to when I left in 2004. Never saw him in PAC or events.

Greg Wilhere same as Marc Yager.

Along with many others who had been around for a long time.

The last time I saw Heber was in Portland in 1996 when the shooting happened there. I went up to audit the staff and cover Senior C/S so Diana could go to Flag for correction. Heber was there for a few days. He is such a great speaker and had some funny stories. That was the last I ever saw of him.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Look for the post "SCIENTOLOGY DROPS A BOMB ON MONIQUE RATHBUN’S HARASSMENT LAWSUIT" at the Underground Bunker.

http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/19/scientology-drops-a-bomb-on-monique-rathbun-harassment-lawsuit/3/

Quote from this source.

This is why Scientology is arguing that Monique is a “limited purpose public figure.” (And conversely why Ray Jeffrey will argue that she’s a private figure.) Because if the court finds that Monique is a private figure, the crucial nexus to the anti-SLAPP motion disappears. It’s worth noting that much if not all of the conduct Scientology alleges that makes Monique a limited purpose public figure (saying mean things on the Internet, accompanying Marty, etc.) is conduct provoked by Scientology, and conduct which forms the basis for her complaint.

Although I think Scientology’s motion is ultimately doomed, I also think they’re OK with that. Not only will wads of attorney’s fees be burned through, but they’ll get a chance to try the case in advance of the actual trial with only the risk of losing the motion, not the case.
 
Last edited:

cakemaker

Patron Meritorious
Yes, Alan Cartwright's affidavit is an interesting one. I am glad it is on record with the court.

The statement by Alan in section 5 states. " I knew and worked with Mark Rathbun for more than 20 years. For most of that time period, Rathbun was a staff member of Religious Technology Center (RTC")......"

So how is it that Alan worked with Marty if they were in 'separate' organizations?
Where are the 'CSI produced documents/ communications' regarding CSI discovery of Marty's Jan 21st 2009 posting mentioned in item 6?
Who ordered and worked out the plans to add CSI to RTCs trademark and service marks 'investigation chartered duties? Where are those docs and whose signatures are on them?

From the Scribd archive
http://www.scribd.com/doc/177348757/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-s-Anti-SLAPP-Motion-part-1

2119ent.jpg
 

TG1

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


Wow, Gib!

That really is a very interesting post by Marty on his blog, made in December 2013, four months AFTER Mosey filed her lawsuit.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/scientology-armageddon/

That post is potentially:

* a very clear suggestion to Miscavige and his lawyers that Miscavige settle his case with Mosey or else!

* Marty waving his bad ass at Miscavige prior to doing battle to the death

* Marty's final effort to reveal to Scientology biggest whales the things he hasn't revealed yet

* a very enticing proposal to every high- and low-brow publisher in the Western world about Scientology celebrities' secrets
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
For those of you who really want to follow the legal aspects of this trial AND you have a Disqus account, you should seriously 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

Thanks a bunch for this link, TGI. :thumbsup:

TX Lawyer's stuff is G-r-e-a-t...very concise, informative and clear. :yes:

IMO...and I think this is pretty well evident to most all Y'all here...Scn will pay for anything and everything possible to, above all things, keep DM out of deposition. Everything else is secondary. When the day eventually arrives that Scn has exhausted any and all remedies and DM is to be deposed there will, most likely, be a huge, favorable settlement with minimal NDA's and "gags". Paying off Mosey (ergo Marty) along with minimal NDA's and "gags" will, in the end, be far more palatable to DM than folks poking around inside his kimono and having access to his ass. I suppose there's an outside chance that he allows himself to be deposed, is contentious and non cooperative, goes through a bunch more machinations to stall things after he's taken to task by His Honor, in the end loses all those skirmishes and he then settles.

DM will do and pay whatever it takes to stay off a witness stand in a Court of Law, and in his mind that's the bottom line and all the rest of this is secondary, a diversion and smoke & mirrors and anyone and everyone around him is "Fair Game" to be thrown under the bus.

Face:)

EDIT PS: Don't forget Folks, Ray Jeffrey so far has batted 1,000 on rattling DM's cage and getting him to cough up serious dough.
 
Last edited:

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
^^^^ Whoa, JB! I had not seen or heard about that June 1, 2009, document. That's interesting. Not sure yet all the ways it's relevant to this case. But that's very interesting.

I know from things I've seen Rinder and Rathbun write in years past that they didn't think the cult could lay a finger on them or anyone else for any IP violations.

And, demonstrably -- as you point out, the cult has failed to enforce or protect its IP rights. The only time in the last few years they've attempted to enforce those was against an Indie (or FZ, not sure which) group in the US Northwest. And I think that effort failed. (It was written about on Marty's blog at the time.)

Again, great find.

After I posted my initial comments, Cakemaker kindly posted a link to the amendment (link here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/177348757/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-s-Anti-SLAPP-Motion-part-1 ) and after I re-read the page, I returned to my original comments and corrected them.

Short version: RTC & CSI both possessed legal authority to enforce/maintain trademark rights until June 1, 2009. After that date, CSI alone possessed the legal authority re: trademark rights management.
(I had it backwards in my original comments. Duh.)

Main point: Because of the amendment...

If a PI was sent to Texas in 2007 to inquire about possible trademark infringement and the amendment states that both RTC and CSI had legal authority to do so, who sent the PI?
If the answer to the question is RTC, then RTC did have ties to Texas. <----Uh-oh, 'ties-to-Texas' means RTC=defendant for realies.)

The thing is, according to the filed declarations, a PI was sent to Texas in 2007 to make inquiries as to whether Mr. Rathbun was dead or alive.

DM's deposition is a perfect opportunity for Plaintiff's attorneys to probe further into the circumstances surrounding that 2007 PI trip to Texas, along with any other, prior PI trips to Texas. The vicious fight against the deposition ever occurring made by RTC attorneys is better understood in light of what the June 1, 2009 amendment says.

JB

EDIT: On another thread, I posted about this issue with docs/links. Here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...athbun-Hearing&p=894459&viewfull=1#post894459
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh, and one other thing...Besides the legal aspects, factual events etc of this case, there is one other highly compelling reason to keep DM off the witness stand in Dibs courtroom...Allowing DM to do his "Act", strut his stuff and pick lint of his $2,000 suit in front of a Comal County Jury would be a colossal train wreck for the Defense.:ohmy:

Face:)
 
Last edited:

Gib

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

Marty Rathbun - IG Ethics
Ray Mithoff - IG Tech
Marc Yager - IG Admin

That's what I remember.

I think things changed around the mid 90s; these three were busted off their posts, and Greg Wilhere became D/IG RTC. But my memory is very fuzzy on this.

what do you mean "these three were busted off their posts" ? LOL

You sound like a COS spokesperson.

Who busted them off post?

Most likely DM, it's not like there was a comm ev or a group of people who decided they should be removed from post. Like DM is the "Chairman of the Board" of a group of people and they all gather in weekly meetings to discuss things. LOL

You know, the COS in their PR handlings to the public say Marty was dismissed or expelled from the "church". So the Judge or public THINK Marty did a bad job and certain things he did resulted in him being dismissed.

Scientologists THINK Marty committed overts and withholds and thus he "blew" from staff.

All of us normal people who have managed to remove hubbard's bullshit mind controlling techniques of overts & withholds technology from our thinking process, realize Marty ESCAPED from DM and his weirdness.

As did you and everybody else who gets it after some research and looking at the facts of Hubbards tech.
 

Chris Shelton

Patron with Honors
Short version: RTC & CSI both possessed legal authority to enforce/maintain trademark rights until June 1, 2009. After that date, CSI alone possessed the legal authority re: trademark rights management.

Wait a minute. JBWriter, I'm late coming into this so excuse me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but are you saying that RTC does NOT have the legal authority to enforce trademark violation law against people who violate Dianetics and Scientology trademarks? Because as far as I know from everything I ever read in internal Scientology issues, the ONLY reason RTC even exists is to police and enforce proper use of trademarks inside and outside of Scientology. So this would be quite an interesting turn of affairs if RTC's very purpose for existence was, in fact, a total sham since 2009.
 

Gib

Crusader
6:55 update from The Underground Bunker...

J. Swift has an observation for us. He said that Leslie Hyman had a stunning moment near day’s end.


Scientology attorney Ricardo Cedillo had been arguing that because Marty and Monique Rathbun had been operating a business from their home — offering independent Scientology counseling and writing about it on Marty’s blog — then they had no expectation of privacy. This was another justification for the years of surveillance they experienced.


But Leslie Hyman said to Judge Waldrip, if the Rathbuns were running a business, then Scientology is running a business as well, and the anti-SLAPP motion doesn’t apply.


You can’t have it both ways, she explained. This is either a business dispute — and anti-SLAPP does not apply to business disputes — or the Rathbuns’ privacy was invaded.


Is it a business dispute, or did you invade their privacy? Which is it? she asked.


Swift says the Scientology side looked stunned, and the judge really sat up and took notice.
Reports from Nick coming soon…

This ^^^^ ?
Yummy.

JB - who is SUCH a big fan of the way Tony Ortega writes.

I think in a subtle way this is asking if it is a business dispute, and if the COS or RTC did not sue Marty for trademark and/or copyright violation,

then the business monopoly laws are now something to content with? A whole new can of worms to open up.

Don't know.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Wait a minute. JBWriter, I'm late coming into this so excuse me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but are you saying that RTC does NOT have the legal authority to enforce trademark violation law against people who violate Dianetics and Scientology trademarks? Because as far as I know from everything I ever read in internal Scientology issues, the ONLY reason RTC even exists is to police and enforce proper use of trademarks inside and outside of Scientology. So this would be quite an interesting turn of affairs if RTC's very purpose for existence was, in fact, a total sham since 2009.

Re: Highlighted portion above.

No. I'm saying that CSI filed a single-page document as part of their Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss on/about December 17, 2013 which says RTC transferred the managerial responsibilities for trademark rights enforcement to CSI as of June 1, 2009.
Prior to June 1, 2009, according to that same document, RTC and CSI both possessed the legal authority in connection with trademark rights enforcement, dating back to 1982.

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?
(Not picking on you, GP. :) I'd like everyone here to read it for themselves and consider what it means.)

EDIT: The amendment is on page 58 of 67 at the Scribd link in post #171 of this thread.

JB
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Re: Highlighted portion above.

No. I'm saying that CSI filed a single-page document as part of their Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss on/about December 17, 2013 which says RTC transferred the managerial responsibilities for trademark rights enforcement to CSI as of June 1, 2009.
Prior to June 1, 2009, according to that same document, RTC and CSI both possessed the legal authority in connection with trademark rights enforcement, dating back to 1982.

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?
(Not picking on you, GP. :) I'd like everyone here to read it for themselves and consider what it means.)

EDIT: The amendment is on page 58 of 67 at the Scribd link in post #171 of this thread.

JB

Is this the document, have to click on the link to see it:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...h-2014-Hearing&p=900880&viewfull=1#post900880

If so, note it says

"and shall join as co-plantiffs in any legal action that may be taken"

meaning both CSI and RTC
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Is this the document, have to click on the link to see it:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...h-2014-Hearing&p=900880&viewfull=1#post900880

If so, note it says

"and shall join as co-plantiffs in any legal action that may be taken"

meaning both CSI and RTC

That's most of the document, Gib. (Last lines, signature, & date cut-off.)

What you quote is what the 'old' sentence.
Continue to the "Now, therefore, RTC and CSI agree..." part and read the 'new' version.
Compare the old and new.

JB
 
Top