Scientology: Dear Judge, Protect Us from Rathbun and Rinder!

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/scientology_dea_1.php

RinderRathbun.JPG


Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun: Causing problems


Yesterday, we reported that Debbie Cook had gone on the offensive in the lawsuit filed against her by the Church of Scientology.

The church had earlier filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Bexar County, Texas court to award it an early win in the case; Cook answered back that she wants the church's motion delayed as she requests documents from Scientology in the discovery process. She also asked to depose someone representing the church this coming Monday, and gave notice that during that deposition she plans to have along with her former high-ranking Scientology executives Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder -- both of whom are highly visible and effective critics of church leader David Miscavige.

Last night, we learned about the church's countermove: its attorneys asked the court to
delay the production of documents until their motion for summary judgment has been adjudicated. And if the motion is not granted, to delay the deposition and limit it in scope.
Oh, and one more thing: "That Rathbun and Rinder be excluded from the deposition."

We can imagine the church's concern.

As members of our excellent commenting community pointed out yesterday, it may give Cook a huge advantage to have Rathbun and Rinter as advisers to her attorney Ray Jeffrey during a deposition of church executives. Marty Rathbun was once the second-highest official in the church, answering only to Scientology's ultimate leader, David Miscavige; Mike Rinder was once the organization's chief spokesman and ran its intelligence wing. Since 2009, Rathbun has run a blog that in the past we've called perhaps the single biggest external threat to the continuing health of Miscavige's grip on the church.

Will the church be able to keep Rathbun and Rinder out of these proceedings? At this point, we don't even know which Bexar County district judge is going to consider this flurry of court filings coming from both sides.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday morning, however, and we only wish we were going to be in the courtroom. Thankfully, reporters like John MacCormack of the San Antonio Express-News and Michael Barajas of the San Antonio Current should be all over it.

Here's the church's filing, and we await your analysis (click on the documents to enlarge them)...
 
... Oh, and one more thing: "That Rathbun and Rinder be excluded from the deposition."

We can imagine the church's concern. ...

It's actually not an unreasonable request since they are not themselves parties to the suit. It's not even clear that they have evidence to provide which would be directly relevant to the matter at hand, i.e. Cook's specific dispute with the church. Hadn't they already left by the time of her troubles?

Courts don't encourage uninvolved third parties in attempts to engage others in vexatious litigation. Appropriately enough, it's up to the judge to decide whether they should be allowed any role at all in the deposition solely at the request of one party to the dispute, and if so any limitations to be placed on that role.


Mark A. Baker
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
It's actually not an unreasonable request since they are not themselves parties to the suit. It's not even clear that they have evidence to provide which would be directly relevant to the matter at hand, i.e. Cook's specific dispute with the church. Hadn't they already left by the time of her troubles?

Courts don't encourage uninvolved third parties in attempts to engage others in vexatious litigation. Appropriately enough, it's up to the judge to decide whether they should be allowed any role at all in the deposition solely at the request of one party to the dispute, and if so any limitations to be placed on that role.


Mark A. Baker

I think this article General Information about Expert Witnesses and Consultants helps explain.

Experts are persons with special knowledge, skill, experience, training and/or education that goes beyond the experience of ordinary members of the public. In a murder case, for example, the experts called would range from crime scene investigators, DNA blood analysts, knife experts, forensic pathologists, police practices experts, to munitions manufacturers.

The role experts play will vary from case to case. Sometimes an expert will serve solely as a consultant to the lawyer, and remain in the background, without his or her name ever being known to the other side. At other times an expert will be used in the pre-trial stages, perhaps to give an affidavit supporting an element of the case. In other cases the expert may serve solely as an expert witness at trial. Sometimes an expert will play a combination of these roles.

It goes on to say experts may

Assist in Case Development. An expert may be used to help the lawyer build a case, or defend a case. For example, an expert may gather evidence to show that as an alternative to cardiac surgery, the use of one stent may have been justified but once it became apparent that multiple stents would be needed, open heart surgery was the proper alternative.

Obtain Other Expert Witnesses. Experts are sometimes used to locate and recruit other experts who will testify at the trial. For example the expert who can best educate counsel may not be an attractive or available witness – s/he may stutter, or not have a degree from a prestigious school, or always work for plaintiffs and thus be "suspect" to the jury, or be unwilling to testify or be unavailable at the likely date of trial. The first expert may help find another expert – who would be a more attractive or impressive witness, perhaps because s/he has just written a paper on the subject, or holds a distinguished faculty position, or has never previously testified and would be a "fresh face". In addition, sometimes the first expert can on a peer-to-peer basis motivate the second expert to participate, which the lawyer alone could not have done.
 
Top