What's new

04/09/14 Austin Appeals Court Hearing regarding DM's Deposition Order

There was only the local Austin DSA there today. As Derek and I were walking up the stairs I saw her at the top. I said, "Hey there's our friend!" She turned around, looked at us and quickly looked down and walked to the right to get away. Except there was nothing to escape too, just a window. LOL... Derek was in front of me and he said she looked scared.

What? Of me? Why I'm a man of peace!!! :yes: :biggrin:
She might have looked scared but she knew you were no match for her. She used her OT powers to make you disappear, and after a few hours her intention avalanche worked... you ended up leaving.
 

Karen#1

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hmmm....great debriefs Lone Star and Derek.:thumbsup:

Such emphasis on the APEX CEO. But CEOS are a Business position, in the Corporate world...is there a CEO in a religion ? Or is Scientology Inc a business masquerading as a religion ?
I know a CEO that luxuriates in Scuba Diving in exotic locations with a Celebrity or 2 and has a Sea Org member who's entire job is to polish and shine his Scuba diving gear and keep his luxury cabin spic and span as a full time job !


These one billion year *Religious* Sea org contracts for the ecclesiastical duty of polishing scuba diving equipment ! :eyeroll::eyeroll::eyeroll::eyeroll:
Such Flagship :white glove: perfection :omg:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
t1kk has posted a reply to Derek's observations over on the Bunker.....


t1kk Derek2 hours ago Fantastic account, thanks Derek. You kept great track of the legal arguments.
You can see the weakness of Wallace's position in his remark that Monique's team is "all over the map" with respect to jurisdiction. Simply put, they /can/ be "all over the map"--a plaintiff needn't rely on one theory of personal jurisdiction; they can all apply and a plaintiff doesn't undercut his/her position by arguing them all. Anyway, that remark just read like someone yammering when there was nothing left to say just to fill the space.

and Derek's reply....

Derek t1kk2 hours ago You're very welcome and I appreciate your abutment!
Getting into how I personally felt about the two sides. Leslie was very pointed and confident in her arguments (if she had a bit of nervousness in her voice). She covered every base (even went so far as to say if the fifth amendment were invoked it still doesn't preclude a deposition which seemed to be just reaffirming that there was no reason that Miscavige couldn't be deposed). The key is she did it all in less than her allotted time and even conceded to give up her remaining minutes. Whereas Wallace was repeating himself in this courtroom and making the same arguments that already hadn't convinced Waldrip. He also exceeded his time both times, which lead me to believe there was an air of desperation about his argument.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
And TX Lawyer has weighed in.....

TX Lawyer2 hours ago If that 60-day timeframe came from me, please be advised that it's just an estimate on my part. The court of appeals has no firm deadline to issue its decision, but 30-60 days seems reasonable given the fast track they have apparently put the case on.

Substantively, the question Justice Puryear asked about the trial court's discretion is really the proper one. The issue isn't whether Mrs. Rathbun conclusively demonstrated that she was entitled to take an apex deposition. The question is whether she put on sufficient evidence that the trial judge could have concluded an apex deposition was justified. If it's a question that could have gone either way, then the appellate court is supposed to be required to let the trial court's ruling stand.

Finally, the question of discovery and other proceedings in the trial court regarding the non-anti-SLAPP defendants (namely, Miscavige and RTC). If the anti-SLAPP appeal stays discovery against all the defendants, including the non-anti-SLAPP defendants, then today's argument was really meaningless, since Miscavige won't be deposed anytime soon.

So I looked at the interlocutory appeal statute and the case law applying it. I did not find any case law ruling on the question of whether the statute (section 51.014(b), Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code) stays all proceedings against all defendants when only some of them file an interlocutory appeal that stays all proceedings under the statute. I did, however, find some conflicting authorities on whether or not all proceedings were stayed on matters that were not being appealed.

If, for instance, the certification of a class action were being appealed, the parties might still be able to take discovery on the class representatives' personal claims, since the personal claims are not being appealed. So make the appellate nerds happy, Ray Jeffrey & Leslie Hyman: see if you can get some more discovery against Miscavige and RTC while CSI appeals the anti-SLAPP ruling. Let's make some law!
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Mo TX Lawyer.....

TX Lawyer13 minutes ago They will not care one bit about Jefferson invoking abuse of discretion. That is a necessary requirement for any attorney to allege and establish to obtain mandamus relief from the appellate courts.


TX Lawyer11 minutes ago Actually, the depositions of Tommy Davis and the other still-in Scientology flunkies are competent proof that Miscavige is not involved in this kind of thing. It's not conclusive proof, and the court is entitled to discount or ignore it if he concludes the witnesses' testimony is not true -- but it is proof nonetheless.


TX Lawyer8 minutes ago It's probably part of their attempt to persuade the court of appeals that Team Monique didn't meet their burden of proof to obtain an apex deposition. Basically, the point is that they had the opportunity to develop their evidence, they (supposedly) chose not to do so, so they can't use the (supposed) absence of proof to justify needing Miscavige's deposition.


TX Lawyer4 minutes ago "Abuse of discretion" just means that either (i) applied the wrong legal standard or principle, or (ii) there was no factual basis for the ruling he made. Its a completely ordinary principle that invokes the standard under which the appellate court will review the case. It means that the court of appeals is supposed to give great deference to the trial court's ruling, and to uphold that ruling if there is any proper basis on which the trial court could have issued the ruling being challenged.


(For those who don't yet know, if you click on the time stamp you'll go to the place on the Bunker where his comment is so you can see who and what he's replying to).
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Mo Mo Mo Mo.......

Guest12 minutes ago At what point does one draw the the line between frivolous or vexatious litigation, and litigation simply driven by a large war chest?

TX Lawyer Guest3 minutes ago


  • Well it's not frivolous or vexatious litigation that would be at issue here, as Scientology didn't start this lawsuit -- they got sued, not the other way around. As a general matter, their appellate proceedings would only be considered frivolous if the lawyers filing it could have had no objective basis for raising the issues based on existing law or a good faith extension thereof (I'm paraphrasing, as I haven't looked up the specific rules). A party can't be punished simply for pursuing available remedies, even if they are also motivated by the desire to grind the process to a halt and prevent the discovery of facts.
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Wallace Jefferson said something interesting during his closing comments at the end, and by that I mean total bullshit....
...with millions of followers.....

May those words turn to ash on his disingenuous tongue.
 

Gib

Crusader
Mo TX Lawyer.....

TX Lawyer13 minutes ago They will not care one bit about Jefferson invoking abuse of discretion. That is a necessary requirement for any attorney to allege and establish to obtain mandamus relief from the appellate courts.


TX Lawyer11 minutes ago Actually, the depositions of Tommy Davis and the other still-in Scientology flunkies are competent proof that Miscavige is not involved in this kind of thing. It's not conclusive proof, and the court is entitled to discount or ignore it if he concludes the witnesses' testimony is not true -- but it is proof nonetheless.


TX Lawyer8 minutes ago It's probably part of their attempt to persuade the court of appeals that Team Monique didn't meet their burden of proof to obtain an apex deposition. Basically, the point is that they had the opportunity to develop their evidence, they (supposedly) chose not to do so, so they can't use the (supposed) absence of proof to justify needing Miscavige's deposition.


TX Lawyer4 minutes ago "Abuse of discretion" just means that either (i) applied the wrong legal standard or principle, or (ii) there was no factual basis for the ruling he made. Its a completely ordinary principle that invokes the standard under which the appellate court will review the case. It means that the court of appeals is supposed to give great deference to the trial court's ruling, and to uphold that ruling if there is any proper basis on which the trial court could have issued the ruling being challenged.


(For those who don't yet know, if you click on the time stamp you'll go to the place on the Bunker where his comment is so you can see who and what he's replying to).

It's too funny, when one steps back and looks at it all.

If DM has clean hands, then why doesn't he just step forward and be deposed and say so? The arguments posed by the DM team are he is too busy. :laugh:

This is a question a scientolgist should ask themselves.

This is a question the Mosey team should have posed to the courts, but I ain't a lawyer so I don't know if this is a question one could ask the court. :confused2:

edit: Just adding in, if the purpose of the courts is to get to the truth?
and in viewing scientology logic as well, you know, time place form & event, the truth.

It just amazes me why scientology and the courts (governments as well would not be on the same team?)
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Since there wasn't really anything new with today's hearing as expected, I'll just try to share some anecdotes as my mind farts them out.

Afterwards Derek and I got to speak with Leslie Hyman. She let it be known that she actively reads ESMB!! So say "Hi" everybody. She also wanted to pass along that she is aging quite well contrary to some claim made on this here board some time in the past. :confused2: Who could that have been? I'm researching that myself. I told her that her biggest fans are on ESMB. And she acknowledged that fact.

Anyway, she is a very warm, down-to-earth person. All of the Mosey lawyers are. I also got to speak with Marc Wiegand for the first time. Very gentle soul. And of course I've already posted my impressions of Ray in the past. Just the kind of guy everyone would want to have as a friend.

Also Jillian, the recently escaped SO staffer was there with Mike Bennitt. Don't know exactly why, but it was a privilege to meet her and give her a thumbs up!! She and Derek compared SO notes, and he asked her about his brother who is still in.

We really do underestimate Captain 5'1" sometimes - just look how's he's given you all this cause to rally around and opportunity to meet such fine folk...
 

Lone Star

Crusader

And I don't rent cars!2 hours ago OMG! That's great Derek. Thanks for telling her how much we respect her, She has become a Bunker hero along with Ray Jeffrey, Judge Waldrip, etc. Justice Melissa Goodwin also seems to be sharp as a tack and asked a very piquant question of W. Jefferson today..... <snipped>

TX Lawyer to And I don't rent cars!5 minutes ago It was actually a very weird question. It is well established that a specially appearing defendant does not waive his special appearance by submitting to a deposition on the facts relating to personal jurisdiction. I'm not surprised that Jefferson didn't have a good answer to that, as it's kind of an alien concept when you're talking about the separate question of the propriety of an apex deposition.



Guest8 minutes ago I read somewhere that even a defendant can be declared a "vexatious litigant" if they demonstrate consistent abuse of the the judicial process by filing frivolous motions

TX Lawyer to Guest5 minutes ago That's for people who file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. Asshole defendants who get sued a lot and use the system to vigorously defend their right to be assholes don't qualify as vexatious litigants. They're just assholes.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
TX Lawyer responding to a comment regarding Wallace Jefferson repeating the lie that the CoS has millions of members worldwide.....


TX Lawyer Elar Aitchan hour ago Why would he know it's a lie? Based on the evidence submitted to the trial court, the vast numbers of committed Scientologists appears to be an undisputed fact. And it's not like you can expect the lawyer to conduct some sort of audit to find out what the true numbers are. I assure you, I have spewed forth any number of numbers based on what my client has told me without independently confirming their accuracy. Our job is to be advocates, no accountants.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
It seems to me that they asked Leslie a bunch of questions just to make sure there weren't any holes in her logic and found there were none.

I think they also wanted to learn something.

I have to say I don't feel comfortable with this appellate crew but with Leslie knowing the law as she does that may stay them from making the wrong decision.


Here's my bit:

IANAL, but I'll try to give a recap as best I can.

The whole thing started off with one of the judges asking how to pronounce David Miscavige's name.


First Wallace Jefferson stood up to talk. He started off laying the general stuff: this is a dispute between the Church of Scientology and Marty and Monique Rathbun that has been going on for years. Originally it was Marty who started a campaign against the Church by posting up his blog, etc. Monique made herself a part of the conflict between Scientology and Marty by posting things on Facebook. He brought everything up to date, saying that Monique has been seeking a deposition from Miscavige since the beginning. Then reiterated the idea that CSI is the responsible party and if it were found to have committed wrong-doing, which he assures the court won't be the case, that CSI has the means and resources to make good on such a judgement. That in light of the fact that David Miscavige didn't have a role in the activities and that he has never been to Texas to perform any of these activities, this becomes Monique seeking an apex deposition. Now, he says, Monique and her legal team have had the chance to depose many members of RTC and CSI and that in none of their depositions did they ask pointed questions about David Miscavige's involvement or lack thereof in these activities taking place in Texas. This shows a lack of good faith on there part, he says, and that Miscavige shouldn't be pulled away from his "ecclesiastical mission" just to satisfy their desire to depose him. Then he said that a Texas court has no jurisdiction over David Miscavige and that if Monique wants to sue him she needs to do in California and there will be no argument over jurisdiction.



One of the judges (the female one and forgive me I know none of their names) said that she thought one of the primary questions here was whether or not by submitting to a deposition, is the person really also submitting to jurisdiction? Wallace Jefferson didn't seem to have a good answer for that, because that's when he turned the argument into the idea that Monique's team had ample opportunity to question intermediaries about Miscavige's activities or lack thereof in relation to this case, but they did not ask those questions. he says they did not ask those questions because they didn't want a negative answer. Another judge then asked, would it change things if--hypothetically--all other defendants were dropped from the lawsuit and Miscavige was the sole defendant. I'm not sure why he asked that or what the implication was--it seemed like a strange question to my untrained ear. But Wallace's response was again, no it wouldn't change things. That's when he said in that case Monique should sue David Miscavige in California. Finally the same judge asked did Waldrip get to review all of the depositions, and Wallace seemed to get oddly defensive at the question. Answering (and obviously all of this is paraphrased to the best of my ability) that no, but even if he did it would still show that Miscavige should not be deposed and that Monique failed to show food fail in her questioning of the intermediaries being deposed.


Leslie stepped up and started her argument out by saying that in the history of TX law no court has ever applied the apex deposition rule to a named defendant in a lawsuit. Then she asked how could anyone else know David Miscavige's actions with relation to this case better than Miscavige himself. She then said, if David Miscavige had come to Texas himself and taken pictures himself and so on, that they wouldn't be in the appeals court at all and there'd be no question about deposing Dear Leader--I mean Shorty McFistToCuffs. Instead he used agents to do the work for him and now there is an argument over jurisdiction. Everyone in the court room was calling that the "agency argument". She said that basically, whether Misavige had done the activities or he used someone else to do it, it doesn't change the fact that he should be deposed for his own actions. One of the judges then asked if she asked the intermediaries being deposed about David Miscavige's actions and additionally, if they didn't have the information she was looking for, then did she ask who she should be asking? Leslie then brought up the point about Warren McShane admitting to knowing little about what Miscavige was doing and pointed out that David Miscavige's office is not staffed and no one really knows what he's up to at all--except for Miscavige of course.


One of the judge's then asks about her theory, saying that is she assuming just because of Miscavige's authority, is Monique's team assuming that he knows what is going on? Leslie's response was that they have evidence which indicates that Miscavige was aware of what was going on. She also pointed out that in prior cases the appeals court did not question whether or not the trial judge had ruled correctly when he ordered a deposition. As it should be in this case, the court should go into this assuming that Waldrip's ruling that Miscavige should be deposed was correct in the first place.


After that Leslie went into the discovery process and basically said that despite their extreme efforts to pursue written discovery that the defendants failed to provide any documentation at all in, in fact, claimed it did not exist. Which Leslie said that she and her team have ample evidence that contraindicates that claim. That Scientology does keep detailed records and reams of paper related to all operations, so the evidence must exist somewhere. She then went on to say that they had requested the deposition of Miscavige after Scientology's team was uncooperative in discovery, basically being left with the idea that no one knows anything except for Miscavige. One of the judges returned to the apex idea, asking if she thought that Waldrip in his ruling was trying to follow the apex deposition rule. Leslie responded that even though Waldrip did not consider this an apex deposition that he felt that the rule would have been satisfied anyway. Then one of the judges asked again, why Leslie thought Waldrip didn't review all of the intermediary depositions before ruling. Leslie basically implied that he didn't need to because there had been ample information shared over the months that this trial has been going on. Then when it came down to the wire the proceedings were interrupted by an anti-SLAPP motion which took precedence because of the time constraint, and that was why Waldrip didn't have time to review all the intermediary depositions. She then said that she thought he had read all of the depositions, but hadn't had time to sort through Scientology's numerous objections. Which then made clear to my why Wallace had acted defensive about the question when he was asked--he knew it was his team's fault that Waldrip made a decision.


Then one of the judge's asked Leslie about the directed tort rule, and the alter ego rule. Do these apply to the case. That's when Leslie emphasized the "agency argument"--that Miscavige had used agents to act on his behalf in Texas which is basically the same thing as if he had carried out the actions himself. Then one of the judges asked about Leslie's assertion that DM was reaping personal benefit from these activities. Leslie answered by saying that she felt it was more of a psychological benefit in the satisfaction he felt from his vindictive activities, she wasn't trying to say that he was receiving monetary benefit.


Wallace came back up and complained that Monique's team keeps changing their argument that they were "all over the map" with their jurisdiction argument: first they said it was general jurisdiction because Miscavige had been in Dallas for the opening of a church; then it was alter ego; now they are arguing jurisdiction by agency. Then he repeated his argument that Monique's team had the opportunity to question intermediaries about Miscavige's involvement in other depositions, but they failed to do so. Then one of the judges asked how Wallace would direct the court in their review of the case and Wallace replied, "Abuse of discretion." Then said that the court should deny the deposition because Monique's request to depose Micavige was not in good faith. He also got in a bit about how there were declarations from former church officials that Monique's team relied on to support their request to depose Miscavige, but that those declarations were out of date and that the church was entirely different than it was back in the days of those people. That the church has taken a whole new turn and that those people in those declarations have no idea what is going on today.


The whole thing was 45 minutes. I couldn't tell whether or not the judges were leaning one way or the other by the time they left. I also thought they'd have more questions. I felt like the judges had a lot more questions for Leslie than they did Wallace.


There's the best I could do. I'm sure Tony will have input from others, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here! It's tough to decipher some things with my untrained ears.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
I've just now finished reading this thread. (Wound up having a very busy day / night.)

Lone Star and Adam -- you both did a great job reporting for us. Given everything TX Lawyer has added, I don't think I can add anything at all that hasn't already been said or that is valid.

All we can do now is just wait until the judges let us know what they think.

We're going to have to just stay here and ... here comes a Scientology in-joke ... be Panda Termint!

:hysterical:

TG1
 

Lone Star

Crusader
It seems to me that they asked Leslie a bunch of questions just to make sure there weren't any holes in her logic and found there were none.

I think they also wanted to learn something.

I have to say I don't feel comfortable with this appellate crew but with Leslie knowing the law as she does that may stay them from making the wrong decision.

Interesting. Why do you feel uncomfortable with them? Just curious. There's no right or wrong answer. Unless of course you are wrong. LOL....
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
What a pleasure it is to read all of the terrific narrative accounts of what happened today in Austin -- thank you one & all. :thumbsup::clap::clap::thumbsup:
Too, it's a genuine kick to learn that ESMB is read by some of the attorneys working on Mrs. Rathbun's behalf.

As regards Ms. Hyman's well-argued assertion as reported... that David Miscavige is a named party (i.e., an individual) in the lawsuit and should therefore be subject to deposition, a dear friend texted a l-o-n-g note to me earlier which may help bolster that point.
Or not. I thought it clever, YMMV.

Many here are familiar with the 1990 Miscavige deposition transcripts in connection with the Bent Corydon lawsuits that are available online.
Link: http://www.davidmiscavige.wikiscien...iscavige,_the_Witness,_July_19,_1990_-_Part_1

At the beginning of David Miscavige Deposition Transcript #1, dated July 19, 1990, all of the individuals in attendance verbally identify themselves into the microphones set around the table.

Excerpt:

THE REPORTER: DAWSHA BAKER OF KERNS AND GRADILLAS.

MS. PLEVIN: TOBY L. PLEVIN, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF. TO MY LEFT IS BENT CORYDON, PLAINTIFF. BENT, WOULD YOU SIMPLY IDENTIFY YOUR VOICE FOR THE RECORD.

MR. CORYDON: YES, BENT CORYDON.

MS. PLEVIN: BILL, WHY DON'T YOU START ON THAT END.

MR. DRESCHER: MY NAME IS WILLIAM DRESCHER OF WYMAN BAUTZER KUCHEL & SILBERT. I REPRESENT THE DEFENDANTS, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL, HEBER JENTZSCH AND TIMOTHY BOWLES, AS WELL AS THE CROSS-COMPLAINANTS IN THIS ACTION. SEATED IMMEDIATELY TO MY LEFT IS MARTY RATHMAN. HE IS THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF MY CLIENT, RTC.

MR. HELLER: LAWRENCE HELLER, LAW FIRM OF TURNER, GERSTENFELD WILK, TIGERMAN & HELLER, REPRESENTING AUTHORS SERVICES INC., AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS.
MR. LIEBERMAN: ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, THE FIRM OF RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN IN NEW YORK. I'M HERE AS CO-COUNSEL TO MR. MISCAVIGE.
MR. HERTZBERG: MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, COUNSEL FOR DAVID MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: DAVID MISCAVIGE, AN INDIVIDUAL.

"David Miscavige, an individual." - David Miscavige, July 19, 1990.

Not 'COB'.
Not 'Captain'.
Not 'Pope'.
Not 'Operating Thetan Pick-A-Number'.
Not 'Teegeeack's Warden Platinum Meritorious Of Xenu, Captive Overlord'

Feel free to check the rest of the deposition transcripts...that self-description made by DM -- "an individual" -- goes wholly unchallenged by any of the DM-/Co$-/RTC-related legal counsel.

So.

The only* other time that DM was deposed, he fully understood that he was an "individual" and, in that capacity, deposition was appropriate.

To assert in 2014 that the entire world will collapse :melodramatic: if the 'ecclesiastical leader of the world's fastest-growing fauxligion' is deposed, begs 2 immediate questions:

(1) How is it that DM was deposed yet - somehow! - the world did not collapse in 1990?
and,
(2) If DM was an "individual" in 1990 but now claims he's not an "individual" for purposes of a proposed deposition in 2014, what evidence is or has yet been offered by TeamRTC+DM to assure the 3rd Circuit COA and/or Judge Waldrip that "David Miscavige, Individual" no longer exists?

Did Captain David Miscavige and/or COB David Miscavige direct certain personnel within available groups of volunteer workers (sea org, Co$ members, PIs, attorneys, etc.) to commit harmful acts against Monique Rathbun?
Or did "David Miscavige, an individual" direct those same people to do so?

RTC and/or CSI 'executive management personnel' might be able to answer for their Captain and/or COB,
but ONLY David Miscavige, the person, can answer the allegations Mrs. Rathbun has made against "David Miscavige, an individual".


*That we know of. :coolwink:

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Because of the questions they asked.
I wasn't there to hear them being asked but it had the flavor of hunting for the reason to show abuse of discretion.

I found it odd that they asked Leslie why she thought Waldrip did what he did.

That could be highly favorable because she would point up law that backed his decision and brought to light the conditions under which he made them, but they could just read what Waldrip wrote.

Their questions hinted they were leaning to Team RTC/DM but it could be they just wanted to be thorough.

Just didn't like it.

Interesting. Why do you feel uncomfortable with them? Just curious. There's no right or wrong answer. Unless of course you are wrong. LOL....
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Because of the questions they asked.
I wasn't there to hear them being asked but it had the flavor of hunting for the reason to show abuse of discretion.

I found it odd that they asked Leslie why she thought Waldrip did what he did.

That could be highly favorable because she would point up law that backed his decision and brought to light the conditions under which he made them, but they could just read what Waldrip wrote.

Their questions hinted they were leaning to Team RTC/DM but it could be they just wanted to be thorough.

Just didn't like it.

TG1 made a good point as to why it is a good thing that Leslie got more questions on the phone with myself and Derek after the hearing. I hope she'll re-state it, but so far seems unwilling to, even though I've ORDERED her!! LOL... Maybe I need to be more like Slappy to get what I want. Damn insubordination!!

Anyway, don't worry too much about it. The one judge that I could see going DM's way is Scott Fields. But, all we need is 2 out of 3. However, I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 negate this appeal.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I don't know if whether not challenging being called an Individual at the time those depositions were taken is relevant or not but I do know that he held the exact same posts in 1990 as he does today meaning he was El Popo then as he claims to be now.

If he could be deposed then then he can be deposed now even though the church has "turned a corner" as Wallace put it.


What a pleasure it is to read all of the terrific narrative accounts of what happened today in Austin -- thank you one & all. :thumbsup::clap::clap::thumbsup:
Too, it's a genuine kick to learn that ESMB is read by some of the attorneys working on Mrs. Rathbun's behalf.

As regards Ms. Hyman's well-argued assertion as reported... that David Miscavige is a named party (i.e., an individual) in the lawsuit and should therefore be subject to deposition, a dear friend texted a l-o-n-g note to me earlier which may help bolster that point.
Or not. I thought it clever, YMMV.

Many here are familiar with the 1990 Miscavige deposition transcripts in connection with the Bent Corydon lawsuits that are available online.
Link: http://www.davidmiscavige.wikiscien...iscavige,_the_Witness,_July_19,_1990_-_Part_1

At the beginning of David Miscavige Deposition Transcript #1, dated July 19, 1990, all of the individuals in attendance verbally identify themselves into the microphones set around the table.

Excerpt:



"David Miscavige, an individual." - David Miscavige, July 19, 1990.

Not 'COB'.
Not 'Captain'.
Not 'Pope'.
Not 'Operating Thetan Pick-A-Number'.
Not 'Teegeeack's Warden Platinum Meritorious Of Xenu, Captive Overlord'

Feel free to check the rest of the deposition transcripts...that self-description made by DM -- "an individual" -- goes wholly unchallenged by any of the DM-/Co$-/RTC-related legal counsel.

So.

The only* other time that DM was deposed, he fully understood that he was an "individual" and, in that capacity, deposition was appropriate.

To assert in 2014 that the entire world will collapse :melodramatic: if the 'ecclesiastical leader of the world's fastest-growing fauxligion' is deposed, begs 2 immediate questions:

(1) How is it that DM was deposed yet - somehow! - the world did not collapse in 1990?
and,
(2) If DM was an "individual" in 1990 but now claims he's not an "individual" for purposes of a proposed deposition in 2014, what evidence is or has yet been offered by TeamRTC+DM to assure the 3rd Circuit COA and/or Judge Waldrip that "David Miscavige, Individual" no longer exists?

Did Captain David Miscavige and/or COB David Miscavige direct certain personnel within available groups of volunteer workers (sea org, Co$ members, PIs, attorneys, etc.) to commit harmful acts against Monique Rathbun?
Or did "David Miscavige, an individual" direct those same people to do so?

RTC and/or CSI 'executive management personnel' might be able to answer for their Captain and/or COB,
but ONLY David Miscavige, the person, can answer the allegations Mrs. Rathbun has made against "David Miscavige, an individual".


*That we know of. :coolwink:

JB
 

freethinker

Sponsor
There is no clear and blatant abuse of discretion so if they grant the appeal, I'm sure Leslie will go up the ladder to the Supreme Court.


TG1 made a good point as to why it is a good thing that Leslie got more questions on the phone with myself and Derek after the hearing. I hope she'll re-state it, but so far seems unwilling to, even though I've ORDERED her!! LOL... Maybe I need to be more like Slappy to get what I want. Damn insubordination!!

Anyway, don't worry too much about it. The one judge that I could see going DM's way is Scott Fields. But, all we need is 2 out of 3. However, I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 negate this appeal.
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
I don't know if whether not challenging being called an Individual at the time those depositions were taken is relevant or not but I do know that he held the exact same posts in 1990 as he does today meaning he was El Popo then as he claims to be now.

If he could be deposed then then he can be deposed now even though the church has "turned a corner" as Wallace put it.

What would Pope Francis do?

:coolwink:
 
Top