What's new

Hearing Jan 22 Miscavige still to be deposed

Lohan2008

Gold Meritorious Patron
The article in this morning's San Antonio newspaper ...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...cientology-Leader-must-testify-in-5166735.php

... is just excellent. Really worth a read.

For those who don't know, the veteran reporter John MacCormack who is covering this story was the investigative reporter who in the mid 1990s unraveled the mystery of the murders of the Texas atheist Madalyn Murray O"Hair and another person. This reporter has some serious investigative reporting chops.

http://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/disappeared/meet-the-missing/madalyn-murray-ohair.htm

LOL > at the bottom of article >> This story as originally published mispelled David Miscavige's name
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I get what you're saying, TG1, but those lovely people at the Westboro Baptist Church only picket public forums as far as I know: funerals, etc. They don't stake out your house and "protest" you for days, weeks or months. That's what strikes me as odd. It just seems like I could protest my neighbor endlessly for having Christmas lights because I find them offensive. Or because he's got a "vote for . . . " sign in his yard for a candidate that I don't like. I'm just making a first amendment guaranteed protest.

It's the video-taping and daily harassment (sorry, I just can't think of another word) that seems to cross the line.

I've been to a funeral this week and am suffering a bit from insomnia as well, so this comment will be blunter than usual.
This is an issue I have strong feelings about.

IMO, anyone who quotes Fred Phelps and the WBC in order to make their point has already lost the argument - along with anyone who thinks a funeral is a suitable place to make your point about anything.

A funeral is not a public forum. It is a private occasion devoted to the remembrance of the deceased, which just happens to be in a public place. Just because Phelps and his cronies don't understand that is no reason for anyone else not to, including (apparently) the CofS.

I agree with a guy on a different board I post on who said the WBC should be free to carry their signs and picket funerals and the mourners should be free to beat the crap out of them in return.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Random thought ...

So if the writ of mandamus motion is denied by the appellate forum (meaning Judge Waldrip would then probably continue in the direction of rulings he's been headed -- which don't favor the CoS very much thus far), can or would CoS lawyers THEN have the gonads to ask Judge Waldrip to recuse himself, arguing that the writ of mandamus action itself had irreparably biased Judge Waldrip against the CoS going forward?

Sounds weird, I know. But hey! It's the Church of Scientology, ain't it?

Another random thought ...

Given the overreaching enthusiasm of Ricardo Cedillo's and Lamont Jefferson's arguments yesterday, I'm now wondering if their fee agreements with the CoS involve a "success fee" -- meaning, they won't get paid their full rates unless they keep Miscavige out of the case.

Inquiring minds are starting to wonder.

TG1

There is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually try to have Dib Waldrip recused and'or excluded from the trial, or even these hearings. It's how they roll.

The success fee idea sounds realistic. Cedillo especially seemed desperate yesterday. And I wish can remember the exact point in his presentation, but there was a question that Waldrip asked him and it totally caught him off guard. He stammered for at least ten seconds before he regained his rhythm.

But overall Lamont seemed desperate too in his attempts to convince Waldrip to not allow DM to be deposed. Stressing the "dangerous precedent", the fact that an appeals court will probably disagree with him, and then all the "CEO" nonsense. He was really swinging for the seats. But he struck out. Yesterday at least he did.

EDIT: I meant to say that it was Lamont Jefferson who stammered for a bit. Although Cedillo was a bit shaky at times, it was Lamont's episode that I was thinking of when posting this.
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
is it odd that Tony hasn't posted a follow up with Ray after yesterday? He, Ray, seems to be media savvy, and plays them to his advantage to make Miscavage pay, and there are crickets when he achieved his ends. Could it be Davie is talking settlement? Could he have achieved, with the judge siding with him DM's being deposed, the result he's after?

Mimsey

[STRIKE]It's possible that Ray has decided to not talk to Tony O anymore over the duration of these hearings and possible trial that would follow. The reason I say that is because although Cedillo's whining about "playing to the media" was silly, it may have given Ray pause. He doesn't want to be accused later of pandering to the media and Scientology "hate sites" during one of the defendant's appeals that are surely to come. Just a hunch.[/STRIKE]

It's good to be wrong.....Just posted on The Underground Bunker.....

http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/23/ra...y-getting-tripped-up-on-the-facts/#more-12850
 
Last edited:

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
It's possible that Ray has decided to not talk to Tony O anymore over the duration of these hearings and possible trial that would follow. The reason I say that is because although Cedillo's whining about "playing to the media" was silly, it may have given Ray pause. He doesn't want to be accused later of pandering to the media and Scientology "hate sites" during one of the defendant's appeals that are surely to come. Just a hunch.

Well, LS, that puts it all on you. :)
 

Lohan2008

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's possible that Ray has decided to not talk to Tony O anymore over the duration of these hearings and possible trial that would follow. The reason I say that is because although Cedillo's whining about "playing to the media" was silly, it may have given Ray pause. He doesn't want to be accused later of pandering to the media and Scientology "hate sites" during one of the defendant's appeals that are surely to come. Just a hunch.

It is a possibility, I am sure Tony O will still do a fine job.

Ummmm, underground bunker has an article talking to Ray Jeffrey
http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/23/ra...y-getting-tripped-up-on-the-facts/#more-12850
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Because IANAL, I'm confused as to how you can argue Miscavige is both. It would seem to be that being an "ecclesiastical" leader would maybe be afforded some protections under the law that a business leader wouldn't get, and that being a CEO would maybe get DIFFERENT protections under the law. They just seem to be switching back and forth whenever it suits them. I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

I also don't get how they can argue that their "protesting" of the Rathbuns' home is okay because it's religious. Hell, I'm Jewish which means there are a great many citizens in this world I can claim are saying mean things about my religion. Can I just go to somebody's home with video cameras and knock on their door at all hours of the day and night just because it's a "religious" dispute? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

On your second paragraph the issue boils down to Marty taking money for auditing services. Scientology style auditing services as that. This is their argument. The defendants, that is. Of course they also said his house is now a "business". LOL...... I would've shot back, "Okay, so you're implying that the Scn. Orgs are businesses?" Again.....LOL.....

Now as a Jewish person, do you hold any type of ecclesiastical services in your home? Is your home essentially a synagogue? Do you take donations under your roof for Jewish purposes? That's what they would ask you if you brought this up to them.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Re: Reasons Why Texas State Litigants Who Seek Mandamus Often Don't Get It

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus

(excerpt)

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing)—and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.


http://courtsandwriting.blogspot.com/2013/07/reasons-why-texas-state-litigants-who.html

(excerpt)

Mandamus is one of the extraordinary writs by which a higher court can mandate to a lower court. To seek it is an original proceeding, not an appeal. It's form is that it is a lawsuit against a trial judge, an appeals court or a government agency. Applying for mandamus can really anger a trial judge because the judge is a respondent, acting in the proceeding pro se or through counsel. A party can apply for a writ of mandamus even though it has not gotten a final judgment. The party seeking the mandamus is the applicant or movant, and a party affected by the application that did not seek it is called a real party in interest. The respondent in an application to Texas Supreme Court or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is either a court of appeals or a government agency.

From In re TXU Elec. Co., 67 S.W.3d 130,132 (Tex. 2001):
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available "only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies." Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992). To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Id. at 839-40. A party establishes that no adequate remedy at law exists by showing that the party is in real danger of permanently losing its substantial rights. Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex.1994). Thus, mandamus will not issue absent "compelling circumstances." Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 681 (Tex.1996).
 
On your second paragraph the issue boils down to Marty taking money for auditing services. Scientology style auditing services as that. This is their argument. The defendants, that is. Of course they also said his house is now a "business". LOL...... I would've shot back, "Okay, so you're implying that the Scn. Orgs are businesses?" Again.....LOL.....

Now as a Jewish person, do you hold any type of ecclesiastical services in your home? Is your home essentially a synagogue? Do you take donations under your roof for Jewish purposes? That's what they would ask you if you brought this up to them.


Ah, okay, that makes sense. And, yes, a lot of Jewish ceremonies are done at home (Passover Seders, for example).

I know I'm not articulating well exactly what I'm trying to say (it's something I always struggle with). I'm trying to figure out why the judge is allowing the issue of this being a religious protest at all. Whether it was Miscavige who ordered the Squirrel Busters to show up there, or whether they decided to do it on their own seems irrelevant to me as far as whether it is a "religious" protest or not.

Whether what they did is harassment and whether Miscavige ordered it are the obvious questions (and we know the answers, the judge just has to rule on them). Religion doesn't seem to enter into it as all as far as I can see. I understand that the "church's" lawyers keep arguing the same points over and over because that's what they do, I'm just confused as to why the judge doesn't tell them to drop that argument.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Ah, okay, that makes sense. And, yes, a lot of Jewish ceremonies are done at home (Passover Seders, for example).

I know I'm not articulating well exactly what I'm trying to say (it's something I always struggle with). I'm trying to figure out why the judge is allowing the issue of this being a religious protest at all. Whether it was Miscavige who ordered the Squirrel Busters to show up there, or whether they decided to do it on their own seems irrelevant to me as far as whether it is a "religious" protest or not.

Whether what they did is harassment and whether Miscavige ordered it are the obvious questions (and we know the answers, the judge just has to rule on them). Religion doesn't seem to enter into it as all as far as I can see. I understand that the "church's" lawyers keep arguing the same points over and over because that's what they do, I'm just confused as to why the judge doesn't tell them to drop that argument.

He's not telling them to drop that argument because these are pre-trial hearings. This isn't even the trial yet. But they have the right to argue any ridiculous claim they want. It's clear by his rulings that the Judge isn't buying it though. He is still ordering the deposition of Miscavige after all their efforts to claim "religious exemption". So don't worry about it too much. It's actually going quite well.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
The judge isn't required to rule on any of the defenses or allegations.

This is a jury trial, not a "bench" trial, where the judge rules from the bench (on which he sits). The two sides' lawyers will argue the law on these issues for the benefit of those 12 people.

But at this point, we are nowhere near the trial. We are just trying to get into the evidence-collection or "pre-trial discovery" portion of the program. And the CoS is obstructing this phase as much as they possibly can. They are trying to exhaust EVERYONE else connected with this thing -- Mosey, her lawyers, her witnesses, the judge, the media, etc.

They are trying to obstruct justice through their delaying (sometimes called "dilatory") motions.

They are geniuses at this. It is what they do when they're the defendants.

TG1
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
A couple of people found my last post funny, so I'd like to comment further. I suppose any attention is better than none, but I wasn't making a joke in my post; if I was, I'd have chucked a couple of smilies into it.

I believe that the actions of Fred Phelps and his cohorts are crass and insensitive and deserve only disgust from decent people, whatever their views on the issues he attempts to raise. That's all I was trying to say.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
A couple of people found my last post funny, so I'd like to comment further. I suppose any attention is better than none, but I wasn't making a joke in my post; if I was, I'd have chucked a couple of smilies into it.

I believe that the actions of Fred Phelps and his cohorts are crass and insensitive and deserve only disgust from decent people, whatever their views on the issues he attempts to raise. That's all I was trying to say.

791859d1366316107-recycle-your-dog-cat-sh-t-best_westboro_protest_sign.jpg
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
. . .

But overall Lamont seemed desperate too in his attempts to convince Waldrip to not allow DM to be deposed. Stressing the "dangerous precedent", the fact that an appeals court will probably disagree with him, and then all the "CEO" nonsense. He was really swinging for the seats. But he struck out. Yesterday at least he did.

. . .


Could this be because Miscavige is absolutely terrified of having to appear in public and is going mental, screaming and threatening to go medieval on the asses of everyone around him and they in turn pass it on to his lawyers who are now bitterly regretting getting involved despite the eye-popping amount the cult is paying?

That sort of behaviour can spook anyone especially given the level of insanity that accompanies it.

What are the chances they get fed up with Miscavige and his behaviour and walk out on him? Do the new lot (there will always be someone wanting to take the cult’s silver) claim that the previous shysters were incompetent and that the trial should begin anew?

Random thoughts, IANAL.

Axiom142
 
Last edited:

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/23/ra...m-constantly-getting-tripped-up-on-the-facts/


The most important result of the hearing is that Scientology’s attempt to quash a deposition of Miscavige was unsuccessful. Comal County Judge Dib Waldrip said that he could see more reason than ever why Monique’s legal team should get the opportunity to question Miscavige, and he even suggested it might take place in his courtroom because he anticipated that Scientology’s attorneys would object to virtually every question.
“He didn’t order that, but he indicated that he would consider that,” Jeffrey tells us.
“He ordered us to confer about document production, and confer about the deposition,” Ray added. “Of course, they’re almost certainly going to attempt some kind of appellate remedy, what’s called a writ of mandamus.”
Now that Judge Waldrip seems more determined than ever that Monique Rathbun has the right to depose Miscavige, Jeffrey says it’s becoming obvious that Scientology’s legal team is going to try to go over Waldrip to get Miscavige out of testifying.

more at source
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Could this be because Miscavige is absolutely terrified of having to appear in public and is going mental, screaming and threatening to go medieval on the asses of everyone around him and they in turn pass it on to his lawyers who are now bitterly regretting getting involved despite the eye-popping amount the cult is paying?

That sort of behaviour can spook anyone especially given the level of insanity that accompanies it.

What are the chances they get fed up with Miscavige and his behaviour and walk out on him? Do the new lot (there will always be someone wanting to take the cult’s silver) claim that the previous shysters were incompetent and that the trail should begin anew?

Random thoughts, IANAL.

Axiom142

I don't know for sure, but from what I know of him I'd guess that the odds against his sitting around calmly with a sardonic smile, stroking a cat on his lap and saying something like "let's see which card they play next," are long ones :)
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Could this be because Miscavige is absolutely terrified of having to appear in public and is going mental, screaming and threatening to go medieval on the asses of everyone around him and they in turn pass it on to his lawyers who are now bitterly regretting getting involved despite the eye-popping amount the cult is paying?

That sort of behaviour can spook anyone especially given the level of insanity that accompanies it.

What are the chances they get fed up with Miscavige and his behaviour and walk out on him? Do the new lot (there will always be someone wanting to take the cult’s silver) claim that the previous shysters were incompetent and that the trail should begin anew?

Random thoughts, IANAL.

Axiom142

Ax,

The people who would have an informed opinion about this are Marty and Mike R. And they're not saying nuttin' about anything these days, given that they're both offering evidence in Mosey's lawsuit.

It's a shame. I'd love to know, too.

TG1
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Could this be because Miscavige is absolutely terrified of having to appear in public and is going mental, screaming and threatening to go medieval on the asses of everyone around him and they in turn pass it on to his lawyers who are now bitterly regretting getting involved despite the eye-popping amount the cult is paying?

(snip)

Axiom142

I think he's afraid of outsiders seeing that he needs to sit on a couple of LA sized phone books in order to see over the dais or witness stand in a courtroom. :yes:

:lol:
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
So very well capsulized TG1.

For anyone wishing to get a tonne more information on the Scientology's strategic plan with many references included, reading the entire link ( hours worth of reading) below from which I extracted just a very 'short quote' can be very educational. It will help you notice much of why and how Scientology is [STRIKE]playing[/STRIKE] 'at war' with society and jurisprudence.

http://www.factnet.org/scientologys-policies-toward-its-adversaries

part two: SCIENTOLOGY AND ITS NEW PRACTICE OF "LEGAL" Brutality

"Legal" brutality is the deliberate orchestration of numerous different actions that are designed to make the execution of the justice process impossible. They are tactics which are designed to punish, obstruct, delay, intimidate, stop the proceedings, or to deliberately create a mistrial.

They are used when you are reasonably certain you are going to lose the case and\or you want to stop a adverse precedent from being established. These are the tactics of losers and spoilers.

Scientology's main defenses besides its first amendment religious immunity defenses is to rely on pounding its adversaries into inaction or flight by wearing or breaking them down. To overwhelm and introvert through complexity and confusion, 100 suits have been filed just against the IRS alone.

This overwhelm, confuse, and introvert tactic also shows up in the courtroom where Scientology uses 3,4, sometimes as many as 7 different criminal lawyers from different firms to simultaneously hammer, intimidate, and bully the judge, jury, witnesses, court staff, security people and prosecutors. They use near continuous objections, gallery interruptions, and other miscellaneous non-procedural efforts often to set up their own mistrial for appeal.

Their attorneys and their in-courtroom gallery operatives deliberately create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear. Everything and anything is done to increase their opponent's expenses and delay the proceedings. This Scientology style "legal brutality" is not a search for justice but again reminds one more of the older strategies of coercive persuasion, the breaking down of prisoners of war by constant psychological coercion, intimidation, and stressful interrogation by multiple interrogators. It is a primitive, brutal, and almost primal effort to establish pure dominance over the justice system.


The judge isn't required to rule on any of the defenses or allegations.

This is a jury trial, not a "bench" trial, where the judge rules from the bench (on which he sits). The two sides' lawyers will argue the law on these issues for the benefit of those 12 people.

But at this point, we are nowhere near the trial. We are just trying to get into the evidence-collection or "pre-trial discovery" portion of the program. And the CoS is obstructing this phase as much as they possibly can. They are trying to exhaust EVERYONE else connected with this thing -- Mosey, her lawyers, her witnesses, the judge, the media, etc.

They are trying to obstruct justice through their delaying (sometimes called "dilatory") motions.

They are geniuses at this. It is what they do when they're the defendants.

TG1

Edit: this would be excellent material for anyone planning to battle in court with scientology as well as great material for any reporters, media to review when watching and reporting on scientology legal matters. Perhaps it could be called the OUTLINE for the book on scientology legal matters.
 
Last edited:
Top