ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Rathbun vs Misavige + Scientology: Motion For Contempt Of Court - Feb 21, 2014

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by JBWriter, Feb 24, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    On February 21, 2014, attorneys for Plaintiff Monique Rathbun filed a Motion for Contempt of Court, Motion for Sanctions, along with a Proposed Order To Show Cause, with the Comal County court in New Braunfels, Texas.

    To review the filed documents & attached exhibits, and to read Tony Ortega's excellent commentary, here's the link to this afternoon's The Underground Bunker: http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/24/mo...-for-contempt-against-scientology-defendants/

    There are many threads here at ESMB which discuss/educate people about the goings-on in this case.
    (Tagged: "rathbun v miscavige" & "rathbun v scientology" for easier searching.)

    This new thread (hopefully) will better track this Motion's evolution from initial filing all the way through the administrative process to its final conclusion.

    Online legal websites describe the general filing guidelines of civil procedure vis-a-vis court motions to be:

    Motion -- Filed by Party A. (In this instance, Plaintiff. File date: February 21, 2014.)
    Response to Motion -- Filed by Party B. (Within ____ number of days. 21 is the norm.)
    Reply -- Filed by Party A (Replying to Party B's Response. Within ____ number of days. 14 is the norm, if Reply is allowed*.)
    Sur-Reply -- Filed by Party B (Replying to Party A's Reply. Within ____ number of days. 5 is the norm, if Sur-Reply is allowed*.)

    *Some courts do not permit Replies and/or Sur-Replies.

    At some point, after the court has received the filings, a hearing may be held in the courtroom which permits attorneys for each side to verbally argue their respective positions in front of the judge.

    If the judge does not think a hearing is necessary for him/her to make and issue his/her ruling on the Motion, then no hearing will be scheduled. The judge can issue his/her decision based solely "on the papers". (<----Term of art in law.)
    (No hearing is scheduled on the online court docket for this Motion at the moment, but it's still early and a hearing date may yet be entered.)

    Attached to the Motion for Contempt of Court, Ray Jeffrey, the lead attorney for the Plaintiff, is the proposed Order To Show Cause ("OTSC").
    The proposed OTSC is yummy because if Judge Waldrip signs it, then it requires the named individuals to appear, in person, in the Texas courtroom.
    Captain David Miscavige is one of the named individuals in the proposed OTSC.

    Per the legal websites on the net, Motions filed in civil litigation often attach proposed OTSC, so it's not a novelty by any means.
    The websites generally agree that a judge will typically accept and review the filings, hold a hearing, and then, if the judge agrees with the OTSC, it gets signed and enforced pretty quickly. <---Yummy part.

    There are at least Motions currently pending before Judge Waldrip and it's easy to get confused about which-Motion-is-at-which-stage in the process.

    #1. Motion For Sanctions (Filed by Plaintiff's attorneys. May be combined with the new Motion for Contempt?)
    #2. Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss (Original filed by TeamCSI, enjoined by other Defendants' attorneys.)

    Once the judge has Ruled on a Motion, remember, the 'losing' side has the right to appeal the decision. :melodramatic:

    JB
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
  2. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    From reading Tony's article, the cult is digging itself in deeper and deeper while more cult lies are coming to light in the court room. All due to it's own efforts at evasion which is naturally what the cult will do. Should Judge Waldrip agree with this contempt motion it will be one step closer to an early Christmas.

    :)
     
  3. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    To put a fine point on the name/purpose of this filing...

    Per the first page of the Motion itself:

    "Motion For Contempt" against CSI, Allan Cartwright, and Defendant David Miscavige.
    "Motion For Sanctions" against CSI, Miscavige, and RTC.

    It's all yummy, but details are important. :biggrin:

    I've just finished reading and must applaud the writing style of Ray Jeffrey.
    It's compelling reading, folks.
    Please review/consider for yourself.

    Given the details above, it seems as if CSI & Cartwright -- and -- Miscavige & RTC will have to file separate Responses.

    Does anyone know how long a period of time Texas civil procedure rules provides for the Responses to be filed? 21 days? Longer? :confused2:

    JB
     
  4. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    you're right, the devil is in the details, it is juicy to read. :wink2:
     
  5. aegerprimo

    aegerprimo Summa Cum Laude

    :dancer:

    :drama:
     
  6. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    This is really interesting stuff. Posters on the Bunker call him "Sugar Ray Jeffries" with good reason, however it is a chess game and one can hope that good sense and justice prevail despite the landslide of motions that scientology are producing. While not producing what they have actually been asked for in case anything incriminates Misscabbage. I really feel for the Judge!
     
  7. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    Thank you for up-date and explanations
    Very much appreciated!
     
  8. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Marty Rathbun Explained:
    [video=youtube;rpnmfbLiRng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpnmfbLiRng[/video]
     
  9. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I am looking for information as regards RTC reps or RTC offices anywhere in Texas at any time since 2006. Surely we have some Texan execs here that could help out:unsure:

    I feel this is needed information as regards Jurisdiction in this case.
     
  10. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I am hungry I want some Yummies
     
  11. Arthur Dent

    Arthur Dent Silver Meritorious Patron

    This was certainly a good read! Jeffrey is asking for a lot in the end - all phone records, all travel records, all emails, all texts, etc. I'm very curious if it will be so ordered. It would be a good start.
     
  12. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Very glad you read the Motion, AD, and I, too, hope Ray Jeffrey's discovery requests are approved by Judge Waldrip. :thumbsup:

    I sent the link to the Motion to a few friends who really don't know much about Co$/scientology and all 3 wrote back demanding more links/info!
    Ray Jeffrey's Motion really does give a brief-yet-solid overview of the historical real-world and legal tactics employed by this cult.

    JB
     
  13. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I know this thread is about the Contempt of Court but I found this today which I consider relelvent to the current proceedings.

    http://www.tex-app.org/articles/57988_01.pdf
    Prior to 1997, the Supreme Court held that appeal from a final judgment was an adequate remedy for the improper denialof a special appearance and denied​
    a special appearance was made subject to interlocutory appeal​
    Id
    , 968 S.W.2d916 (Tex.1998).
    71 See e.g. Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v.Witty, 876 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.1994).
    72 CSR Ltd. v. Link , 925 S.W.2d 591, 596(Tex.1996).
    .
    73
    Parties have also obtained mandamusrelief to review the following types ofpretrial orders:– an order that improperly​
    consolidates mass tort claims;
    74

    – a denial of a plea of forum nonconveniens in a mass tort case;​
    75
    – a severance order;​
    76
    – an order of non-suit;​
    77
    – an order granting separate trials;​
    78
    – an order denying a motion for​
    continuance;
    79

    – an order refusing to enforce awaiver of a jury trial in a lease;​
    80
    and– an order enforcing a forum selectionclause entitling a party to be sued in​
    another state
    81

     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
  14. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Re: ^^^^ above post.

    If I understand what's written above (<---no guarantee as I can be verrrrrry dense) it seems that before 1997, anyone who'd appeared in a case using the "special appearance" cloak had to wait until the entire trial was over before s/he could petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Appeals court.
    After 1997, that same individual no longer had to wait until the entire trial was over. Instead, s/he could petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Appeals court during the trial itself.

    Have I understood this correctly, Freethinker?

    JB
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
  15. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I think it holds true now that they have the remedy of appeal of the final judgement available. I think you should read more than what I
    undelined because before 1997, as I understand it, there were no exceptions. However, after that there was an exception but I don't beleive that the CO$, RTC or Miscavige fit that exception. I might be wrong.

    Because, I don't believe they fit that exception, then I believe they should be denied and would have to appeal at final judgement.

    Click on the link and go to page 8 and start reading where you see this:


    IV. ISSUES FOR WHICH MANDAMUS WILL BE​
    APPROPRIATE.

    If they are granted Mandamus, the appeals court will have to explain why and I don't think they will because it isn't even close to the exception IMO

    PS: I don't think you are dense, this stuff isn't simple reading.

     
  16. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    [video=youtube;d7DPHqMMpV0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7DPHqMMpV0[/video]
     
  17. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Ok, Freethinker, I'll read the whole section. :)
    (Bear in mind, though, the article was published in 2004; the cited cases may/may not still be valid.)

    And just so everyone's on the same page...
    The petition for the Writ of Mandamus in Rathbun v Miscavige/scientology was filed by TeamRTC+DM to appeal Judge Waldrip's Order (<---ruling/finding) that Captain David Miscavige should be deposed.
    In order for TeamRTC+DM to win this petition, the Appeals Court must find evidence that Judge Waldrip abused his discretion* (*authority as a judge) in some way.

    The Contempt of Court/Sanctions Combo Motion filed by TeamRathbun in this thread is nowhere near ready for an appeal of any kind.

    JB

    FunTip: If you're reading any of the court-related documents associated with this case, do yourself a favor and crank up HBO's Boardwalk Empire soundtrack for volumes one and two. (Both are uploaded in their entirety on YouTube. You have no excuse now.)
    Why?
    Because 1920's music is great.
    And the songs are covered by 21st century artists! Neko Case, Wainwright, Elvis Costello, & lots more.
    Read 10 pages, stop, do a few Charleston steps to get the blood flowing, then read a bit more. Repeat as necessary. :sing::music::dance::wiggle:
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2014
  18. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I re-read TXL's breakdown of the mandamus and I don't see that Waldrip abused his dicretion by allowing discovery to determine the jurisdictional issue, so I think it will be shot down.I also think this will take months to complete because Mosey, not being a Scientologist presents a uinique situation and I think the courts will want to issue a decision on their conclusion soley because of that being a unique situation on a constitutional issue.
     
  19. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Marty loves Johny Cash too like I do
     
  20. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Okay, I've read the 2004 pdf article that you linked earlier, Freethinker. :thumbsup:
    The portion of that 2004 article that deals with writs of mandamus and when petitions for same should be granted relies upon the Texas Supreme Court's decision in the Walker v Packer case.

    In 2005, however, the Texas Supreme Court's decision in another case, In Re Prudential, threw the 2004 decision in Walker for a loop! :yes:
    Link to 2005 pdf, start @ page 7: http://www.tex-app.org/articles/62893_01.pdf

    The 2005 article goes on at length to describe the Walker and Prudential decisions, how they differ from one another, and discusses what the contrasting opinions will really mean in the everyday sense for people practicing law in 2005 and thereafter.

    In a nutshell, 2005's Prudential opinion further blurred the Court's already-blurry interpretation in their own 2004 Walker opinion as to writs of mandamus & when (and in what circumstances should/could) petitions for writs of mandamus must be submitted/granted.

    Was the legal dispute between the Walker and Prudential opinions eventually sorted out in Texas?
    Probably -- and I'll bet there are more articles on that website that will describe exactly how the wrinkles were ironed out. :thumbsup:

    Instead of going to the legal articles to find out which category TeamRTC+DM can/cannot use in order to file its petition, I went to the actual Writ petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

    In their papers, they state the authority for filing their petition comes directly from the "Texas Government Code section 22.221(b)".
    That's the statutory authority TeamRTC+DM provided directly to the Texas Appeals Court.
    No
    "category" -- either expressed in a cited portion from a particular Rule of Civil Procedure or extracted from binding caselaw -- was submitted as proof to the Appeals Court for why the petition should be accepted.

    So.

    If the Texas Appeals court doesn't think that TGC section 22.221(b) is the correct authority upon which to submit a petition for a Writ of Mandamus by TeamRTC+DM, then they will reject the petition on that basis.

    My guess? The petition has been accepted based upon 22.221(b) and whatever category TeamRTC+DM's "special appearance" fits into or doesn't fit into matters little.
    This petition seeks to vacate a deposition Order because RTC and DM claim religious privilege ("apples") via the apex witness doctrine ("oranges").

    Best part about reading the actual petition submission from TeamRTC+DM?
    They refer to their own client as "Special Appearance Defendant". SAD! :roflmao:

    YMMV. :)

    JB
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2014