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

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

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

  1. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Litigation For Scientology Is A Blood Sport

    Radar Online: ‘Litigation For Scientology Is A Blood Sport’: Monique Rathbun Files Motion To Hold Church In Contempt Over Their ‘Abuse’ During Case

  2. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I haven't read any of the case law nor the statutes but from what you said it seem like DM and RTC keep trying to bring in a religious issue of which this case is NOT about. This case at it's core is solely about civil matters. Seasoning as in spicing up the case with any religious matters it simply misdirection as far as I am concerned. I hope all the judges keep that in focus in their reasoning and decisions and that the uncivil anti-social cult and DM in his civil participation, regardless of any possible religious beliefs, is what on trial here.

    Yes yes, I know DM nor the cult appear to be acting in what would be commonly called religious manner, but again that is not the issue.

    Since we are making up acronyms. Here is one for the judges and Ray to religiously chant during their work. Distractions, Diversions, Deception = DDD :yes:
  3. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    It's confusing, isn't it, DChoiceIsAlwaysrs?
    There's the 'legal' stuff and the 'scio' stuff and the 'indie' stuff and the 'what-would-i-do-if-a-guy-wearing-a-headcam-knocked-on-my-door' stuff and more and more and more. Yikes!

    To anyone who's reading about Rathbun v Miscavige/scientology in the many threads here @ ESMB....

    When it becomes too weird (for lack of a better word) I try to break things into small, separate, practical issues.

    In one linear sense, this legal case is about determining which is the mightier right: religious expression (CSI) or personal privacy (Monique Rathbun)?

    In another linear sense, this legal case is about determining whether or not scientology: can only be sold by CSI-authorized dealerships. (What muddies the water here, of course, is: define scientology for a judge. Is it what hubbard said/wrote? Is it what DM says/writes? Is it what Mr. Rathbun says? Is it what JBWriter says? Is it legally undefinable because it's an individual, subjective definition that varies from person to person?

    In yet another linear sense, this legal case is about determining the exact dates when CSI's rights of religious expression began and ended.
    Did it only exist for 199 days within the town limit's of Ingleside-by-the-Bay? Or did it somehow magically reactivate when Monique Rathbun moved away from Ingleside to Comal County? Could it have started in 2007 when CSI/RTC sent a PI to Texas to see if Marty Rathbun was alive or dead and continue forever?

    Of course, there are probably a thousand more simple thought-scenarios to ponder, but the above examples are offered only to help to see the interesting themes that run through this very odd case (sans the opposing attorneys' hyped-up, fun house mirror versions). These themes, free from anyone's agenda, are, imo, worth a bit of time to consider by and for yourself. :)

    Last edited: Feb 27, 2014
  4. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I don't see it as confusing nor complex. Sure as the case progresses, lol maybe I should say forms into various whirlpools and eddies to prevent it from progressing, the attention and efforts at arguing other issues create a dispersal away from the reason d'etre for the case itself. Any themes entered into the case that lie outside, as interesting and arguable as they may be, the laws already in place as I believe were noted in the initial complaint, are in my opinion dilatory and although being argued are not on trial here.

    Perhaps I could state it another way. If there is a law on the books that say you cannot break my arm and if you do then you are to be tried for that fact. Not if you used a hammer, threw me out of a plane, or hugged me so hard it broke my arm and I might actually in your case think it was worth it. Not, whether or not you thought you were entitled to use a hammer or throw things out of a plane or give wonderful hugs. ad infinitum. The issue is the law and was it broken. Guilty as charged! Consequences! Next

    Now if you want to change the law, then change the law, but don't say you didn't break the law as it existed. And to change the law you may have to call upon other laws in place and show their inter-influence within the great subject of jurisprudence, but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the extant law.

    Now, on the last phrase you gave. I have read a fair bit, most certainly not as much as I would like or that could rule out a conclusion different than I have made, but I have given it a bit of time and considered what I have read by and for myself, but, and surely I am misunderstanding you, I am receiving your statement 'consider by and for yourself ' essentially as STFU :ohmy: lol. Turns up the music and dances :yes:
  5. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    My comments in blue below.

    Dance? I'm in! :thumbsup:

  6. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Thanks JB, that was very helpful to me. I read through that document and it provided much incite to me as regards what will happen with the mandamus.

    First off, walking into a Texas court, to me, is a crapshoot and how you fare depends mainly on what judge you get, especialy on appeal.

    Judge Waldrip IMO has applied Texas Rule 120a exactly right per these proceedings.

    Ray Jeffrey's has applied Rule 13 quite correctly in his contempt motion.

    But there was some really scary reading in that document.

    One of the first scary things is that the legislature has a greater power over Mandamus than the Supreme Court.

    This is scary because the country was founded on Separation of Powers and if the legislature can dictate what the Supreme Court can do then we have no separation.

    It appears quite clearly, to me, that the courts (Apppelate and Supreme) still use Walker to make their decisions in particular areas such as adequate remedy after trial and that they still follow that doctrine but they are considerably less vociferous about it and just refer to prior court decisions rather than engage in debate.

    By looking over the cases since Prudential, I see, by their inclinations on certain issues that mimic but don't match the existing circumstance in the current case but lead me to believe that Mandamus will not be granted for Miscavige.

    It's just my feeling but again it is based on what panel of judges you get that day because these guys seem to make decisions by whim and experiment.

    For example,

    Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v. Wittig contains similar jurisdictional issues and ruled that there was inadequate remedy under ordinary appeal but the court also said that the trial court "was not faced with voluminous record of contradictory evidence".

    In Rathbun v Miscavige, the trial court is certainly faced with voluminous amounts of contradictory evidence. I don't think I have to point them out.

    The dissenting opinion in Nat’l Indus. Sand Ass’n. v. Gibson predicted the path in which Mandamus on Special Appearance would take and it happened as he predicted in Tilton v. Marshall where Mandamuswas used to correct Summary Judgement ; where Summary Judgement was granted on mandamus because, from what I understand, you can't fact find belief.
    An interesting and IMO correct dissenting opinion in that case was this "The dissent argued that the majority, to reach its
    result, had elevated religious constitutional rights above other constitutional rights such as the right to free speech."

    I couldn't agree more and have stated so.
    [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
    This is a case post Prudential and backs up my sentiments on who you get for a judge.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]
    [I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
    [LEFT]In re West Texas Positron, L, No. 07-04-0506-CV, 2005 WL 146968 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 20, 2005, orig. proceeding)(memorandum opinion). This opinion deniedmandamus in an action seeking to vacate anorder compelling production of documents. The case cite Prudential [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]only for theproposition that mandamus [U]is not issued as a[/U][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][U]matter of right, but as a matter of discretion.[/U]


    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]This case, to me, shows relevence more in Moniques favor than Miscaviges.

    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][LEFT]In re Dominion Resources, Inc., No. 13-04-00536-CV & 13-04-00622-CV, 2005 WL310778 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 10,2005, orig. proceeding) (memorandumopinion). The court granted mandamus tovacate the trial court’s stay order preventingscientific tests that the defendants stated theyneeded in connection with their defenses to a[/LEFT]
    toxic tort case. The court cited Prudential[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
    [LEFT]for the language that an appeal is adequatewhen the benefits to mandamus review areoutweighed by its detriments. [/LEFT]
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][LEFT][I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Id. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]at *1. Thecourt’s discussion of [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Prudential [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]was limited[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]to that single statement.
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
    This final statement sort of sums up Prudentials effect on appelate decisions.

    [SIZE=3][LEFT]All in all, [/LEFT]
    [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Prudential [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]does not appear to havehad a significant effect on mandamusjurisprudence in the courts of appeals.Reports are not available yet to show whetherthere has been an overall increase in thenumber of mandamus filings or the numberof mandamuses granted. With time, we willbe better able to determine whether[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][LEFT]Prudential is leading to an increase either in[/LEFT]
    the filing of or the granting of mandamuses.
  7. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Great stuff, FreeThinker -- insightful, comprehensive, and well-worth thoughtful consideration. :thumbsup::clap::thumbsup:
    (We all might have to call you Professor FreeThinker soon!)

    Have you had a chance to look at the cases cited in Mr. Jefferson's actual Petition for the Writ and compare them against the cases cited in the 2004 & 2005 articles?
    He didn't cite Walker or Prudential, which makes me suspect both cases might have been dulled in the intervening years. :confused2:

    It will certainly be an education for everyone when/if Ray Jeffrey files a Response to the Petition -- we'll get to see which cases he (Jeffrey) cites.

    After that, of course, once the TX Appeals Court issues an Opinion on whether or not Judge Waldrip's Order was an abuse of discretion, they'll cite the cases they relied upon to make their decision. Then we'll all know which cases are valid/reliable.

    It'll be interesting either way, but like you, I don't see this Petition to vacate a deposition Order being granted by the TX Appeals Court.

  8. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    You're right JB, I should look at those. I would bet a dozen jelly doughnuts , right now, that Wallace carefully selected those cases.

    It seems that the Appelate and Supreme Court have a lot of "Discretion" in how they decide things and don't engage so much ,these days, in debate which, in itself, is a little scary because if they grant it (Mandamus) then they can just say it's cosistent with Blah v Blah.

    That would piss me off, I want a full explanation for letting creepo off the hook. :angry:
  9. Bea Kiddo

    Bea Kiddo Crusader

    I honestly think that the "church" does not care if these filings win or lose. Delay, delay, delay.

    War of attrition. That is all they are doing.

    Delay, delay, delay.

    Bowing out now.... :coolwink:
  10. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    IMO, it was time well spent to read the 2004/2005 articles to learn, generally, about how Texas courts (upper and lower) view Writs of Mandamus.
    With the knowledge gleaned from the reading those articles, it's much easier to 'know what to look for' in the cases cited within the actual Petition filed by TeamRTC+DM.

    Mr. Jefferson cited the cases most favorable to his clients.
    Mr. Jeffrey, if he is permitted* to file a Response, will also cite the cases which favor Mrs. Rathbun.
    The Appeals Court is free to reject or embrace any cited case submitted to them by either attorney while crafting their decision on this Petition.

    *Per the Rules, the TX Appeals Court is free to make their decision based upon the Defendants' filed Petition alone, without any Response from the Plaintiff's attorneys. They may or may not invite TeamRathbun to file a Response.


    ETA: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to submit a Response to the original Petition. See this link for details:
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014
  11. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    No, you're right, they just want to drag it out until it's too dark and everyone has to go home,

    they have been doing this for a long, long, long, time and everything comes to an end some day.

    Now seems like a good time.:)
  12. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Which rule JB?

    I ask because that is contrary to the concept that we are a nation of laws and not men. It is in the Massachusetts Constitution and has been cited by the Supreme Court many times.

    That rule seems contrary to all reason.

    How is one supposed to know the law when it is arbitrarily decided by three old men who's wives pissed them off that day?

  13. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    It's on the TAMES website and also in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    I don't have the links handy atm, but I know I read it twice.:)

    ETA: Here's the TAMES link - look at the info bar on the right-hand side to search Rules: TAMES Appellate-level docket search:

    ETA #2: Here's a direct link to the applicable Rules:

    ETA #3: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to file a Response. For details please see this link:

    Q: Does anyone (specifically FreeThinker and DChoice) have a problem if the Mods are asked to move Posts 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, and 38 about the Appeal to the other thread: ?

    It's entirely my fault for muddying this thread -- I just don't want people reading to get confused about what's what. The Appeal discussion really doesn't belong on this thread about the Contempt/Sanctions Motion.

    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014
  14. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Dearest JB, I don't know about anyone else but I have little chance of understanding the complexities of which motion/sanction/whatever is doing what! I do enjoy reading it all though, like which piece on a chess board is going to be moved next, even if I don't understand why that piece was moved or even play chess! You are doing an outstanding job - and the others too, of keeping us informed and I mostly just wait for the next move and hope it's explained enough for me to grasp.

    In other words, what can we expect to hear next? :biggrin:
  15. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    I'm learning from everyone, too, FreeToShine; and, with so many smart people freely sharing their wisdom/knowledge/know-how, the benefits are exponentially more valuable and cherished. :)

    Here's a recap of where things stand now.

    Trial Level
    Motion for Contempt/Sanctions = Filed/Pending --- Filed by TeamRathbun on 2/21/14, No Response (yet) from TeamCSI & TeamRTC+DM.
    Motion for Sanctions = Pending --- Filed by TeamRathbun awhile back, assume a Response was filed. May be combined w/above ^^^.
    Anti-SLAPP Motions To Dismiss = Decision Expected --- On/before March 20-ish, 2014. <----Opinion will come from Judge Waldrip.
    Motions (Unknown* Filer) = Pending -- The online docket shows entries with the word "Motion" but no other descriptive words follow.
    (*One of them is a Motion for Change of Venue, but that information came from filed exhibits, not the docket itself.)

    Any of the above-referenced Motions, except the Anti-SLAPP Motions, may prompt Judge Waldrip to hold a hearing in his courtroom.
    If he does schedule hearing(s), I'd guess it would be after he's finished writing his Opinion on the Anti-SLAPP Motions -- maybe April 2014? :confused2:

    Appeals Level
    Petition for Writ of Mandamus = Filed/Pending -- Judge Waldrip's Order for DM to be deposed was appealed by TeamRTC+DM 2/14/2014.

    What can we "expect" next?
    Anything. :yes:

    Given the litigation tactics attorneys for Co$ have used in the past, only a fool would expect this case to proceed in an orderly fashion.
    Barring settlement by & between the parties...
    Motions and more Motions and more Appellate-level Motions will continue to be filed during this pre-trial phase of the litigation.

    And if this case somehow does wind its way to the actual trial phase?
    More Motions will be filed.
    But we'll ALL be a lot smarter by then - including the Texas judiciary.

  16. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Totally fine as far as I am concerned. I think it was me that changed the subject of this thread so, sorry.

  17. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Would that be...



  18. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Somewhere in the Rules I linked to (and you've provided sub-links for above) and/or on the TAMES link itself, it says that the Appeals Court has the authority to issue a decision on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus based solely upon the Petition itself. I distinctly recall reading that the Appeals Court can "invite" the non-filing party to file a Response. The non-filing party waits for the "invitation".

    You don't have to take my word for it, FreeThinker. If I happen to read it again, I will certainly provide the direct link, quote the portion and ensure it's highlighted so this procedural step is nailed down. Sound fair?

    ETA: The Appeals Court did invite TeamRathbun to file a Response. For details, please see this link:

    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014
  19. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for your reply of post #25 JBWriter. You are correct. I should have just quoted you and struck out "yourself" and put 'oneself" in for that is how it made sense to me and what I thought you meant.....but I am not a big fan of re-writing history or otherwise being a 'revisionist'. Which leads me the Supreme Court....uhmmm the 'revisionist Supreme Court' if I can be so bold to state such an honest opinion! Well, I did 'state it' and I'll gladly stand before the Supreme Court to see if they can argue 'their right' to re-write an additional part (amendment) of the Constitution. I am willing to hear from what 'higher law' they would be '[STRIKE]standing[/STRIKE]' prevaricating.**

    Basically what I am saying is the Supreme Court's MIS-interpetration of the 1st amendment was an error, and it shows up in the subsequent confusions and further flawed
    subsidiary decisions leading to the 'in this case guise' incorrectly claiming to be standing/resting upon a pillar of law which in itself faulty as it rests upon a illusionary or incorrectly interpreted/installed 'foundation plate'. I will admit, the amendment upon which this 'foundation plate' came into being due to a lacking of precision in stating/writing the 1st amendment.

    ** Pink sheet issuance to SCOTUS will just have to wait till "next time around" :coolwink::biggrin:

    Note to self on tentative utilitarian clarification of 1st amendment to the constitution :

    Despotic definition of "expression" = "act upon with full exclusion to other portions of this document"
    Social definition of "expression" = "act with benevolent inclusion to other portions of this document"
    (from imaginary discussions with Epicurus, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith) Be sure to enlist Socrates as devils advocate to all

    Further note: Once US law is properly placed upon its foundation, return to thread and hurry up and try to catch up with the rest of the class. :)
    Where was I, oh I think maybe post 20 or earlier? :hysterical::yes:
  20. DeeAnna

    DeeAnna Patron Meritorious

    Is there a site set up anywhere to donate directly to Ray Jeffrey to offset his costs in this matter? Or would that be illegal on his part to accept donations? I do not know how these things work, but I would donate to HIM if I could.