Here's an interesting 'back-and-forth' between
WhereIsShe and
TX Lawyer on the Underground Bunker. I gather that
WhereIsShe is also an attorney, but not in TX.
WhereIsSHE •
7 hours ago Pardon me if I'm not comprehending your point about the FOF re: Monique receiving counseling and auditing services from Marty, but I read that as the judge setting up the argument that Marty (and Monique) were offering competing business practices vis-a-vis the CoS.
There was no suggestion that Marty was "investigating his wife's financial statements", as you put it.
AUDITING-- in Scientologese-- is not related to review of financial statements. It is their term for religious counseling.
TX Lawyer 7 hours ago My point was that there was no explanation about what "auditing" meant. The ordinary meaning of the word does not correlate with the CSI meaning, even though the CSI meaning is the one that shows up in the Findings & Conclusions.
WhereIsSHE •
7 hours ago I know too much
(about Scientology terminology).
I suppose he could have explained the term more fully, but he did make other references to auditing as a religious service earlier. For example, in paragraph 3, he references Marty as a "Scientology minister/auditor", and he cites an affidavit. Hard to tell what is explained about what auditing means in this context without the benefit of having all of the affidavits to review at one's fingertips. Perhaps it is defined many times or sufficiently enough in the supporting documentary evidence that a footnote explanation was felt to be unnecessary.
EDIT:
Plus, if you keep reading paragraph 19, auditing is referred to as an application of the religious "technology". So, there is some context immediately following the statement that Monique was receiving counseling and auditing from Marty, supported by a reference to yet another affidavit.
I get what you are saying, but I'm not inclined to be as harsh a critic of this opinion.
TX Lawyer •
7 hours ago That it is "hard to tell" what the court means by "auditor" is pretty much my point. I do not mean to suggest that the evidentiary record outside the FOF's cannot supply that answer, only that the trial court would have made it much less disputable by explaining what it meant.
WhereIsSHE •
7 hours ago Right. I get your point.
That's why I said "I know too much
(about Scientology terminology)."
Perhaps the judge is now in the Bunker boat with the rest of us, i.e. he knows too much of the lingo after all of these lengthy court hearings and filings to recall that, at some point prior to August of 2013, he was also unaware of the Scientology meaning of the term.
What do you think about the TIMELINESS argument (re: how long it took for the court to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion) that the defendants' lawyers have asserted in court, which the judge dismissed via footnote?
I don't practice in Texas, but I'm sure I saw a split in authority that they could take advantage of on appeal, even if just to prolong the litigation (which is one of their main goals).
TX Lawyer •
7 hours ago What footnote?
WhereIsSHE •
6 hours ago It isn't explicit.
In footnote 5, he simply states the fact that the hearings he held on the motion ended on February 14th (and hence, we have his opinion within the 30 day period, today).
But if you've been following closely, as it clearly appears you have, you are aware that defense counsel made arguments about the motion not being decided on a timely basis (I believe due to the staggered court hearings that Waldrip held.)
Is there any merit to that argument? I only know that I briefly glanced at some Texas appellate decisions a long while back, probably when they first asserted the timeliness issue, and saw some split in authority.
Do you think the judge was timely, or is there actual basis for appeal on that issue, is what I was wondering.
It would be form over substance, certainly, but compliance with statutory time limitations of your anti-SLAPP law (Citizens Participation Act) has been litigated before.
TX Lawyer •
6 hours ago "defense counsel made arguments about the motion not being decided on a timely basis (I believe due to the staggered court hearings that Waldrip held.)"
If that happened, I have not seen it. Defendants have little advantage from the court's delay in ruling, as delay ultimately leads to denial by operation of law, without any advantage that findings & conclusions would otherwise lend to the defendant on appeal.