What's new

TEXAS JUDGE DENIES SCIENTOLOGY’S ‘ANTI-SLAPP’ MOTION IN RATHBUN SUIT

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
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.

WhereIsSHE7 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.


WhereIsSHE7 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 Lawyer7 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.


WhereIsSHE7 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 Lawyer7 hours ago What footnote?


WhereIsSHE6 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 Lawyer6 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.
maybe I just need more coffee but I don't understand any of that!
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
I can't imagine that the judge's ruling would have required the CoS to pay for ALL of Mosey's legal costs and fees up to this point. But in denying the anti-SLAPP motion of the CoS (which is what this ruling is about), it sounds to me that the judge is saying that Mosey is due all the legal costs and fees she has incurred in connection with the CoS's anti-SLAPP motion.

Has anyone over at Tony O's who actually is a lawyer confirmed that this is the case?

Thanks,

TG1
 

Lone Star

Crusader
maybe I just need more coffee but I don't understand any of that!

Yes I read the exchange btwn them a few times before I understood. It'll probably help you to know that WhereIsSHE starts out by commenting on TX Lawyer's earlier post on the ruling, which corresponds to post #134 on this thread. Re-read that and then read the exchange.

Also know that FOF is Finding of Facts and COL is Conclusions of Law.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I can't imagine that the judge's ruling would have required the CoS to pay for ALL of Mosey's legal costs and fees up to this point. But in denying the anti-SLAPP motion of the CoS (which is what this ruling is about), it sounds to me that the judge is saying that Mosey is due all the legal costs and fees she has incurred in connection with the CoS's anti-SLAPP motion.

Has anyone over at Tony O's who actually is a lawyer confirmed that this is the case?

Thanks,

TG1
That is the only thing that would make sense
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
it sounds to me that the judge is saying that Mosey is due all the legal costs and fees she has incurred in connection with the CoS's anti-SLAPP motion.

That would be my understanding TG - based on the judge's position that they had no grounds to file in the first place as it is a business matter and involved bodily injury - the protection did not apply, therefore pay up for wasting your opponent's time and effort.
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
maybe I just need more coffee but I don't understand any of that!

The word nitpicking comes to mind - and I say that in jest because I do deeply appreciate Texas lawyer and WiS and other Bunker lawyers - but maybe not when they talk between themselves...:omg:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
I can't imagine that the judge's ruling would have required the CoS to pay for ALL of Mosey's legal costs and fees up to this point. But in denying the anti-SLAPP motion of the CoS (which is what this ruling is about), it sounds to me that the judge is saying that Mosey is due all the legal costs and fees she has incurred in connection with the CoS's anti-SLAPP motion.

Has anyone over at Tony O's who actually is a lawyer confirmed that this is the case?

Thanks,

TG1

No lawyer over there has confirmed that yet, but I think its pretty obvious that Waldrip meant the court costs and lawyers fees up to this point are to be paid by the defendants. Or rather all costs incurred while dealing with the anti-SLAPP misdirec......errrr motion.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Here's a few more posts by WhereIsSHE that may help to understand the exchange he/she had with TX Lawyer....

WhereIsSHE9 hours ago In terms of deciding the particular dispute between the parties, he is restricted to the evidence put before him by the parties. A key part of a litigator's job is to get the important evidence onto the record.
HOWEVER, he can certainly refer to OTHER LEGAL AUTHORITY (case law) in rendering his opinion, and if a party to the case has been cited in other legal authority, and said case is relevant to his determination, he can certainly reference that in his opinion, as did Judge Waldrip in this instance (see p. 14 of the Opinion where he cites a 1969 case).


WhereIsSHE10 hours ago Bravo to Judge Waldrip. Now THAT is a proper and expertly crafted Opinion and Order.
Congratulations to Monique and her entire legal team.

EDIT: For the record, I don't mind that he "cut and paste" from the submitted briefs. No requirement that a judge reinvent the wheel in order to put together a proper opinion. (I never minded when a judge "cut and paste" from a brief I submitted, so long as it was to find in my client's favor.)
 

RogerB

Crusader
I hope someone can explain all the technicalities of the law. It seems to me that this one document covers SO much with huge consequences.

For example:



It also finds that Monique was certainly subjected to exactly what she claimed. There is so much evidence, why a further trial? I do not understand the US system.

Free, this is because this judgmental ruling is only in respect to the Anti-Slap motion entered by the cult.

The original case brought now has to be answered/tried.

R
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Someone asked about future progress and this appears to be the answer. This is just for the anti-SLAPP motion AFAIU. The system overall seems to be designed to provide employment for lawyers, but it also gives them plenty of time to write delicious caek.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/14/te...pp-motion-in-rathbun-suit/#comment-1285384599]

Texas Lawyer just said: CSI will now have 20 days to file a notice of appeal to the Austin Court of Appeals. Sometime thereafter, the clerk and court reporter from the trial court will file the clerk's record (i.e., pertinent filings in the case) and reporter's record (i.e., transcripts of any pertinent hearings on the motion and any exhibits that were admitted during those hearings). That's supposed to happen within 10 days after the notice of appeal, but it frequently slips some. Anyway, after those records are on file with the court of appeals, CSI will have 20 days to file its appellant's brief. Mrs. Rathbun's brief will be due 20 days after that, and CSI can file a shorter reply brief 20 days after that. The notice of appeal deadline cannot be extended, but all the briefing deadlines can be, and routinely are.

After the briefs are all filed, the court of appeals will set the case for oral argument, and sometime after that the court will issue its opinion. The losing party can then file a motion for rehearing, which will pretty much inevitably be overruled. After the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled, the losing party will have 45 days to file a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. Notably, however, our Supreme Court only has limited jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an interlocutory order. Basically, it is only supposed to be able to take such appeals when there is a conflict among the justices of the court of appeals (i.e., one of the justices dissented from the majority opinion) or the opinion conflicts with a decision of another court of appeals on some point of law.

Interlocutory appeals are "accelerated," which means the deadlines are somewhat tighter than for regular appeals and they are supposed to take precedence on the court of appeals' docket. But "accelerated" does not mean "fast." I am aware of one other anti-SLAPP appeal in the Austin Court of Appeals which is also reasonably high-profile for this type of thing (I'm also passing acquaintances with a couple of the attorneys on the case, although I have no inside knowledge of it).

This is at least three months and probably several months longer.
 
Last edited:

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
TG, all I understand from Bulgravia is - that money goes only so far..... for SLAPP.... later it is old/new game again.....:whistling:

edt: for future posters - lets not predict, because it is changing/surprising all the time.....
lets just seat and enjoy a ride.....
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
Someone asked about future progress and this appears to be the answer. This is just for the anti-SLAPP motion AFAIU. The system overall seems to be designed to provide employment for lawyers, but it also gives them plenty of time to write delicious caek.

.....but don't forget this important paragraph:

FORTUNATELY, HOWEVER: An appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion DOES NOT STAY THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS. (I have seen some online commentators who claim otherwise, but I see no basis for that conclusion in the text of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which is our name for the anti-SLAPP statute.) That means discovery should proceed apace (unless the appellate court grants a stay of discovery, which is possible but far from a slam dunk). --TX Lawyer
 

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
this is still interesting.... :coolwink:

[h=4]Thread Information[/h] There are currently 39 users browsing this thread. (18 members and 21 guests)
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
I can't imagine that the judge's ruling would have required the CoS to pay for ALL of Mosey's legal costs and fees up to this point. But in denying the anti-SLAPP motion of the CoS (which is what this ruling is about), it sounds to me that the judge is saying that Mosey is due all the legal costs and fees she has incurred in connection with the CoS's anti-SLAPP motion.

Has anyone over at Tony O's who actually is a lawyer confirmed that this is the case?

Thanks,

TG1

TG, I am pretty sure you are right. I am not a lawyer, but in this context, and from my experience with business litigation in Texas, the awarded legal fees will be specifically for legal fees related to responding and defending against the Anti Slap motion. Though, understanding the tremendous size of both sides submissions and responses, this is probably in the tens of thousands of dollar range. Regardless, a nice boost.

I was involved with some litigation in Texas in the recovery of some equipment. Contractor that borrowed equipment do demonstrate to customers in hope of getting a job refused to return a piece of equipment saying he had made 30-50K worth of repairs without authorization or documentation showing that any repairs were made, refusing to return equipment which had been fully operational before he got it. The equipment owner had to put up a bond to get the judge to order the immediate return of the equipment, being needed for a large job. Equipment was returned, essentially destroyed, wires cut, ten+ thousand to repair, plus loss of income. Equipment owner was pissed, but reasoned with by their attorney that it was not worth fighting, and to offer a token settlement, releasing the bond, and ending legal fees. The token amount was the maximum they believed a jury could award the contractor, about $7,000. The way this was done (again, I am not a lawyer), certain consequences were created for winnning and loosing. If the Jury awarded more than 15% more than the 7 grand, we would have been responsible for their legal fees from the date of that offer. If Jury awarded our side, or contractor more than 15% (or 20), they were responsible for our legal fees from that date. they refused and went to trial, mainly because the contractor got an attorney to work on contingency and the 7,000 was so much less than what he had billed, he would rather go for the jackpot. Our side won, total, from memory, near $100,000 with the jury finding the contractor personally and corporately liable because he engaged in fraud. Personal fraud apparently can't be discharged in a corporate bankruptcy in texas. So the guy has trashed credit until he pays this. Still hasn't paid his own attorney, misrepresented facts, and his attorney waited the 2 year statute before suing the guy for payment ... the 2 year statute so that the contractor couldn't counter sue for mal practice.

I have found things fairly rational in the legal system in Texas, hans't always gone my way, but is normally fairly fair, though always biased in favor of the better attorney and deeper pockets, the better story generally wins.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Well, this is a good morning!

I booted up and came on board and the first thing I saw was this awesome news!

WOWZER!

I am particularly struck by Judge Waldrip's subtle and clever choice of words . . .

To be noted, for example, is his avoidance of showing any personal opinion but instead stating the facts as presented and leaving the question of which way they might be "interpreted" up to the Appellate Court . . .

Example: he does not say he "finds" the church is engaged in a business but instead notes that "if" Rathburn was engaged in a business by offering auditing for a fee then so is the church's identical action here:
“As Defendant CSI [Church of Scientology International] asserts and argues, Mark Rathbun’s activity of offering Scientology services is a business. If so, the Church’s own activity of offering Scientology services is also a business.”

And based on the church's own submissions he shows that the cult's action was brought to suppress Marty's use of the cult's "proprietary" materials as a business and to besmirch his reputation to potential clients.

And getting into the nitty gritty of the judge's findings, I particularly LOVE this touch written following the of perusal of many earlier Court findings and rulings:

Accordingly, the evidence sufficiently establishes Scientology is primarily in business to sell a good or service -- be it religious or otherwise.

These are delicious findings and so well worded.

It avoids the charge and response from the cult that the judge was biased and opinionated in his findings.

His writings of findings and judgement is truly masterful.

And, of course, aided and abetted by our wondrous Monique’s team, Ray Jeffrey said that his colleagues Marc Wiegand and Leslie Hyman

RogerB
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
Well, this is a good morning!

I booted up and came on board and the first thing I saw was this awesome news!

WOWZER!

I am particularly struck by Judge Waldrip's subtle and clever choice of words . . .

To be noted, for example, is his avoidance of showing any personal opinion but instead stating the facts as presented and leaving the question of which way they might be "interpreted" up to the Appellate Court . . .

Example: he does not say he "finds" the church is engaged in a business but instead notes that "if" Rathburn was engaged in a business by offering auditing for a fee then so is the church's identical action here:


And based on the church's own submissions he shows that the cult's action was brought to suppress Marty's use of the cult's "proprietary" materials as a business and to besmirch his reputation to potential clients.

This is a delicious finding and so well worded.

It avoids the charge and response from the cult that the judge was biased and opinionated in his findings.

His writings of findings and judgement is truly masterful.

And, of course, aided and abetted by our wondrous Monique’s team, Ray Jeffrey said that his colleagues Marc Wiegand and Leslie Hyman

RogerB

Yes his addressing the "business" aspect was tremendous! And has been noted earlier, the Judge largely used Leslie Hyman's own words back in the second to last hearing in December. She also said, "If both parties are operating as businesses then this is really a business dispute in which this anti-SLAPP motion doesn't apply". (Paraphrasing). You could tell it really got Dib's attention.

She was truly an ace-in-the-hole that Ray brought out in December!!
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
this is still interesting.... :coolwink:

[h=4]Thread Information[/h]

There are currently 39 users browsing this thread. (18 members and 21 guests)


One of those 21 guests just logged in, in case you missed it:


Originally Posted by Judge Waldrip

Do any of you knowledgeable people on ESMB have any slightest friggin' clue what the hell is wrong with those cult freaks? I mean WTF are they, like totally mental or some junk?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Just thinking....

The 3 worst days in the life of David Miscavich:

1. The day that the judge ruled that he is compelled to be deposed by master CultBuster Ray Jeffrey who represents the interests of a black wog woman who shares common financial interests with Marty Rathbun.

2. The day that the courts got involved in the Lisa McPherson case.

3. The day that his postulate on the Anti-SLAPP motion failed and he realized that he really is going to have to testify under oath with the entire Internet, Exes, Media and SP enemies watching--and laughing like craaaaaaazy.


(Yeah, I know, I know, I know--it won't be televised. Just leave me alone and let me enjoy this thing, will ya? LOL)
 

Isme

Patron with Honors
I suspect that the Church of Scientology will pull out every stop possible to avoid a jury trial. We can probably look forward to MANY more motions, and BOXES of "evidence" for the judge to have to stay up many nights reading through. The judge will be OVERWHELMED with piles of paper!

Overwhelm Tech - a key tactic of Scientology

Too bad they won't pull [the trigger on] the ultimate one.

Perhaps there exists something, somewhere, some statute whereby the judge can limit the amount of paper filed. Particularly if it's frivolous filings only meant to extend the date, or trying to include witnesses or other persons testimony and evidence that has nothing to do with the suit. Perhaps there is some sanction that can be applied for wasting the courts time.

idk, I'm speculating here having very limited legal expertise.

But, this is very good news indeed. I have not heard of a judge so quickly handling the church's attorneys before.
 
Top