Author Topic: Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied  (Read 2030 times)

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,326
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 00:24 by SocialTransparency »

Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,368
Re: Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2014, 07:12 »
A document definitely worth a read. Tony Ortega's article provides some additional detail for non-lawyers and more dox.

Quote
DOX: Monique Rathbun’s response to bid by Scientology to stop the Miscavige deposition

.....It was a brilliant piece of lawyering, and now, we get to see Leslie Hyman in action again.

Yesterday, she filed Monique’s response to the Texas Third Court of Appeals, where Scientology has petitioned for a writ of mandamus, asking the appeals court to find that Judge Waldrip had abused his discretion by granting Monique the right to depose Scientology leader David Miscavige.

We know this case is complex for non-lawyers, so we’ll try carefully to explain where we are before diving into the 48-page document itself.

Monique filed her lawsuit in August, alleging that Scientology and its leader, David Miscavige, had put her through several years of harassment simply because her husband, Mark “Marty” Rathbun, was a former high-level church official who, in 2009, began speaking out critically about his former boss. Monique herself had never been a member of Scientology, but for four years she’d been spied on, endured daily demonstrations outside her home, and put up with church-hired private investigators confronting her friends and family, telling them frightening things about Marty.

She sued a couple of church entities, Miscavige, and has also named a couple of private investigators and other operatives as defendants. But Miscavige and the entity he nominally runs, the Religious Technology Center (RTC) filed “special appearances,” arguing that the court had no jurisdiction over them. Miscavige has had nothing whatsoever to do with Texas and shouldn’t be part of a lawsuit there, his attorneys argued.

Monique convinced Judge Waldrip that in order to resolve that dispute, she should have the right to question Miscavige directly. She convinced Waldrip by providing voluminous evidence, in the form of affidavits by former church officials, that a complex surveillance operation like the one aimed at the Rathbuns would never happen without the intimate knowledge of and micro-managing by Miscavige.

After Waldrip found that Miscavige should be deposed in order to decide the question of jurisdiction, Miscavige petitioned the Third Court of Appeals for a writ that would overturn Waldrip’s order. Our legal experts have pointed out that this is, in essence, Scientology suing Judge Waldrip, and they’ll be trying to convince an appellate panel of three judges that Waldrip abused his discretion by allowing the deposition to be scheduled.

In her response, Leslie Hyman writes on behalf of Monique that Judge Waldrip was correct in ordering the deposition of Miscavige, and that Scientology has mostly tried to confuse the issue with arguments that have nothing to do with the point of the lawsuit.....

more at http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/18/dox-monique-rathbuns-response-to-bid-by-scientology-to-stop-the-miscavige-deposition/#more-13898
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline source

  • Merchant of Chaos
  • Posts: 172
Re: Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2014, 07:51 »
I find it an interesting dilemma that Scientology is getting itself into as they morphed into hundreds of entities, front groups, etc.

The left hand says they are a business, the right a religion.  The left foot says they are secular, the other says they are an educational group and not a drug rehab.

And with all these court cases, it must be a nightmare for them trying to keep track of the misdirection.  What they say in one court case might help them to win, but it will cause them to lose another court case. 

One moment they go on record saying that scientology had nothing to do with the squirrel busters.  Then, knowing they can lose but possibly win if they shift it to a religious dispute, they admit they lied.  Then knowing they might lose on simply a religious dispute, they shift it to a copyright dispute.  Possibly losing the copyright dispute, they shift it to a freedom of speech issue.

Personally, I think they should hold onto the freedom of speech issue, but with a variation...

Explain to the judge that a critical part of the FAITH and RELIGION of scientology is to lie, therefore, if the judge tries to hold them accountable for lying it intrudes on their very faith, making it a government vs religion case.

I mean, after all, isn't this really what scientology believes after all?  That lying is a part of their very faith.


Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,770
Re: Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2014, 10:18 »
Personally, I think they should hold onto the freedom of speech issue, but with a variation...

Explain to the judge that a critical part of the FAITH and RELIGION of scientology is to lie, therefore, if the judge tries to hold them accountable for lying it intrudes on their very faith, making it a government vs religion case.

 :-D^\^\

Don't give them any ideas!  Although it would be great to have them file court documents where they admit that lying is a regular thing for them.   3((:

I'm glad things are going so well for Monique's case.  Fortunately now, unlike in the past, there are enough people watching and reading court documents that they can help spread needed info around to the lawyers in other cases, since keeping up in depth with all of scientology's legal troubles is almost a full time job for one person.
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions