Jan 8th Rathbun Hearing

[Lone Star]

Yep, and it looks like recently retired Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, now shill for Scientology Inc., Wallace Jefferson, is seated to the far side.

Tactics don't seem to have changed much over the decades.

Legal declaration by Judge M. Ideman of the United States District Court, regarding Scientology Inc. courtroom tactics, dated 21 June, 1993:

"[Scientology Inc.] has undertaken a massive campaign of filing every conceivable motion (and some inconceivable) to disguise the true issue of these... proceedings. Apparently viewing litigation as a war, [Scientology Inc.] by this tactic have had the effect of massively increasing costs of the other parties... Yet it is almost all puffery - motions without merit or substance."

That was his brother Lamont seated to the far side. Wallace was sitting at the railing entrance in a direct eyesight line to the Judge. His job is to take notes and prepare for the inevitable appeal in which I'm sure he'll argue if it comes to that....and it will.

 

[Udarnik]

In England and Wales for barristers we* have something called the "taxicab rule". Basically it states that any barrister - a "trial lawyer" in very simple terms - must take on any case in his/her speciality if the client can afford the fees and there is no reason that would make it impossible for the barrister to represent the client then the barrister HAS to take the client on.

I would be amazed - but stand to be corrected of course - if something similar doesn't apply in the US, at least in the sense that it's against legal ethics to be too discriminating about what your client gets up to. I really think this ex supreme court judge guy should be "left alone", or at least all the stuff being said against him needs much stronger foundation than assuming he's bent just cause he has a dodgy client.

Surely no one thinks Johnny Cochrane was anything other than an ace bloke? Equally, it's my understanding that Fred Phelps had very deserving clients (until his family became his clients). Judging a lawyer by their clients and allowing lawyers to pick and choose them is going to end up with innocent people wrongly accused of vile crimes unable to get decent representation.



*note that while I am using the term "we" I am meaning as an Englishman (sort of), not as a member of any legal profession

No, a lawyer does not have to take a client in the US, but they must not reveal any confidences given to them by that client, and the courts can not prevail upon them to do so.

But in the US it is not customary for a judge to step down until his or her term is up, and to do so for anything other than illness or obvious personal matters excites comment. Going immediately into private practice after doing so is such unusual behavior as to invite lots of comment.

Johnny Cochran was never a judge and neither was Phelps. It's not judging a lawyer by their clients (and there are lawyers who revel in notoriety, so no worries about not having representation). The issue here is not the client or the lawyer, but the former judge taking a client within days of stepping down. That smells.

 

[Lone Star]

I really don't get this anti-SLAPP motion. Everyone concerned must realize how ludicrous it is. What could be the ulterior motive behind it? Maybe just to waste time, to prolong the inevitable, meanwhile hoping that the judge slips on a patch of oil or something and breaks his neck?

Paul

I found out today that Texas' SLAPP law is modeled on California's law which has been in existance for much longer. The Texas legislature passed this California piece of shit in 2011.

It is totally ludicrous and it is becoming more apparent to me that it's one of those laws sold as a "help" to the little guy, but in reality royally screws the little guy.

 

[suspiciousperson]

But in the US it is not customary for a judge to step down until his or her term is up, and to do so for anything other than illness or obvious personal matters excites comment. Going immediately into private practice after doing so is such unusual behavior as to invite lots of comment.

A fair point there, I forgot that you often elect your judges* (I assume not for something like the TX supreme court) and also the term thing, over here I believe all judges are appointed until retirement, more or less, so when you put things into that context it does seem rather peculiar.

I still don't like the idea of judging a lawyer by their clients but explained like that I'm emphasising the wrong bit of where your (collective your) suspicions have been raised.

So, er, carry on



*WTF is all that about!? I at least could understand it if they were running as "individuals" but having it on a party political basis makes a mockery of the practically autistic emphasis upon separation of powers in your constitution...

 

[Veda]

That was his brother Lamont seated to the far side. Wallace was sitting at the railing entrance in a direct eyesight line to the Judge.

-snip-

''Direct eyesight line to the Judge."

Mmmm...

I wonder what psychological or social pressures this places on the Judge?, if any. Does seem as though it's intended to affect him. Any indication of the Judge being affected by this?

 

[Lone Star]

Okay lets see if I can make any sense of this shit tonight. When I left Cedillo had just finally shut his big trap. Next up was brother Lamont and then the attorney who represents that lovely piece of humanity Dave Lebow along with Slut, or Sloat.

There's a chance that this hearing will go late into the night, unless Dib decides to end it and schedule the rest of this bullshit tomorrow or another day. Ray still has to do a rebuttal for instance.

Basically, as a total neophyte layman with the law, it seems to boil down to this.....If Cedillo's understanding of this clusterfuck BS known as SLAPP is correct then the Judge will have no choice but to throw the case out entirely.

If Ray is right then this whole thing moves forward.

But it will certainly be appealed if Waldrip denies the anti-SLAPP motion. Enter brother Wallace.

Let me see if I can make sense of my notes and post some more.......

 

[Udarnik]

A fair point there, I forgot that you often elect your judges* (I assume not for something like the TX supreme court) and also the term thing, over here I believe all judges are appointed until retirement, more or less, so when you put things into that context it does seem rather peculiar.

I still don't like the idea of judging a lawyer by their clients but explained like that I'm emphasising the wrong bit of where your (collective your) suspicions have been raised.

So, er, carry on



*WTF is all that about!? I at least could understand it if they were running as "individuals" but having it on a party political basis makes a mockery of the practically autistic emphasis upon separation of powers in your constitution...

Some judges run, some are appointed. Depends on the office and jurisdiction.

Party affiliation is a formality with most judges here, there is little to nothing that's decided on party lines except Constitutional stuff. Now you understand why we in the US look at which Justices are old enough to step down during each presidential election cycle. The president appoints them.

Appointments for life are worse for democracy than making the judge run on his record, IMO. Our Supreme Court needs some fucking term limits.

 

[Lone Star]

''Direct eyesight line to the Judge."

Mmmm...

I wonder what psychological or social pressures this places on the Judge?, if any. Does seem as though it's intended to affect him. Any indication of the Judge being affected by this?

No. I was in a position to see the Judge and Wallace both and I don't think that Waldrip paid him any attention. Of course he saw him, but he didn't seem phased by his presence at all. Wallace and Lamont Jefferson are very "citified" type people, tailor made suits. Dib Waldrip is not.

In the afternoon portion of the hearing the Judge questioned Cedillo quite a bit and sustained a few of Ray's objections. The Judge reluctantly watched a few videos, but then declined to watch the one that Cedillo really, really wanted him to watch.

 

[Lone Star]

Some judges run, some are appointed. Depends on the office and jurisdiction.

Party affiliation is a formality with most judges here, there is little to nothing that's decided on party lines except Constitutional stuff. Now you understand why we in the US look at which Justices are old enough to step down during each presidential election cycle. The president appoints them.

Appointments for life are worse for democracy than making the judge run on his record, IMO. Our Supreme Court needs some fucking term limits.

In Texas all Judges run for office and their party affiliation matters big time. Sometimes when there's a vacancy the Governor appoints someone to finish that term then the appointee has to run if he or she wants to keep judging.

 

[AnonKat]

No. I was in a position to see the Judge and Wallace both and I don't think that Waldrip paid him any attention. Of course he saw him, but he didn't seem phased by his presence at all. Wallace and Lamont Jefferson are very "citified" type people, tailor made suits. Dib Waldrip is not.

In the afternoon portion of the hearing the Judge questioned Cedillo quite a bit and sustained a few of Ray's objections. The Judge reluctantly watched a few videos, but then declined to watch the one that Cedillo really, really wanted him to watch.

That must have hurt

 

[Lone Star]

If you can't tell yet I'm not feeling to good about today's hearing. I'm frustrated, pissed, and somewhat pessimistic. I still need to unwind some more before I can get into the "whys" and "wherefores", and see if I can relate Cedillo's presentation in a clear manner.

The good news is that usually when I'm pessimistic I turn out to be wrong.

 

[aegerprimo]

LoneStar.... Thank you for giving us a front row seat today. (BTW your new avatar is awesome!).

 

[uncover]

If you can't tell yet I'm not feeling to good about today's hearing. I'm frustrated, pissed, and somewhat pessimistic. I still need to unwind some more before I can get into the "whys" and "wherefores", and see if I can relate Cedillo's presentation in a clear manner.

The good news is that usually when I'm pessimistic I turn out to be wrong.

Expectations lead to disappointments. Therefore it is better, to have not any expectations - especially in legal matters.

 

[TG1]

Lone Star,

Really, truly, from the heart ... thank you beaucoups for attending these hearings you've been to. It's so helpful to have your honest reactions and in-person observations.

Thank you, thank you!

TG1

 

[Lone Star]

Okay, one of Cedillo's main goals was to prove that the CoS had the first amendment right to "protest" the Rathbuns for being a "threat" to their religion.

As I posted from the courtroom he brought up several issues regarding Marty and used his own videos and blog as evidence.

One was Marty's call to CoS and SO staff members to quit the church and "steal" documents and discs. He referenced the Daniel Montalvo situation and showed a picture of Montalvo with Mosey in it with him.

Another was a video in which he and Mike Rinder were discussing the necessity of "busting the CoS's copyrights".

Showed Marty's blog write up regarding his "Course in graduating from Scientology" and his quote saying that "DM has killed the Scientology religion.

Cedillo talked about how Marty offered Scientology services at his home for donations/money. This really got Judge Waldrip's attention and he asked Cedillo to repeat that. I don't think he knew this before today. Needless to say during this part of the presentation I think Cedillo was very effective.

He was building a case that Marty was a genuine threat to the CoS, so therefore they had the right to protest him and even watch his home/place of delivery to see which "of their members he was recruiting".

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Even if the potential client already has...a xnumber of legal representatives?

I have no other info that what you gave here Suspiciousperson, but I would think that that taxicab rule might not be applicable? Just saying.

In England and Wales for barristers we* have something called the "taxicab rule". Basically it states that any barrister - a "trial lawyer" in very simple terms - must take on any case in his/her speciality if the client can afford the fees and there is no reason that would make it impossible for the barrister to represent the client then the barrister HAS to take the client on.

I would be amazed - but stand to be corrected of course - if something similar doesn't apply in the US, at least in the sense that it's against legal ethics to be too discriminating about what your client gets up to. I really think this ex supreme court judge guy should be "left alone", or at least all the stuff being said against him needs much stronger foundation than assuming he's bent just cause he has a dodgy client.

Surely no one thinks Johnny Cochrane was anything other than an ace bloke? Equally, it's my understanding that Fred Phelps had very deserving clients (until his family became his clients). Judging a lawyer by their clients and allowing lawyers to pick and choose them is going to end up with innocent people wrongly accused of vile crimes unable to get decent representation.



*note that while I am using the term "we" I am meaning as an Englishman (sort of), not as a memeber of any legal profession

 

[Type4_PTS]

If you can't tell yet I'm not feeling to good about today's hearing. I'm frustrated, pissed, and somewhat pessimistic. I still need to unwind some more before I can get into the "whys" and "wherefores", and see if I can relate Cedillo's presentation in a clear manner.

The good news is that usually when I'm pessimistic I turn out to be wrong.

Then this IS good news!


Here is a recent posting from Tony O (below) which has some good stuff in it too.

And Lone Star, as others said, thank-you for what you're doing! It's awesome having someone there in the courtroom as you have been.

 

[uncover]

Cedillo talked about how Marty offered Scientology services at his home for donations/money. This really got Judge Waldrip's attention and he asked Cedillo to repeat that. I don't think he knew this before today.

Or:
If Marty is getting money for "Scientology services" than this is clearly a "business" and not a religion => no first amendment right. I like to read the Co$-argumentation against this in the appeal.....

 

[Lone Star]

Of course this isn't Marty's case technically, so Cedillo had to show Mosey's angle and compliance with Marty's deeds. He gave it a go.

He showed snippets of Squirrel Busters videos in which Mosey didn't appear to be upset or "distressed". In fact Cedillo said she was playing along with Marty's intimidation of these members who were "peacefully" protesting.

In one segment she was agreeing with Marty's assertion of how many auditing hours he had performed at the Casa. He showed a video of their trip to Europe to appear at that conference in Germany. However, Ray objected to this and the Judge sustained and the video was stopped. That was good.

Cedillo did prove that Mosey did a lot of the videoing of Squirrel Busters. He also pointed out that they were married by Mike Rinder, an Independent Scientologist Minister. He showed the marriage certificate. Showed from case law when a person is married to a public figure then he or she is also a public figure. Marriage "bolsters her public figure status".

 

[Eclipse-girl]

Okay, one of Cedillo's main goals was to prove that the CoS had the first amendment right to "protest" the Rathbuns for being a "threat" to their religion.

As I posted from the courtroom he brought up several issues regarding Marty and used his own videos and blog as evidence.

One was Marty's call to CoS and SO staff members to quit the church and "steal" documents and discs. He referenced the Daniel Montalvo situation and showed a picture of Montalvo with Mosey in it with him.

Another was a video in which he and Mike Rinder were discussing the necessity of "busting the CoS's copyrights".

Showed Marty's blog write up regarding his "Course in graduating from Scientology" and his quote saying that "DM has killed the Scientology religion.

Cedillo talked about how Marty offered Scientology services at his home for donations/money. This really got Judge Waldrip's attention and he asked Cedillo to repeat that. I don't think he knew this before today. Needless to say during this part of the presentation I think Cedillo was very effective.

He was building a case that Marty was a genuine threat to the CoS, so therefore they had the right to protest him and even watch his home/place of delivery to see which "of their members he was recruiting".

BUT MOSEY / MONIQUE is the defendant, not Marty.

I also would not claim that Marty was a public figure. But IANAL.