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

04/09/14 Austin Appeals Court Hearing regarding DM's Deposition Order

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by Lone Star, Apr 9, 2014.

  1. She might have looked scared but she knew you were no match for her. She used her OT powers to make you disappear, and after a few hours her intention avalanche worked... you ended up leaving.
  2. Karen#1

    Karen#1 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Hmmm....great debriefs Lone Star and Derek.:thumbsup:

    Such emphasis on the APEX CEO. But CEOS are a Business position, in the Corporate there a CEO in a religion ? Or is Scientology Inc a business masquerading as a religion ?
    I know a CEO that luxuriates in Scuba Diving in exotic locations with a Celebrity or 2 and has a Sea Org member who's entire job is to polish and shine his Scuba diving gear and keep his luxury cabin spic and span as a full time job !

    These one billion year *Religious* Sea org contracts for the ecclesiastical duty of polishing scuba diving equipment ! :eyeroll::eyeroll::eyeroll::eyeroll:
    Such Flagship :white glove: perfection :omg:
  3. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    t1kk has posted a reply to Derek's observations over on the Bunker.....

    t1kk Derek2 hours ago Fantastic account, thanks Derek. You kept great track of the legal arguments.
    You can see the weakness of Wallace's position in his remark that Monique's team is "all over the map" with respect to jurisdiction. Simply put, they /can/ be "all over the map"--a plaintiff needn't rely on one theory of personal jurisdiction; they can all apply and a plaintiff doesn't undercut his/her position by arguing them all. Anyway, that remark just read like someone yammering when there was nothing left to say just to fill the space.

    and Derek's reply....

    Derek t1kk2 hours ago You're very welcome and I appreciate your abutment!
    Getting into how I personally felt about the two sides. Leslie was very pointed and confident in her arguments (if she had a bit of nervousness in her voice). She covered every base (even went so far as to say if the fifth amendment were invoked it still doesn't preclude a deposition which seemed to be just reaffirming that there was no reason that Miscavige couldn't be deposed). The key is she did it all in less than her allotted time and even conceded to give up her remaining minutes. Whereas Wallace was repeating himself in this courtroom and making the same arguments that already hadn't convinced Waldrip. He also exceeded his time both times, which lead me to believe there was an air of desperation about his argument.
  4. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    And TX Lawyer has weighed in.....

    TX Lawyer2 hours ago If that 60-day timeframe came from me, please be advised that it's just an estimate on my part. The court of appeals has no firm deadline to issue its decision, but 30-60 days seems reasonable given the fast track they have apparently put the case on.

    Substantively, the question Justice Puryear asked about the trial court's discretion is really the proper one. The issue isn't whether Mrs. Rathbun conclusively demonstrated that she was entitled to take an apex deposition. The question is whether she put on sufficient evidence that the trial judge could have concluded an apex deposition was justified. If it's a question that could have gone either way, then the appellate court is supposed to be required to let the trial court's ruling stand.

    Finally, the question of discovery and other proceedings in the trial court regarding the non-anti-SLAPP defendants (namely, Miscavige and RTC). If the anti-SLAPP appeal stays discovery against all the defendants, including the non-anti-SLAPP defendants, then today's argument was really meaningless, since Miscavige won't be deposed anytime soon.

    So I looked at the interlocutory appeal statute and the case law applying it. I did not find any case law ruling on the question of whether the statute (section 51.014(b), Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code) stays all proceedings against all defendants when only some of them file an interlocutory appeal that stays all proceedings under the statute. I did, however, find some conflicting authorities on whether or not all proceedings were stayed on matters that were not being appealed.

    If, for instance, the certification of a class action were being appealed, the parties might still be able to take discovery on the class representatives' personal claims, since the personal claims are not being appealed. So make the appellate nerds happy, Ray Jeffrey & Leslie Hyman: see if you can get some more discovery against Miscavige and RTC while CSI appeals the anti-SLAPP ruling. Let's make some law!
  5. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Mo TX Lawyer.....

    TX Lawyer13 minutes ago They will not care one bit about Jefferson invoking abuse of discretion. That is a necessary requirement for any attorney to allege and establish to obtain mandamus relief from the appellate courts.

    TX Lawyer11 minutes ago Actually, the depositions of Tommy Davis and the other still-in Scientology flunkies are competent proof that Miscavige is not involved in this kind of thing. It's not conclusive proof, and the court is entitled to discount or ignore it if he concludes the witnesses' testimony is not true -- but it is proof nonetheless.

    TX Lawyer8 minutes ago It's probably part of their attempt to persuade the court of appeals that Team Monique didn't meet their burden of proof to obtain an apex deposition. Basically, the point is that they had the opportunity to develop their evidence, they (supposedly) chose not to do so, so they can't use the (supposed) absence of proof to justify needing Miscavige's deposition.

    TX Lawyer4 minutes ago "Abuse of discretion" just means that either (i) applied the wrong legal standard or principle, or (ii) there was no factual basis for the ruling he made. Its a completely ordinary principle that invokes the standard under which the appellate court will review the case. It means that the court of appeals is supposed to give great deference to the trial court's ruling, and to uphold that ruling if there is any proper basis on which the trial court could have issued the ruling being challenged.

    (For those who don't yet know, if you click on the time stamp you'll go to the place on the Bunker where his comment is so you can see who and what he's replying to).
  6. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Mo Mo Mo Mo.......

    Guest12 minutes ago At what point does one draw the the line between frivolous or vexatious litigation, and litigation simply driven by a large war chest?

    TX Lawyer Guest3 minutes ago

    • Well it's not frivolous or vexatious litigation that would be at issue here, as Scientology didn't start this lawsuit -- they got sued, not the other way around. As a general matter, their appellate proceedings would only be considered frivolous if the lawyers filing it could have had no objective basis for raising the issues based on existing law or a good faith extension thereof (I'm paraphrasing, as I haven't looked up the specific rules). A party can't be punished simply for pursuing available remedies, even if they are also motivated by the desire to grind the process to a halt and prevent the discovery of facts.
  7. tetloj

    tetloj Silver Meritorious Patron

    May those words turn to ash on his disingenuous tongue.
  8. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    It's too funny, when one steps back and looks at it all.

    If DM has clean hands, then why doesn't he just step forward and be deposed and say so? The arguments posed by the DM team are he is too busy. :laugh:

    This is a question a scientolgist should ask themselves.

    This is a question the Mosey team should have posed to the courts, but I ain't a lawyer so I don't know if this is a question one could ask the court. :confused2:

    edit: Just adding in, if the purpose of the courts is to get to the truth?
    and in viewing scientology logic as well, you know, time place form & event, the truth.

    It just amazes me why scientology and the courts (governments as well would not be on the same team?)
  9. tetloj

    tetloj Silver Meritorious Patron

    We really do underestimate Captain 5'1" sometimes - just look how's he's given you all this cause to rally around and opportunity to meet such fine folk...
  10. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    And I don't rent cars!2 hours ago OMG! That's great Derek. Thanks for telling her how much we respect her, She has become a Bunker hero along with Ray Jeffrey, Judge Waldrip, etc. Justice Melissa Goodwin also seems to be sharp as a tack and asked a very piquant question of W. Jefferson today..... <snipped>

    TX Lawyer to And I don't rent cars!5 minutes ago It was actually a very weird question. It is well established that a specially appearing defendant does not waive his special appearance by submitting to a deposition on the facts relating to personal jurisdiction. I'm not surprised that Jefferson didn't have a good answer to that, as it's kind of an alien concept when you're talking about the separate question of the propriety of an apex deposition.

    Guest8 minutes ago I read somewhere that even a defendant can be declared a "vexatious litigant" if they demonstrate consistent abuse of the the judicial process by filing frivolous motions

    TX Lawyer to Guest5 minutes ago That's for people who file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. Asshole defendants who get sued a lot and use the system to vigorously defend their right to be assholes don't qualify as vexatious litigants. They're just assholes.
  11. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    TX Lawyer responding to a comment regarding Wallace Jefferson repeating the lie that the CoS has millions of members worldwide.....

    TX Lawyer Elar Aitchan hour ago Why would he know it's a lie? Based on the evidence submitted to the trial court, the vast numbers of committed Scientologists appears to be an undisputed fact. And it's not like you can expect the lawyer to conduct some sort of audit to find out what the true numbers are. I assure you, I have spewed forth any number of numbers based on what my client has told me without independently confirming their accuracy. Our job is to be advocates, no accountants.
  12. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    It seems to me that they asked Leslie a bunch of questions just to make sure there weren't any holes in her logic and found there were none.

    I think they also wanted to learn something.

    I have to say I don't feel comfortable with this appellate crew but with Leslie knowing the law as she does that may stay them from making the wrong decision.

  13. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    I've just now finished reading this thread. (Wound up having a very busy day / night.)

    Lone Star and Adam -- you both did a great job reporting for us. Given everything TX Lawyer has added, I don't think I can add anything at all that hasn't already been said or that is valid.

    All we can do now is just wait until the judges let us know what they think.

    We're going to have to just stay here and ... here comes a Scientology in-joke ... be Panda Termint!


  14. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Interesting. Why do you feel uncomfortable with them? Just curious. There's no right or wrong answer. Unless of course you are wrong. LOL....
  15. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    What a pleasure it is to read all of the terrific narrative accounts of what happened today in Austin -- thank you one & all. :thumbsup::clap::clap::thumbsup:
    Too, it's a genuine kick to learn that ESMB is read by some of the attorneys working on Mrs. Rathbun's behalf.

    As regards Ms. Hyman's well-argued assertion as reported... that David Miscavige is a named party (i.e., an individual) in the lawsuit and should therefore be subject to deposition, a dear friend texted a l-o-n-g note to me earlier which may help bolster that point.
    Or not. I thought it clever, YMMV.

    Many here are familiar with the 1990 Miscavige deposition transcripts in connection with the Bent Corydon lawsuits that are available online.
    Link: http://www.davidmiscavige.wikiscien...iscavige,_the_Witness,_July_19,_1990_-_Part_1

    At the beginning of David Miscavige Deposition Transcript #1, dated July 19, 1990, all of the individuals in attendance verbally identify themselves into the microphones set around the table.


    "David Miscavige, an individual." - David Miscavige, July 19, 1990.

    Not 'COB'.
    Not 'Captain'.
    Not 'Pope'.
    Not 'Operating Thetan Pick-A-Number'.
    Not 'Teegeeack's Warden Platinum Meritorious Of Xenu, Captive Overlord'

    Feel free to check the rest of the deposition transcripts...that self-description made by DM -- "an individual" -- goes wholly unchallenged by any of the DM-/Co$-/RTC-related legal counsel.


    The only* other time that DM was deposed, he fully understood that he was an "individual" and, in that capacity, deposition was appropriate.

    To assert in 2014 that the entire world will collapse :melodramatic: if the 'ecclesiastical leader of the world's fastest-growing fauxligion' is deposed, begs 2 immediate questions:

    (1) How is it that DM was deposed yet - somehow! - the world did not collapse in 1990?
    (2) If DM was an "individual" in 1990 but now claims he's not an "individual" for purposes of a proposed deposition in 2014, what evidence is or has yet been offered by TeamRTC+DM to assure the 3rd Circuit COA and/or Judge Waldrip that "David Miscavige, Individual" no longer exists?

    Did Captain David Miscavige and/or COB David Miscavige direct certain personnel within available groups of volunteer workers (sea org, Co$ members, PIs, attorneys, etc.) to commit harmful acts against Monique Rathbun?
    Or did "David Miscavige, an individual" direct those same people to do so?

    RTC and/or CSI 'executive management personnel' might be able to answer for their Captain and/or COB,
    but ONLY David Miscavige, the person, can answer the allegations Mrs. Rathbun has made against "David Miscavige, an individual".

    *That we know of. :coolwink:

  16. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Because of the questions they asked.
    I wasn't there to hear them being asked but it had the flavor of hunting for the reason to show abuse of discretion.

    I found it odd that they asked Leslie why she thought Waldrip did what he did.

    That could be highly favorable because she would point up law that backed his decision and brought to light the conditions under which he made them, but they could just read what Waldrip wrote.

    Their questions hinted they were leaning to Team RTC/DM but it could be they just wanted to be thorough.

    Just didn't like it.

  17. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    TG1 made a good point as to why it is a good thing that Leslie got more questions on the phone with myself and Derek after the hearing. I hope she'll re-state it, but so far seems unwilling to, even though I've ORDERED her!! LOL... Maybe I need to be more like Slappy to get what I want. Damn insubordination!!

    Anyway, don't worry too much about it. The one judge that I could see going DM's way is Scott Fields. But, all we need is 2 out of 3. However, I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 negate this appeal.
  18. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I don't know if whether not challenging being called an Individual at the time those depositions were taken is relevant or not but I do know that he held the exact same posts in 1990 as he does today meaning he was El Popo then as he claims to be now.

    If he could be deposed then then he can be deposed now even though the church has "turned a corner" as Wallace put it.

  19. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    There is no clear and blatant abuse of discretion so if they grant the appeal, I'm sure Leslie will go up the ladder to the Supreme Court.

  20. The Sloth

    The Sloth Patron with Honors

    What would Pope Francis do?