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


Discussion in 'Legal and Government Actions Involving Scientology' started by Free to shine, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    Actually, the address of service for each action is not that modest for the region and has a 4 car garage.
  2. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    True and point taken but (most) lawyers want to get paid.

    I wouldn't work for them unless I was paid upfront and even then I'd be concerned about his next video being the one he (Marty) produces to try and destroy my reputation/business due to his latest latent "misunderstanding" (of which he seems to have many and feels the need to expose them to the world as they manifest and fester in his mind).

    I thought I was fairly good judge of character but I've come to realise in the last few months that I'm hopeless ... and I'm absolutely mortified and slightly embarrassed (lol).

  3. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    ...and the law books are overflowing with a mountain range of potential legal theories to prosecute cases. However, no matter how creative or ingenious the lawyers are, in this case they are still stuck with the same equation.

    Nothing happens at all unless they can discover, develop or otherwise de-encrypt any transaction wherein the Rathbuns received any form of consideration. If no consideration was received in the form of money, assets or financial value[SUP]1[/SUP], there is nothing further to support filing a lawsuit.

    Right now Jeffrey's law firm is simply trying to develop information to make a good faith determination if there is grounds for a law suit. They might or might not have one scintilla of evidence. There may not be any smoking gun.

    But it is likely that they did the typical things that skip tracers and debt collection specialist do when trying to find any assets for a defendant or judgment debtor. Things like running searches that would show up loans, accounts, purchases, et al.

    I would be surprised if the conventional searches showed up any financial thread leading back to the Rathbuns. Marty would have to have a death wish to evidence any sudden sources of money, purchases or other indicia of new-and-improved finances.

    It would make an incredibly good TWILIGHT ZONE episode, wouldn't it. If Marty/Mosey got a $10,000,000 settlement. But they re unable to access or spend one penny of it for fear it will trigger a litigation tsunami from his scorned lawyers. Wait that reminded me of the episode there the coke-bottle-glasses wearing bibliophile finally has attained paradise. All the books in the world to read and all the (post-apocalyptic) time in the world to read them in peace. But then, just as he settles into paradise, he accidentally breaks his eyeglasses.

    (wait...jeez, I wonder if that clip is available, let me go look.....)

    [SUP]1[/SUP] Financial Value: ( i.e). The party moves into rental (condo/house) that they don't own. But they "pay rent" for a beautiful place. Except that the rent they pay is circuitously channeled through third parties and ends up in Rathbun's account for "consulting" or some other job. That same sum (let's say $8000 per month) is then cycled and re-cycled (again and again) and the Rathbuns they end up with CONTROL (i.e. virtual ownership) of the real estate for their entire lives.

    Whoa, found it! Cool!

    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  4. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

    Nobody expects the Marty Canticles (except Face :yes: )

  5. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Absolutely!! Maybe I didn't express myself clearly before. I totally agree with you. No sane lawyer would touch Rathbun on any basis other than a) A RETAINER b) A CASH BASIS BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED. And the lawyer would continuously require that the client replenish the retainer (in advance) thus guaranteeing there is no possibility of getting stiffed.

    What I was referring to was a lawyer taking the case on a "contingency" basis (typically 30% or 40% or even more (of the gross amount of any settlement), subject to the risks/expenses anticipated.

    All things considered, although legal, it is a despicably unethical act to seduce a law firm into contingent representation and then fire them after millions in services are rendered--when they are doing an absolutely superb job of beating back an unscrupulous, mega-wealthy litigant like the cult of scn. That is just reprehensible! Those lawyers have considerable overhead. They have families. They dedicated themselves fully to helping the Rathbuns and gave 110%, even sustaining personal attacks. Only to have the sleaziest response imaginable--a royal "fuck you!", a huge loss and reckless trash talking and lies to damage their reputation and hurt their prospect for future income!

    Rathbun is a despicable character. Whether he ever "rose above" that temporarily (after leaving the COS) is too difficult to speculate on. Because he lies. Incessantly.

    Hey, but isn't that how life works? I mean, one day after I had a particularly bad ending to a relationship, I had a helpful thought. I don't know if it's true, but it made me feel a lot better, LOL. I suddenly thought to myself: "Hmmmm, heartbreak. Wait, maybe that is how we learn about love."

    Same turns out to be true in business/finance. "Hmmmm, financial loss. Wait, maybe being stupid and suffering huge losses is how we learn about money."

    Maybe that same concept (no pain/no gain) in the gym is the same order of natural law.

    If all that is true, I don't even know what the punchline is to this cosmic joke.

    No stupid, no laughs? lol
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  6. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    A car dealer might prefer a bank check to cash, but he will not care whose account the bank check got the money from, as long as the check clears. So if, for example, a law firm issues a check, and the check gets cashed at a car dealership, and a car goes into an individual's possession, it's all cool, and it would take a court order to discover that check A was used to buy a car whose title went to individual B.

    Alternately, "Individual B" might get "Individual C" to buy the car from the dealer using a check, and then C sells B the car for cash in a private sale. There's lots of ways to launder money, and given the extent of LRH's money laundering schemes, Marty is likely knowledgeable about the techniques.
  7. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    Not necessarily. Something like blackmail by a third party could support a tortious interference claim. You have a point in that traditionally you'd be looking for consideration , but I'm not gonna bet the farm on tradition.
  8. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thank you, COC.

    Renting of course can mean owning if shell organizations are set up as owners or there are business relations between those involved. I'm sure you know this, so I'm stating it for the others:

    It has been a common real estate scam for decades to change ownerships of property to corporations or trusts to avoid mortgage payments and foreclosures or to keep creditors from placing a lien on a property. It was so common for so long, that many states have laws designed to cut through the red tape. In most states, this isn't the big hassle anymore that it once was.

    I don't know enough about real estate law to specify HOW they get through this, but the mortgage bank had no troubles with it when it was attempted by the previous owner of my property.

    COC, would you be able to tell us more about how it would work legally if Marty were to actually own the house through shell corporations or other partnerships? I'm not sure if this is your area of law, but I'm curious.
  9. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks, Enthetan. Great examples. I LOVE how your mind works. :biggrin: The ownership record on the car would show all previous owners, though, and banks are required to report cash transactions (bank cheque is the same as cash to them) of over $10,000 (often they report amounts close to that too, if it's obvious a person is avoiding the $10,000 report amount.) Even if someone ELSE bought the car with the bank cheque, the bank would have reported the person to Federal agencies, and nobody wants that. :no: Banks have stricter rules than other financial institutions, one of the reasons, I'm sure, that auto dealerships require bank cheques.

    I had been away from the US for a long time, but I did buy a car here for cash when I first came back and had to learn all the stringent rules around cash transfers because of my international bank account. Of course the cash transaction was reported by both the bank and the dealership. I had to wait 2-3 days and fill out quite a few forms. The dealership kept copies of everything, including the bank cheque, and also noted all the cheque details separately. I was a non-person here when I first came back, meaning, no American credit record, so SOMEthing came up that forced me to wait. It wasn't until I filed that year's tax return and other Federal forms that the odd looks from banks disappeared. Seriously. A lot of things get reported now that never used to be reported.
  10. If you aren't aware, it's possible to get prison time for skirting bank reporting requirements. Look up Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert for one example. I think it's a bit of speculation to say this is happening in the Rathbun case, though it wouldn't surprise me.
  11. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    I don't know how that could possibly work (red highlighted part above) to "avoid mortgage payments and foreclosures and to keep creditors from placing a lien on the property".

    Because. . .

    If a bank or lending institution (or even a private lender) had a securitized in interest in the property, with a perfected lien, how could anyone delay making payments or avoid foreclosure.

    It wouldn't make any difference how many parties the property was assigned or sold to, the lender would still have the right to make collections and/or foreclose on the property. It wouldn't matter if there were other parties (individuals, trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc) the bank would just swoop in and force the property into foreclosure. The securitized lender would not be compromised by claims of third parties, because the debt obligation would be in default--so it wouldn't make any difference how many "other" parties/entities were thrown into the mix. The bank has no obligation to them whatsoever.

    In a parallel but simper example, if you owned a car and didn't make payments, it gets repossessed. If you sold it, the new buyer could not obtain "clear title" until the first lender and previous liens were satisfied (paid off). Repo happens regardless of how many OTHER transactions happen between the original buyer and other parties. None of that changes the first buyers contractual obligation to make timely car payments to the original bank

    Am I missing something?
  12. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Everything you said makes sense, HH. Like I said, real estate law is not an area I know much about. I don't actually know why people would do that to try to avoid payments. :confused2: I suppose it might involve second or third mortgages with other interested parties, or an inability to find and contact trustees or business owners to serve legal papers, or strict laws protecting tenant rights or maybe all of those. My post is based on a comment made by my RE attorney when I was going through the house purchase with him and he saw this attempt to scam the bank by putting the property under a Trust and laughed. He is the one that told me it was commonplace for years and years and new laws didn't protect them anymore, that the bank would probably have the tenants/owners out before the property closed and just wait, otherwise, it would probably take less than a month if I went through eviction procedures myself. He was right, they were out in 10 days and we closed a few days later.
    Hey, I'd clarify it with him but he costs too much. :omg: Maybe originally the tenant managed to stay in the house and by doing so, blocked foreclosure because of some tangle of law between owner and tenant rights. I dunno.
  13. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    It still amazing to me, I don't know why, how false info gets started and then just repeated until it gets discussed as fact. All the while it is so easy to look up the information and get the facts. Or as AnonKat used to say "TruFax". Lol...

    A few days ago I looked up Marty and Mosey's property information on their county's tax assessor website. They are both clearly listed as the owner of the property. Also the name of the mortgage company who is financing the home is listed. The property has been assessed by San Patricio county to have a gross value of just under $270,000.

    So, they are not renting. There are no shell corporations. No third parties involved other than a bonafide mortgage company.

    Now how they got the down payment and are making payments.....who knows? That's where there can be genuine speculation I suppose. All the other stuff is just noise that isn't based in reality.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  14. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Because we knew if we kept discussing it as a possibility without checking, you'd get annoyed enough to look it up for us and post the details. *

    :duck: :hide: :runaway:

    *and give me a chance to use the :duck: icon.
  15. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Oh, but I had looked it up several days ago. But I posted the results on The Bunker rather than here. My bad.

    Bombay Gin induced dementia on my part.

  16. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    One possible explanation (speculation) would be that the lawyer you were speaking to was referring to home owners seeking to PROTECT/ SAFEGUARD THEIR HOME FROM CREDITORS (not a bank, but a judgment creditor who is intending to collect). People put their assets (e.g. home) in trusts, limited partnerships et al as a scheme to stonewall creditors. That's not a bank or lending institution, because they are never compromised (from foreclosing) in a default. It would apply if (for example) the homeowner lost a civil lawsuit and ended up with a whopping judgment against them; and the person that sued them was chasing their assets to satisfy the judgment amount.

    I am just guessing, but that is likely the confusion, because those two conversations SOUND similar; but a bank holding a first trust deed (mortgage) is very different than a judgment creditor attempting to make collections on that judgment.

    You can probably tell, I have a gazillion hours of experience (unfortunately) in such matters due to chasing someone that owed me a gazillion dollars through the courts as they gamed the process with every imaginable trick to avoid losing their real estate and personal assets. Uggghhhhh! (groan), lol.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  17. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    THANKS, HH! :arose: :thankyou: I had a misunderstanding. :dizzy: Thanks for sorting it out.

    I hope you won, btw! :punch:

    Note: Lone Star is entirely to blame for my sudden renewed interest and overuse of icons. :innocent:
  18. cakemaker

    cakemaker Patron Meritorious

  19. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


  20. Intelligence

    Intelligence Silver Meritorious Patron

    I was a Real Estate Agent and Mortgage Broker for over 6 years in Canada. Studied civil and contract law at University of British Columbia for one year to obtain my license. The Canada & USA laws are similar for most, but not all US States. Hiding property ownership or legal transfer of subject property, is very difficult, if not impossible. The paper trail tells the tail.

    First, the property ownership and mortgage is registered at the Land Titles Office. The entity that holds the registered mortgage, holds the first mortgage and other lending entities may hold 2nd and 3rd mortgages. The 1st mortgage holder gets first rights to equity. The mortgage holder will only transfer the mortgage once the new purchaser qualifies for the mortgage. If the buyer is approved, purchases the property, registers it at the Land Title Office, only then the ownership and mortgage is released from original purchaser/owner and transferred to the new purchaser.

    Back in the 90's, there was a lot of scams but these loopholes have been eliminated.

    The only way I could see there not being a clear paper trail of transactions, property purchases, property sales, and mortgages, is if the subject property was originally registered to an offshore corporation, which I doubt any mainstream Bank or lending institution would touch. However, there is other mortgage lenders that don't care as long as they have tangible collateral to secure the mortgage should the owner default on payments - security not from the property equity, but worth at least as much as the mortgage., with a registered lien.

    Foreclosure versus tenant's rights? Foreclosure wins, but there is a process that does protect the tenant - for a time. The Bank can allow the tenant to continue renting and pay the Bank the rent payments - or the Bank can evict the tenants with due notice. If the Bank forecloses and lists the property for sale, they have the option to keep the paying tenant until the close of sale, or give notice and evict. Foreclosure transfers ownership to the Bank - and as the owner, they can do whatever they want with the property and tenant.