SUPPORT THE UNDERGROUND BUNKER
You can either make a one-time donation to the site via Paypal...

...or you can subscribe and get billed monthly:

FOLLOW ME ON
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR
E-MAIL LIST
To join our e-mail list & get daily updates on new stories, e-mail us at newstory@tonyortega.org.
RSS Feed
Click here to add The Underground Bunker to your RSS Reader

Scientology wants Mike Rinder’s affidavit struck from the record

pha106000047A week ago, we told you that in their fraud lawsuit, Luis and Rocio Garcia had filed an affidavit by former Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder to convince Tampa federal Judge James D. Whittemore that the church’s internal arbitration rules were a sham.

It turns out Scientology wasn’t very happy about that.

The church has filed a motion to strike Rinder’s affidavit, and they’re referring back to an earlier attempt by Scientology to have the attorneys for the Garcias disqualified. Although rare in most litigation, for Scientology it’s a standard part of its playbook — to try and get a plaintiff’s attorneys disqualified by making various allegations about breached confidentiality or other supposed ethical lapses.

That gambit didn’t pay off in this case — and we were in Tampa to watch the fireworks as Scientology’s disqualification motion went down in flames. But now, a year later, the church is taking another bite at that apple as it brings up testimony from that mini-trial in an attempt to get Rinder’s declaration thrown out.

We can’t help thinking it’s the content of Rinder’s statement that is most irritating the church.

In his response to Scientology’s motion, Garcia attorney Ted Babbitt simply points out that when Mike Rinder says he personally knows that enrollment contract church members sign included promises about arbitration Scientology never had any intention of fulfilling, he was speaking from personal experience, not passing on confidential information given to him by an attorney (the basis of Scientology’s grievance).

But we’ll let the lawyer types here in the Bunker tell us what they think about these legal salvoes. We sure can’t wait to see what Whittemore ultimately decides on this issue (the church’s motion to compel the Garcias to use Scientology arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit).

Scientology’s motion to strike…

Garcia v. Scientology: Motion to Strike Affidavit of Mike Rinder

 
Babbitt’s response…

Garcia v. Scientology: Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Strike Affidavit of Mike Rinder

 
——————–

Posted by Tony Ortega on October 23, 2014 at 07:00

E-mail your tips and story ideas to tonyo94@gmail.com or follow us on Twitter. We post behind-the-scenes updates at our Facebook author page. Here at the Bunker we try to have a post up every morning at 7 AM Eastern (Noon GMT), and on some days we post an afternoon story at around 2 PM. After every new story we send out an alert to our e-mail list and our FB page.

Learn about Scientology with our numerous series with experts…

BLOGGING DIANETICS (We read Scientology’s founding text) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

UP THE BRIDGE (Claire Headley and Bruce Hines train us as Scientologists) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

GETTING OUR ETHICS IN (Jefferson Hawkins explains Scientology’s system of justice) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

SCIENTOLOGY MYTHBUSTING (Historian Jon Atack discusses key Scientology concepts) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

PZ Myers reads L. Ron Hubbard’s “A History of Man” | Scientology’s Master Spies | Scientology’s Private Dancer
The Underground Bunker’s Official Theme Song | The Underground Bunker FAQ

 

Share Button
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Graham

    Bunker hint: If “You are not allowed to view this document” just click on the link above and to the left of it.

  • NOLAGirl

    “The lies we told Mike Rinder were private your Honor. We don’t want the lies we told earlier to mess with the ones we’re telling now. Waaahhh Mike Rinder is a poopy head” ~ Co$ Attorneys

    My early assessment. πŸ™‚

    • NOLAGirl

      It is sad, indeed, that Defendants have chosen to attack both counsel and the witness without a good faith basis for making these allegations. Conduct like this should not be condoned and is worthy only of sanctions for its unscrupulous purpose. The Motion should be denied.

      “Annnnddd…its a fly to left field, he’s bringing everyone in…Ladies & Gentlemen, that’s Ted Babbitt with the grand slam home run.”

      • Mark Foster

        Yeah, no drama and whining from Babbit, just the facts, logically and concisely presented in this motion. A grand slam, indeed.

        • NOLAGirl

          Reading his response I can almost feel his desire to telly Wally Pope “Hey man……FUCK YOU!!” Of course, he says it much more eloquently. πŸ™‚

          • Jack99

            “A plague on both your houses!”

            • NOLAGirl

              I’ve tried that on Wally Pope on Bunker court days, doesn’t seem to be working. Must be those damn BT’s. πŸ™‚

        • indie8million

          Nice to see you out, Mr. Foster. Some crazy sh*t going on here.

          • Mark Foster

            Do I know you? If you want to stay anonymous here, and I do know you, email me at markfretless@gmail.com Thanks!

    • Anonymous

      Hey! We let him in on those malicious lies in confidence! But we’re honest now, really!

      • indie8million

        Yeah, Anonymous. “That was the “old” Scientology. We’ve cleaned house since then and we got rid of all of the SPs.” Deja Vu with David Mayo. “He told the truth so we had to get rid of him, too.”

        Seems to keep happening. Maybe you got the wrong who, Mister David Miscavige.

        It’s all funny until it’s not. Have a look in the mirror, DM, you little squirrel SP.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps

    • indie8million

      “Yeah, we have PROOF that Mike Rinder is a ‘pie face’ and that’s all he’ll ever be. He couldn’t have really been LISTENING and, we’re sure that he never understood a word we said…because he’s a f*ck@ng pie face. That’s our story and we;re sticking to it, G*d d*mn you, you F*ck@ng @ssh*le, Rinder!!!” Official DM statement in the official vernacular of the world famous “int base.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK4T5GSwyOU

    • πŸ™‚ Isn’t that amusing? The crimes that the Italian Mafia commits against society are trade secrets, they;re confidential information, ergo when one of our ringleaders turns State’s evidence and starts ratting us out, we want that testimony stricken because, well, it was confidential. πŸ™‚

  • DodoTheLaser
  • That’s the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology for you. Re-living past failures.

    I can only hope that at some stage all these hopeless delaying appeals get lumped together and used as part of a drive to have the Co$ declared a vexatious litigant. (And, yes, I know nothing of what it does take to get them declared as such, but that’s what I think they are – anyway, I suspect it’s not going to happen until the money to the lawyers stop flowing…)

    • Missionary Kid

      I think (and IANAL) that to achieve the status of vexatious litigant, one mus file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits that are tossed out because they have no basis. The chult’s (I like that word, a combination of church and cult) many filings in a court case already underway could simply be called, “doing all they can for the client.”

      • Peter

        I vote “chult” to be added to the list of things said about scio!!! πŸ™‚

        • Missionary Kid

          Oh, it’s there already. Someone posted it yesterday and I put it on the list.

          • Peter

            Excellent. The best short description I can recall. Kudos!

        • beauty for ashes

          i’d like to see chult used as a verb as in;
          ” you’re honor, the defendant is trying to chult you with this latest argument.”

          • Missionary Kid

            I’m going to tell someone, “If you don’t stop that, I’m going to chult you.”

            • beauty for ashes

              i kind of saw it as the all encompassing verb of every typical despicable deceptive action CO$ does.
              ahh! i can’t think of a good example.

          • Peter

            Neat idea. πŸ™‚

  • Missionary Kid

    Thank you Graham, clicking on the link allows one to read the actual filings. Right clicking keeps one from losing their place.

    I especially liked point 6 in the response,

    “6. It is sad, indeed, that Defendants have chosen to attack both counsel and the witness without a good faith basis for making these allegations. Conduct like this should not be condoned and is worthy only of sanctions for its unscrupulous purpose. The Motion should be denied.”

    In essence, the response says, this is an attempt to relitigate stuff that’s already been decided, and Rinder isn’t depending on any documents, but what he personally did. Fuck you, $cientology, and the horse you rode in on.

    • Mark Foster

      The horse could be re-trained…

  • DodoTheLaser

    “Scientology wants Mike Rinder’s affidavit struck from the record.”
    Cool. And I want Maserati.

    • Missionary Kid

      I want breakfast.

      • I was going to do you a bagel with strips of breakfast ham, cheddar cheese .. but I ate it.

        • Missionary Kid

          Tease.

        • DodoTheLaser

          Pro tip: Croissants.

          • HappypantsDance

            I make delicious croissants! I’ll make some for the delish Bunker Breakfast Buffet!

            • Sergeant Pepper

              Double Tony O posts and a Bunker Breakfast Buffet. I’m giddy.

            • Sherbet

              And I’m eating frickin’ yogurt and a banana. Damn cholesterol.

            • HappypantsDance

              Sound delicious to me! I love yogurt and fresh fruit! (plain yogurt, not that stuff with what’s basically sugar-laden jam at the bottom)

          • indie8million

            Croissants. Chocolate.

        • Jimmy3

          Is ‘breakfast ham’ Canadian for ‘bacon’? Because ‘Canadian bacon’ is American for ‘ham’

          • Sergeant Pepper

            It’s a conundrum, for years I wondered if I was cooking it enough.

          • Strips of cooked smoked ham but I toss them in the frying pan for a few minutes. (Gluten-free! None of their pigs were made from wheat, imagine that!)

      • NOLAGirl

        I’m trying to hook us both up. It doesn’t seem to be working out well. πŸ™‚

      • Vaquera

        Mmmm, chorizo breakfast tacos. Firing up the skillet. The line forms to my right.

    • Jack99

      A Swedish masseuse, please!

    • NOLAGirl

      You know, while we stand here with Co$ and toss coins into the wish fountain…..

      I’d like someone to take my kid to school, go to the store for me, go by the office and pick up my paperwork, and bring me and Missionary Kid some breakfast. πŸ™‚

      • Vaquera

        I’m on it. Would you like a cup of chicory, too?

        • NOLAGirl

          Aww, thanks hon. Just a good strong cup of Community Coffee will do. πŸ™‚

          • Vaquera

            That’s the ticket!

          • Michael Leonard Tilse

            Had some great coffee at the Community Coffee on Royal, when I was in N.O. with my then girfriend. I love NOLA. I also have a great photo I took inside. You can see the frame shop across the street and the white painted iron railing on the balcony above.

            • NOLAGirl

              Community is it! My godparents live out of state and they have me ship them a box of coffee bricks about once every couple of months. πŸ™‚ Got them hooked on it on a trip down here and they have been drinking it since.

            • rom661

              God, I’m thick. I’ve always read it as No Los Angeles Girl. Duh.

            • NOLAGirl

              It’s all good. I’ve had others ask me if that was what it meant too. πŸ™‚

            • pluvo

              I thought the same as rom 661(head bowed in shame ) – but then again I’m an alien πŸ˜€
              But it made me to look up NOLA coffee, and I found out that it is from New Orleans and that LA doesn’t stand for Los Angeles but for Louisiana (and NO for New Orleans) – I think I got that right now (The Bunker is also educating).
              By the way NOLA, what is the significance of the sweater with the French lily which your blue dog wears (I think you were at Marty’s blog without the sweater (right?) ?
              Is it an homage to the French culture down in the south?

            • NOLAGirl

              It is a double homage. The artist who painted that picture is one of my favorites, George Rodrigue. http://georgerodrigue.com/ (May he rest in peace)

              The dog is wearing a New Orleans Saints sweater. My football team, even now when they’re playing like they’ve been lobotomized. πŸ™‚

            • Verve

              I was in Rodrigue’s shop years ago. I wanted to buy everything. Unfortunately, I was not a millionaire. Monkeys love Blue Dogs.

            • NOLAGirl

              I feel that way every time I’m in there. I’ve always wanted this one that he painted after Hurricane Katrina, but it’s not for sale. πŸ™

            • Verve

              Wow, haven’t seen that one. It’s awesome!

            • NOLAGirl

              It’s one of those that you can feel the pain in it. He was truly part of the heart of New Orleans. πŸ™‚

            • Verve

              πŸ™‚

            • pluvo

              And I just found this gem, when trying to figure out the sweater.

              “Hanging around upvoting. Just as mad as you are” – lol

            • NOLAGirl

              Some days I blather, others I just read and upvote good info or the many hysterical comments.

            • Mark Foster

              and brave enough to admit-no worries πŸ™‚

            • Verve

              NOLA the restaurant? Excellent place, some of the best food I’ve ever had. Even better than Commander’s Palace (even though the truffle omelet was to die for).

          • beauty for ashes

            love it!

        • HappypantsDance

          Beignets, too, plz!

          • NOLAGirl

            For you Happy. πŸ™‚ *refresh*

            • HappypantsDance

              Oh oh oh Happy is HAPPY! My favorites! I’ve so many fond Cafe du Monde memories…Thank you!

        • Mark Foster

          IΒ΄m drinking a chicory/ coffee blend right now:)

    • Sergeant Pepper

      I think I’ll go get some breakfast…..and lots of popcorn.

    • Stacy

      Let me know how that works for you Dodo. If it does, I want a ’62 Jaguar.

      • NOLAGirl

        I call the front seat. πŸ™‚

        • indie8million

          “Shotgun!”

      • Missionary Kid

        Better get three. One to drive, one for the mechanic so you can drive when the first breaks down, and another so you’ll have one to drive right away.

        I know it’s sacrilege, and it decreases the value, but the best thing that could be done with a Jag sedan of that era is to drop in a small block Chevy with an automatic transmission. It’s far more reliable, smoother, and drivable.

        If you’re talking about the E-type, the same number necessary applies. Keep it original. It’s a beautiful design.

        • Mark Foster

          and then there was that Jag 12-cylinder nightmare…

          • Missionary Kid

            Yup. That engine, beautiful as it is, doesn’t hold up well. It needs a lot of care and feeding, especially with Lucas Electrics.

    • indie8million

      RIGHT! Gee, if I wish for something, does that mean I can have it too? What a great idea, Dodo TL!

      I don’t think I’m out of line to say that the whole group has this wish or something like it… “We want David Miscavige in jail for crimes against humanity. Plus, we want to take him away from the things he loves most – his cars, booze, chefs, his slaves…and Tom Cruise.” All in favor, say “aye”…

      • EnthralledObserver

        Aye!

    • indie8million

      And I want DM in jail, too. Can you add that to the list, Dodo? Thank you.

  • Missionary Kid

    Is it me, or does this filing by $cientology seem to have Davy’s fingerprints on this one?

    • Get one of those forensic UV lights. There might be more than that on it.

      • Jack99

        Thanks for putting THAT image in my head!

      • NOLAGirl

        Do we have Luminol under the Bunker sink? We’ll need that.

    • Jack99

      Fingerprints and footbullets, that’s his MO.

      • Missionary Kid

        *Hearty chuckle*

    • Mark Foster

      MK, ah, letΒ΄s see….Is it a delaying tactic? Is it mendacious? Does it flout court etiquette? On its face, is it a stupid move, in terms of actually winning the case, or at least not losing it in a big way? Does it just seem fucked-up and nasty? Well, then…if it looks and smells like an ass-hat move, itΒ΄s the wee dementor, and he was probably scotched-up when he screamed the order to file this motion…

  • Missionary Kid

    There is a point that Co$ is making that as a seemingly paralegal, Rinder was a part of the chult’s legal team, so what he is talking about is a part of their legal consultation, and hence confidential. They are also saying that Rinder has been paid for his testimony.

    As I understand it, Rinder has testified that it was his idea to set up the byzantine system.

    • April

      Is Rinder an actual attorney, though? Did he ever get a law degree? Could the court consider him to be a legal consultant without a law degree?

      • Missionary Kid

        No, he isn’t. If he was a part of the consultation, it could be alleged that he was functioning as a part of the legal team, IIRC. Remember, IANAL.

        • April

          Okay, maybe I’m taking the term “attorney-client privilege” a little too literally.

          • Missionary Kid

            It includes the attorney and any parties that are involved with a consultation.

  • Narapoid

    This reminds me of the Jim Carrey film “Liar, Liar” in which he plays an Attorney who is cursed into telling the absolute truth. He objects to a piece of evidence brought into evidence by his opponents.

    “And why do you object? Because it is devastating to my case.”

    • Sherbet

      “And why do you object? Because it is devastating to my case.”

      Perfect.

    • April

      If only Dickish Midget would beat the crap out of himself like Jim Carrey’s character did in the bathroom in that movie. That would make my day.

      • sookiesookie

        Once he runs out of underlings, the rage will still need an outlet, right? We can hope.

    • indie8million
      • valshifter

        no other reason, I swear scientologist are harassing Idiots, all they know is how to harras no matter what, harras harras harras. then again LRH states that the reason is not to win just to harras.

      • Narapoid

        Thanks Indie! I was looking for that!

        • indie8million

          de nada. πŸ™‚ Perfect duplication on your part, Narapoid.

          Wouldn’t it be HILARIOUS if someone gave DM a truth serum that worked? Bwahahahaha! We could ask him about everything, video it and send it to Anderson Cooper. “Shelly? hahaha That b*tch is sucking c***** in hell…well, at least in CST!! haha!” “Oh, the money??? I’ve got it EVERYWHERRRRRE! Sure, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Cayman Islands – and a sh*tload of it zippered into my mattress, just in case I have to blow in a hurrry because Tony Ortega finally got me busted, that SP!”

          “And TC? Awwwww, TC. I love him, man. I reaaaaaaaaally do. No, I mean I LOOOOOOOVE him. I just need to keep all those b*tches away from him long enough for him to have the cognition that he loves me too. What a nice ass – and all that MONEY!”

          hahaha

          • Narapoid

            That was Great! Yeah, that little monster spewing the truth? Talk about a volcano of entheta…

            • indie8million

              Yeah, just like on the cover of DMSMH. haha

  • xenu1979

    I posted this kinda late yesterday to the goon squad airport ambush thread and a commenter suggested that I repost it so that’s what I’m doing.

    I’m from Texas, and I actually started following this “fair game” stuff after I read an article in Texas Monthly about Marty Rathbun, the guy who got ambushed this weekend by some high level Scientologists and so I’ve been watching that case in the local TX press where it’s gotten considerable coverage…

    For those who have been following the court case in TX on Tony’s excellent blog, and looked at Tommy Davis’ recent deposition, one of the things David Miscaivge keeps claiming while “admitting” that the Church of Scientology was in fact harassing the crap out of Marty and his wife, is that the “Church of Scientology” was doing this — and he, David Miscavige, is not the head of the “Church of Scientology. He’s the head of the “Religious Technology Center” and doesn’t really have any authority over the “Church of Scientology”.

    Now, before you spit yer drink out at the screen consider this… according to Rathbun, one of the two ghoulish looking men on the tape is [Marc Yager. Highest ecclesiastical officer of scientology’s β€˜mother church’ (church of scientology international)]

    The other one is [Dave Bloomberg. Long-time Scientology Executive Strata member – the alleged highest management body in church of scientology international.]

    My theory:

    DM yanked Yager and Bloomberg out of the Hole and paired them along with is favorite screaming bitch to do “Two Minutes Hate” on Marty so he’d have plausible deniability in court. Now he’ll accuse Yager and Bloomberg of being the ones behind the harassment of the Rathbuns.

    • Jimmy3

      Interesting theory. But afair, the jurisdictional challenge was upheld and DM doesn’t have to give a deposition. The appellate court is still out on the Anti-SLAPP decision. Continuing to throw CSI under the bus is still a viable play at this point. He doesn’t have any personal blame to shed at this moment.

      • PreferToBeAnon2

        Jimmy3, it is my understanding that DM is still a defendant and that he just did not have to testify regarding the jurisdiction motion. I could be wrong — geez we need a Playbill here with all of these motions! It could be their usual Stupid Tech or it could be a Road Kill strategy for later.

        • Jimmy3

          Yes, I’m aware he’s still a defendant. I may have phrased it wrong, I just meant that it was ruled his special appearance was adequate and he does not have to show up for a deposition at this point.

        • disqus_SPiN5N4Adl

          That’s correct PreferToBeAnon2

        • Robert Eckert

          Yes. He may cease to be a defendant if he wins the no-jurisdiction motion, but all he has won so far is an appeal against Waldrip’s order that he be deposed on the jurisdictional issue.

      • Anonymous

        Miscavige is still a defendant. So far he doesn’t have to appear in court. But those are two different things…he is not yet out of the woods (or the case.)

        • Jimmy3

          Yes. It was an odd way to phrase what I meant. I’m aware he’s still a defendant. I meant that at this stage, he still has options and can still wiggle his way out of personal responsibility. So why embarrass the entire CoS by setting up a viral YouTube clip to set up fall guys that are not even involved? And, why do it NOW? Makes no sense.

          • Anonymous

            I think we mainly agree on the primary point.

            As for the “set up” at LAX…It is a sort of an “inside baseball” ideation that makes no sense unless one wants to attribute “sense” to something regarding Scientology.

            Here’s what I wrote about it a few days ago:

            http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/19/marty-rathbun-on-being-ambushed-at-lax-by-raving-scientologists-it-was-insane/#comment-1644909003

            • Jimmy3

              I see where you’re coming from, but I’m reluctant to buy that theory. In the confrontation, they make it a point to stress how little an impact Marty’s absence has had. Yet the main part of their defense is on First Amendment grounds and their right to vigorously defend their religion against a major threat. It’s a significant change of course, no?

            • Anonymous

              It is a predictable change of course…because the original course wasn’t working.

              One always has to look past the words of Scientology leadership and determine whatever “command intention” is in play. To the leadership of Scientology, words are a fungible commodity to be used as expediency dictates, including to create complete deception in order to forward a “purpose.”

              The overall recent pattern in play between disparate legal cases as well as within the church’s own internal and external PR is to emphasize their religious bona fides.

              It is the last remaining line of defense that the senior leadership of Scientology have for their outrageous conduct that would already be determined as illegal in virtually any other setting.

              The conduct is illegal in a religious paradigm also, but that is a tougher wall to breach in a courtroom. However it will be breached and the perpetrators of the atrocities will be held accountable.

            • grundoon

              The three bigmouths were on their way to catch a plane when who should they see but Marty. They impulsively swooped down on him without a moment’s thought or reflection, just as they do every day to hapless minions who cross their path. Jenny tried to implant Marty with words aimed to devastate – but only revealed what fate she fears most for herself. Obviously none of the three know much about the legal situation or they would have steered clear. The expectation was that the three would be salted away in The Hole until doomsday, where they would never come close to a cheeseburger, much less a Rathbun, so it would be pointless to tell them about the restraining order. Miscavige probably thought, I’m only letting those brainwashed ninnies out of The Hole for a quick trip, what can they possibly fuck up in three hours’ time? Little did he know.

            • Jimmy3

              Plus, wouldn’t the Plaintiffs here still focus on the events before the lawsuit was filed?

      • sookiesookie

        The reason this theory sounded possible to me was that it seems like CO$ legal “strategy” includes doing anything and everything possible that might have an effect at some point. IOW, if current strategy fails in the future, have crap ready to pull out that might back up other strategies.

        I’m also thinking that 1) they halfway expected this to be brought into the Rathbun case by Monique’s side and 2) that had no expectation whatsoever that it would be such a huge PR fuck-up online.

        I’m glad to see more discussion on this idea.

        • romanesco

          My suspicion is that they seriously believed they could get Marty to fire back and get a recording of him arguing religious doctrine with church leaders so they could re-frame the whole matter as a religious dispute between Marty and the church while claiming the Squirrel Busters were sent out to resolve it and that any perception of harassment on Monique’s part was mistaken as such or, if they’re cornered, failure on the part of the SBs to carry out instructions properly. Just guessing, but that’s all I can get out of it. And yes, I’m sure they had no idea Marty’s video would go viral.

    • indie8million

      I’m glad they did that little ambush because now Monique has proof that the people at the top act exactly the same way as the “Squirrel Busters.” Stuff rolls downhill, as they say.

  • DodoTheLaser
    • NOLAGirl

      The trolls will surely show up for that one. πŸ™‚

      • Mark Foster

        vinnie rego already did

  • Scream Nevermore

    Instead of the documents, I am seeing a message that says I’m not allowed to see them?

    • Sergeant Pepper

      Just click the link.

      • Scream Nevermore

        That worked. I need another cup of tea, methinks!

        • joan nieman

          I must say the idea of scrapping Rinder’s affidavit doesn’t surprise me as the chult is desperate. I only hope that it will be accepted in court as inside knowledge that the arbitration system is a farce. Can the chult prove that it is not? How can one prove a lie?

          • Bob

            By lying more!

  • California

    This is what is on my screen where the documents should be:

    You are not allowed to view this document.

    Sorry, we can’t display this document.

    But the links work just fine.

  • Sergeant Pepper

    I am confused. It seems the church is claiming Rinder is revealing proprietary or otherwise confidential information. The rebuttal claims that it is Rinder’s personal knowledge. What’s the legal difference?

    • Missionary Kid

      I believe that the’re saying that he’s the one who came up with the idea. It wasn’t based on any church legal documents or a part of a legal consultation, which would not be admissable.
      Someone, correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Sergeant Pepper

        It leads me to conclude that none of the church’s schemes can be revealed if there was an attorney present at the adoption of that scheme. How can that be?

        • Missionary Kid

          IANAL, but it can be argued that he was a part of a legal consultation with a lawyer. They are arguing that Rinder was acting in the capacity as a paralegal, and that the policy was a product of that consultation. I believe that they’re saying that his part in it ia a part of client-lawyer privilege.

      • April

        Whether it was Rinder’s idea or not, it still became official CO$ policy. And it’s CO$ policies that are on trial, correct?

  • Mrs. V.

    I love reading these ridiculous motions from the chult. “Everything Mike Rinder says in that declaration is privileged information. And also he cannot be trusted because he’s getting paid. And also, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

    • Douglas D. Douglas

      “And he’s a doody-head. Did we mention that?”

      • Mrs. V.

        You’re right. I missed that one!

  • Mark

    Tee-hee! Love Ted Babbitt’s response to this balderdash: polite, firm, couched in impeccable legaleseβ€”and positively dripping with the spirit of Arkell vs. Pressdram (scroll down to the last letter): http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

    • J. Swift

      Brilliant riposte!

  • ze moo

    “The motion {to strike Rinder’s testimony} is without merit.” Says it all. Babbitt for the slam dunk.

  • Tony Ortega

    We had a little mix up with scheduling posts this morning, and that means you get a bonus post!

    Make sure you check the other one out as well…

    http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/23/scientology-wants-mike-rinders-affidavit-struck-from-the-record/

    • Robert Eckert

      You just have too many goodies to share with us, huh?

    • πŸ™‚ Brings a smile to my face this morning, it really does. πŸ™‚

  • Still_On_Your_Side

    So, the church files a committee of evidence document that it claims supports its arbitration argument. The court orders the church to prove how this document supports its arbitration claims. The church submits an affidavit in response but fails to explain how the committee of evidence document supports its argument since the document fails to mention the word “arbitration” even once. Babbitt files an affidavit from Mike Rinder in response in which Rinder states that he has personal knowledge that the church has never had any arbitration rules, and he states that the committee of evidence document does not mention the word arbitration even once. Now the church wants Rinder’s affidavit struck because he is a “paid witness” allegedly testifying about old church, attorney-client communications and because Babbitt allegedly shared current attorney client communications with him.

    The church’s motion to strike is an ill-conceived disaster that will backfire on it. Not only has the church failed to provide the court what it expressly asked for, but it makes scurrilous claims about Babbitt. The church’s motion, written by lawyers who for some reason chose to believe unsupported lies from their client, will probably anger the court. The court did not ask the church to submitt its committee of evidence document, it asked the church to explain how this unasked for document was relevant. The church failed to explain to do so, and now has turned this unauthorized submission of a committee of evidence document into an attack on Babbitt AND the court’s prior denial of the church’s motion to disqualify Garcia’s legal team. Could the church’s attorneys have made more of a mess? This is what happens when attorneys act on bad information from clients and leave their own discretion at home. Miscavige is angry and he wants his lawyers to rid the case of Rinder and Babbitt. His lawyers clearly are trying to obey, no matter how foolish they appear doing it.

    • April

      I’m also wondering if the CO$ lawyers are committing perjury by arguing that Rinder has been paid for the deposition, if indeed it can be proven that he has not been paid?

      • The lawyers are not sworn in in front of a Judge, alas, but they take a vow not to commit perjury — and yet these Scientology crims commit perjury with every court paper they file. It is very rare for a Judge to hold a lawyer in contempt or for a Judge to recommend to his or her DA’s office for criminal charges against a lawyer for even such blatant perjury. πŸ™

    • J. Swift

      Still_On_Your_Side: Outstanding analysis. I reposted your remarks verbatim over at the Scientology Money Project in the comments section.

      http://scientologymoneyproject.com/2014/10/23/the-core-of-scientology-is-its-malicious-system-of-sham-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-900

  • Stacy

    The judge isn’t getting frustrated with CoS tactics yet? I know I’M getting frustrated with them…

    • The Wikipedia article for “vexatious litigant” includes Scientology as an example…

  • Sejanus

    I cannot help but think judges everywhere are essentially on to $cientology and its playbook of douchlawyering.
    When that day finally comes that the cherch sees it is up against a losing war only then will the cases slow down, but until then I do love everything about them being dragged before a court.

  • Anonymous

    The decade of the 2000’s saw a torrent of Scientology Sea Org exec’s fleeing the organization and reporting in sworn affidavits and in live court testimony that while in the church they experienced or witnessed violence, abuse and other conduct that could easily fit the definitions of psychological and physical torture. Many of those execs do not even like each other and are not friendly post Scientology, nor are they operating in concert. But what they have reported does have a common theme and that common theme is the witnessing of abuse and violence.

    The remaining Scientology leadership is so unaware of the depravity of the culture that they have created and endure, that they still EXPORT that depravity via operations like the Squirrel Busters and the recent LAX op against Marty Rathbun, thereby demonstrating with their publicly visible (and video taped) conduct that they do act in an abusive manner, even while they send out letters from their lawyers saying they are not abusive.

    What?

    Faced with wholesale defection of many of the most long tenured, trusted senior Scientology executives, the remaining ones MUST resort to the Hubbard playbook and

    1) Pretend the executive that fled are horrible people

    2) Pretend the executives that fled were never executives and held no important roles

    3) Pretend that the executives that fled are lying about what they witnessed and reported

    4) Pretend that the remaining executives are not still being abused

    5) Pretend that Sea Org Captain David Miscavige had /has nothing to do with the abuse

    6) Pretend that the general and church publics are unaware of the abusive church culture

    7) Pretend that Scientology is expanding

    Items # 1 – 7 are objectively untrue, yet the remaining Scientology leadership continue with the charade…and they will until they are stopped by the civil and criminal justice system.

    They leadership are already pariahs among people of goodwill…soon they will be able to share their culture of abuse and violence with like minded folks…in prison.

    • sookiesookie

      Excellent post. I wish that your first paragraph could be expanded upon, sprinkled with citations, and submitted to every journalist and judge that hears $CN’s side of things (the “small group of bitter defrocked apostates, acting out their vendetta while representing the APA and big pharma” bullshit).

    • J. Swift

      A great list to which I would add:

      8) Pretend that the discredited executives were “sent in by Psychiatry” to destroy Scientology.

      I just read in an apparently official church website that Linson, Yager, and Bloomberg were sent in by the Psychs: http://otviiisgrrr8.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/osa-investigation-reveals-the-hidden-sps-on-cobs-lines/

      • Anonymous

        You are right…I forgot that particular crucial element to the stream of lies presented by the church leadership for the edification of their membership and in the (completely hopeless) desire that a few non-Scientologists might also buy in.

    • Remember Mr. Jessie Prince, touted as the second in command for a number of years, and then suddenly when Jessie surfaced and started speaking out suddenly Jessie was nobody special in the crime syndicate, never second in command after all. πŸ™‚

      • Anonymous

        I do remember that.

        I also remember Jessie and RVY being chased in a car on the freeway by Scientology goons after they had both blown and started speaking out.

        More than a decade later, the goons in the car that was chasing Jessie and RVY also blew and began speaking out.

        The irony is almost incredible when one reviews the video of the newly blown former goons then be chased by a new set of Scientology goons…in cars. Heh.

        The repetitive patterns in the Scientology saga are amazing.

        Who will be next?

  • danny torrance

    Excuse my ignorance for i know next to nothing about court documents but isn’t referring to Mike Rinder as ‘Rinder’ throughout their motion a little disrespectful or is it common practice?

    • Espiando

      Common practice in the US. In Britain, they always put a salutation in front of a name, like “Mr”. In the US, the standard is first reference with full name and title, if any, last name only on subsequent references.

    • NOLAGirl

      What Espiando said below is correct, it’s simply a way to make the legal documents a little easier to read and faster to write up. People and organizations will be referred to by their full name in the beginning of the document, followed in parentheses by what they will be addressed as in the rest of the documents. For example: Mr. Michael Rinder (Rinder) Flag Service Organization (FSO).

  • t1kk

    Regardless of what Rinder previously testified to or Babbitt stated regarding enrollment agreements, Rinder’s recent testimony seems wholly apart from that, given in response to Scientology’s argument that Comm Evs govern arbitration proceedings, an argument that was not on the map at the time of Scientology’s motion to disqualify counsel for using Rinder. Scientology opened the door for rebuttal testimony by introducing a novel concept and can’t try to block it by bootstrapping it to failed arguments from previous motions.

    • Espiando

      Do you think this is another Davey’s Ordered This Line Of Appeal Motion, or is this something that Wally Pope Smokes Dope came up with in the recesses of his CoS-addled brain?

      • t1kk

        No, I think it’s a good strategy actually. It’s not like they can attack Rinder’s actual assertions (because they’re true and make logical sense), so better to attack his connection and role to the case, and they came up with a pretty creative way to do that. You can criticize Scientology’s legal strategies as insidious, hypocritical, etc., but they’re never incompetent, as evidenced by how much success they’ve had. They know what they’re doing.

        • Anonymous

          “They know what they’re doing.”

          Agree with you here.

          Unfortunately, it is the same sort of conduct that operates at the senior executive levels inside Scientology…it is operation via expediency without reference to principle…except the principle that one should always get their own way.

          • Bob

            Also the principle that anything can be done to protect the Tiny Grand Captain of Scientology whether moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. Save Davie McShrimpige at ALL COSTS! $$$$$$$$$

            • Missionary Kid
            • Bob

              Wow, Davey is clearly the undisputed King of Derision!

            • Missionary Kid

              The ratio of over 4:1 for DM:LRHhas held for a long time.

            • Bob

              Makes sense. Davey is still alive.

            • Anonymous

              The absurd concept of “Command Intention” is the perfect illustration of the implementation of the “Responsibility of Leaders” (Simon Bolivar) PL.

              Scientology operates as a sham to benefits it’s top leadership as both senior policy as well as the senior practical reality. Hubbard was the original beneficiary. Now it is Miscavige.

              This is abundantly clear to ex-Scientologists who have spent time understanding the church from the inside out.

              Because the concepts of “Command Intention” operating in concert with the “Responsibility of Leaders” policy are so foreign to the instincts and sensibilities of people of goodwill that have never been involved in Scientology, it is almost impossible to convince them that such ideas even exists, let alone form the foundation of the church’s operations.

              Those two policies and their practical implementation are the foundational description of why Scientology is undeserving of tax exempt status.

              The “church” was designed from the beginning as a vehicle to facilitate inurement for senior Scientology leadership…not surprisingly, it still serves that purpose today.

            • Bob

              Anon, you clearly understand the foundations of the cherch and policy. I’m pretty well versed in it myself and your specific and to the point explanations are helpful to those who have never been in or were not fully initiated. And add clarity to the issues for ex-clams like me.
              Thanks for your cogent and concise explanations.

            • Anonymous

              Looked at from a distance, Scientology is diabolical clear.

              But the masquerade that one experiences from inside is so well hidden as to be virtually invisible…which is why the damn thing continues to exist…there are still good people inside being tricked into believing they are involved in a noble endeavor.

            • Bob

              I see it on an on going basis.
              Hubbard was intelligent in his ability to set up a self perpetuating machine that is the ultimate Wizard of Oz fakery. Davey Scumbotaige is just the latest “plugIn” despot.
              Like a virus which can be killed by the light of the sun.
              Sc-Ebolatology is killed by the light of truth.

            • Missionary Kid

              Davey Scumbotaige will eventually get posted on his list and the same for Sc-Ebolatology on the $cientology nicknames list.

            • Anonymous

              Hubbard was indeed the Wizard of Cause:

            • Bob

              Lol! Also wizard of Caustic.

            • Missionary Kid

              I don’t like to use the term intelligent for LRH. I’d say cunning.

            • Bob

              Yes cunning describes him but so does intelligent in this definition:
              Archaic. having understanding or knowledge (usually followed by of ).
              It’s how he used his intelligence that is in question.

            • Observer

              I’d like to see someone reference this in court:

              “Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and
              gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties
              thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble … without a
              public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And
              now it’s too late to be stopped. The protection was accidental but it
              serves us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant
              scoff.” – HCOB 29 July 1963 “Scientology Review”

            • Missionary Kid
            • Bob

              Just posted another in response to anonymous comment.

      • Prim

        I wonder sometimes what goes through the heads of these lawyers when they are ordered to do something idiotic like this and they realize they are taking orders from a moron with a ninth grade education?

        • Verve

          “Yay, another $10,000 in fees!” is my guess.

    • sookiesookie

      Those words are music to my ears!

    • OTVIIIisGrrr8!

      All that fancy wog lawyer talk confuses we in the Church of Scientology. We long for the good ol’ pre-internet days when the GO OSA fair gamed people and the Church was able to carry on with business as normal.

  • Observer

    Well, of course they do. They, The Most Ethical People On The Planetβ„’, only lie, obfuscate, cheat, stalk, defraud and send dildos to innocent women’s workplaces to salvage this planet! And Wally Pope appears to be fully on board.

    *refresh*

    • beauty for ashes

      obs, i think i’ve run out of compliments to give you.

      • Observer

        Thank you, but I don’t do it for the compliments … I do it for the truth. And the lulz.

        • beauty for ashes

          that’s very evident!

  • richelieu jr

    Hey kids.. Only just posted this on an older post, but for some reason I feel compelled to share…

    There has got to be a name for the syndrome that drives tiny men with
    little penises to castrate others and turn them into little puppets he
    can scream through.

    No matter how deep the timbre of the voice
    speaking you cans til hear Miscavige’s little shriek behind it like some
    munchkin banshee on a crank binge (or is that some cranky munchkin on a
    banshee binge? A crunchy bankin on a bank minge?

    Add to that
    that the midget (I know the preferred term is ‘dwarf’ but this is DM
    we’re talking about and I have no intention of maligning an innocent
    group of people by association with this little ball of spit and hate)
    inherited the whole castration machine from an impotent liar with a cyst
    on his head, and I think there is relay something there.

    DM spends his time interfering in other people’s marriages, denying them
    the right to masturbate, whilst he sends his first harpy wife on a
    permanent vacation to la-la canyon, whilst he plays house with his
    appropriately named ‘mouth-piece’ who must spend most of her time word
    clearing the word ‘penetrate’ to figure out if she’s officially still
    virgin or not.. I mean, to be penetrated doesn’t something have to go..
    you know… in? I mean, you’d feel it, right? Not just some red-face
    flibberty-gibbet slapping around behind or on top of you before
    screaming the word “Mmmaaaaaaaarrrrttyyyy!” and falling limp on your
    back before sending you to fetch his slippers.

    NO, NOT THOSE ONES! He HATES those ones! The ones with the little anchors on them. The RON ONE’S for RONSAKES!

  • Anonymous

    Because expediency via false statements is central the very operation of Scientology itself, it is no wonder that such a technique would also be used in a court motion to strike the testimony of Mike Rinder, as above.

    In # 6 of the church’s motion, tortured language is used to a) disparage Mike Rinder as incompetent to testify about the church’s arbitration clause, but simultaneously try to leave open the door to challenge that “incompetent” testimony by saying it contains “confidential” information that he could only have access to if he were in fact “competent” (in the legal sense.)

    In other words…he doesn’t know anything about this issue because he was never involved…but if he does know anything about it…that knowledge is because he had access to confidential information and therefore cannot testify about such information.

    Nothing contradictory there, right?

    For lurkers…these are the same people who are looking at your folders and making “ethical” decisions about your “case”…you can be assured they have your best interest in mind too. (Heh.)

    • Missionary Kid

      I liked #6 of the reply. Basically, it said, “Co$ lies, defames, and throws up bullshit. Fuck ’em.”

    • Bob

      Good call.

    • romanesco

      I especially like the entirely preposterous “attorney/client” part. Looks like they’re just throwing any random thing they can think of against the wall to see if it sticks.

      • Anonymous

        It is a bizarre point to make if one is also making the point (as the church has done repeatedly elsewhere) that Rinder was never an important Scientology executive.

        But again, expediency is the primary operating principle of senior Scientology leadership.

        Unfortunately for that leadership, they cannot “order” people outside the church to forget the other lies they were already told. Heh.

      • Missionary Kid

        Not really. They are saying that Rinder was acting like a paralegal, was involved in the attorneys as a part of a legal team on the part of Co$. He says that he came up with the idea himself, (IMO).

        If indeed he was acting as a paralegal, his part of the case can be challenged. It’s up to the Co$ attorneys to prove it.

        • romanesco

          There are a number of other reasons why attorney/client doesn’t apply here, but this is a fraud case. Not even the church’s statements to Pope can be protected here.

          • Missionary Kid

            Thank yo for your clarification.

  • Wait, Scienos have tried that ‘attorney-client’ privilege claim before right? Was that in Mosey’s case? The information wasn’t of course from an attorney, but they tried to get it dismissed on the basis of ‘privilege’ and said it was similar to attorney-client privilege and that info shouldn’t be divulged…..even though whatever it was, was already on the internet….gosh i wish i could recall this better….

    and hey, 2 stories today!! UPSTAT!!

    • Missionary Kid

      They’re claiming that Rinder was a paralegal in this case.

      • ah, thank you!!!

      • NOLAGirl

        A paralegal? *snort*

        I thought he was an unemployed fringe internet blogger? Or was it a bitter apostate? He has so many titles, I forget them all sometimes. πŸ™‚

        • Missionary Kid

          They are asserting that with Co$, he was functioning like a paralegal, and was working on the whole refund system in conjunction with an attorney.

          • NOLAGirl

            I just hope the Judge doesn’t buy it.

      • Science Doc

        And Davy Miscavige is a Parapope.

        • Missionary Kid

          Good one. Eventually Parapope will appear on the DM nickname list.

          • PettyParaPope. That loads on the English connotations of petty tyrant along with the root French petite or small.

            • Missionary Kid

              PettyParaPope is added, too, thank you.

      • BosonStark

        Do they have any documents or literature that list Rinder as a paralegal?

        • Missionary Kid

          They don’t have to, but they do have to prove that he functioned as a part of the legal problem. He says that he came up with the whole maze without consulting with any attorneys. Edit: IIRC

    • The organization that has routinely burgled lawyer offices (but they’ve stopped now) wants to claim ‘attorney-client’ privilege–after being shot down for the same claim before.

      How Elronic!

      • “Elronic”–Brilliant!!

        are we sure they’ve stopped doing that? πŸ™‚

        • *Checks watch* They’ve stopped. (Lunch break.)

    • Jgg2012

      They tried to disqualify Babbitt as the Garcia attorney based on the same argument, and failed. Anyway, Rinder is not a lawyer. Or was he a lawyer in his previous life?

      • Robert Eckert

        On Marcab.

        • Jgg2012

          Did he pass the bar there?

          • Mark Foster

            Took the bar exam on Arslykus. A rare accomplishment, given the history of the place…

  • disqus_SPiN5N4Adl

    I don’t think their motion is going to get very far. As a purely factual matter, they fail to state specifically WHAT was disclosed by Rinder that constituted confidential attorney-client information. As the response notes, Rinder describes his experience. They could also have noted that Rinder did not provide legal analysis or conclusions that could have been shared with him by COS counsel. This is just a waste of time motion, and I suspect the court will react the same way.

  • *pointing and laughing*
    Hey, Scientology . . .

  • Chee Chalker

    I am not familiar with any cases where the attorney client privilege was applicable when the person in question was not an attorney. That’s not to say it’s not out there, I just have not heard of it. Wasnt that the reason.that argument failed the first.time round?

  • Jgg2012

    This is the 2d time they’ve used the “what Rinder was told was confidential” argument. The problem is that confidentiality clauses don’t apply to illegal or fraudulent behavior.

  • Pierrot

    *** RED X +–+ Reminder ***

    It is stats Thursday to day, there are 48 new ads waiting for you in the Daily Wip tab of the RedX sheet
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Kvg78kCcvo5gL7UfPcmhmbsagTNtdj0y2LAiHVFrCU/pubhtml

    Ty AP https://www.flickr.com/photos/120371503@N05/13156278293/in/set-72157642802079293

  • aquaclara

    I hope Rinder files for whistleblower protection.

    • Missionary Kid

      That doesn’t apply in this case. IMO, and IANAL. This was discussed recently and one of the lawyers explained that the statue usually only applies to government employees. He left Co$ years ago, so I assume this is beyond the statute of limitations anyway.

  • J. Swift

    The Core of Scientology is Its Malicious System of Sham Contracts
    Scientology Money Project: http://scientologymoneyproject.com/2014/10/23/the-core-of-scientology-is-its-malicious-system-of-sham-contracts/

    How Scientology Inc. Legally Cripples Its Own Members: The Four Unconscionable Contracts: http://scientologymoneyproject.com/2014/06/28/how-scientology-inc-legally-cripples-its-own-members/

    • Missionary Kid

      Thank you, sir.

    • Mark Foster

      Factual and thorough-as usual. Thanks!

  • Robert Eckert

    It’s partly sunny in Detroit! I caught a couple glimpses of the Pac-Man before it set. Is Eclipse Girl up in Nunavut or wherever?

  • deathtoallpoliticians

    i am not sure that the co$’s attorney, robert potter, has properly cited the rentclub case. after review of the per curiam appellate decision, this case has no bearing on the current garcia case and does not bolster the co$ argument to strike rinder’s affidavit. quite clearly, and i am citing the rentclub appellate court’s opinion, “the district court found that the payment to canales made it appear that trenam, simmons had both induced canales to disclose confidential matters relating to transamerica, in violation of rules 4-1.6, 4-4.2 & 4-8.4(d) of the rules regulating the florida bar, as well as paid him for his factual testimony rather than his work as a “trial consultant,” in violation of rules 4-8.4(c) & 4-8.4(d). rentclub, 811 f.supp. at 654. we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was the appearance of impropriety in the payment to canales. accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order” rentclub, inc. v. transamerica rental finance corp., 43 f.3d 1349 (11 cir. 1995).

    in the rentclub case, canales was a former financial officer of transamerica who was retained by plaintiff’s counsel to testify as to the ins and outs of the rent-to-own industry. for his knowledge and testimony, plaintiff’s counsel paid canales $5,000. the district court disqualified plantiff’s counsel on the following grounds: 1) violation of rule 4-1.6 – after review of this rule, i am not sure what the district court was necessarily referring to. this rule covers disclosure of confidential information as it relates to representation of a client and mentions nothing about witnesses, either factual or as a trial consultant; 2) violation of rule 4-4.2 – once again, after review of this rule, i am not sure what the district court was necessarily referring to. this rule covers communications with a person who is represented by counsel and 3) 4-8.4(d) – and, once again, after review of this rule, i am not sure what the district court was necessarily referring to. this rule covers attorney misconduct, however, the section cited has nothing to do with the retention of a paid witness. read for yourself, “a lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.” the only thing i can think of, and as cited by the appellate court is that plaintiff’s counsel engaged in some form of misconduct by appearing to show an appearance of impropriety by paying canales the aforementioned $5,000 as a witness.

    based on the content of the rentclub case, and the above ruling in said rentclub case, the co$’s argument could be easily defeated, and was actually cited by attorney babbitt, by showing that rinder received no compensation for his factual information.

    the co$ attempts to cite the rentclub case to show that plaintiff’s counsel was disqualified in said case for using “confidential” information from the ex-employee but that is not at all what the case says. plaintiff’s counsel was dq’d for appearing to engage in impropriety for paying a witness for factual information. since rinder was not paid, i fail to see how this case means anything or why the co$ leans so heavily on it.

    that said, i would sanction the co$ for wasting the court’s time for such a nebulous, bootstrapping, and ultimately, incorrect argument, especially where the dq of plaintiff’s counsel has already been turned down. it is not like the co$ is offering anything new which the court should re-consider their previous opinion. based on all of this, i agree with mr. ortega in that it sounds like the co$ is just peeved at the content of the rinder affidavit. however, there is nothing, based on the case law that the co$ itself cited, that the co$ can do about it.

    as a caveat, i have been wrong many times in my life and am certain to be wrong many times in the future before i am six feet under. i would like to know what other fellow bunkerite lawyers think about of my legal analysis. have a great night fellow bunkerites. (please excuse the lack of proper legal citation. i am fully aware that case names should be italicized and underlined but i lost all formatting in the process of transferring my written comment from my word program to the bunker comment section.)

    • Mark Foster

      I am not a lawyer, but your point makes sense to me. I , too, would be curious to read input from the lawyers who post here.

  • LordXenuCruise

    The only one benefiting and sleeping peacefully at night is Miniscavige. Anyone who is in his inner circle are deathly afraid at all times about what is going to happen to them from one minute to the next. They could have a nice place to live great food to eat and a nice car and within minutes be wearing sack cloth and digging ditches or having the crap beat out of them or both. the middle and and lower management scrabble and scrape over each other like starving rats and the public is being regged into bankruptcy. I would be willing to bet everything I own that over half the membership is still there because A. They have no where else to go or B. Are scared to death of losing there family and friends and probably job. The other half are just too brainwashed to have figured it out yet.

  • Pierrot

    *** RED X +–+ RED X +–+RED X +–+ RED X *** Friday the 24th of October

    Good morning Early Birds and Night Owls,
    We have 165 new ads for Yesterday stats Thursday. The Last 4 Days list now stands at: 423 or 25+ minutes flagging.
    *NEW*
    We have an improved Last 4 Days list which now includes the ad titles, to help you filter the non co$ ads. We have a rearranged and better Regional list , read all about it at WWP
    https://whyweprotest.net/threads/taking-down-co-on-craigslist-co-ads-on-craigslist.113779/page-116#post-2492042
    Or go directly to the RedX spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Kvg78kCcvo5gL7UfPcmhmbsagTNtdj0y2LAiHVFrCU/pubhtml

    The best strategy it to flag everything in the β€œLast 4 Days” and then come back later in the afternoon to flag new arrivals in the Daily Wip (from 4:30am onward) You can also use the reboot tech and Flag
    it all over again.

    FREELOADER Debt is ILLEGAL and CAN’T BE ENFORCED.
    DON’T route out, BLOW, Get HELP, get OUT. CALL 1-866-XSEAORG

    Ty DoDo (Fanart by CRS):. https://www.flickr.com/photos/120371503@N05/15579043642/in/set-72157642802079293

  • I really, really, really fucking love this! This makes a smile on my ugly face. I just got out of the hospital and this makes me happier. πŸ™‚ It shows that the criminals are shitting their fucking pants out of fear now that their one-time number 2 criminal is ratting the rest of the crooks out and doing it with credibility.

    Must suck to be a criminal when one’s fellow crooks turn State’s evidence. No wonder these filthy crims want the testimony banned.

  • carpe canem

    intsragram