Monique Rathbun V Scientology, Petition For Writ of Mandamus Supporting Documents

CAUSE NO.
C-2013-1082B
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.

DAVID MISCA VIGE, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN
GREGORY SLOAT, MONTY DRAKE,
DA VE LUBOW and ED BRYAN,
DefundantL
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
207 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND
MOTION TO DESIGN A TE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 86, before fil ing any answer or other pleading
in this action, Defendant Monty Drake ("Defendant Drake") files this Motion to Transfer Venue,
Original Answer and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party in response to the Plaintiff's
First Amended Petition and, subject to his Motion to Transfer Venue, would show the Court:
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
I. Defendant Drake is a resident of the State of Texas and is domiciled in Hood
County, Texas. Defendant Steven Gregory Sloat is a resident of the State of Texas and is
domiciled in Harris County, Texas.
2. The primary and principal purpose of, and primary and principal rel ief sought by,
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition is injunctive relief.
3. Pursuant to Section 65.023 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,
mandatory venue of this lawsuit is in Hood County, Texas, where Defendant Drake is domiciled,
or in Harris County, Texas, where Defendant Sloat is domiciled.
Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to Transfer Venue,
Original Answer, and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party Page 1
MR707
4. Pursuant to Section 15.016 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, the
mandatory venue required by Section 65.023 prevails over all mandatory and permissive venue
provisions of Chapter I 5 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
5. Defendant Drake denies that Comal County is a county of proper venue.
Defendant Drake denies that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's
purported claims occurred and are still occurring in Comal County.
6. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 86-89 and Section 65.023 of the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Defendant Drake objects to venue of this action in
Comal County, asserts that venue in Comal County is improper, and seeks transfer of this case to
a District Court in Hood County, Texas or, alternatively, in Harris County, Texas.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Drake prays that this Court,
after notice and hearing, grant this Motion to Transfer Venue, transferring this action to a District
Court in Hood County, Texas, or, alternatively, in Harri s County, Texas, tax all costs against the
Plaintiff, and grant Defendant Drake such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to
which he may be justly entitled.
DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Motion to Transfer Venue, which may be
hereafter amended, Defendant Drake submits the following Original Answer in response to
Plaintiffs pleadings and would show the Court the following:
I. GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant Drake denies generally each
and every material allegation of Plaintiff's pleadings and demands that each and every material
allegation be proved by a preponderance of the competent evidence at the trial of this case.
MR708
II. DEFENSES
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94, Defendant Drake asserts the following
defenses to Plaintiffs pleadings:
1. Plaintiffs purported causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, tortious interference with her employment contract, invasion of privacy for intrusion on
seclusion, and invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts fai l to establish that
Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, that there is a substantial risk of imminent harm to
Plaintiff, that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief, that
Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on her claims at trial, and otherwise fai l to
establish her right to injunctive relief.
2. As alleged in Defendant Church of Scientology International 's Answer, Plaintiff
has violated Church of Scientology International (the "Church") trademarks, has infringed the
Church's copyrights, has conspired with her husband, Mark "Marty" Rathbun, to do so, has
aided and abetted him in doing so, has encouraged the theft of the Church's property, has
profited from such violations, infringements and thefts, has aided and abetted her husband to
violate his contractual and fiduciary obligations to the Church, and has aided and abetted him in
violating the Church's attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. As a result, Plaintiff
has unclean hands that prevent her from recovering any type of equitable relief.
3. As judicially admitted in her First Amended Petition and in Paragraph 4 of
Plaintiff's sworn affidavit to this Court, she has allegedly been harassed for four years. While
Defendant Drake denies that any of the alleged conduct is violative of any of Plaintiff's rights,
any complaint about it at this late time is now barred by the doctrine of !aches.
4. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action, if any, are barred by Sections 16.002 and
Original Answer, and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party Page3
MR709
16.003 of the Texas Civi l Practice & Remedies Code.
S. By her actions and words, Plaintiff has inserted herself into the public dispute that
she and her husband jointly decided to start against the Church in 2009. Her agreement to be
featured in biogs, her interviews with the press, and her appearances and statements in public
against the Church and in general have made Plaintiff a public figure with no expectation of
privacy and have made her actions, statements and support of others against the Church matters
of legitimate public concern.
6. Plaintiff' s claims are barred by the doctrine of justification.
7. Plaintiff' s claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
8. Defendant Drake is a private investigator licensed by the State of Texas.
Defendant Drake's actions were within the scope of his license and, thus, privileged.
9. Pursuant to Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Defendant
Drake alleges that Plaintiff's own conduct, acts and omissions bar all of her tort claims under
Section 33.00 l or, alternatively, reduce the amount of any recovery by Plaintiff under Section
33.012.
I 0. Plaintiff s damages, if any, are barred by, or must be reduced because of, her
failure to mitigate her alleged damages.
11. Plaintiff' s purported claims for exemplary damages are subject to the limitations
and provisions of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civi l Practice & Remedies Code.
12. By pleading other purported causes of action, Plaintiff has judicially admitted that
she has alternative causes of action that provide a remedy for her alleged emotional distress. As
a result, Texas law does not permit Plaintiff to pursue a cause of action for intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
MR710
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Drake prays that the Temporary
Restraining Order be dissolved, that Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief be denied, that
Plaintiff take and recover nothing, and that he have judgment for his costs and such other relief
against Plaintiff to which he is justly entitled.
DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S MOTION TO DESIGNATE
MARK "MARTY,, RATHBUN AS A RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Motion to Transfer Venue, Defendant
Drake, pursuant to Section 33.004 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, seeks leave to
designate Plaintiffs husband, Mark "Marty" Rathbun, as a responsible third party and would
show the Court as follows:
I. Plaintiff seeks damages for, inter alia, invasion of privacy by the public
disclosure of private facts.
2. Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff' s affidavit to this Court asserts that Defendants sent a
sex toy to her at her workplace, "which was very embarrassing."
3. Plaintiff's husband, Mark "Marty" Rathbun published this alleged event to the
world in at least one press interview and on his internet blog, where he published a photograph of
a sex toy allegedly sent to Plaintiff at her workplace.
4. According to Plaintiff' s affidavit to this Court, the publ ication of this act and of
the photograph would also have been "very embarrassing" and a cause of emotional hann to her.
5. But for Mark "Marty" Rathbun's public disclosure of this alleged event and of the
photograph, only Plaintiff and Mark "Marty" Rathbun would have known of this alleged event.
Mark "Marty" Rathbun publ icized that alleged event.
6. Specifically, Mark "Marty" Rathbun publicized information about the Plaintiff's
private life, the publicity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, the matter publicized
MR711
is not of legitimate public concern, and Plaintiff allegedly suffered an emotional injury as a result
of the disclosure.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, after notice, Defendant Drake prays that the
Court designate Mark "Marty" Rathbun as a responsible third party under Section 33.004 of the
Civil Practice & Remedies Code in order for his responsibility to be submitted to the finder of
fact, and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Defendant Drake
may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
h/O. Paul Dunagan
0. Paul Dunagan
State Bar No. 06202700
Gary D. Sarles
State Bar No. 17651 100
SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202-4436
Telephone: (2 14) 573-6300
Telecopier: (2 14) 573-6306
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MONTY DRAKE
MR712
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that on this 7th day of October, 2013, a true and correct copy of
Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to Transfer Venue, Original Answer, and Motion to Designate
Responsible Third Party was forwarded via facsimile or email to all counsel of record:
Ray Jeffery, Esq.
A. Dannette Mitchell, Esq.
Jeffery & Mitchell, PC
2631 Bul verde Road, Suite l 05
Bulverde, Texas 78163
rjeffrey@sj m lawyers.com
Mark F. Wiegand, Esq.
The Wiegand Law Firm, PC
434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2301
San Antonio, Texas 78232
marc@wiegandlawfirm.com
Elliott S. Cappuccio, Esq.
Putman Caoouccio Pullen & Benson, LLP
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., Suite 400
ecappuccio@pulmanlaw.com
Les J. Stieber, III
Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500
755 E. Mulberry Avenue
lstrieber@lawdcm.com
Lamont A. Jefferson, Esq.
Haynes & Boone, LLP
11 2 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1200
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1540
Lamont.Jefferson@haynesboone.com
J. Iris Gibson
Haynes & Boone
600 Congress A venue, Suite 1300
Austin, Texas 78701
Iris.Gibson@haynesboone.com
Jonathan H. Hull
40 I Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, TX 78130-5 137
jhull@reaganburrus.com
Bert Deixler
Kendall Brill & Kleiger, LLP
I 0 I 00 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, CA 90067
bdeixler@kbkfirm.com
Isl 0. Paul Dunagan
0 . Paul Dunagan
Original Answer, and Motion to Designate Responsible Thi rd Party Page7
MR713
Oct. 17. 2013 4:49PM No. 2477 P. 2/ 4
CAUSE No. Cw2013-1082B
MONIQUE RATHBUN IN THE DTSTRTCT COURT

PLAINTIFF

v. 207 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DA VlD MTSCA YfGE, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT,
AND MONTY DRAKE
DEFENDANTS COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRIVILEGE LOG
To: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN1'ERNATIONAL,
RELIG!OUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AND
DAVID MISCA VJGE
BY AND THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Ricardo G. Cedillo
Les J. Strieber III
DA vrs, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
San Antonio, TX 78212
Lamont A. Jeffernon
HA YNES & BOONE, LLP
112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1200
J. Iris Gibson
600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
Austin, TX 78701
George H. Spencer, Jr.
CLEMENS & SPENCllR
112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1300
San Antonio, TX 78205-1531
COl\lENOW Plaintiff Monique Rathbun, and pursuant to TEX. R. Crv. P. 193 .3(b ), seives this
request for the Defendants to identify the information and material withheld from discovery. Your
response must comply with the requirements in Rule 193.3(b) and must be served withi11 15 days.
MR714
Oct. 17. 2013 4:49PM
f'(Jl,MAN CAPP'UCC10 PULLEN
BENSON & .JONES LLP
No.2477
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., Suite 400
(210) 222-9494 Telephone
(210) 892wl610 Facsimile
s. Cappuccio
exas State Bar No. 24008419
ecappucoio@pulmanlaw.com
JEFFERY & MITCHELL, P.C.
Ray Jeffrey
State Bar Number 10613700
A. Dannette Mitchell
2631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105
Bulverde, TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)
tj effrey(lV,sjmlawyers. com
dmi tchellC@.sjmla:wyers.com
THE WIEGAND LAW FlRM, P.C.
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
marc@wiegandlawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
-2-
F
' ') /4
' J,
MR715
Oct . 17. 2013 4:49PM No . 2477 P. 4/ 4
I hereby certify that on the ( 7 day of October, 2013, a true and conect copy of Plaintiff's
Request for Privilege Log has been transmitted in accordance with the requirements of the TEXAS
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, addressed as follows:
Via Te/ecopier (210) .l54-0413
Lamont A. Jefferson
11 ? PPf'.:m 1 ?()()
Via Telecopier (214) 573-6306
0. Paul Dunagan
Gary D. Sarles
.C::: & J& n1 rn...mrr
MR716
, D... ',
:/
NO. C2013-1082B
MONIQUE RATHBUN IN THE DISTRICT COURT

v.

' " ) 0J?
..
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH
OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE
~
COMAL COUNTY, E ~ ~ .
' ;-';:
:.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the court is the motion of Defendant Church of Scientology International
for the entry of a confidentiality and protective order ("Protective Order"). After careful
consideration, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Classified Information
"Classified Infonnation" means any information of any type, kind, or character
that is designated as "Confidential", "For Counsel Only", or "Attorneys Eyes Only" by
any of the supplying or receiving persons, whether it be a document, information
contained in a document, information revealed during a deposition, infonnation revealed
in an interrogatory answer, or otherwise.
2. Qualified Persons
"Qualified Persons" means:
a. For Counsel or Attorneys Only information:
i. retained counsel for the parties in this litigation and their respective
staff;
11. actual or potential independent experts or consultants (and their
administrative or clerical staff) engaged in connection with this
litigation (which shall not include the current employees, officers,
. ~
. !
; I
MR717
-,
:Jj
members, or agents of parties or affiliates of parties) who, prior to
any disclosure of Classified Information to such person, have signed
a document agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective
Order (such signed document to be maintained by the attorney
retaining such person) and have been designated in writing by notice
to all counsel;
m. this court and its staff and any other tribunal or dispute resolution
officer duly appointed or assigned in connection with this litigation.
b. For Confidential information:
t. the persons identified in subparagraph 2(a);
11. the party, if a natural person, and the party's spouse;
iii. if the party is an entity, such officers or employees of the party who
are actively involved in the prosecution or defense of this case who,
prior to any disclosure of Confidential information to such person,
have been designated in writing by notice to all counsel and have
signed a document agreeing to be bound by the terms of this
Protective Order (such signed document to be maintained by the
attorney designating such person);
1v. litigation vendors, court reporters, and other litigation support
personnel;
v. any person who was an author, addressee, or intended or authorized
recipient of the Confidential information and who agrees to keep the
information confidential, provided that such persons may see and
use the Confidential information but not retain a copy.
c. Such other person as this court may designate after notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
2 I 0402/0002 l 3 7 -2457 5 2
MR718
(.!)
3. Designation Criteria
a. Nonclassified Information. Classified Infonnation shall not include
infonnation that either:
b.
I. is in the public domain at the time of disclosure, as evidenced by a
written document;
11. becomes part of the public domain through no fault of the recipient,
as evidenced by a written document;
m. the receiving party can show by written document was in its rightful
and lawful possession at the time of disclosure; or
1v. lawfully comes into the recipient's possession subsequent to the time
of disclosure from another source without restriction as to
disclosure, provided such third party has the right to make the
disclosure to the receiving party.
Confzdenttal Information. A party shall designate as Confidential
Information only such infonnation that the party in good faith believes in fact is
confidential. Information that is generally available to the public, such as public filings,
catalogues, advertising materials, and the like, shall not be designated as Confidential.
Information and documents that may be designated as Confidential Information
include, but are not limited to, trade secrets, confidential or proprietary, financial
information, operational data, business plans, and competitive analyses, personnel files,
personal information that is protected by law, and other sensitive information that, if not
restricted as set forth in this order, may subject the producing or disclosing person to
financial injury or potential legal liability to third parties.
210402/0002137 24575 3
MR719
Correspondence and other communications between the parties or with nonparties
may be designated as Confidential Information if the communication was made with the
understanding or reasonable expectation that the infonnation would not become generally
available to the public.
c. For Counsel or Attorneys Only. The designation "For Counsel Only" or
"Attorneys Eyes Only" shall be reserved for information that is believed to be unknown
to the opposing party or parties, or any of the employees of a corporate party. For
purposes of this order, so-designated information includes, but is not limited to, product
formula information, design information, non-public financial information, pncmg
information, customer identification data, and certain study methodologies.
d. Ultrasensitive Information. At this point, the parties do not anticipate the
need for higher levels of confidentiality as to ultrasensitive documents or infonnation.
However, in the event that a court orders that ultrasensitive documents or information be
produced, the parties will negotiate and ask the court to enter an ultrasensitive
information protocol in advance of production to further protect such information.
4. Use of Classified Information
All Classified Information provided by any party or non party in the course of this
litigation shall be used solely for the purpose of preparation, trial, and appeal of this
litigation and for no other purpose, and shall not be disclosed except in accordance with
the tenns hereof.
210402/0002 I 37-24575 4
MR720
5. Marking of Documents
Documents provided in this litigation may be designated by the producing person
or by any party as Classified Information by marking each page of the documents so
designated with a stamp indicating that the information is "Confidential", "For Counsel
Only", or "Attorneys Eyes Only". In lieu of marking the original of a document, if the
original is not provided, the designating party may mark the copies that are provided.
Originals shall be preserved for inspection.
6. Disclosure at Depositions
Information disclosed at (a) the deposition of a party or one of its present or
fonner officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, representatives, or independent
experts retained by counsel for the purpose of this litigation, or (b) the deposition of a
nonparty may be designated by any party as Classified Information by indicating on the
record at the deposition that the testimony is "Confidential" or "For Counsel Only" and is
subject to the provisions of this Order.
Any party also may designate information disclosed at a deposition as Classified
Information by notifying all parties in writing not later than 30 days of receipt of the
transcript of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that should be treated as
Classified Information thereafter. Each party shall attach a copy of each such written
notice to the face of the transcript and each copy thereof in that party's possession,
custody, or control. All deposition transcripts shall be treated as Confidential for a period
of 3 0 days after initial receipt of the transcript.
210402/0002137-24575 5
MR721
/ ~ t ~
: :y
To the extent possible, the court reporter shall segregate into separate transcripts
infonnation designated as Classified Information with blank, consecutively numbered
pages being provided in a nondesignated main transcript. The separate transcript
containing Classified Information shall have page numbers that correspond to the blank
pages in the main transcript.
Counsel for a party or a nonparty witness shall have the right to exclude from
depositions any person who is not authorized to receive Classified Information pursuant
to this Protective Order, but such right of exclusion shall be applicable only during
periods of examination or testimony during which Classified Information is being used or
discussed.
As used in this Protective Order, "transcript" means all forms and formats of
depositions, whether stenographic, video, audio, or other.
7. Disclosure to Qualified Persons
a. To Whom. Classified Information shall not be disclosed or made available
by the receiving party to persons other than Qualified Persons except as necessary to
comply with applicable law or the valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
provided, however, that in the event of a disclosure compelled by Jaw or court order, the
receiving party will so notify the producing party as promptly as practicable (if at all
possible, prior to making such disclosure) and shall seek a protective order or confidential
treatment of such information. Information designated as For Counsel Only shall be
restricted in circulation to Qualified Persons described in subparagraph 2(a).
21 M02/0002137-24575 6
MR722
b. Retention of Copies During this Litigation. Copies of For Counsel Only
information shall be maintained only in the offices of outside counsel for the receiving
party and, to the extent supplied to experts described in subparagraph 2(a)(ii), in the
offices of those experts. Any documents produced in this litigation, regardless of
classification, that are provided to Qualified Persons shall be maintained only at the
office of such Qualified Person and only necessary working copies of any such
documents shall be made. Copies of documents and exhibits containing Classified
Information may be prepared by independent copy services, printers, or illustrators for
the purpose of this litigation.
c. Each party's outside counsel shall maintain a log of all copies of For
Counsel Only documents that are delivered to Qualified Persons.
8. Unintentional Disclosures
Documents unintentionally produced without designation as Classified
Information later may be designated and shall be treated as Classified Information from
the date written notice of the designation is provided to the receiving party.
lf a receiving party learns of any unauthorized disclosure of Confidential
information or For Counsel Only information, the party shall immediately upon learning
of such disclosure infonn the producing party of all pertinent facts relating to such
disclosure and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent disclosure by each
unauthorized person who received such information.
210402/0002 J.'l?-24575 7
MR723
9. Documents Produced for Inspection Prior to Designation
In the event documents are produced for inspection prior to designation, the
documents shall be treated as For Counsel Only during inspection. At the time of copying
for the receiving parties, Classified Information shall be marked prominently
"Confidential", "For Counsel Only", or "Attorneys Eyes Only" by the producing party.
10. Consent to Disclosure and Use in Examination
Nothing in this order shall prevent disclosure beyond the tenns of this order if
each party designating the information as Classified Information consents in writing to
such disclosure or if the court, after notice to all affected parties and nonparties, orders
such disclosure. Nor shall anything in this order prevent any counsel of record from
utilizing Classified Information in the examination or cross-examination of any person
who is indicated on the document as being an author, source, or recipient of the
Classified Information, irrespective of which party produced such information.
11. Challenging the Designation
a. Classified Information. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the
propriety of a designation of Classified Information at the time such designation is made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge to the designation. In the
event that any party to this litigation disagrees at any stage of these proceedings with the
designation of any information as Classified Information, the parties shall first try to
resolve the dispute in good faith on an informal basis, such as by production of redacted
copies. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the objecting party may invoke this Protective
210402/0002137-24575 8
MR724
Order by objecting in writing to the party who designated the document or information as
Classified Infonnation. The designating party shall then have 14 days to move the court
for an order preserving the designated status of the disputed information. The disputed
information shall remain Classified Information unless and until the court orders
otherwise. Failure to move for an order shall constitute a termination of the status of such
item as Classified Information.
b. Qualified Persons. In the event that any party in good faith disagrees with
the designation of a person as a Qualified Person or the disclosure of particular Classified
Information to such person, the parties shall first try to resolve the dispute in good faith
on an informal basis. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the objecting party shall have 14
days from the date of the designation or, in the event particular Classified Infonnation is
requested subsequent to the designation of the Qualified Person, 14 days from service of
the request to move the court for an order denying the disputed person (a) status as a
Qualified Person, or (b) access to particular Classified Information. The objecting person
shall have the burden of demonstrating that disclosure to the disputed person would
expose the objecting party to the risk of serious harm. Upon the timely filing of such a
motion, no disclosure of Classified Information shall be made to the disputed person
unless and until the court enters an order preserving the designation.
12. Manner of Use in Proceedings
In the event a party wishes to use any Classified Information in affidavits,
declarations, briefs, memoranda of law, or other papers filed in this litigation, the party
2 10402/0002 137-24575 9
MR725
. - :, ... ' ..\ .,
! . : . } ~
shall do one of the following: ( 1) with the consent of the producing party, file only a
redacted copy of the information; (2) where appropriate (e.g., in connection with
discovery and evidentiary motions) provide the information solely for in camera review;
or (3) file such information under seal with the court consistent with the sealing
requirements of the court.
13. Filing Under Seal
The clerk of this court is directed to maintain under seal all documents, transcripts
of deposition testimony, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and other papers filed
under seal in this litigation that have been designated, in whole or in part, as Classified
Information by any party to this litigation consistent with the sealing requirements of the
court.
14. Return of Documents
Not later than 120 days after conclusion of this litigation and any appeal related to
it, any Classified Information, all reproductions of such information, and any notes,
summaries, or descriptions of such information in the possession of any of the persons
specified in paragraph 2 (except subparagraph 2(a)(iii)) shall be returned to the producing
party or destroyed, except as this court may otherwise order or to the extent such
information has been used as evidence at any trial or hearing. Notwithstanding this
obligation to return or destroy information, counsel may retain attorney work product,
including document indices, so long as that work product does not duplicate verbatim
substantial portions of the text of any Classified Information.
210402/0-002137-24575 10
MR726
.. ')
: . ~ : .
.'::: ~ ~
15. Ongoing Obligations
Insofar as the provisions of this Protective Order, or any other protective orders
entered in this litigation, restrict the communication and use of the information protected
by it, such provisions shall continue to be binding after the conclusion of this litigation,
except that (a) there shall be no restriction on documents that are used as exhibits in open
court unless such exhibits were filed under seal, and (b) a party may seek the written
permission of the producing party or order of the court with respect to dissolution or
modification of this, or any other, protective order.
16. Advice to Clients
This order shall not bar any attorney in the course of rendering advice to such
attorney's client with respect to this litigation from conveying to any party client the
attorney' s evaluation in a general way of Classified Information produced or exchanged
under the terms of this order; provided, however, that in rendering such advice and
otherwise communicating with the client, the attorney shall not disclose the specific
contents of any Classified Infonnation produced by another party if such disclosure
would be contrary to the terms of this Protective Order.
17. Duty to Ensure Compliance
Any party designating any person as a Qualified Person shall have the duty to
reasonably ensure that such person observes the terms of this Protective Order and shall
be responsible upon breach of such duty for the failure of such person to observe the
terms of this Protective Order.
2104021000213 7-24575 I l
MR727
18. Waiver.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d) neither the attorney-client
privilege nor work product protection is waived by disclosure connected with this
litigation.
19. Modification and Exceptions.
The parties may, by stipulation, provide for exceptions to this order and any party
may seek an order of this court modifying this Protective Order.
It is SO ORDERED this JS__ day o [) ~ 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P.C.
2631 Bulverde Rd., Suite 105
(830) 438-8935 - Telephone
(830) 438-4958 - Facsimile
rjeffrey@sjmlawyers.com
By: ____________ _
Ray Jeffrey
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
MONIQUE RATHBUN
2104021<Xl02137-24575 12
MR728
)
' .
. ;.,
CLEMENS & SPENCER
(210) 227-7121-Telephone
(210) 227-0732 - Facsimile
spencer@clemens-spencer.com
By: ______ _____ _
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
INTERNATIONAL
(210) 978-7413 - Telephone
(210) 554-0413 - Facsimile
lamont.jefferson@haynesboone.com
By: ___________ _
Lamont A. Jefferson
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
DAVID MISCA VIGE and
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
REAGAN BURRUS PLLC
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, Texas 78130
(830) 625-8026 - Telephone
(830) 625-4433 - Facsimile
jhull(ip,reaganburrus.com
By: ___________ _
Jonathan H. Hull
210402/000213724575 13
MR729
SARLES & OUIMET
3 70 Founders Square
900 Jackson St.
Dallas, Texas 75202
dunagan@sarleslaw.com
(214) 573-6300 - Telephone
(214) 573-6306 - Facsimile
By: ____________ _
0. Paul Dunagan
210402/0002137-24575 14
MR730
1

CAUSE NO. C-2013-1082B
MONIQUE RATHBUN IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

v. 207
TH
J UDICIAL DISTRICT

DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS
MONTY DRAKE

Defendants. COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALS ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE J UDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI) and files its Anti-
SLAPP Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition (FAP), and each of the four causes of
action alleged under it, pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
CSI brings this motion at this time because it is required to bring such a motion under the statute
within sixty days of the date upon which it received service of the original complaint, which was
August 20, 2013. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 27.003(b). In support of this
motion, CSI submits the affidavits of Allan Cartwright (Cartwright Aff.), David Lubow
(Lubow Aff.), J ohn Allender (Allender Aff.), Richard Hirst (Hirst Aff.), Monty Drake
(Drake Aff.), and Steven Sloat (Sloat Aff.) and will show the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The court must dismiss this lawsuit, and each cause of action alleged under it,
pursuant to Texas anti-SLAPP statute (the Statute) because the pleadings on file, this Motion,
and the supporting affidavits and evidence show by a preponderance of the evidence that this
Filed
13 October 18 A9:14
Kathy Faulkner
District Clerk
Comal District
MR731
2

lawsuit is based on, relates to, or is in response to CSIs exercise of the rights of free speech and
association and the right of petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.005(b), 27.006.
II. DISMISSAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE STATUTE
2. Plaintiffs claims against CSI are barred by the Citizens Participation Act, Chapter
27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which is the Texas anti-SLAPP statute enacted in
2011, as amended by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., Ch. 1042 (H.B. 2935), 1, eff. J une 14, 2013. A
SLAPP is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Chapter 27 provides for an early
and expedited dismissal of such lawsuits, which seek to shut down and silence citizens exercise
of their First Amendment rights. The Statutes purpose is to encourage and safeguard the
constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, [and] associate freely. Id. 27.002.
The legislature has determined that unmeritorious lawsuits subject to chapter 27
should be dismissed early in litigation, generally before parties must engage in
discovery. . . .The supporters of the bill leading to the enactment of chapter 27
noted that the bills purposes were to allow a prevailing movant of a motion to
dismiss to achieve dismissal earlier than would otherwise be possible and to
avoid costly legal expenses, including discovery expenses, even before the
summary judgment stage of litigation. . . . Requiring a proper movant for
dismissal under chapter 27 to engage fully in litigation, including a possible trial,
would eviscerate these purposes and would ignore the legislatures determination
that customary procedures are inadequate in some respects to protect defendants
in cases falling within chapter 27s guidelines. Likewise, requiring proper chapter
27 movants generally to proceed through litigation when they should be entitled
to dismissal harms a broader purpose of chapter 27 to encourage and safeguard
the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and
otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law.
In re Lipsky, 02-12-00348-CV, 2013 WL 1715459 at *16 (Tex. App.Fort Worth Apr. 22,
2013, no pet.) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Statute provides for dismissal of
a lawsuit that is based on, relates to, or is in response to a partys exercise of the right of free
speech, right to petition, or right of association. Id. 27.003(a). Courts are directed that the
Statute shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully. Id. 27.011(b).
MR732
3

3. CSI was served with this lawsuit on or about August 20, 2013, less than sixty
days before filing this Motion. See id. 27.003(b).
4. A hearing on this Motion must be set within 60 days of service of this Motion,
unless the Courts docket conditions require a later hearing. Id. 27.004. The Court must then
rule on the Motion no later than 30 days after the hearing date.
5. The Court is required to dismiss this suit, and each cause of action alleged under
it, under the Statute if the moving party [CSI] shows by a preponderance of the evidence that
the legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the partys exercise of: (1) the right of
free speech; (2) the right to petition; or (3) the right of association. Id. 27.005(b). In making
this determination, the Court is to consider the pleadings, the supporting and opposing affidavits.
Id. 27.006. Under the Statute, each cause of action set forth in the FAP is deemed a Legal
Action and is subject to a motion to dismiss under the Statute. Id. 27.001(6), 27.003(a).
6. To avoid dismissal plaintiff must establish[] by clear and specific evidence a
prima facie case for each essential element of the claim[s] in question. Id. 27.005(c)
(emphasis added). The purposeful inclusion of a clear and specific evidence requirement
indicates that the non-movant must satisfy an elevated evidentiary standard under 27.005(c).
Rehak Creative Services, Inc. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716, 726 (Tex. Civ. App.Houston [14th
Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (specifically rejecting argument that court should import into Chapter 27
the scintilla of evidence concept applicable in the context of a no-evidence motion for summary
judgment). As the Court emphasized in Witt, to meet her burden of clear and specific
evidence, a plaintiff cannot rely on presumptions, inferences or intendment.
1
Id. quoting

1
See also KTRK Television, Inc. v. Robinson, 01-12-00372-CV, 2013 WL 3483773 at *5 (Tex.
App.Houston [1st Dist.] J uly 11, 2013, pet. filed) (Clear means unambiguous, sure, or
MR733
4

McDonald v. Clemens, 464 S.W.2d 450, 456 (Tex. Civ. App.Tyler 1971, no writ); S. Cantu &
Son v. Ramirez, 101 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex. Civ. App.San Antonio 1936, no writ) (Charges of
fraud must be established by clear and specific evidence, which may not be aided by
presumptions or inferences, or intendment).
7. Even if a plaintiff can establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case
for each element of her claim, the Court nevertheless shall dismiss a legal action against the
moving party if the moving party establishes by a preponderance of the evidence each essential
element of a valid defense to the non-movants claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
27.005(d). Thus, for example, even if a libel plaintiff can establish by prima facie evidence the
elements of a libel, a court is required to dismiss the action if the defendant can establish a First
Amendment defense.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
8. Plaintiff Monique Rathbun is the wife of Marty Rathbun. The events and
underlying dispute mainly concern her husband, although, as the uncontroverted facts show,
plaintiff has interjected herself, and permitted her husband to interject her, into those disputes in
a public and confrontational manner. For example, Marty Rathbuns website provides a link
entitled News About Monique, which links to an article on this lawsuit quoting extensively
from plaintiffs Original Petition and plaintiffs counsel. Cartwright Aff. 15. Moreover, Mr.
Rathbun has intentionally, repeatedly, and in a very public manner made the Rathbun home the
location for his anti-Scientology rants.
9. Mr. Rathbun was a member and official of the Church of Scientology for over 20
years when he was relieved of his duties in December 2003 for gross misconduct. He

free from doubt. Blacks Law Dictionary 268 (8th ed. 2004). Specific means explicit or
relating to a particular named thing. Id. at 1167).
MR734
5

subsequently left the Church in 2004. Cartwright Aff. 5. Five years after leaving the Church,
he became a self-proclaimed independent Scientologist practicing his own version of what he
calls Scientology. Mr. Rathbun purports to provide independent Scientology services to
followers, often for a fee, out of his place of business, which also is his residence. Id. 5-8. He
also has written books and posts an Internet blog that attack his former church. Id. 14-16. He
has conducted media interviews and produced videos to that end at his place of business in
Texas, and has distributed his videos and transcripts of his interviews on the Internet. Id. 10,
13.
10. Mr. Rathbuns blog, which he started publishing in 2009, contains vitriolic,
defamatory and false attacks on the Church and its ecclesiastical leadership. Cartwright Aff.
14, Exh. 14. Mr. Rathbun has likened himself to a modern day Martin Luther, even to the point
of publishing a document entitled 31 Factors, transparently modeled on Luthers 95 Theses,
which he posted on his Internet blog, in an obvious imitation of Luthers nailing of his 95
Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. Id. 16, Exh. 2. He has accused the
Church and its leadership of departing from Scientology doctrine and corrupting the religious
practice of Scientology, and has claimed that his independent Scientology practice is the true
religion faithful to its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Id. 16, Exhs. 6, 8. He has called for the
destruction of the Church of Scientology and its replacement by his version of independent
Scientology. Id. 7, 16, Exh. 6.
11. Mr. Rathbun has also used his blog to solicit persons to visit his place of business
to receive independent Scientology services from Mr. Rathbun and from plaintiff, often for a
fee. Cartwright Aff. 5, 6, 7, 15. Indeed, as recently as October 12, 2013, Rathbun posted
MR735
6

comments from recent visitors who had received such services including at his most current
place of business/residence. Id. 15.
12. Mr. Rathbun has voluntarily appeared on BBC, NBC, CNN (Anderson Cooper),
ABC (Nightline), and other television venues. Cartwright Aff. 9-11. He has conducted
interviews with leading newspaper publications including the New York Times, Tampa Bay
Times, Texas Monthly, and various local newspapers throughout the United States where he is
widely and often quoted making the same allegations. Id. Many of those interviews have taken
place at Mr. Rathbuns place of business/residence. Indeed, several of the interviews were filmed
inside Mr. Rathbuns place of business/residence, and transmitted to the world. For example,
Rathbun appeared for an on camera interview from his home on ABCs Nightline which was
aired on October 22, 2009. Cartwright Aff. 10, Exh. 9, screenshot. Channel 4 in the United
Kingdom did a show featuring the Rathbuns which aired on J une 17, 2013, and which showed
Monique inside their house. Id., Exh. 10. The Rathbuns hosted a reporter and video crew from
the German station N-TV, which showed Monique in her living room when it aired on N-TV in
Germany on December 11, 2012. Id., Exh. 11. In early 2012, reporter Guy Adams was invited
into their business/residence and given an interview, and his article ran in the UK Independent on
April 7, 2012, with a photograph of Rathbun standing before his Scientology books in their
business/residence. Id. 10, Exh. 12.
13. Rathbun has also produced videos of himself and others and has his own
YouTube channel which currently contains over 70 videos. These include videos with his
associate Mike Rinder, attacking the Church and its officials while sitting at Rathbuns residence
and place of business in Texas. Monique is also featured on a number of his blogs including
MR736
7

videos he shot of her in their home. Cartwright Aff., Exh. 13, blog. He distributed his videos
and transcripts of his interviews over the world-wide Internet. Id. 13.
14. Mr. Rathbun has met and planned actions against the Church with overseas
attackers of the Church, including one local official in Germany whom the United States State
Department has found to be an infringer of religious rights and an anti-religionist (U.S.
Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2003,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2003/24410.htm). He actively participated in a press conference
in Germany with that official in which he repeated his attacks on the Church and its leadership.
Cartwright Aff. 12. His blog provides links to these various anti-Scientology groups and
individuals.
15. After departing the Church, Mr. Rathbun has made uninvited visits to Church
premises, during which he harassed parishioners and staff. Cartwright Aff. 18. On one
occasion, Mr. Rathbun impersonated a Church executive claiming to be calling on behalf of the
current President of Religious Technology Center, a defendant in this case to get to speak to a
particular staff member, and when he got through to her, he attempted to pull her out of the
Church; the staff member angrily rejected his effort. Id. After continued incidents, Mr. Rathbun
was issued a Trespass Warning citation by the Clearwater, Florida Police Department
effectively preventing him from disrupting Church services. Id., Exh. 17.
16. Mr. Rathbun has explicitly encouraged parishioners and staff members to leave
the Church, to take Church property and Church proprietary and confidential information with
them and deliver them to his residence in Ingleside on the Bay, Texas. He posted several
statements on the Internet openly inviting church staff members to steal church documents and
records, promising to provide them with legal support should they do so. Cartwright Aff. 19.
MR737
8

In fact, he provided legal and logistical support to at least one such person who stole confidential
materials from the Churchs publishing company and brought them to Mr. Rathbun and others
associated with him. Id. 20, Exhs. 19-21.
17. Since leaving the Church, Mr. Rathbun has attempted to practice an independent
or indie Scientology. He has done so from his place of business, which is also his residence.
Cartwright Aff. 5, 8. Plaintiff has encouraged him to do so, and has herself engaged in the
unauthorized provision of Scientology auditing to others. Id. 5-7. She has done so from her
and her husbands place of business, which is also their residence. Id. 8. To Scientologists, a
person who engages in such unauthorized practice of Scientology is considered a squirrel.
Hence, both of the Rathbuns are considered squirrels by Scientologists in good standing. Id.
7.
18. Mr. Rathbun has been represented in various legal matters by his wifes lawyer
and lead counsel in this lawsuit, Ray J effrey. Mr. Rathbun and another detractor of the Church,
Mike Rinder, have directly or indirectly participated in, consulted, and/or assisted in at least
fourteen legal matters related to or against the Church. Cartwright Aff. 21, listing the fourteen
cases.
19. Plaintiff Monique Rathbun has aided and abetted her husband Marty Rathbun in
many of the acts referenced above. In addition, Plaintiff has independently attacked the Church
and its leaders. She has posted defamatory material, statements, and highly vitriolic messages
and comments on Facebook, with links to Mr. Rathbuns blog. She has also used such fighting
words in her own postings on that blog. Cartwright Aff 22. She has appeared on NBC Rock
Center and Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, and has been quoted in articles including in Texas
MR738
9

Monthly. She accompanied her husband to Germany for his meetings, and attended the press
conference in which he and others attacked the Church and its leadership. Id. 22.
20. In April 2011, a few individual Scientologists, outraged by Marty Rathbuns
alteration and misuse of Mr. Hubbards works and Rathbuns claim to be practicing Scientology,
as well as by his attacks on the Church, went to Ingleside on the Bay, Texas, where the Rathbuns
engaged in the practice of what they call independent Scientology to document the Rathbuns
abuses and to produce documentary video of such abuses, including their provision of squirrel
Scientology from their place of business/residence. They called themselves the Squirrel Busters.
Cartwright Aff. 23; Allender Aff. 5-6; Lubow Aff. 9-12; Hirst Aff. 5-7.
21. Squirrel Busters Productions was a Fictitious Business Name established by
Scientologist J ohn Allender who was the Producer. Allender worked closely with Mark Warlick,
a professional photographer and videographer, and defendant David Lubow, who acted as the
director and co-producer of the project. Allender Aff. 6-9. Lubow, in addition to being a
private investigator, was a filmmaker who had written and produced a feature-length
documentary Prescription: Suicide? concerning the psychiatric abuse of prescription medication
with children. Lubow Aff. 3. In November of 2005, Prescription: Suicide? premiered at the
Ft. Lauderdale International Film Festival where it won the Spirit of Independents award. The
film has appeared in many other film festivals across the U.S. and Canada, including the Beverly
Hills Film Festival where it received an Honorable Mention. The film has been seen by at least
600,000 people thus far. Id.
22. Lubow hired a few professional film crew members to work on the filming and
production, including professional videographer Bart Parr, who did most of the filming. Most of
the Squirrel Busters were Scientologist volunteers who changed from week to week because of
MR739
10

their other commitments. Lubow also hired a security guard. CSI provided some financial and
legal support to the Squirrel Busters, and retained Lubow for his services. Cartwright Aff. 23;
Lubow Aff. 11-12.
23. The purpose and scope of the Squirrel Busters activities is explained by Allender
in his affidavit:
In or about March of 2011, I received a call from Mr. Warlick, who told me more
about what Rathbun was doing in attacking our religion and its Founder with
many false statements which the media was willingly repeating. I learned that
Rathbun, who was expelled from the Church of Scientology, was promoting
himself as an independent Scientologist, and claiming that our religious
practices were somehow wrong, that he could do better than the standard Church
practices in delivering Scientology, and encouraging Scientologists to leave our
faith. I saw some of the public statements and articles quoting Rathbun in this
regard, which I viewed as outrageous. Allender Aff. 5.
Mr. Warlick said he intended to go to Texas where Rathbun lived and let Rathbun
know very directly that Church parishioners knew what Rathbun was doing and
we knew he was a squirrel. I discussed this with Mr. Warlick and volunteered to
help and to speak to Rathbun personally about his wrongful conduct. Id.
I thereafter traveled to Ingleside on the Bay, Texas and met with Mark Warlick,
and Richard Hirst (another Scientologist who volunteered for the protest and
documentary project). We discussed what should happen in terms of reacting to
Marty, because there was concern that he could be volatile and violent, and
determined that no matter what he did, we would maintain a totally non-violent
form of demonstration. I hoped through pointed questions and demonstrations,
but not reacting in kind to anything Rathbun might say against my religion, to
shame him into changing his ways. The goal was to get him to stop presenting
himself as a Scientologist and to recant. To me he was obviously trying to make
some cash over his notoriety and relying on the media to do that. Religiously, it
was very offensive to pretend to practice Scientology and to denigrate the real
practice of Scientology. Id. 8.
We also wanted to show who Rathbun really was through videos, interviews and
a documentary a man who was dishonest, illogical and a squirrel, and that the
Squirrel Busters exercised their rights to protest that squirreling and attacks on
our religion. We hoped to do this by asking questions to Rathbun to get him to
reveal his squirreling and his true nature. We wanted to let him know that we
knew what he was doing. Id. 9.
MR740
11

24. The Squirrel Busters were in Ingleside on the Bay near Rathbuns place of
business from April 18-21, 2011 and J une 10 through approximately September 16, 2011 (the
last day Squirrel Busters filmed). Except for the few minutes on April 18, 2011 (see below)
when the Squirrel Busters knocked on Rathbuns door, all the rest of the film shooting was done
on public property. Allender Aff. 12; Lubow Aff. 15.
25. Squirrel Busters made their first contact with Rathbun on April 18, 2011, on the
front porch of his place of business and house in Ingleside on the Bay. The documentary team
on this day was composed of a professional videographer named Bart Parr and three
Scientologists: J ohn Allender, Richard Hirst and Mark Warlick. While Rathbun stood outside
his doorway, they attempted to interview Rathbun about his squirrel counseling practice. As
plaintiff has conceded at the hearing on September 12, 2013, the discussions involved debate
about issues relating to the Scientology religion. (Cartwright Aff., Exh. 7 at 199:9-11). Rathbun
asked them to leave his property, which they did. Before retreating back into his place of
business and house, Rathbun pulled the microphone away from J ohn Allender, snapping it from
its mount into his hands which Rathbun kept and took inside. This was the only time that the
Squirrel Busters went onto Rathbuns property. This incident was video recorded by Rathbun
and posted on his blog, and was also turned into a video by the Squirrel Busters and posted on
their YouTube Channel. Allender Aff. 9.
26. During the course of their filming activities, the Squirrel Busters had numerous
non-violent verbal encounters with Rathbun and plaintiff in public areas, in the course of which
they discussed, often in heated or argumentative terms, Rathbuns squirrel and anti-
Scientology activities. Allender Aff. 12. As plaintiff has acknowledged in her sworn
testimony before this court, no member of the Squirrel Busters ever trespassed on her property.
MR741
12

Cartwright Aff., Exh. 7 at 200:5-7. Moreover, no Squirrel Buster ever entered the Rathbuns
place of business/residence, peered into it, photographed inside of it, used any form of electronic
surveillance with respect to it, used any form of microphone to overhear private conversations of
plaintiff or her husband inside or on the porch of the place of business/residence or interfered
with or wiretapped the Rathbuns telephone or Internet service, physically blocked or interfered
with the Rathbuns freedom of movement, or physically touched or threatened the Rathbuns.
Cartwright Aff. 27, Exh.7 at 200:3-7; Allender Aff. 14; Lubow Aff. 6-7; Hirst Aff. 9. In
contrast, in one incident when [Allender] attempted to interview Rathbun on the street in front
of his office/home where he was operating his squirrel practice, he repeatedly sprayed [Allender]
and [his] microphone with a hose. The water ruined the microphone. Allender Aff. 11.
Despite this and other incidents of harassment by Rathbun, none of the Squirrel Busters ever
retaliated or engaged in any act of physical contact or threat with either Rathbun. Hirst Aff. 8.
27. On J une 21, 2011, the City of Ingleside passed an ordinance directed at the
Squirrel Busters, requiring them to file for a permit in order to film. The Squirrel Busters then
filed an application for a permit, but subsequently withdrew it upon legal advice that the
ordinance was unconstitutional as drafted. The film crew continued to film but also hired a local
attorney, Richard W. Rogers, to assist them as needed. On their behalf, on J uly 20
th
he wrote to
the County Attorney stating that they would comply with all legal requirements. The City then
repealed the Ordinance. Allender Aff. 15.
28. On September 20, 2011, the Squirrel Busters lawyer, Richard Rogers, received a
call from a San Antonio attorney, Christopher Gale, who said he represented Rathbun and
threatened to file a lawsuit. Rogers met with Gale and Rene Rodriguez, another lawyer
representing Rathbun, and emphasized that his clients acts were protected by the First
MR742
13

Amendment. On October 5, 2011, Rogers met again with Gale. Gale requested that the Squirrel
Busters agree to stay 150 yards away from the Rathbuns property. Rogers told Gale the Squirrel
Busters could possibly agree to remain at least 20 feet away from property. Informal
negotiations continued between Rogers and Gale, but no agreement was reached and no lawsuit
was filed. Allender Aff. 16.
29. During the time the Squirrel Busters were in Ingleside, a number of news
reporters visited Rathbun and plaintiff at their place of business and elsewhere, where they
interviewed and filmed the Rathbuns. These included Frank Nordhausen from a German TV
Channel, Mark Colette from the Corpus Christi Caller Times, J ohn MacCormack of the San
Antonio Express-News, Mike DaSilva from ABC Channel 3, and Amanda Torres, from the
Aransas Pass Progress. There were several stories in the local press (San Antonio Express-News
and Corpus Christi Caller Times). In fact, the readers of the Caller Times voted the Squirrel
Busters articles as Story of the Year. Cartwright Aff. 25.
30. Other media continued to have interest in this dispute. The Village Voice of New
York, an alternative newspaper, repeatedly covered the Squirrel Busters in its blogs, posted
videos made by both Rathbun and the Squirrel Busters, and published a letter from the Squirrel
Busters. In March 2012, CSI responded to questions about the Squirrel Busters from The
Independent in the UK, and in J uly 2012, CSI responded to questions about them from NBC TV.
Cartwright Aff. 26.
31. The Squirrel Busters used some of their video footage to make at least 14 videos
that they posted on their own YouTube channel, The Squirrel Zone. They also created a series
of radio ads. Rathbun countered by posting at least 20 videos on his blog and/or YouTube
channel about the Squirrel Busters. Cartwright Aff. 24.
MR743
14

32. CSI, through its counsel, retained several licensed professional private
investigators as a result of Marty Rathbuns actions. In particular, these investigators were hired
because of Rathbuns appropriation of CSIs intellectual property, his exhortations to others to
engage in theft of CSI materials and property and to bring the materials to him, including his
offers to protect them for their illegal acts, his trespass upon Church properties, his use of a
ruse to speak to CSI staff members and to importune them to renounce their religious
commitment, his threats of litigation, his involvement as a witness, consultant, and solicitor of
other litigation, and his public attacks upon Scientology and its officials, including his use of
highly defamatory allegations. Cartwright Aff. 27; Drake Aff. 7; Lubow Aff. 4-5. The
private investigators work product was sought in connection with possible affirmative litigation,
or in connection with defense of litigation threatened by Rathbun or in which Rathbun played a
part. Id. No private investigator was directed or authorized to use improper, unethical, unusual,
or illegal methods, and none did. Cartwright Aff. 27; Lubow Aff. 6-7; Drake Aff. 8-9;
Sloat Aff. 6-11. No private investigator entered the Rathbuns place of business/residence,
peered into it, photographed inside of it, used any form of electronic surveillance with respect to
it, used any form of microphone to overhear private conversations of plaintiff or her husband
inside or on the porch of their place of business/residence, interfered with or wiretapped the
Rathbuns telephone or Internet service, physically blocked or interfered with the Rathbuns
freedom of movement, or physically touched or threatened the Rathbuns. Cartwright Aff. 27;
Lubow Aff. 6-7; Drake Aff. 8-9; Sloat Aff. 6-10.
IV. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
33. Plaintiffs claims are set forth in her First Amended Petition and her affidavit
attached to her FAP. She asserts four causes of action: intentional infliction of emotional
MR744
15

distress, intentional interference with contract, intrusion of privacy, and breach of privacy by
publication of private facts, for which she seeks damages and injunctive relief.
34. In purported support of her causes of action, plaintiff alleges that she is married to
Marty Rathbun, who, she alleges, worked for the Church of Scientology for 27 years and was its
second highest official. FAP 9. The FAP states that Marty became disaffected from the
Church and left in 2004. FAP 10. In 2009, Marty decided to speak out against the Churchs
leadership. FAP 12. Plaintiff claims that she had no involvement in Martys attacks on
Scientology, other than that she was married to him. FAP 12. The FAP alleges that
nevertheless the defendants undertook a campaign against her husband and her in which they
purportedly have been harassed, insulted, surveilled, photographed, videotaped, defamed, and
humiliated. FAP 14. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that CSI retained private
investigators to undertake such actions. She further alleges, as an important basis of this
lawsuit (FAP 28), that CSI directed a group called the Squirrel Busters, that undertook to
film Marty Rathbun for the purpose of producing a video documentary in response to his attacks
upon the Church and its leadership. Plaintiff alleges in her affidavit that the Squirrel Busters
followed the Rathbuns, videotaped their movements, attempted to question and insult them, and
sent individuals to their house to question them. Monique Rathbun Affidavit 8-9 (Rathbun
Aff.). Plaintiff also alleges, in her affidavit but not her complaint, that someone sent her a sex
toy at her office, which she attributes to the defendants, and that allegedly Scientology
websites have published bizarre and sometimes vile allegations against me, including claims that
I am a sexual pervert. Rathbun Aff. 11-12. (Plaintiff does not allege a claim for defamation,
however, nor does she allege the elements of such a tort.)
MR745
16

35. Plaintiff presents no evidence that any of the conduct upon which she rests her
claims is ongoing or that there is an imminent threat that it will resume. Indeed, she
acknowledges that the actions of the Squirrel Busters ended over two years ago. Cartwright Aff.,
Exh. 7 at 180:23-25.
V. ARGUMENT
A. DEFENDANT CSI MAY BRING A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE
ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE
36. The Statute provides that if a legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response
to a partys exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right to association, that party
may file a motion to dismiss the action under the procedures set forth in the statute. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003(a).
37. The FAP, and each of its causes of action, indisputably is based on, relates to, or
is in response to [CSIs and individual Scientologists] exercise of the right to free speech, right
to petition [including in a judicial proceeding], or right of association on matters of public
concern, within the meaning of the statute.
38. First, as plaintiff states (FAP 28), a primary focus of the FAP is upon the
activities of the so-called Squirrel Busters group. This would include acts of standing in protest
near Rathbuns property, holding signs of protest, attempting to speak to passers-by or those
entering or leaving the property about the impropriety or incorrectness of Rathbuns activities,
and filming Rathbun and others in public places as part of the production of a documentary or
video about issues of potential public importance, including importance to Scientologists. These
activities lie at the core of the First Amendment, and cannot form the basis of a valid claim for
damages or injunctive relief. (Injunctive relief is also improper because the activity in question
ended over two years ago and there is no imminent possibility that it will be repeated.)
MR746
17

39. Second, the FAP alleges investigative acts of licensed private investigators. As
we show, CSIs use of investigators to determine whether and to what extent Rathbun was
engaging in acts that might give rise to a legal action for trademark infringement, Lanham Act
violations, defamation, or even criminal theft of materials, as well as to investigate him to refute
or impeach his testimony as a witness in over 14 lawsuits with which he became involved, is
protected, including as incident to First Amendment rights to petition the judiciary for redress.
1. The Actions Of The Squirrel Busters Group Were Protected By The Statute And
The First Amendment
40. The protest and film production endeavors of the Squirrel Busters are strongly
protected by the First Amendment rights of free speech, and are within the scope of the Statute.
Under the Statute, exercise of the right of free speech means a communication made in
connection with a matter of public concern. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.001(3). A
matter of public concern under the anti-SLAPP statute includes, but is not limited to, an issue
related to community well-being, a public figure, or services in the marketplace. Id. 27.001(7).
All three factors are present here.
41. First, Rathbun engaged in his continuous and extreme attacks upon the
Scientology religion and its officials because he claimed it was a matter of community well
being, and certainly the Squirrel Busters engaged in their activities trying to call his actions to
task and create a documentary film about them because they felt the defense of Scientology and
the rejection of Rathbuns campaign were also matters of community well being. The
widespread media interest and coverage of the dispute, invited and encouraged by Rathbun
himself, demonstrates that the dispute was a matter of public concern.
42. Second, by any standard, Rathbun and his plaintiff wife made themselves public
figures, at least with respect to issues relating to Scientology, by Rathbuns multi-year public
MR747
18

campaign against Scientology, conducted on an international basis, and by plaintiffs ongoing
and enthusiastic participation and support of that campaign. Moreover, by the couples
intentional acts, their residence was deliberately made the centerpiece of their campaign. A
three-part test determines whether one is a limited-purpose public figure: (1) The controversy is
public that is, people other than immediate participants must discuss it and must be likely to
feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role
in the controversy; and (3) the alleged tortious speech must be related to the plaintiffs
participation in the controversy. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex.
1998). The test does not distinguish between those who have voluntarily inserted themselves
into a controversy and those who are involuntarily drawn into one. Id. at 571-72.
43. Plaintiff has conceded that her husband is a public figure. Cartwright Aff. 9,
Exh. 7 at 194:4-9. That concession, by itself and without more, is sufficient to show that the acts
of the Squirrel Busters, directed as they were to Marty Rathbun, involved matters of public
concern within the meaning of the Statute. While plaintiff denies that she is a public figure, not
only is that question legally irrelevant once it is conceded that her husband is, plaintiff has
clearly injected herself into the public dispute created and exacerbated by her husband to a
sufficient degree that she too must be deemed to be a limited public figure, at least for purposes
of the anti-SLAPP Statutes definition of a matter of public concern. See, e.g., Denney v.
Lawrence, 22 Cal. App. 4th 927, 936 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (Because [plaintiff] thus voluntarily
involved himself in the public debate and attempted to influence public opinion, he thereby
became at least a limited public figure); Scaccia v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 2001 Ohio 1834,
*9 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2001) ([Plaintiff] intentionally . . . injected herself into a public
controversy, and thereby became a public figure for that limited purpose. Furthermore, the fact
MR748
19

that [plaintiff] is married to the public official bolsters her public-figure status. Therefore,
[plaintiff] is a public figure for purposes of her defamation claim arising from the articles at
issue); Burns v. Times Argus Assn, 139 Vt. 381, 385-86 (1981) (In defamation suit against
newspaper by wife of Lieutenant Governor, who campaigned for her husband and attended party
functions while he was in office, plaintiff was deemed a public figure with respect to his office
and activities relating to it).
44. Indeed, even if plaintiff had done far less than she did to inject herself into the
public controversy generated by her husband, she nevertheless must be deemed an involuntary
public figure with respect to that controversy: The one group of individuals that might truly be
considered involuntary public figures are relatives of famous people. Marcone v. Penthouse
Intl Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1084, n. 9 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing Meeropol v. Nizer, 381
F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (children of J ulius and Ethyl Rosenberg are public figures), affd in
relevant part, 560 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013 (1978). Thus, in Brewer
v. Memphis Pub. Co., 626 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1980), the court held that the husband of a public
figure entertainer must be treated as a limited purpose public figure in a lawsuit arising out of a
news article about his wifes alleged affair with Elvis Presley that made reference to him,
because the degree of First Amendment protection accorded to the news defendant for publishing
an article about his wife could not be undercut by the fact that he inevitably was also a subject of
the article: he may not, by marrying [a] public figure, reduce the constitutional protection
afforded the press to publish stories about his spouse. Brewer, 626 F.2d at 1257-58. So too
here, plaintiff may not, by marrying a public figure, reduce the constitutional protection afforded
the Squirrel Busters and CSI to speak, associate, and assemble to protest the activities of her
spouse, merely because, in doing so, their actions inevitably may affect her interests in
MR749
20

supposedly not being involved in a public controversy. See also Friedan v. Friedan, 414 F.
Supp. 77, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (although plaintiff alleged he has made every effort to
disassociate himself from his former wifes public status to preserve his identity as a private
person, he does not assert a [valid] cause of action for [invasion of privacy]While plaintiff
here has not acted affirmatively to make himself newsworthy, within the limited context of his
past relationship to defendant Betty Friedan, who is a public figure, such a role has been thrust
upon him); Carson v. Allied News Co., 529 F.2d 206, 210 (7th Cir. 1976) (wife of famous
entertainer acknowledged to be a public figure).
45. Third, as a self-appointed and self-created public figure, Rathbun invited and
expected a strong public reaction and debate about his actions and attacks. Indeed, Scientology
is a religion and the services it provides are in the marketplace of religious beliefs and
practices; attacks against Scientology and defense of it and counter-attacks against its attackers
are within the market place of ideas protected by the First Amendment. Abrams v. United States,
250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J ., dissenting) (The ultimate good desired is better reached
by free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market), quoted and followed in, inter alia, Hustler
Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988) (per Rehnquist, C.J .); Consolidated Edison Co. v.
Public Service Comm., 447 U.S. 530, 534 (1980); see New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,
276 (1964) (citing Holmes dissent in Abrams); Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm., 558
U.S. 310, 354 (2010) (resting decision on the open marketplace of ideas protected by the First
Amendment). At the evidentiary hearing on the temporary injunction, the Court saw a small
sample of this in a video clip showing plaintiff handing a copy of the Church Creed to the
MR750
21

Squirrel Busters. She acknowledges she was having a religious discourse peacefully with the
people. Cartwright Aff., Exh. 7 at 199:4-11.
46. In addition to its provisions to protect the right of free speech, the Statute also
has a purpose and effect to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to . . .
associate freely, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.002, and provides for a special Motion to
Dismiss if a legal action is based upon, or relates to, or is in response to a partys exercise of the
. . . right of association. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003(a). The Statute defines the
exercise of the right of association as a communication between individuals who join together
to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend common interests. That definition defines
the purpose and activities of the Squirrel Busters precisely. Indeed, it is noteworthy that, unlike
its protection of the right of free speech, the Statute does not define the exercise of the right of
association as limited to or in connection with a matter of public concern. Rather, the Statute
leaves to those who choose to associate the freedom to define what is a matter of public concern;
their very exercise of the right of association to express, promote, pursue or defend common
interests establishes that their exercise is about a matter of public concern.
47. The streets and public rights of way on which the Squirrel Busters conducted their
activities are traditional public forums for both speech and association, and they have
immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515
(1939); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 481 (1988). Such space occupies a special position in
terms of First Amendment protection. Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1218 (2011).
Accordingly, state authority may not be used to prohibit persons from using such forums both to
express a point of view to the general public or to attempt to communicate that point of view on
an individual or group basis to those who pass by. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308-
MR751
22

09 (1940); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-908 (1982). Such speech is
none the less protected no matter that it is provocative and disputatious or even stirs people to
anger. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673
(1925) (Holmes, J ., dissenting) (Every idea is an incitement); Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394
U.S. 111, 112-13 (1969) (civil rights march through residential neighborhoods of Chicago
protected despite strong and potentially violent reaction by residents). Indeed, the point of all
speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someones eyes are
misguided, or even hurtful. Hurley v. IrishAmerican Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574 (1995); Snyder, 131 S. Ct. at 1219 (quoting Hurley). Speech
similarly is protected if its intent is to induce or even coerce persons to avoid dealing with
anothers business, Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 910; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88,
104-05 (1940), or even attacks a church or religion. Cantwell, supra.
48. Likewise, there can be no question that production, filming and distribution of
films, videos, CDs, etc., by whatever technology, is protected by the First Amendment. See
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502-03 (1952); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants
Assn., 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011).
49. Any attempt to prohibit or limit such protected activity on the basis of the content
of the speech is highly disfavored, is subject to strict scrutiny, can be justified only by the most
compelling of government interests, and only by the means least restrictive of the speech at
issue. Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); Frisby v.
Schultz, 487 U.S. at 482. To be sure, where the legislature attempts to regulate in furtherance of
an interest unrelated to the content of the speech itself, such as to permit the free flow of traffic,
to limit noise, or to protect public safety, the First Amendment requires a lesser or intermediate
MR752
23

scrutiny and permits regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression that is narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest and that leaves open ample alternative
channels of communication. Perry, 460 U.S. at 44-46; Frisby, 487 U.S. at 481. A more speech-
protective standard is applied, between strict and intermediate scrutiny, however, when a party,
such as plaintiff here, asks a court to act on its own, without legislative authorization, to prohibit,
let alone impose time, place or manner limitations on speech by entering a court injunction. In
the words of the Supreme Court:
[W]hen evaluating a content-neutral injunction, we think that our standard time,
place, and manner analysis is not sufficiently rigorous. We must ask instead
whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than
necessary to serve a significant government interest.
Madsen v. Womens Health Center, 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994). As summarized by Chief J ustice
Roberts, the First Amendment requires that courts must give the benefit of any doubt to
protecting rather than stifling speech. Federal Election Comm. v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.,
551 U.S. 449, 469 (2007) (Roberts, C.J .), quoted in Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 327.
50. These principles were addressed by the Supreme Court of Texas in a
comprehensive opinion in Operation Rescue - National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and
Southeast Texas, Inc., 975 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1998). In that case, the Court reviewed a limited
injunction that created buffer zones of 13-126 feet around abortion clinics and the homes of
clinic doctors, limited attempts by demonstrators to converse with people entering or leaving the
clinics, imposed time limitations of 45 minutes per day, and prohibited the use of sound
amplification equipment within 100 feet of the residences. Applying the heightened burden no
more speech than necessary standard of Madsen, and not the narrowly tailored standard of
Frisby v. Schultz, the Court held that a heavy burden rested on the plaintiffs to prove the specific
need for any restrictions beyond those that were conceded against actual trespassing, blocking
MR753
24

the premises, inhibiting access, and directly harassing patients. Id. at 562. The Court held that
the trial court could not assume that there was a need for any buffer zone at all unless the
plaintiffs could prove the necessity of such limitation. Id. at 562. Central to its holding was that
no injunction could prohibit the protest demonstrations or impose an undue burden upon them.
The Court then struck some of the buffer zone limitations, affirmed or modified others, held that
the injunction must permit up to two demonstrators limited, non-harassive communication within
the clinic buffer zones with those entering or leaving the clinic, and upheld the sound
amplification restriction. Id. at 567. With respect to the residences of the doctors, what is most
notable is that the Court did not hold that that no activity could go forward in such areas. Id. at
568. While the Texas Court recognized that in Frisby v. Schultz, the Supreme Court had upheld
a local ordinance that imposed a total ban on picketing directed exclusively to private residences,
the Texas Court required only that a small buffer zone be created. Id. at 568. The obvious
distinction, as explained in Madsen, was that unlike Schultz, but like Madsen, there was no
statute in the Operation Rescue case creating such a ban, and Madsen required a higher level of
First Amendment protection. See Madsen, 512 U.S. at 761-65.
51. This case is governed by Operation Rescue. Here, not only was there no statute
governing the issue and providing clear legislative guidance, but the municipality first enacted an
ordinance, but then repealed it in light of the very First Amendment arguments presented here.
Under Operation Rescue, therefore, it was perfectly proper for the Squirrel Busters group to
carry out its activities in the vicinity of Rathbuns place of business/residence. See Operation
Rescue, 975 S.W.2dat 567-69.
52. Moreover, there are two other key factors present in this case. First, the activity
of the Squirrel Busters group was not undertaken solely or primarily to protest Rathbuns activity
MR754
25

to Rathbun and his wife themselves, but rather to create the material for a documentary film or
video to be shown to others. The Court in Frisby made this specific point:
Here . . . the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The
type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to
disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted
resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way.
Frisby, 487 U.S. at 486. Here, the acts of the Squirrel Busters group were ultimately directed to
the public, resulting in the production and Internet distribution of documentary films. Indeed,
Rathbun himself then produced and distributed on the Internet his own videos of the dispute.
The point of the First Amendment, of course, is precisely that such disputes and controversies be
submitted to the market place of ideas, as it was, and not to the judiciary, as plaintiff now seeks
to do. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (The First Amendment
presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues,
than through any kind of authoritative selection) (quoting J udge Learned Hand in United States
v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)).
53. The second key factor in this case is that Rathbuns home was also the site of
his business activity, which was precisely the target of the protest and the proposed
documentary. Indeed, not only did Rathbun carry on his business activity of providing
independent Scientology services for a fee at his residence, he also used those premises as
the visual setting to create videos attacking the Church and its leadership, which he posted on the
Internet, and to conduct interviews with the media in his place of business/residence, resulting in
photographs and videos of the inside of the premises being circulated in the media with
Rathbuns approval. By doing so, Rathbun forfeited any claim that he was entitled to residential
privacy. Put another way, Rathbun cannot insulate his business from protest or inquiry merely
by choosing to live where he works. The Frisby Court itself foresaw just such a distinction:
MR755
26

Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance to, for example, a particular
residents use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting . . .
present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms
may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinances goal is the protection
of residential privacy . . . and since it speaks only of a residence or dwelling, not
a place of business. . . . [T]he constitutionality of applying the ordinance to such
hypotheticals remains open to question.
487 U.S. at 488.
54. It thus cannot be controverted that the speech and associative acts of the Squirrel
Busters group come within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, and permit CSI to bring a
motion to dismiss the FAP under the statute. We further show below that under the authority
here cited as well as other case law, plaintiffs claims must be dismissed under the expedited
procedures created by the Statute.
2. CSIs Retention, Through Counsel, Of Licensed Private Investigators To Investigate
The Actions And Threats Of Rathbun Preliminary To Possible Institution Of
Litigation Or In Defense Of Potential Litigation, Is Protected By The First
Amendment And The Anti-SLAPP Statute
55. The FAP also rests its claims upon CSIs retention and use of licensed private
investigators. As the management entity for the Scientology religion, it is CSIs responsibility,
inter alia, to protect and defend the religion and its churches. CSI was confronted with
numerous public acts by Rathbun for which CSI necessarily was required to consider possible
communications to law enforcement officials or the institution of civil litigation, as well as by
threats of litigation for which CSI would be responsible to defend. Among such acts were:
Rathbuns solicitation of others to steal materials and information from CSI or other churches
and provide it to him, for which he promised he would protect such persons; Rathbuns
meeting and potential conspiracy with numerous others pursuant to offers and threats; Rathbuns
misappropriation of Scientology intellectual property; Rathbuns repeated grossly defamatory
statements about CSI and other Scientology churches and officials; Rathbuns voluntary, indeed
MR756
27

eager, participation as a witness in numerous lawsuits against Scientology churches and affiliated
entities; Rathbuns ultimately unsuccessful attempts to instigate criminal investigations of
Scientology churches and officials, both in the United States and in foreign countries; and others
as stated above.
56. Under the anti-SLAPP statute, exercise of the right to petition means activities
such as (1) communications in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding, (2) communications in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, judicial, or
other governmental body, (3) communications reasonably likely to encourage such consideration
or review, and (4) communications reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to
effect such consideration or review. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.001(4).
57. Before engaging in the institution and defense of litigation or communications to
government officials, of course, a person or entity has a responsibility to investigate the facts
thoroughly to insure that its communications are accurate. Such pre-litigation or pre-petition
investigation and surveillance necessarily is incidental to, pertains to, is in connection with
and is likely to encourage consideration or review of any petition to a judicial or administrative
body, and thus squarely is encompassed by the First Amendment right to petition and within the
ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute, especially given the Statutes injunction that its terms shall be
construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
27.011(b).
58. The issue was addressed by the California Court of Appeals, applying the
California anti-SLAPP statute upon which the Texas statute was substantially modeled, in the
case of Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill, 177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2009). The court held that . . .
non-petitioning conduct is within the protected breathing space of the right of petition if that
MR757
28

conduct is (1) incidental or reasonably related to an actual petition or actual litigation or to a
claim that could ripen into a petition or litigation and (2) the petition, litigation, or claim is not a
sham. Tichinin, 177 Cal. App. 4
th
at 1068. The court noted that in that case the challenged
pre-litigation conduct involves the investigation of a possible conflict of interest due to an
alleged inappropriate romantic relationship between public officials, and held that the
investigation of even such intimate matters was within the protected breathing space of the
right to petition. Id. at 1068. As the court explained:
When one suspects that another has caused harm, a preliminary investigation is
usually necessary in order to know whether one has a potential legal claim,
evaluate the likelihood of success, and decide whether or not to assert it.
Consequently, the investigation of a potential claim is normally and reasonably
part of effective litigation, if not an essential part of it. Indeed, as Tichinin
correctly notes, an attorney has a duty to investigate the facts underlying a clients
claims and can be sanctioned for failing to do so. [Citations omitted.] In our view,
moreover, the prelitigation investigation of a potential claim is no less incidental
or related to possible litigation than prelitigation demand letters and threats to sue,
which are entitled to protection. In fact, such letters and threats are themselves
likely to be the result of a prelitigation investigation . . .
Id. at 1068-69.
59. Significantly, the court also held that the investigative conduct was protected not
only as incident to the right to petition, but also as a right of free speech: we conclude that
hiring an investigator can also be considered protected under the right of free speech. Id. at
1074.
60. Here CSIs retention and use of private investigators was well justified under the
circumstances, as fully described above.
MR758
29

B. THE CLAIMS ALLEGED IN THE FAP MUST BE DISMISSED
1. The IED Claim Is Barred By Common Law And The First Amendment
61. As we have seen, plaintiffs IED claim is premised upon the actions of the
Squirrel Busters group, the retention and use of private investigators, and the alleged acts of
sending plaintiff a sex toy
2
and anonymously attacking her on the Internet. The acts alleged are
not susceptible to a claim of IED as a matter of ordinary Texas common law. In addition, the
claims against CSI must be dismissed under the First Amendment.
a. Texas common law precludes the claims
62. To prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff
must establish that (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) its conduct was
extreme and outrageous; (3) its actions caused her emotional distress; and (4) the emotional
distress was severe. Kroger Tex. Ltd. Pship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788, 796 (Tex. 2006); Tiller
v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). An action that is intentional,
malicious, or even criminal does not, standing alone, mean that it is extreme or outrageous for
purposes of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Brewerton v. Dalrymple, 997 S.W.2d
212, 215-16 (Tex. 1999). The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in
degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Id. at 216. It is for the court to determine in the
first instance whether the defendants conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and
outrageous as to permit recovery. Id.
63. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court clarified that an intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim is considered a gap-filler claim and cannot be used to circumvent

2
Ms. Rathbun admitted at the evidentiary hearing that there was no return address on the box
which contained these objects. Cartwright Aff. 28, Exh. 7 at 207:12-20.
MR759
30

the limitations placed on the recovery of mental anguish damages under more established tort
doctrines. Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814, 816 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Hoffmann-
La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 447 (Tex. 2004)). The torts purpose is to
supplement existing forms of recovery by providing a cause of action for egregious conduct that
might otherwise go unremedied. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d at 447 (quoting Standard Fruit &
Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 68 (Tex. 1998)). In Zeltwanger, the Court stated:
Where the gravamen of a plaintiffs complaint is really another tort, intentional infliction of
emotional distress should not be available. Id. This is true even if plaintiff does not assert a
claim for the other tort in her petitionsuch as defamation in this instanceor asserts the other
tort but does not prevailsuch as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See id. at 448.
Among the cases cited as authority for this statement, the Texas Supreme Court referenced a
Washington Supreme Court assault case that held damages for emotional distress could not be
awarded as part of the assault damages. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d at 448 (citing Rice v. Janovich,
742 P.2d 1230, 1238 (Wash. 1987)); see also Conley v. Driver, 175 S.W.3d 882, 887 n.4 (Tex.
App.Texarkana 2005, pet. denied) (explaining that intentional infliction of emotional distress
tort cannot be used as an alternative to some other, more conventional tort [that] fits the facts
but might be subject to some structural impediment).
64. It is at once obvious that plaintiffs attempt to plead an IED claim is defective.
First, as plaintiffs FAP demonstrates, plaintiff pleads the same facts in favor of four separate
causes of action. If, as plaintiff alleges, the alleged facts even arguably support claims for
invasion of privacy or interference with contract, then a claim for IED is precluded. Clearly, the
gravamen of plaintiffs complaint, defective though it is, is her claim of intrusion on privacy.
Moreover, plaintiffs FAP and affidavit demonstrates that plaintiff in reality asserts a claim for
MR760
31

defamation, but attempts to disguise it as an IED claim. (The obvious reason is that a defamation
claim not only would be without merit,
3
but clearly would implicate the anti-SLAPP statute,
which plaintiff seeks, unsuccessfully, to avoid.). Thus, plaintiff complains that she has been
defamed (FAP 14), been the subject of published bizarre and sometimes vile allegations,
including that she is a sexual pervert and a man who had a sex change operation. Rathbun Aff.
12. Thus, plaintiffs IED claim must be dismissed because her claims in reality are other torts.
See Draker v. Schrieber, 271 S.W.3d 318, 322-24 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (the
gravamen of a vice-principals claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against
students who fabricated an offensive website was defamation, and thus the separate claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress would not lie even though the defamation claim was
dismissed).
65. Second, plaintiffs allegations concerning the activities of the Squirrel Busters
group and CSIs retention and use of private investigators do not rise to the level of outrageous
conduct. Texas courts apply the criteria of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to claims of IED.
Brewerton v. Dalrymple, 997 S.W.2d at 215 (When this Court recognized a cause of action for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, we adopted the parameters of that tort as set forth in
the Restatement (Second) of Torts 46(1)). The Restatement, and the Texas cases applying it,
have insisted that the element of outrageousness be confined to the most extreme departures from
civilized behavior:
The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats,
annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society

3
As one example, not only does the FAP not even allege a defamation claim, but it utterly fails
to allege the elements of such a claim, including the existence of constitutional actual malice as
mandated by New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280-81 (1964), and its progeny. It
certainly fails to meet the heightened standard of clear and specific evidence to survive a motion
under the anti-SLAPP statute.
MR761
32

are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must
necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough
language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.
There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where someones
feelings are hurt. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion,
and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off
relatively harmless steam.

Id., Comment d. Thus, for example, in a case where a student plaintiff filed an internal
complaint for sexual assault by another attendee at a party of a professor, the Fifth Circuit,
applying Texas law, held that the professors subsequent conduct was not outrageous:
Cantus proffered evidence is that Ethridge embarked on a course of conduct
intended to intimidate her, which included the following acts: (1) following her in
the hallways; (2) obstructing her passage from a water fountain; (3) showing up in
a classroom and positioning himself where Cantu usually sat so that she could not
avoid encountering him and (4) repeatedly going in and out of a room where she
was taking a make-up exam, which affected her performance. Assuming its
veracity, and that the jury fully believed every word of it, this evidence simply
could not, as a matter of law, be construed by reasonable jurors as proof of
conduct that is beyond all possible bounds of decency... atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community....

Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 810 (5th Cir. 1996).
66. Neither the Squirrel Busters group nor the investigators invaded plaintiffs house,
wiretapped her phones, used any form of microphone to overhear private conversations of
plaintiff or her husband inside or on the porch of the place of business/residence, bugged her
premises, engaged in physical force or coercion, or engaged in any kind of even arguably illegal
activity. Rather, their actions were within the broad sweep of First Amendment protections. But
whether protected by the First Amendment explicitly or not, the acts are not uncommon in our
disputatious society, and can in no sense be deemed outrageous in a civilized community, as a
matter of law.
67. The use of private investigators in such circumstances not only is common place,
but indeed is a favored tool to insure that baseless claims of wrongdoing are not made in either
MR762
33

judicial or administrative forums. See, e.g., Thorpe v. Mutual of Omaha, 984 F.2d 541, 545 (1st
Cir. 1993) (Boudin, J .) (investigations of this nature are commonplace . . . However distasteful
the notion of surveillance, Mutual of Omahas conduct in relation to Thorpe was not extreme or
outrageous or utterly intolerable in a civilized community); see Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 690691 (1984) (criminal defense attorneys have constitutional obligation to
perform adequate investigation); Bakker v. Grutman, 942 F.2d 236, 239242 (4th Cir. 1991) (in
civil cases, counsel has duty to investigate case); Kraemer v. Grant County, 892 F.2d 686, 689
690 (7th Cir. 1990) (hiring private investigator satisfied counsels duty to investigate claim
before filing complaint).
b. The First Amendment requires that the claims be dismissed
68. Ignoring all the above well established First Amendment doctrine, plaintiff seeks
to recover for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy for the
acts of the Squirrel Busters group and for the retention and use of private investigators, claiming
that the acts were so extreme as to meet the outrageousness element of the tort. As we have
shown, both are clearly protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, plaintiffs attempt to
invoke the tort of IED to reach allegedly extreme or outrageous speech is condemned by
definitive decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Thus, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,
485 U.S. 46, 52 (1988), the Court held that the tort of outrageous conduct categorically cannot
be applied to distinguish between activity that is protected or unprotected under the First
Amendment. Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the
publication of a parody published in Hustler Magazine, alleging that the parody was so
despicable and hurtful to him that a jury could determine that it crossed the line into unprotected
conduct by applying the rubric of outrageous conduct. The Court held that the term
MR763
34

outrageous could not be applied to differentiate between protected and unprotected speech (id.
at 55):
[W]e doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the
pejorative description outrageous does not supply one. Outrageousness in the
area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which
would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors tastes or views, or
perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An
outrageousness standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow
damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse
emotional impact on the audience.
69. The Courts fear that the inherent subjectiveness of the term outrageous
would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors tastes or views, id., is even
more apt where the disputed speech relates to religious belief and practice. Religious beliefs
tend to be among the most strongly held and exclusive points of view, and they uniquely
engender controversy, hostility, rivalry and prejudice:
In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences
arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his
neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know,
at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are,
prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this
nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of
excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened
opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (1940).
70. It is objectively unreasonable to expect that jurors would be able to put aside their
own beliefs and biases when confronted with opposing or novel religious claims, especially
given the well-known history of pubic opprobrium for unconventional religious societies. See,
e.g., Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1, 8-14 (1947); Murdock v.
MR764
35

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 116 (1943); Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, Inc., v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514, 1531 (11th Cir. 1993) (Finding
substantial evidence that City ordinance was enacted and gerrymandered for purpose of driving
Church out of Clearwater). Certainly, the pejorative description outrageous does not supply
the principled standard to distinguish constitutional from unconstitutional speech about religious
practices, any more than in the area of political and social discourse. Falwell, 485 U.S. at 47.
71. This point was highlighted in the more recent case of Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct.
1207 (2011). There the father of a deceased Iraqi veteran sued a fundamentalist church and its
members for claims of IED and intrusion on privacy for demonstrations and picketing of his
sons funeral with signs condemning the United States for toleration of homosexuality and
stating that God kills American soldiers as punishment. Emphasizing that the demonstrations and
picketing, as in the instant case, were on public land next to a public street (id. at 1217) and
thus were entitled to special protection under the First Amendment (id. at 1219), the Court
once again rejected the use of the concept of outrageous conduct as a basis to impose liability
even for hateful and obnoxious speech, stating in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting and
even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected
by the First Amendment. Id. at 1219, quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988).
Turning to the breach of privacy claim, the Court likewise held the claim barred by the First
Amendment: [t]he Constitution does not permit the government to decide which types of
otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling
listener or viewer. Id. at 1220.
72. In addition to the alleged acts of the Squirrel Busters group and the private
investigators, plaintiffs affidavit (but not her FAP) alleges that she received offensive materials
MR765
36

through the mail, suggesting that these acts were carried out by CSI. That is false. No such acts
were directed, authorized, or ratified by CSI. Cartwright Aff. 28. CSI knew nothing about
them and had no responsibility for them. Plaintiff herself testified that there was no indication
on the boxes containing the offensive materials who sent them to her. Cartwright Aff., Exh. 7 at
20-7:12-20. Once again, plaintiff is utterly unable to show clear and specific evidence that
CSI did so; indeed, plaintiff cannot present even a scintilla of evidence, but only her speculative
allegation.
73. To the extent that such acts of sending such materials may have been undertaken
by individual Scientologists who were greatly offended by the acts of the Rathbuns, a
proposition for which there also is not a scintilla of evidence, there is no and can be no evidence
linking CSI or any defendant to them. The First Amendment prohibits plaintiff from suing CSI
for acts allegedly undertaken by individual Scientologists merely because CSI also was engaged
in protected First Amendment activity with respect to the Rathbuns, even if that activity involved
sharp rhetoric and non-violent confrontational tactics. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458
U.S. 886, 930-31 (1982) (holding that the NAACP could not be held liable in tort for the violent
acts even of its agents, including its Field Secretary, undertaken in the course of a boycott
protected by the First Amendment, because the organization had not authorized, directed or
ratified such acts). Claiborne Hardware limits derivative liability to protect freedom of
association. As the Court explained: The rights of political association are fragile enough
without adding the additional threat of destruction by lawsuit. Id. at 931-32.
4

4
Cases following Claiborne Hardware includeIn re Asbestos School Litigation, 46 F.3d 1284,
1290-91 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that Claiborne's standard was meant to have general
applicability, even to a business corporation such as Pfizer); Hvamstad v. Suhler, 727 F. Supp.
511, 516 (D. Minn. 1989) (the Supreme Court has limited the extent to which persons may be
criminally punished or subjected to civil liability for the unlawful behavior of their associates)
MR766
37

74. Here, unlike Claiborne Hardware, there is no evidence that even a church staff
member undertook the alleged acts upon which liability is alleged. A fortiorari, the Church
cannot be tainted by the alleged actions of unknown individuals. Plaintiff has not shown and
cannot show, by clear and specific evidence, or at all, that CSI approved, authorized, or ratified
the alleged conduct.
2. The Privacy Claims Fail to State a Valid Claim and Also are Barred by the First
Amendment
75. Plaintiff attempts to assert two privacy claims. The first Public Disclosure of
Private Facts (FAP 40) is unsupported by a single allegation of what private facts defendants
allegedly disclosed to the public. There were none. While plaintiff alleges that the defendants
anonymously accused her of being a sexual pervert or of being a man who had a sex change
operation, she characterizes those disclosures as bizarre and sick. Clearly plaintiff does
not claim that the disclosures were true disclosures of private facts, and thus no privacy claim is
established. Significantly, plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action for defamation.
76. Plaintiffs second privacy claim is for intrusion on seclusion. The claim is barred
by the First Amendment for all the reasons discussed above. Moreover, the claim is insufficient
under Texas common law.
77. The elements of a cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon
seclusion are (1) an intentional intrusion upon a persons solitude, seclusion, or private affairs or
concerns, (2) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) as a result of which
the person suffered an injury. See Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993); K-
Mart Corporation Store No. 7441 v. Trotti, 677 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.]

(citing to Claiborne), affd, 915 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1990); Tsilimos v. NAACP, 370 S.E.2d 816,
818 (Ga. 1988).

MR767
38

1984, writ ref. n.r.e.); Gill v. Snow, 644 S.W.2d 222 (Tex. App.Ft. Worth 1982, no writ.);
Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. App.Austin 1989, writ
denied); see also Farrington v. Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 865 S.W.2d 247, 253 (Tex. App.
Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied).
78. Intrusion upon seclusion is generally associated with either a physical invasion
of a persons property or eavesdropping on anothers conversation with the aid of wiretaps,
microphones, or spying. Vaughn v. Drennon, 202 S.W.3d 308, 320 (Tex. App.Tyler 2006, no
pet.); see Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas, 354 S.W. 3d 336,
364 (Tex. 2010). For example, in Cornhill Ins. PLC v. Valsamis, 106 F.3d 80, 85 (5th Cir.1997),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 818 (1997), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a claim for
invasion of privacy where offensive comments and inappropriate advances were made toward
the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover under an invasion of privacy
cause of action based on the intentional intrusion upon her solitude or private affairs because she
did not allege a physical invasion of a persons property or eavesdropping on anothers
conversation with the aid of wiretaps, microphones, or spying. Id.; see also Clayton v. Wisener,
190 S.W.3d 685, 696-697 (Tex. App.Tyler 2005, pet. denied).
79. In Vaughn, the court held that the defendants act of watching the plaintiff with
binoculars from across the street while the plaintiff was outside her house or standing in front of
her kitchen window was not an intrusion into privacy because [o]ne cannot expect to be entitled
to seclusion when standing in front of a large window or while outside. Vaughn, 202 S.W.3dat
320. Similarly, filming of a persons residence and distributing the film or video did not
constitute an intrusion on privacy, because such a broadcast provided the public with nothing
more than could have been seen from a public street. Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting
MR768
39

System, 721 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Webb v. Overbrook Owners Assn., Inc., 298
S.W.3d 374, 387 (2009) (holding that property owner had lawful right to install surveillance
cameras looking out from his property to adjoining property, and that such surveillance did not
constitute intrusion on privacy of adjoining owner).
80. Here the affidavits of the Squirrel Busters and the private investigators make clear
that no intrusion of the Rathbuns residence occurred. First, plaintiff is not entitled to assert a
claim of intrusion into her residence, qua residence, precisely because the building in question
was the Rathbuns place of business where they conducted a squirrel Scientology practice for
money. It also was the place from which Marty Rathbun filmed videos, showing the premises
and attacking Scientology and its leadership, which he then distributed over the Internet.
Likewise, Rathbun invited representatives of the media into the premises where they interviewed
and filmed him. Having invited the public into his residence, Rathbun, and his wife, can
hardly pretend that their residence was equivalent to Walden Pond.
81. Thus, as noted ante at 25, Rathbun cannot insulate his business and public media
activities from inquiry merely by choosing to live where he works. By doing so, Rathbun
forfeited any claim that he or his wife was entitled to residential privacy. Rather, any claim of
intrusion must be judged from the point of view that the Rathbuns place of business/residence
was entitled to no more privacy than that accorded to any business premises.
82. Second, the acts of the private investigators and the Squirrel Busters meticulously
followed the appropriate limitations upon their activities. While the Squirrel Busters and private
investigators may have filmed or viewed the building from a distance, and while the Squirrel
Busters demonstrated on the nearby street, no person invaded the building, engaged in electronic
surveillance, used any form of microphone to overhear private conversations of plaintiff or her
MR769
40

husband inside or on the porch of the place of business/residence, or obtained a view of the
inside of the premises by the naked eye, camera, or binoculars. Plaintiff herself has conceded
that she has no knowledge of any such intrusion (Cartwright Aff., Exh. 7 at 179:13-25, 182:6-8),
thereby acknowledging that she cannot meet the statutory requirement of showing clear and
specific evidence of tortious acts by CSI. The only images of the Rathbuns were obtained when
they were outside the building, in public view, and/or on public property. See affidavits of Allan
Cartwright, J ohn Allender, David Lubow, Monty Drake, and Steven Sloat.
83. Plaintiff has placed special emphasis on her allegations that CSI retained
defendant Steven Sloat to engage in surveillance of the new place of business/residence to which
plaintiff and her husband recently moved. But as plaintiff herself acknowledges, any such
surveillance has been from a distance. Rathbun Aff. 15. Indeed, as Mr. Sloat carefully
explains, his actions in no way have intruded into any protected privacy of the business/residence
of plaintiff or her husband. Mr. Sloats assignment was limited to determining the extent to
which Rathbun was engaged in some sort of practice similar to Scientology of his own creation
at that location and was seeing clients there. He rented an adjacent property on which he
installed three low resolution cameras in the hopes that a camera could determine when a car
arrived at the parking area of Mr. Rathbuns property adjacent to my property. These were
cameras typically used in deer runs, had a focal length of about 15-20 feet and could not be
adjusted. There was no zoom capability. Objects much beyond the focal length gradually
became obscure. The cameras were not intended to, could not, and did not surveil the building
itself:
I placed one camera pointed towards the driveway area next to Rathbuns
premises, one towards the road facing away from his premises to record who was
coming onto the property, and one on a deer stand on the property, facing away
from his property. The cameras never pointed directly at Rathbuns office/house .
MR770
41

. . The camera facing Rathbuns premises was 60-70 yards from the area where a
car might be parked. The distance was much too great for the device to detect
motion on his property, and therefore took no pictures caused by motion on his
property. The camera pointed through trees and saplings towards the driveway
and shed area. The camera pointing towards his property was not useful for the
intended purpose, as the resolution was poor, and the camera had no zoom or
focal adjustment capabilities. [Sloat Aff. 7-8.]
84. In mid-J uly, the cameras were removed and the project was abandoned. Sloat
Aff. 10. Sloat never saw the plaintiff, . . . never talked to her, never had any communication
with her and never photographed her. The subject of the investigation was not Monique
Rathbun. Rather, the subject was Mark Rathbun and the object was Mark Rathbuns associations
and business dealings. Sloat Aff. 11.
85. As a matter of law, none of the actions undertaken by Sloat were actionable as
intrusion on privacy. Webb, 298 S.W.3d at 387 (property owner had lawful right to install
surveillance cameras looking out from his property to adjoining property; such surveillance did
not constitute intrusion on privacy of adjoining owner).
86. Given that the actions of the Squirrel Busters and the private investigators were
well within the proper boundaries, and given the First Amendment protection afforded their
activities, the plaintiffs claim of intrusion on privacy must be dismissed as a matter of law.
3. Plaintiffs Claim for Tortious Interference With Contract is Defective on its Face
87. A plaintiff asserting a tortious interference with contract claim must prove: (1) a
contract exists; (2) the defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract; (3)
the defendants interference proximately caused the plaintiffs damage; and (4) the plaintiff
suffered actual damage or loss. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 207 (Tex. 2002);
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77
(Tex. 2000). To prove a claim for tortious interference with an employment contract, a plaintiff
MR771
42

must prove: (1) the existence of a business relationship subject to interference; (2) the occurrence
of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the act was a proximate cause of the
plaintiffs injury; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. KTRK Television, Inc. v. Fowkes, 981
S.W.2d 779, 790 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). The interfering party must
have had either actual knowledge of the existence of the contract and of the plaintiffs interest or
knowledge of such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to believe in their
existence. See Hill v. Heritage Resources Inc. 964 S.W. 2d 89, 123 (Tex. App.El Paso 1997,
pet. denied).
88. While plaintiff asserts a claim for tortious interference with contract (FAP 38),
she alleges no facts to support it. She alleges that she has a valid contract of employment, but
does not allege that the contract has been rendered ineffective by any action of defendants. She
does not allege that she is not still employed pursuant to that contract. She has not alleged that
her compensation or benefits were reduced under the contract. She does not allege that she was
not promoted or considered for promotion. She does not allege how any defendant attempted to
or succeeded in interfering with her employment. While she alleges that she has incurred actual
damage or loss, she does not hint at what that damage was.
5
In short, plaintiff does not allege
and cannot show even a scintilla of evidence to support her cause of action, let alone the clear
and specific evidence mandated by the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiffs claim clearly is wholly
and completely insufficient and must be dismissed.

5
While plaintiff alleges no relevant or material facts that would support her cause of action for
intentional interference with contract, she does allege that the cause of action is based upon the
defendants misconduct, as described above (FAP 38), i.e., based upon the very allegations
that purport to support her other causes of action. It thus is clear that plaintiffs cause of action
for interference with contract likewise is based on, relates to, or is in response to [defendants]
exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association (Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code 27.003(a)), and is subject to a motion to dismiss under the Statute.
MR772
43

VI. REQUEST FOR DAMAGES, COSTS, AND SANCTIONS
89. When a court dismisses a SLAPP lawsuit pursuant to Chapter 27, the court must
award the movant its court costs, reasonable attorneys fees, and other expenses incurred in
defending against the legal action as justice and equity may require. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code 27.009(a)(1).
90. Therefore, CSI requests this Court to award it its costs, attorneys fees, and
expenses incurred in defending the plaintiffs frivolous lawsuit.
91. Also upon dismissal of a case under the anti-SLAPP statute, the court must award
sanctions against the party who brought the legal action. Those sanctions must be set in an
amount sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions.
Id. 27.009(a)(2).
92. CSI requests an award of sanctions against the plaintiff. Sanctions would deter
the plaintiff from continuing to pursue this and other such frivolous lawsuits aimed at shutting up
those who exercise their right to petition and their right to free speech.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons stated above and in the supporting affidavits and exhibits, the special
motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP Statute should be granted in its entirety, and an order
should be entered awarding defendant CSI its costs, attorneys fees, and expenses incurred in
defending the plaintiffs frivolous lawsuit and imposing sanctions upon the plaintiff in an amount
sufficient to deter such conduct.
MR773
44

DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
Telephone: (210) 822-6666
Telecopier: (210) 822-1151
/s/ Ricardo G. Cedillo
RICARDO G. CEDILLO
LES J. STRIEBER III
ISAAC J. HURON
and
CLEMENS &SPENCER
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
T: (210) 227-7121
Attorneys for Defendant Church of Scientology
International
MR774
45

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded by hand
delivery, electronic transmission, and/or facsimile, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested
and/or regular mail to the following counsel of record on this the 18th day of October, 2013:
Ray B. J effrey
J EFFREY &MITCHELL, P. C.
Bulverde, TX 78163
Marc F. Wiegand
THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
Elliott S. Cappuccio
PULMAN, CAPPUCCIOPULLEN
&BENSON, LLP
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400
Lamont A. J efferson
HAYNES&BOONE LLP
San Antonio, TX 78205-1540
J . Iris Gibson
HAYNES&BOONE LLP
Austin, TX 78701
J onathan H. Hull
REAGAN BURRUS
New Braunfels, TX 78130
O. Paul Dunagan
SARLES &OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 J ackson Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Bert H. Diexler
KENDALL BRILL KLEIGER
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
/s/ Ricardo G. Cedillo
Ricardo G. Cedillo
Les J . Strieber III
Isaac J . Huron
MR775
MONIQUE RATHBUN
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTY DRAKE
Defendants.

207 rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Allan
Cartwright, who, after being by me duly sworn, stated on his oath as follows:
1. My name is Allan Cartwright. I am a resident of Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County, California, am over the age of 18, of sound mind, have not been convicted of a felony,
and am capable of making thls affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal
knowledge or are based on my review of records in the possession of Church of Scientology
International, and are true and correct.
2. I have been a staff member of several churches of Scientology since 1974. Since
1982, I have worked in several different positions on legal matters for churches of Scientology.
In early 2000, I assumed the position of Legal Director for Church of Scientology, Flag Service
Organization, which position I held until 2006. From 2006 to the present I have held the position
of Legal Director for Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and have been directly
involved in the legal affairs of CSI in the Office of Special Affairs International. As such, I am
responsible for the supervision of all corporate and legal matters for Church of Scientology
MR776
International. In my capacity as Legal Director l have personal knowledge of its operations
throughout the Uni ted States.
3. I am also a corporate officer of Church of Scientology International. I am the
assistant secretary, a position I have held since 2006.
4. My responsibilities as Legal Director for CSI include working with counsel to
decide upon and implement strategies to respond to suspected misuse and misappropriation of
Church intellectual property rights, litigation threats, pending litigation and attacks on the
Church through the media and internet biogs. Accordingly, I am familiar with the Internet
postings and other public statements by Mark and Monique Rathbun. I have been personally
involved in dealing with their media attacks against the Church, their threatened and possible
infringements of Scientology trademarks and service marks and Mr. Rathbun' s active
involvement in pending litigation and other litigation that was anticipated or under consideration.
5. I knew and worked with Mark Rathbun for more than 20 years. For most of that
time period, Rathbun was a staff member of Religious Technology Center ("RTC")
1
until he was
relieved of his official duties in December 2003 for gross misconduct. He subsequently, and
without giving any notice, left staff in 2004. The Church of Scientology did not hear from Mr.
Rathbun for approxi mately five years until 2009 when, without any communication with or
provocation by the Church, he began a media campaign against the Church and its leadership.
1
RTC was formed to maintain the purity and ethical use of the philosophy and practice of
Scientology, to own the service marks and trademarks associated with Scientology religious
services, to limit their exclusive use to fai thful organizations within the Scientology religion and
to insure that the nature and quality of all services and goods associated with the service and
trademarks are delivered in accordance with Scientology scripture. By agreement dated June 1,
2009, RTC granted to CSI the right to investigate deviations from scripture and possible misuse
of Scientology trademarks and service marks. At the same time, RTC granted CSI the right to
initiate suit or engage in other reasonably appropriate enforcement actions against any third party
reasonably suspected of failing to maintain the purity and ethical use of Scientology or its service
and trademarks. (Exhibit 1, attached)
2
MR777
Rathbun became a self-proclaimed "independent Scientologist" proffering to the public his own
version of what he calls "Scientology. " As described in the "About the Author" pages of his
book The Sdentology Reformation
2
, "Rathbun left the Church of Scientology in 2004. He is
now an independent Scientologist. As such he and his wife, Monique, provide counseling and
auditing services for other Scientologists that have cut their ties with the Church of Scientology. "
(Exhibit 2 at 111.)
6. CSI discovered that on January 21 , 2009 Rathbun anonymously posted an ad on
Craigslist stating the following:
"Scientology counseling: "thoroughly trained on all levels of Scientology spiritual
counseling. Reasonable rates .. . inquire at sthtexlensman@yahoo.com" (Exhibit 3).
7. On Febrnary 10, 2009 Rathbun described "audiring"
3
that he had given to others
including a woman who paid him "a modest sum on her own origination " (Exhibit 4). Also see
Mark ' Marty' Rath.bun's" book, What is Wrong with Scientology? " published on-demand June,
21, 2012, excerpts attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 5 ["On three
occasions I used simple Sci entology techniques to prevent illnesses from talcing hold of
Monjque's body." "I audited her up the Bridge ... " "After another three years of delivering
Scientology on the same basis to former members of Scientology Inc. and to people new to the
subject altogether .... "]; September 26, 2009 blog re "Independent Scientology Community"
(attached as Exhibit 6) ["I am advocating that independent thinking Scientologists think hard
about being proud of exercising their independence. That they make themselves known and use
the title "Scientologist" without shame or embarrassment."] Rathbun has repeatedly used the
2
The book is available on-demand, produced by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platfonn
for Amazon.com, October 10, 2012.
3
Scientology auditing is religious counseling, which provides a precise route which allows
participants to progress to higher states of spiritual awareness.
3
MR778
term Scientology and related terms in promoting his business. Further, he has taught his wife,
the plaintiff herein, to use those terms, which she has done. Plaintiff has encouraged him to
provide unauthorized Scientology services to others, and has herself engaged in the unauthorized
provision of Scientology auditing to others while not being properly trained to minister such
services. (Exhibit 7, Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 84: 16 - 85:8,
176:3-7.) To Scientologists, a person who engages in such unauthorized practice of Scientology
is considered a "squirrel," the Scientology term for a heretic. Hence, both of the Rathbuns are
considered "squirrels" by Scientologists in good standing.
8. From 2009 through late 2012, Mark and Monique Rathbun lived at several
different addresses in Ingleside on the Bay. The Rathbuns used these residences as their offices
for the delivery of "Independent Scientology" services. In October 20 I 0, they moved to larger
quai1ers (which Mr. Rathbun dubbed "Casablanca") "in order to be better prepared to deliver''
such services. (Exhibit 8, Rathbun blog.) I have continued to monitor Rathbun's blog to see
what it contains describing Rathbun's actions in delivering altered versions of Scientology
religious services. At some times it has appeared that he was going off into other, non-
Scientology practices, but at later times his blogs have indicated a return to the delivery of
"squirrel" Scientology. This has been an ongoing concern to determine the extent of Rathbun's
potential violations of CSI's intellectual prope11y rights.
9. Commencing in 2009, Mr. Rathbun became extremely active in the media to
attack Scientology and its leadership. He has been so active that Monique has acknowledged
that he is in fact a public figure. (Exhibit 7, September 12, 2013 transcript at 194:4-9).
I 0. A number of the media interviews were given inside the Rathbuns' home/offices.
For example, Rathbun appeared for an on camera interview from his home on ABC's Nightline
which was aired on October 22, 2009. (Exhibit 9, screenshot) Channel 4 in the United Kingdom
4
MR779
did a show featuring the Rathbuns which aired on June 17, 2013, and which showed Monique
inside their house. (Exhibit 10, screenshot.) The Rath buns hosted a reporter and video crew from
the Gern1an station N-TV, which showed Monique in her living room when it aired on December
11, 2012. (Exhibit 11, screenshot) In early 2012, reporter Guy Adams was invited into their
office/residence and given an interview, and his article ran in the UK Independent on April 7,
2012, with a photograph of Rathbun standing before his Scientology books in their
residence/place ofbusiness. (Exhibit 12, photo from article.)
11. Rathbun appeared on a CNN broadcast with Anderson Cooper on March 29,
2010. He voluntarily appeared on BBC, ABC, NBC and other television venues. He made
himself available for interviews with leading newspapers, including the New York Times,
Tampa Bay Times, Texas Monthly and various local newspapers throughout the United States
where he was widely and often quoted disparaging the Church and its leadership.
12. Mark and Monique Rathbun volunteered for travel to Germany and appeared
together at a press conference and on German television Channel 1 where they made disparaging
statements about the Church, in the company of Ursula Caberta. Caberta is a former employee
of the German Ministry of the Interior for the State of Hamburg who was admonished by the
German courts and the U.S. Department of State for her religious intolerance, lack of neutrality
and bias against the Church of Scientology and its members. (See U.S. Department of State,
In temati on al Religious Freedom Report 2003,
http://www.state.gov/j/drJ/rJs/1rg/2003/24410.htm).
13. Rathbun has also produced videos of himself and others and has his own
YouTube channel which currently contains over 70 videos. These include videos with his
associate Mike Rinder, attacking the church and its officials while sitting at Rathbw1's residence
and place of business in Texas. Monique is also featured on a number of his blogs including
5
MR780
videos he shot of her in their home. (Exhibit 13, blog) He distributed his videos and transcripts of
his interviews over the world-wide Internet.
l 4. In February 2009, Mr. Rathbun started an Internet blog which frequently
published vitriolic, defamatory and malicious attacks against the Church and its ecclesiastical
leadership. For example on September 26, 2010, Rathbun called Scientologists "kool aid
drinkers." (Exhibit 14) On April 23, 2010, Rathbun blogged that he "told the Times and CNN
... in the hopes of preventing what I was concerned might deteriorate into a Jonestown
situation." (Exhibit 15).
15. Rathbun has also used his blog to solicit clients for his "Independent Scientology"
services (Exhibits 6, 8), which is how he earns his living, and to make money from donations.
(September 12, 2013 transcript, Exhibit 7 at 171 :23 - 172:9) His wife Monique is a contributor to
this blog and also monitors its content. (Exhibit 16.) His blog cunently has a link entitled "News
About Monique," which links to an article on this lawsuit quoting extensively from plaintiffs
Original Petition and her counsel Ray Jeffrey.
16. Mr. Rathbun is also the author of three self-published books. In one of these, a
112 page book in 2012 entitled "The Scientology Reformation," he has attempted to establish
himself as a modern day Martin Luther. (Exhibit 2) That book includes "Thirty-One Factors for
Scientologists to Consider" in imitation of Luther's 95 Theses nailed to the door of the
Wittenberg Castle Church. (Id. at 95) He has, on many occasions, accused the Church and its
leadership of departing from ethical Scientology doctrine and corrupting the religious practices
and scriptures of the Scientology religion. (See Exhibits 6, 8).
17. The Rathbuns' unauthorized counseling practice, as described above, was an
immediate cause for concern by myself and other staff of the Office of Special Affairs who are
charged with the protection of the Scientology religion, all churches of Scientology as well as
6
MR781
these intellectual properties and the enforcement of CSI's rights. This was a primary reason for
CSI's decision to have counsel retain an investigator to help detem1ine the nature and extent of
any possible infringements. But beyond that, Rathbun engaged in other conduct which also
required attention to protect the Church and its members from his acts of harassment.
18. In May 2010, Mr. Rathbun along with another former staff member, came outside
of CSI's facilities in Riverside County, California, and called in on a cell phone. Rathbun
impersonated a Church executive claiming to be caJling on behalf of the current President of
Religious Technology Center, a defendant in this case to get to speak to a particular staff
member, and when he got through to her, he attempted to pull her out of the Church; the staff
member angrily rejected his effort. In 2010, Mr. Rathbun was issued a "Trespass Warning"
citation by the Clearwater, Florida Police Department effectively preventing him from disrupting
Church services at the Church's international spiritual facility which is located in that city.
Rathbun, along with fellow ex-Scientologists Mike Rinder anived at the facility attempting to
gain entrance, while a third member of their crew video recorded the staged incident. (Exhibit
17, a true and correct copy of an April 14, 2010 "Trespass W aming to Mark Rathbun issued by
the Clearwater, Florida Police Department).
19. Mr. Rathbun has explicitly encouraged Scientology parishioners and staff
members to leave the Church, to take or steal Church property and Church proprietary and
confidential information with them. On August 26, 2010, Rathbun posted an article on his blog,
which openly encouraged church staff members who decide to leave the Church to steal church
docmnents and records when they leave. He wrote that if they do so, "I personally guarantee you
protection." (Exhibit 18, blog).
20. A few weeks later, a Scientologist staff member, Darnel Montalvo, appeared to
take Rathbun's advice, by leaving his staff position at the Church' s publishing company and
7
MR782
taking with him five computer hard drives full of proprietary and confidential infonnation.
Rathbun was in the car when another ex-Scientologist picked up Montalvo with the stolen goods.
(See December 3, 2010 Declaration of Daniel Montalvo, paragraphs 5-8, 12-14, attached as
Exhibit 19.) Rathbun later put Montalvo's photo on his blog (with Monique Rathbun's image
reflected on the glass door behind him). (Rathbun Blog, Ex. 20.) Montalvo was later arrested for
theft and Rathbun helped arrange his bail and later helped raise funds for a lawyer so Montalvo
could fil e suit against the Church. (Id. and see Second Montalvo Dec. Exhibit 21).
21. In addition to the Rathbuns' violation of Scientology trademarks, and his acts of
harassment, the third maj or area of concern was Mark Rathbun's extensive involvement in
l itigation against CSI and other Scientology related entities. Mr. Rathbun has been represented in
various legal matters by his wi fe's lawyer and lead counsel in this lawsuit, Ray Jeffrey. Mr.
Rathbun and another detractor of the Church, Mike Rinder, have di rectly or indirectly
participated in, consulted, and/or assisted in at least fourteen legal matters related to or against
the Church:
a DeCrescenzo v. CST (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC41l018)
b. Haydn James v. Harlingen Fami ly Dentistry (Southern District of Texas, Civil
Action No. 7:1 l-CV-267)
c. Garcia v. CSRT, FSO, et al. (Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:13-CV-220-
T-27TBM)
d. Garcia v. FSO, FSSO (Pinellas County Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
(Florida), Case No. 11-8503-CI-20)
e. FSO v. Debbie Cook, Wayne Baumgarten (Cause No. 2012-CI-01272, District
Court of Bexar County, l 50
1
h Judicial District Court of Texas)
f. Paul Marrick & Greg Arnold v. CSI (Cause No. S- 12-5645CV-C, District Court
of San Patricio County, 343rd Judicial District of Texas)
g. Daniel Montalvo v. CSI (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC45661 l)
h. Susan Clickner v. Lynch (Pinellas County Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit (Florida), Case No. 11-9678-FD-23)
i. Schippers/Hoverson v. FSO (Pi nell as County Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit (Florida), Case No. 11-11250-Cl -21)
J. Marc Headl ey v. CSI (Central District of California, Western Division, Case No.
CV 09-3986 DSF)
k. Claire Headley v. CSI, RTC (Central District of California, Western Division,
Case No. CV 09-3987 DSF)
8
MR783
l. John Lindstei n v. CSI (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC426872)
m. Kyle Brennan case (Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:09-CY-00264-T-23-
SDM-EAJ)
n. Dandar v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization ("FSO") (Middle
District of Florida, Case No. 8:12-cv-2477-T-33EAJ)
22. As described above, Plaintiff Monique Rathbun has aided and abetted her
husband Marty Rathbun in many of his acts which threaten the Church's rights. In addition,
Plaintiff has independently attacked the Church and its leaders. She has posted defamatory
materi al, statements, and highly vitrioli c messages and comments on Facebook, with links to Mr.
Rathbun's blog. (Exhibit 22) For example, she referred to the "so-called 'church,"' and that it
"hid behind 'religion,"' while calling its leader a "madman." She stated: "enough already, how
much proof do you need before the authorities get off their asses!!!! " She has also used such
"fighting words" in her own postings on that blog (Exhibit 23.) She has appeared on NBC Rock
Center and Channel 4 in the Uni ted IGngdom, and has been quoted in articles including in Texas
Monthly. She accompanied her husband to Germany for his meetings, and attended the press
conference in which he and others attacked the Church and its leadership. (Exhibit 7 at 194: 17-
195:24.)
23. In April 201 1, a few individual Scientologists expresses their religious opinion
about Marty Rathbun 's alteration and mi suse of Mr. Hubbard's works and his claim to be
practicing Scientology by traveling to Ingleside on the Bay, Texas where the Rathbuns engaged
in the practice of what they call "independent Scientology." These Scientologists intended to
document the Rathbuns' abuses and to produce documentary videos of such abuses, including
Mr. Rathbun's provision of"squirrel" Scientology from the home he shares with plaintiff which
is also their place of business/residence. The Scientologists called themselves the "Squirrel
Busters." (See Affidavit of John Allender.) CSI supported the Squirrel Busters and provided
9
MR784
some financial and legal support of the Squirrel Busters' First Amendment freedom of speech
activities.
24. The Squirrel Busters made at least 14 videos which they posted on their own
YouTube channel. Rathbun had his own YouTube channel, and he countered by putting up over
20 of his own videos relating to the Squirrel Busters. Many of these are still on Rathbun' s
channel today. The Squirrel Busters distributed pamphlets about Rathbun and his activities, and
Rathbun responded with an Open Letter to the citizens of Ingleside.
25. A review of Rathbun' s blog and media that ran in 2011 and into 2012, shows that
during the time the Squirrel Busters were in Ingleside, a number of news reporters visited
Rathbun and his wife at their place of business and elsewhere, where they interviewed and
filmed them. Rathbun pem1itted the media to fi lm at his place of business, and the media showed
segments of both the outside and the inside of the premises. These included Frank Nordhausen
from a German TV Channel, Mark Colette from the Corpus Christi Caller Times, John
MacCormack of the San Antonio Express-News, Mike DaSilva from ABC Channel 3, and
Amanda Torres, from the Aransas Pass Progress. There were several stories in the local press
(San Antonio Express-News and Corpus Christi Caller Times), and the readers of the Caller
Times voted the Squirrel Busters articles in that paper as the "Story of the Year. "
26. The Village Voice of New York, an alternative newspaper, repeatedly covered
the Squirrel Busters in its blog, posted videos made by both Rathbun and the Squirrel Busters
and published a letter from the Squirrel Busters. In March 2012, CSI responded to questions
about the Squirrel Busters from The Independent in the UK, and in July 2012, CSI responded to
questions about them from NBC TV.
27. CSI, through its counsel, retained several licensed professional private
investigators as a result of Marty Rathbun's actions. As described above, these investigators
10
MR785
were hired because Rathbun was suspect of in.fringing upon CSI's intellectual property, his
invitations to others to engage in theft of CSI materials and property, his trespass upon church
properties, his use of a ruse to speak to CSI staff members and to importune them to renounce
their religious commitment, his harassment of Scientologists and his involvement in a wide range
of litigation matters as well as his public attacks upon Scientology and its officials, including his
use of highly defamatory allegations. The private investigators' work product was sought in
connection with possible affirmative litigation and in the defense of litigation threatened by
Rathbun or existing litigation in which Rathbun played a part. All of the private investigators
were specifically directed to use proper, ethjcal and completely legal methods. No private
investigator was directed or authorized to use improper, unethical, unusual or illegal methods,
and none did. Monique Rathbun acknowledged in her testimony at the preliminary injunction
hearing that she has no evidence that the private investigators entered the Rathbuns' place of
business/residence, peered into it, photographed inside of it, used any form of electronic
surveillance with respect to it, interfered with or wiretapped the Rathbuns' telephone service,
physically blocked or interfered with the Rath buns' freedom of movement, or physically touched
or threatened the Rathbuns. (Exhibit 7, at178:19 - 182:8, 200:3-7.)
28. I have read the allegations in the affidavit of Monique Rathbun that she received a
package containing "sex toys" at her place of work sent by the defendants and that defendants
sent flowers to a female co-worker with a "romantic" message purporting to be from her. Ms.
Rathbun admitted that there was no return address on the box which contained the sex toys.
(Exhibit 7 at 207:12-20.) Furthermore, I can state that if these acts were done, they were not
performed, directed or authorized by CSL
11
MR786
29. I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Texas and
Cal ifornia that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Affidavit was executed by me on
the 17th day of October, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this Iih day of October, 2013, to
certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
~ ~ - - - -
NOTARY PUBLIC fN AND FOR
THE ST A TE OF TEXAS
Elizabeth DeLeon
My Commission Expires: 6/ 10/2017
12
MR787
EXHIBIT 1
MR788
ADDENDUM TO LICENSE AGREEMENT - CSI
Religious Teclmology Center ("RTC") and Church of Scientology International ("CSI")
hereby enter into this Addendum to the License Agreement-CSI, dated May 18, 1982
("License").
RECITALS
A. The first sentence of paragraph 5 of the License provides that:
RTC and CSI shal1 cooperate in the enforcement of rights under the
Marks, against any unauthorized or improper use, and shall join as co-
plaintiffs in any legal action that may be taken.
B. RTC and CSI agree that CSI, in accord with its function within the hierarchy of the
Scientology religion, should be individually responsible for enforceme11t of the trademarks in its
own name.
NOW, TIIBREFORE, RTC and CSI agree:
1. The first sentence of paragraph 5 of the License is hereby amended as follows:
CSI shall enforce the rights under the Marks as defined in the License or
any addendum thereto against any unauthorized or improper use, and
shall have the right to initiate suit or to engage in other enforcement
procedures against any tl1ird patty.
2. Other than this Addendum to the first sentence of paragraph 13, the License as written
shall remain in full force and effect.
Reli ious Technology Center
Dated: \ '\..,,,___._, 1a-OOO,
- - ~ , s
Church of Scientology Internatfonal
MR789
EXHIBIT 2
MR790
The Scientology
Reformation:
What Every Scientologist
Should I<now
Mark 'Marty' Rathbun
MR791
concluded that the best way to reform Scientology is
to do as Ron said, and break the oppressive monopoly
by going right ahead and applying Scientology in the
manner they see fit.
Some have misunderstood the Protestant
Reformation in attempting to draw analogies to
present-day Scientology. They consider that
"reformation" was used to refer to instituting reforms
in the existing, established Christian church of those
times. In fact, "reformation" referred to the reforming
of the religion of Christianity, rather than to re-
organization of the Catholic Church. Attempts by
Luther and others to end Catholic Church oppression
in the 1500s resulted only in retribution and
punishment from the church's Inquisition. Not
surprisingly, that is precisely how Scientology Inc.
reacts to any attempts to put ethics in on the
organization. People are excommunicated and labeled
as suppressive persons. If they continue to practice
Scientology, no matter how much more standardly
than Scientology's Inc's reverse-Scientology perversions
of the original technology, they are labeled "squirrels,"
the modern-day Scientology equivalent of heretics.
Christianity was reformed by making its scriptures
available to any individual, to study and to practice in
the way his or her own conscience and understanding
saw fit. That reformation began with the recognition
that no man or institution held a monopoly on the
Bible and its teachings - least of all an institution that
was just as corrupt, if not more so, as the civil, political
and governmental bodies of the times. People had to
be freed to follow the path of Christianity without the
interpretation and control of a vested, morally
94
bankrupt interest. Ultimately, thousands of churches
were created to facilitate that purpose. Llke-minded
people created hundreds of different denominations.
Thus, Christianity was reformed and saved from the
degradation a demented monopoly had inflicted upon
it. Ultimately, that reformation caused the religion to
:flourish and serve as the backbone for the evolution of
western civilization.
Luther's first, trust-busting blow was delivered by
ta.eking 95 enumerated, institutionalized abuses of the
church to the door of his local church, so that they
could be read and freely discussed. When this simple
act resulted in Luther being branded as a heretic and
targeted by the Inquisition, he refused to recant and
made it his life's work to make Christianity available to
all, outside of the jealous monopoly which had nearly
destroyed it as a faith.
Borrowing a page from Martin Luther's
reformation playbook, on July 1, 2009 I published the
following Thir!)-one Factors For S cientologists to Consider
on my blog Moving On Up A Llttfe Higher (at
markrathbun.wordpress.com). Steve Hall (operator of the
popular site scientology-cult.com) and Mike Rinder
(former international spokesperson for the church of
Scientology) provided advice and editing assistance.
These 31 factors affecting Scientologists serve as an
anchor in de.fining the purpose of and the reason for
what has become known as the Independent
Scientology movement.
Thirty-One Factors for Scientologists to Consider
Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard discovered
95
MR792
all that is issued and demanded by Scientology Inc., no
matter how far those demands stray from and conflict
with the philosophy of Scientology as promulgated by
L Ron Hubbard.
If you want to learn more about responsible
alternatives to supporting a morally corrupt, dying
organization that is serving to destroy L. Ron
Hubbard's Scientology philosophy, I recommend you
visit the following sites and study deeply of them:
My blog: lvf.oving On Up a Little Higher at
markrathbun.wordpress.com
Iscientology.org, the voice of the Independent
Scientology movement
Steve Hall's Independent resources central:
free&able.com
Steve Hall's news forum and archive: Scientology-
cult.com
Namaste.
110
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark 'Marty' Rathbun was Inspector General of
the Religious Technology Center (RTC), the
organization that controls the copyrights and
trademarks of the materials relating
to Dianetics and Scientology. His role was to head the
Inspector General Netl.vork, described by the Church
of Scientology as "an independent investigatory and
policing body whose function is to keep Scientology
working by ensuring the pure and ethical use of
Dianetics and Scientology technology." The post is
one of the most senior management functions in the
Church and its related organizations.
lGthbun left the Church of Scientology in 20-04,
He is now an independent Scientologist. As such h1
,and his wife, Monique, provide counseling and
auditing services for other Scientologists that have cu
,their ties with the Church of ScientoloW He emerged
as a critical source in a 2009 St. Petersburg Times expose
on the organization, revealing that physical violence is
a common occurrence within Scientology
management, and that Scientology head David
Miscavige regularly beats his staff, and orders staff to
administer beatings to designated individuals. The
series by t ~ Times titled "Inside Scientology: The
111
MR793
EXHIBIT 3
MR794
Web mages Maps News Shopping Gmail more *
Web
Advanced Search
Preferences
Scientology counseling
Date: 2009-01-21, 1:04PM CST. Thoroughly trained on all levels of Scientology spiritual
counseling. Reasonable rates. inquire at sthtexIensman@yahoo.com ...
corpuschristi.craigslist.org/ths/1001874441.html - Similar pages -
Google
sthtexlensman - Google Search http://www.google.com/search?hlen&qsthtexlensman&btnGSearch
Scientology gy
Scientology
counselingg
spiritual y
counseling. Reasonable rates. inquire at sthtexIensman@yahoo.com ...
MR795
EXHIBIT 4
MR796
#1

Meet other ex's. Share your experiences. Reunite with old friends.
This message board is for ex Scientologists to freely discuss mutual experiences in Scientology. It covers such topics as L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and current management, auditing
and training, Ethics tech and its application, OSA, fair game, Clear & OT levels, Freewinds, and recovering from a cult experience.
944 days since ESMB went online!
Home Ex Scientologist Website Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Ex Scientologist Message Board > Scientology discussion topics > New Member Introductions
movin on up II
User Name Remember Me?
Password
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search
New Member Introductions New to the board? Tell us a little about yourself.

Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last
Thread Tools Display Modes
10th February 2009, 03:59 AN
mcrathbun
Newbie

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
movin on up II
Thank you to the welcomers, defenders, critics, and attackers. I apologize for not having read your rules. I still haven't, but I
take your word for it that putting my name out there and letting people know they can come to me for help is a violation. You
can go ahead and cancel my membership if you want because I admit that was my only intention. I am not into internet chatting
and posting. It is not the forum for me to say what I have to say. Context and timing is everything; and this is not it. As far as
those who says I hurt them some how, you know how to get hold of me. I made good with a number of people with whom I've
met since I left, on a one on one basis. As to demands that I disavow everything about Scientology, it is not going to happen. I'll
give you three examples why not. First person I dealt with since leaving the Church never had any contact with Scn, was
chronically ill, at least four major episodes per year - for decades. With a little education on the mechanics of suppression (no
evaluations of who the SP is, no demands to disconnect) the person has not been ill once in the three years since. Second fellow
(also no Scn contact) grew up being subjected to frighteningly inhumane treatment throughout his childhood. Had thirty years of
psychotherapy at untold cost - the result was he was fixated on the dark era daily, constantly figuring on how he was inheritly
responsible and permanently degraded since. Two months of weekend auditing, and the guy says he has no fixation on the era,
has no self-invalidation going on, and we totally handled what thirty years of psychotherapy made worse. Neither of them paid
for my services, though exchanged in life how they saw fit. Third person spent literally hundreds of thousands over 10 years in C
of S trying to get something straightened out. We were able to sort it out, to much relief and continuing well being of the
individual, in less than a week - and she paid me a modest sum on her own origination that was well within her means. Call me
what you will, or even try to get in the road of that, it has zero effect on me. I don't care if you are a kid posting with a
pseudonym or the chairman of some gigantic corporation, or the head of the FBI for that matter. In that regard, one poster
demanded I confess to the FBI. Well, his J.Edgar heroes had me under intense surveillance, ran informants in on me, and tapped
my phone over an extended period of time - all while I was in. When I got the two feet of transcripts of my phone calls through
FOIA, the agent who ran the operation told me,we did our best, but you just wouldn't take the bait. So, a) they are the last
people who are entitled to any confession by me, and b) I know for a fact they don't have the balls to ask for one. And that goes
to the very top, to the punk (and I use the word advisedly from personal experience) who spent a year travelling around the
globe trying to put me behind iron bars. As to variety of sources, I'll give you a couple examples. One, The Shack by Wm Paul
Young. It'll give you an idea how a Church can stand one-hundred and eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most
fundamental tenets - and yet the tenets can still be workable. Two, John Steinbeck, East of Eden, it'll teach anyone the power of
unconditional love and forgiveness. Speaking of Steinbeck, here's another valid therapy: he once said that an afternoon of
fishing does a person more good than three months of psychotherapy. Here's one that a field auditor from Tampa just sent me
(go to YouTube and search "validation and watch the 16 minute movie by that title, then go sincerely validate somebody and
see if you don't feel more cheerful yourself). I'm learning all the time - like BB King said, a day when I don't learn something
new is a wasted day. I've seen that a world of good can be done for someone by helping them to differentiate between workable
techniques, unworkable techniques, oppressive organizations and suppressive individuals. One of Scn's greatest problems is its
instilling of the "us vs. them attitude in members. Having studied deeply of the causes of its conflicts from the outset I can see
how the old man fell into that trap. I am not arguing it was justified or not. Unfortunately, it is largely responsible for the
unproductive, divisive and, for some, traumatic current scene in the margins between Scn and former members. From my short
encounter on this site, it appears some folks are still dramatizing what they consider is the winning valence. Example given,
people instructing me what to say and to whom to say it and when sort of suggests a cyber SP Hall. I don't see eye to eye with
Hubbard's view that dialectic materialism is a fallacy. I've witnessed it on the inside and out - the only time anything productive
seems to ever gets done is after thesis collides with antithesis resulting in a synthesis. I'm done with being unthinking thesis or
antithesis. I am into synthesis. I'm into healing. People who agree know how to contact me. Thanks again for permitting my
apparent misuse of your board, and for spreading the word, my email's been overflowing. And, sincerely, best wishes. Mark
movin on up II - Ex Scientologist Message Board http://www.Iorum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t9819
10th February 2009,
mcrathbun
and she paid me a modest sum on her own origination t
Mark
MR797
EXHIBIT 5
MR798
What Is Wrong
With
Scientology?
Healing through
Understanding
Mark 'Marty' Rathbun
MR799
Copyright 2012 lviark Rathbun
All rights resetved.
ISBN: 1477453466
ISBN-13: 978-1477453469
LCCN: 2012910574
MR800
Mark Rathbun
fact, he agreed with just about everything I told him about
it.
Spending time with my new family has taught me that
the goals of Scientology are not monopolized. It taught
me that there are other means to achieve those goals, and
people were exemplifying that in their conduct in the
world. Tus lead to a curiositv about ho\v societv and
' '
philosophy and the study of the mind had evolved during
my years within the machine. I read and read and read
some more. The more I read, the more I saw Scientology
as aligning with, agreeing with, and potentially having tools
that could help with other bodies of \Visdom and routes to
happiness and realization. I also began to see more clearly
how Scientology Inc. had alienated and segregated itself
from the rest of society, leaving the world at large with the
inclination to steer clear of Scientology.
I never preached Scientology to Monique. But, the
subject arose many times, when she would ask me about a
good quality in me that she had noticed, which I would
attribute to some aspect of Scientology. On three
occasions I used simple Scientology techniques to revent
illnesses from taking hold of Monique's bodz. This
.increased her curiosity. The more she learned of
Scientology from me, the more she considered that it
aligned with what she knew to be good, healing, and
.
empowerUlg.
As we leamed more of each other, I found that beneath
Monique' s courage, strength and wisdom she carried hurt
and despair like everyone else. She reached for auditing
and I ~ o v i e it. I audited her ug the Bridge, through the
Grades and Dianeti.cs to Clear. But I audited her up the
Bridge with absolutely none of the Black Dianetics
additives that have been detailed throughout this book.
No attempts were made to have her believe anything, no
effort was made to control her behavior and life, nothing
was done to get her to view people in any other way than
the way she saw appropriate to vie\1l them. My goal was
solely to help her to recover more of herself, to assist her
146
MR801
What Is Wrong With Scientology
to take off those synthetic personality jackets that didn't
belong to her inherently and were making her
uncomfortable - just as Hubbard prescribed when he
spoke directly of the actual auditing technology. Though I
had audited many dozens of people in my time within
Scientology Inc. (including virtually all of its A-list VIPs), it
was only during my auditing on the outside that I began to
truly appreciate the power of the technology of
Scientology.
There was no limit to the effectiveness of Scientology
when it was offered and delivered with the sole,
unadulterated intent to service and to help. It was
completely acceptable and understandable to people when
it was not marketed, sold, or covertly forced upon them.
It enhanced and reinforced the good lessons that people
learned from any number of sources, when it was not used
to dissuade people from listening to or learning from other
sources. After another three ears of delivering
Scientology on the same basis to fonner members of
Scientology Inc. and to people new to the subject
altogether, those observations have been further validated.
Scientology works wonderfully when it integrates -with
society, civilization, and the philosophies and religions of
others. Scientology harms when it seeks to segregate from
society, civilization, and the philosophies and religions of
others. If Scientologists do not leam to integrate, they will
disintegrate as a potential meaningful influence.
If corporate Scientologists cannot wrap their wits
around thinking conceptually w1.th the subject and
integrating -with society, but instead feel they must
continue to act robotically, only according to literal
commands of L. Ron Hubbard, then a good start for them
would be to aspire to live literally by this central tenet of
Hubbard's: A being is only as valuable as he can serve
others."
If one truly attempted to live up to that maxim, he or
she might begin to see the light. To Sdentologists w-ho can
think conceptually and have not cut themselves off from
147
MR802
EXHIBIT 6
MR803
Moving On Up a Little Higher
Front Page
Welcome
What We Do
Recommended Reading
31 Factors
Independent Scientologists Community
September 26, 2009 7 Comments
I am confident that my friends who saw me evolve over the past couple
years will attest that what I posted in February on my little web page was
true. Particularly, the following description outlining my intentions and
objectives:
A lot of folks seem to be suffering from the inculcated idea that once they
depart or cease to slavishly follow every arbitrary dictate they
automatically forfeit any spiritual gains they may have attained along the
road. Natively conscientious as most beings are, such an evaluation can
begin a pernicious dwindlng spiral of self-invalidation and unhappiness. I
understand this phenomenon and the internal dichotomies extant within
the organization that bring it about. In the process of reversing the decline
in myself and in others certain lessons were learned that might be of some
assistance to those who have experienced the same.
I offer a simple program of rehabilitation of previously recognized abilities
and education on universal truths and principles of spiritual growth. I do
not offer a substitute for Scientology nor am in competition with the
Church. I am only offering to share all the skills I have learned from a
wide variety of sources to help those in need who once formally
participated in Scientology but who now hold no hope nor intention of ever
seeking help from the Church.
MR804
I was on no mission to replace the Church or even the Church leadership.
It was purely an offer to help those who had made the determination that
they would never again seek help from the Church of Scientology; for
whatever reason.
Within days of that posting I caught wind of Miscavige efforts to pull the
plug on that offer of help. Church informants reported on some of those
who initially reached out to me. Those people were intercepted and
offered large incentives to turn on me, turn over all communications with
me, and to return under the control of the Church. When I did not attempt
to compete for those souls, adhering to my word that I wasnt interested
in those even harboring a desire to remain under the control of Miscaviges
outfit, Miscavige had OSA send informants to try to infiltrate my home and
life.
What I had posted was not a threat in any way, shape or form to
Miscaviges fiefdom. It was never intended to be competion. I meant what
I explicitly stated about the category of people I was reaching out to.
People that the Miscavige regime had zero interest in, other than
apparently, in keeping in a dormant, sleeping, effect state.
His reaction confirmed what I believed to be true about Miscavige: the
very concept of anyone helping someone particularly for no motive other
than purely the desire to help ones fellows was so abhorrent to him it
caused irrational impulses to stop and destroy. Helping others is an
activity which drives the antisocial personality nearly berserk. LRH
Since that time a lot of water has passed under the Bridge. That includes a
lot of Miscavige generated toxic waste. That also includes a lot of pure,
clean and beautiful outpouring of theta from folks who fit the exact
description set forth in the italicized text above.
Several people have challenged me to demonstrate that I am able to take
over Miscaviges position or to create an organization mirroring his. I do
not have any desire to do either. Some people have criticized me of
irresponsibility for exposing the truth about Miscaviges church without
offering all the bells and whistles of Church membership they find
comforting or necessary. People who are in it for the bells and whistles
probably ought to stay parked right where they are. Ultimately, they will
be served nothing but bells and whistles.
MR805
I have learned quite a lot since February. First, there are far more people
who consider themselves Scientologists, or at least use what they learned
from Scientology in their every day lives, who fit the description of having
no intention of ever again being affiliated with the Church than I initially
thought was possible. Second, many of those people fear retribution if
they publicly discuss their feelings on the subject. Third, many of those
people lead unhappy lives because they miss the ability to share
community with others of similar philosophic disposition; a subset of that
group, may have also suffered financially by having to cut ties with
business networks they nurtured for many years. Fourth, some portion of
that public are ill physically and spiritually because they have dwindled
down to apathy and below and found refuge with the only ex-Church
member forums that have existed ones that make anonymity and hiding
a virtue, and make criticism an end, rather than a means to achieve any
improved state of affairs.
When I started blogging more and more people contacted me about
helping them to reverse the spiral they found themselves on. In order to
cope with such an overwhelming number of individuals, I began simply
connecting former Church members up with similar thinking ones in
proximity to one another. Lo and behold, such people began to report to
me truly phenomenal phenomena. Here is a list of the types of things they
have reported more than once:
1. A rehabilitation of states attained in Scientology by simply having
someone acknowledge with reality what he or she has been
through.
2. An enhancement in states attained through Scientology by now
receiving regular acknowledgment of theta phenomena that up to
that point they had no one to share with who could truly understand
and appreciate it. Sadly, many folks have reported being invalidated
by Scientology public and staff for such origins when they were
affiliated with the Church.
3. Feeling de-ptsd by virtue of feeling some strength in numbers
even if the increase went from one to two and all that comes with
that.
4. Physical disabilities healing. Not a bit surprising to me. In the
Churchs Freedom magazine in response to the St Pete Times
Truth Rundown series, my former wife attributed a long list of
physical problems I had the year I left the SO. It was one of the few
MR806
relatively accurate statements of that scandal sheet. All of those
ailments rapidly resolved upon my cutting all connection to the SP.
5. Great artistic, career, and or business opportunities suddenly
appearing, attributed by people reporting them to beginning to
socially network again with newly discovered friends sharing their
philosophy.
6. The increase in frequency of OT perceptics and abilities.
I dont have ultimate answers to questions of how to set up widespread,
uniform delivery of the tech, nor how to administer whatever form that
might some day take. I dont even purport to have the background,
training or experience to answer such questions.
I do know that I have been working on an Ethics paradigm sometimes
referred to as Ethics Program Number One. I do know that I have seen
many people rise from apathy and below to 4.0 and above on the Tone
Scale as they become de-PTSed from Miscaviges Church. Most of those
people never received a formal session nor even had the opportunity (yet)
to meet in person. The several I have met in person tend to confirm my
estimate that most folks reporting incredible gains by handling the
suppression in their lives are not exaggerating.
I am of the view that those phenomena listed as 1-6 above have been
suppressed in Miscaviges Church. I do not have the slightest hesitation in
continuing to facilitate more free, independent Scientologists experiencing
what appears to be the miracles attainable with the subject when studied
in the fashion Hubbard originally advised it be done. That is with a keen,
critical, and independent mind. That increases the ability to as-is. Isnt that
what the entire aim of the subject is, to increase peoples ability to as-is?
Having operated with this viewpoint, I have been pleasantly surprised to
learn of another natural, positive byproduct of as-ising lies with truth and
making it safe for the well intentioned to congregate and share ideas. I
have learned that there are a number of very capable folks who are
approaching the subjects of tech and admin in the same fashion I have
tried to approach Ethics. They are not motivated by money. They are not
motivated by fame. They are motivated purely by making it possible for
others to experience gains similar to their own.
I believe that the behavioralism, twisted moralism, materialism and
induced fear of disclosure of confidences practiced as standard operating
MR807
procedure in Miscaviges church are the reverse of Scientology. Those
practices increase mental mass, and convince a person he needs to
become a slave in order to become free. All too often, rather than increase
ones ability to as-is, it results in people who specialize in creating mental
mass for others (guilt, fears, self-invalidation, and for those who have
been to Int for any substantial period, actual text book engrams).
People who have simply exercised their abilities to be there and
comfortably confront when faced with Church intimidation tactics and
not allowed themselves to be drawn into flash fights and the resultant
creation of ridges have as-isd the invaders. That has happened most
frequently when the person being targeted by the Church has the comfort
of knowing he has people who are behind him or her with unconditional
love. It is quite remarkable.
I am fairly certain that if a decent percentage of independent
Scientologists stand up, identify themselves, and freely associate with like-
minded friends in the light of day at least three things will happen:
a. Many individual lives will regain meaning. Many more lives still will
reap the gains from each of us who independently and freely use
Scientology with no other motivation than to help others reach
higher states of beingness.
b. Scientology (the subject and community) will experience a
renaissance within society at large.
c. Miscaviges church will be forced to either radically reform by
reversing its suppressive operating basis or face its inevitable
demise (note the intransitive is used; it is not because of anything
that you or I will do to it that will cause it other than being their
comfortably it will be a self-inflicted fate).
At this point, at this Ethics stage, I am advocating that independent
thinking Scientologists think hard about being proud of exercising their
independence. That they make themselves known and use the title
Scientologist without shame or embarrassment. That they create
community with other independent Scientologists and make it that much
safer for those people to get their strength up and flourish. To the extent
we tip toe around imaginary egg shells, we are PTS. We cripple our own
MR808
ability to as-is. If we walk tall, we rehabilitate one anothers abilities to as-
is. The Lord knows that this world could use some more of that.
MR809
EXHIBIT 7
MR810
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 2 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C2013-1082B
2 MONIQUE RATHBUN ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
4 vs. ) COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
)
S DAVID MISCAVIGE, )
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY )
6 CENTER, CHURCH OF )
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,)
7 STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND )
MONTY DRAKE, ) 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8
9
10 _____________________________________________
11 TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING
_____________________________________________
12
12
14 On the 12th day of September, 2013, the following
1S proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
16 numbered cause before the Honorable Dib Waldrip, Judge
17 Presiding, held in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas.
18 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
19 machine.
20
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR811
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 Counsel for Plaintiff:

2 Mr. Ray B. Jeffrey
SBOT NO. 10613700
4 JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P.C.
2631 Bulverde Road
S Suite 105
6 Telephone: 830-438-8935
Fax: 830-438-4958
7

8 Mr. Marc F. Wiegand
SBOT NO. 21431300
9 THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
434 N. Loop 1604 West
10 Suite 2201
11 Telephone: 210-998-3289
Fax: 210-998-3179
12

12 Mr. Elliott S. Cappuccio
SBOT NO. 24008419
14 PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN
BENSON & JONES, L.L.P.
1S 2161 N.W. Military Highway
Suite 400
16 San Antonio, Texas 78213
Telephone: 210-222-9494
17 Fax: 210-892-1610

18
Counsel for Defendant: Gregory Sloat
19
Mr. Jonathan H. Hull
20 SBOT NO. 10253350
Reagan Burrus, PLLC
21 401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
22 Telephone: 830-625-8026
Fax: 830-625-4433
22

24

2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR812
MONIQUE RATHBUN - SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
Direct Examination by Mr. Jeffrey
84
1 to, he's been 1eadng. ^nd 1 thnk some o1 ths s knd
2 o1 1odder 1or cross-examnaton. 1 wou1d ask 1rom here
2 1orward that the 1eadng be 1mted. 1 understand t's
4 background.
S 1uL C0u81: 0kay. We11 to the extent
6 necessary, 1odge your obectons. 1 wou1d 1ke to get
7 towards the -- the need 1or some mmedate re1e1 --
8 M8. JLII8LY: Yes, Your uonor.
9 1uL C0u81: -- 1or the purposes o1
10 temporary -- 1 understand a 1tt1e bt o1 the background
11 here s necessary, but --
12 M8. JLII8LY: We11 -- and -- and, Your
12 uonor, 1'm tryng to speed thngs up by usng a 1ew
14 transtons. 1'm not tryng to 1ead. 1'm ust tryng
1S to -- to move 1orward.
16 q. {8Y M8. JLII8LY) So your husband -- ust so
17 summarze, your husband dd get back n a 1tt1e bt
18 nto the Scento1ogy audtng or counse1ng?
19 ^. 8ght.
20 q. ^nd what knd o1 a11ect dd that have on -- on
21 y'a11?
22 ^. Yeah. 1 -- he was -- when he came out 1rom hs
22 sesson, 1 -- 1 -- 1 ust -- he was so d11erent. ue
24 was so a1ve and so -- 1ke 1've never seen hm. 1'd
2S spent at that pont 1our years wth hm and 1'd never
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
your husband dd get back n a 1tt1e bt
nto the Scento1ogy audtng or counse1ng?
^. 8ght.
q. ^nd what knd o1 a11ect dd that have on -- on
21 y'a11?
22 ^. Yeah. 1 -- he was -- when he came out 1rom hs
22 sesson, 1 -- 1 -- 1 ust -- he was so d11erent. ue
24 was so a1ve and so -- 1ke 1've never seen hm. 1'd
2S spent at that pont 1our years wth hm and 1'd never
MR813
Direct Examination by Mr. Jeffrey
8S
1 seen hm so enthused and a1ve. 1 was ust shocked. 1
2 was b1own away by what 1 saw.
2 q. ^nd dd you encourage hm --
4 ^. 0h, 1 dd.
S q. -- to get back n?
6 ^. Yeah. 1 de1nte1y -- 1 was 1ke, whatever you
7 dd n there, you need to keep dong because 1've never
8 seen you 1ke ths.
9 q. So at some pont dd -- dd Mr. 8athbun --
10 a1ter wrest1ng wth hs conscence, dd he decde to --
11 to speak out?
12 ^. ue dd. 1t was another process o1 -- o1 a 1ot
12 o1 dscusson and sou1 searchng, a 1ot o1 dscussons
14 between hm and 1. ue -- he knew that once t got out
1S that he was -- that he was actua11y a1ve, that, you
16 know, there wou1d be peop1e wantng to ntervew hm and
17 1nd out what rea11y happened.
18 ^nd, you know, he had -- you know, we had
19 dscussons 1ke, okay, we11, you know 1 ths -- 1
20 ths happens -- you know, 1 1 do ths, there cou1d be
21 some rsks to me -- to hm 1ega11y because o1 some o1
22 the stu11 he -- you know, he was gong to say that he
22 had done and he was rea11y concerned about that.
24 ^nd 1 -- and 1 encouraged hm and 1 sad
2S to hm, you know, 1 you don't do ths, what s that
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. ^nd dd you encourage hm --
4 ^. 0h, 1 dd.
S q. -- to get back n?
6 ^. Yeah. 1 de1nte1y -- 1 was 1ke, whatever you
7 dd n there, you need to keep dong because 1've never
8 seen you 1ke ths.
1 seen hm so enthused and a1ve. 1 was ust shocked. 1
2 was b1own away by what 1 saw.
MR814
Cross-Examination by Mr. Strieber
171
1 ^. u, sorry.
2 q. My name s les Streber. 1'm wth the 1aw 1rm
2 o1 0avs, Ced11o & Mendoza n San ^ntono and 1
4 represent the CS1. We've never met be1ore, s that
S correct?
6 ^. Correct.
7 q. What do you current1y do 1or a 1vng? What do
8 you current1y do 1or a 1vng?
9 ^. 1'm a regona1 manager at Medcad uM0.
10 q. ^re you a1so workng wth your husband wth
11 respect to counse1ng servces?
12 ^. uo.
12 q. 0kay. 0o you work wth your husband to assst
14 hm n hs b1og?
1S ^. uo -- we11, 1 he's out o1 town, 1 may do
16 comments 1or hm, but he hasn't been out o1 town.
17 q. 0kay. 8ut when he s out o1 town, you do work
18 towards he1png hm as mnster or -- or comment on the
19 b1og, s that correct?
20 ^. uo. 1 -- 1 w11 do the -- comments meanng --
21 1 don't put comments. 1 -- 1 approve the comments. 1
22 ust ht them, so that they'11 post.
22 q. 0kay. 0o you guys, the two o1 you -- ether
24 Mr. 8athbun or yourse11 or both o1 you as a 1am1y earn
2S money 1rom the b1og?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. 0kay. 0o you guys, the two o1 you -- ether
24 Mr. 8athbun or yourse11 or both o1 you as a 1am1y earn
2S money 1rom the b1og?
MR815
172
1 ^. 1here's -- there's a donaton button, so we do
2 get some stu11, some donatons.
2 q. 0kay. 1've seen some vdeos wth respect to --
4 1 thnk you sad that there was audtng -- that -- that
S there was audtng gong on n your house --
6 ^. Yes.
7 q. -- durng that vdeo. 1s there any money
8 earned or receved 1or any audtng servces?
9 ^. Some peop1e pay. Some peop1e don't.
10 q. 0kay. Cou1d you te11 the Judge a 1tt1e bt
11 about what audtng -- n your understandng o1 what
12 audtng was.
12 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, 1 tred to
14 queston her about ths and he obected and now t's
1S proper? 1'm not qute c1ear on -- on how ths 1ts nto
16 anythng. 1 mean, he 1tera11y obected to me askng
17 her about what audtng was and now he's askng her what
18 audtng was.
19 1uL C0u81: You'11 have an opportunty to
20 redrect.
21 M8. JLIIL8S0u: 1hank you, Judge.
22 q. {8Y M8. S181L8L8) What s your understandng?
22 ^. 1t's -- you have an audtor and -- and a C or
24 a -- a person and --
2S 1uL C0u81: ^ what person?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
^. 1here's -- there's a donaton button, so we do
2 get some stu11, some donatons.
1s there any money
8 earned or receved 1or any audtng servces?
9 ^. Some peop1e pay. Some peop1e don't.
MR816
176
1 hmse11 to be an nde scento1ogst?
2 ^. uo.
2 q. uave you ever per1ormed an audt where you're
4 not the prec1ear, but you're on the other sde --
S ^. Yes, 1 have.
6 q. -- and you're askng the questons?
7 ^. Yes, 1 have.
8 q. 0d you use an L-meter?
9 ^. Yes, sr.
10 q. Who traned you to be an L-meter -- to use an
11 L-meter?
12 ^. My husband.
12 q. ^nd there's tranng nvo1ved, s that correct?
14 ^. Yes.
1S q. uave you reached a partcu1ar 1eve1 n what
16 your husband te11s you to be a 1eve1 o1 -- o1 -- o1
17 c1earance or 1eve1 o1 cert1caton?
18 ^. 1n -- as a -- as an audtor?
19 q. Yes, ma'am.
20 ^. Lxcuse me, yes, 1 dd do the 1eve1 zero.
21 q. 0kay. What s a 1eve1 zero?
22 ^. 1t was a 1ong tme ago, but t -- t's the
22 1rst 1eve1 that you do when you're tranng to become
24 an audtor. 1here are severa1 1eve1s and t goes grade
2S one, two, three, 1our, 1ve 1rom there.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
uave you ever per1ormed an audt where you're
4 not the prec1ear, but you're on the other sde --
S ^. Yes, 1 have.
q. -- and you're askng the questons?
7 ^. Yes, 1 have.
MR817
178
1 per1ormed audts.
2 M8. JLII8LY: ue's sayng you are dong
2 ths. She says she's not dong t now.
4 M8. S181L8L8: 1 mssed that.
S q. {8Y M8. S181L8L8) ^re you not dong audts
6 anymore?
7 ^. uo.
8 q. When was the 1ast tme you, oh, 1'm sorry,
9 per1ormed an audt?
10 ^. We were back n 1ng1esde, be1ore we moved.
11 q. ^nd -- and te11 me exact1y -- not exact1y.
12 6ve me a week or a month, 1 you remember, the exact
12 date -- when dd you move 1rom 1ng1esde to 8u1verde?
14 ^. 1t was actua11y -- t was actua11y -- our
1S movng date was 0ecember 1st. We had some prob1ems wth
16 our o1d 1ease, tryng to get out o1 t.
17 q. 0kay. ^nd that's 0ecember o1 2012?
18 ^. '12.
19 q. 0kay. let me ask you a coup1e o1 questons
20 about 2012. ^nd then you ta1k about some events. You
21 ta1ked about the -- the game camera that was n the 1ot
22 next to your 8u1verde home. 0o you have any evdence
22 that anybody on beha11 o1 my c1ent or any other member
24 o1 the Church o1 Scento1ogy ever trespassed upon your
2S property n 8u1verde n the year 2012?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
let me ask you a coup1e o1 questons
20 about 2012. ^nd then you ta1k about some events. You
21 ta1ked about the -- the game camera that was n the 1ot
22 next to your 8u1verde home. 0o you have any evdence
22 that anybody on beha11 o1 my c1ent or any other member
24 o1 the Church o1 Scento1ogy ever trespassed upon your
2S property n 8u1verde n the year 2012?
MR818
179
1 ^. uo, sr.
2 q. 0kay. uave you ever seen any photographs that
2 may or may not have been taken 1rom that game camera as
4 to where that camera was takng pctures? uave you seen
S the photographs?
6 M8. JLII8LY: 0becton, Your uonor, to
7 the use -- that's argumentatve, game camera. 1t's a
8 human surve11ance camera.
9 M8. S181L8L8: 1'm not gong to qubb1e on
10 that.
11 1uL C0u81: 1t's a camera.
12 M8. S181L8L8: 1hanks, Judge.
12 q. {8Y M8. S181L8L8) 1hat camera, have you ever
14 seen any photographs 1rom -- that were taken 1rom that
1S camera?
16 ^. uo.
17 q. 0o you have any evdence that that camera was
18 showng your house?
19 ^. uo. 1t was ponted at my house, though.
20 q. 0o you know 1 -- whether any pctures were
21 taken o1 your house?
22 ^. 1 do not.
22 q. 0o you know whether that camera ever took any
24 pctures that wou1d depct the nsde o1 your house?
2S ^. 1 don't.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
^. uo, sr.
q. {8Y M8. S181L8L8) 1hat camera, have you ever
14 seen any photographs 1rom -- that were taken 1rom that
1S camera?
16 ^. uo.
17 q. 0o you have any evdence that that camera was
18 showng your house?
19 ^. uo. 1t was ponted at my house, though.
20 q. 0o you know 1 -- whether any pctures were
21 taken o1 your house?
22 ^. 1 do not.
22 q. 0o you know whether that camera ever took any
24 pctures that wou1d depct the nsde o1 your house?
2S ^. 1 don't.
MR819
180
1 q. ^nd that camera was not mounted on your
2 property, s that correct?
2 ^. Correct.
4 q. 1t was --
S ^. Correct.
6 q. 1t was mounted on adacent property.
7 ^. Yes.
8 q. let's go back to 2012. 1'm gong to move
9 backwards a 1tt1e bt because that's the way my notes
10 are on my pad.
11 1'11 go to September 2011 and -- take the
12 tme 1rame 1rom September 2011 to the end o1 2012. 1
12 thnk you test1ed that the squrre1 busters stopped
14 ther actvtes, no more squrre1 buster 1-shrts, no
1S more gatherng out on the street by your home n
16 September o1 2011, s that correct?
17 ^. ^round there, yes.
18 q. let me ask t ths way: ^1ter the 1ast tme
19 that you saw them gatherng on your street, dd you ever
20 see anybody wth a squrre1 buster 1-shrt at any tme
21 therea1ter?
22 ^. uo.
22 q. So s t your testmony that n September o1
24 2011, ths who1e squrre1-buster epsode stopped?
2S ^. Yes.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. ^nd that camera was not mounted on your
2 property, s that correct?
2 ^. Correct.
4 q. 1t was --
S ^. Correct.
6 q. 1t was mounted on adacent property.
7 ^. Yes.
q. So s t your testmony that n September o1
24 2011, ths who1e squrre1-buster epsode stopped?
2S ^. Yes.
MR820
181
1 q. 0kay. 8ut therea1ter, you on occason saw
2 somebody -- 1'm not gong to 1ook at my notes, so
2 correct me 1 1'm wrong, 1o11owng you --
4 ^. Yes.
S q. -- on occason and on occason drve by?
6 ^. Yes, and take pctures.
7 q. 0kay. ^t any tme a1ter the squrre1-buster
8 epsode stopped n September 2011 up unt1 2012, dd
9 anybody ever trespass upon your property?
10 ^. uo, not that 1 know o1.
11 q. uave you ever seen any photographs that were
12 taken o1 your home on these drvebys?
12 ^. uo.
14 q. 0o you have any evdence that any photographs
1S that were taken were o1 your house, o1 your drveway, o1
16 your cars? What were the photographs taken o1?
17 ^. 1hey were taken o1 1cense -- 1cense p1ates.
18 q. 0kay. ^nd how do you know that?
19 ^. 8ecause you cou1d see them stop rght n 1ront
20 o1 the car and take out ther camera and take a pcture
21 overt1y.
22 q. ^nd when they took that pcture overt1y o1 a
22 1cense p1ate, they were standng on the street?
24 ^. Correct -- they were n that car.
2S q. 1hey ddn't get out o1 the car?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. 0kay. 8ut therea1ter, you on occason saw
2 somebody -- 1'm not gong to 1ook at my notes, so
2 correct me 1 1'm wrong, 1o11owng you --
4 ^. Yes.
S q. -- on occason and on occason drve by?
6 ^. Yes, and take pctures.
7 q. 0kay. ^t any tme a1ter the squrre1-buster
8 epsode stopped n September 2011 up unt1 2012, dd
9 anybody ever trespass upon your property?
10 ^. uo, not that 1 know o1.
11 q. uave you ever seen any photographs that were
12 taken o1 your home on these drvebys?
12 ^. uo.
1S that were taken were o1 your house, o1 your drveway, o1
16 your cars? What were the photographs taken o1?
17 ^. 1hey were taken o1 1cense -- 1cense p1ates.
18 q. 0kay. ^nd how do you know that?
19 ^. 8ecause you cou1d see them stop rght n 1ront
20 o1 the car and take out ther camera and take a pcture
21 overt1y.
22 q. ^nd when they took that pcture overt1y o1 a
22 1cense p1ate, they were standng on the street?
24 ^. Correct -- they were n that car.
2S q. 1hey ddn't get out o1 the car?
MR821
182
1 ^. 8ght.
2 q. 1hey ust -- 1rom the street, 1rom ther car,
2 not trespassng, not on your property, they took a
4 pcture o1 a 1cense p1ate?
S ^. 8ght.
7 were ever taken o1 your house?
8 ^. 1 don't know that.
9 q. 0kay. 0o you know whether or not any o1 the
10 photographs -- a1ter the squrre1 busters stopped and
11 unt1 you moved to 8u1verde, whether or not any o1 those
12 pctures were taken o1 -- o1 your husband's audtng
12 Scento1ogy c1ents?
14 ^. ^ny -- any pctures?
1S q. Yes, ma'am.
16 ^. uo, but 1 know o1 vsts that they had
17 receved.
18 q. Lxp1an that 1or me, p1ease.
19 ^. Some -- some o1 hs peop1e who came to see hm,
20 we wou1d get vsts 1rom Jm lynch and -- and -- and
21 some 1rom the squrre1 busters.
22 q. So t's your be1e1 that peop1e that were usng
22 your husband to receve audtng servces outsde the
24 Church o1 Scento1ogy were beng contacted and
2S questoned by peop1e wthn the church?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
^. 8ght.
2 q. 1hey ust -- 1rom the street, 1rom ther car,
2 not trespassng, not on your property, they took a
4 pcture o1 a 1cense p1ate?
S ^. 8ght.
7 were ever taken o1 your house?
MR822
194
1 about ear1er to today, you're mantanng -- your
2 husband s mantanng a b1og that you're a part o1?
2 ^. ue s.
4 q. 8y beng on te1evson shows or wrtng an
S nternatona1 b1og, by trave1ng the wor1d and meetngs
6 ant-scento1ogy peop1e, meetng wth ant-scento1ogy
7 reporters, wou1d you agree that your husband s a pub1c
8 1gure?
9 ^. Yes, he s, 1 wou1d thnk.
10 q. Wou1d you agree that you are?
11 ^. uo.
12 q. 0kay. Lven though you've been on te1evson
12 shows, you've vo1untar1y partcpated n a
14 nternatona1 b1og, you don't be1eve that you are a
1S pub1c 1gure?
16 ^. 1 -- no, 1 --
17 q. 0kay. You ta1ked a 1tt1e bt ago about a trp
18 to uamburg, 6ermany.
19 ^. Yes. Yes. 1'm sorry.
20 q. ^nd you're at the 8er1n Wa11 and -- and some
21 peop1e there were -- were dong thngs that you ddn't
22 1ke. 0o you reca11 that testmony?
22 ^. Yes.
24 q. Why were you n uamburg, 6ermany?
2S ^. 8ecause Mark got nvted over to --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. 8y beng on te1evson shows or wrtng an
S nternatona1 b1og, by trave1ng the wor1d and meetngs
6 ant-scento1ogy peop1e, meetng wth ant-scento1ogy
7 reporters, wou1d you agree that your husband s a pub1c
8 1gure?
9 ^. Yes, he s, 1 wou1d thnk.
17 q. 0kay. You ta1ked a 1tt1e bt ago about a trp
18 to uamburg, 6ermany.
19 ^. Yes. Yes. 1'm sorry.
20 q. ^nd you're at the 8er1n Wa11 and -- and some
21 peop1e there were -- were dong thngs that you ddn't
22 1ke. 0o you reca11 that testmony?
22 ^. Yes.
24 q. Why were you n uamburg, 6ermany?
2S ^. 8ecause Mark got nvted over to --
MR823
19S
1 q. 8y --
2 ^. 1'm sorry.
2 q. 8y whom?
4 ^. 8y ursu1a Caberta.
S q. ursu1a Caberta. Ior the court reporter, cou1d
6 you spe11 ursu1a's 1ast name, 1 you can?
7 ^. C-^-8-L-8-1-^, 1 thnk.
8 q. ^nd who s she?
9 ^. She works 1or the 6erman government, 1 thnk.
10 q. 0kay. 0o you know whether or not the unted
11 States state department has 1ound her to be an n1rnger
12 o1 re1gous rghts and an ant-re1gonst?
12 ^. uo, 1 ddn't know that.
14 q. 1s ursu1a an ant-scento1ogst?
1S ^. uo -- not when 1 met her, no.
16 q. You dd not know that?
17 ^. 1 ddn't take her as that.
18 q. 0kay. What was the purpose o1 the trp out
19 there to 6ermany?
20 ^. Mark was gong to do some ntervews.
21 q. Wth whom?
22 ^. Wth ursu1a.
22 q. 0kay. ^nd dd he do ntervews?
24 ^. Yes, sr.
2S q. ^nd dd you partcpate n those ntervews?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
1 q. 8y --
2 ^. 1'm sorry.
2 q. 8y whom?
4 ^. 8y ursu1a Caberta.
S q. ursu1a Caberta. Ior the court reporter, cou1d
6 you spe11 ursu1a's 1ast name, 1 you can?
7 ^. C-^-8-L-8-1-^, 1 thnk.
8 q. ^nd who s she?
9 ^. She works 1or the 6erman government, 1 thnk.
10 q. 0kay. 0o you know whether or not the unted
11 States state department has 1ound her to be an n1rnger
12 o1 re1gous rghts and an ant-re1gonst?
12 ^. uo, 1 ddn't know that.
14 q. 1s ursu1a an ant-scento1ogst?
1S ^. uo -- not when 1 met her, no.
16 q. You dd not know that?
17 ^. 1 ddn't take her as that.
18 q. 0kay. What was the purpose o1 the trp out
19 there to 6ermany?
20 ^. Mark was gong to do some ntervews.
21 q. Wth whom?
22 ^. Wth ursu1a.
22 q. 0kay. ^nd dd he do ntervews?
24 ^. Yes, sr.
MR824
199
1 what ther creed s? Wou1d you agree wth that?
2 ^. 1 don't know that 1 wou1d c1ass1y t as
2 re1gous, but yes, t was cv1.
4 q. You're takng two church peop1e a -- what you
S be1eve to be a creed and you're showng t to them to
6 maybe express to them maybe they shou1d read t. Was
7 that your pont?
8 ^. Yes.
9 q. You were havng a re1gous dscourse
10 peace1u11y wth these peop1e, s that correct?
11 ^. 0kay. Yes.
12 M8. S181L8L8: 6o ahead.
12 {vdeo p1ayng.
14 M8. S181L8L8: Stop.
1S {vdeo stopped)
16 q. {8Y M8. S181L8L8) 0kay. You were sm1ng when
17 you dd that. 1here wasn't -- that was a re1gous
18 dscourse n whch you were wantng the peop1e, the
19 squrre1 busters, to hear you and read what you were
20 takng to them, whch was re1gous matera1 o11 the
21 church, 1 guess, Web ste maybe?
22 ^. uo. 1t was out o1 a book.
22 q. 0kay. 1s there anythng wrong wth what you
24 dd?
2S ^. uo.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR825
200
1 q. 1s there anythng that they dd that was wrong?
2 ^. 1here, no.
2 q. ^nd they've never assau1ted you, correct?
4 ^. hysca11y, no.
S q. 0kay. uave they ever -- dd the squrre1
6 busters ever trespass on your property?
7 ^. uot that 1 know o1.
8 q. 0kay. ^nd -- and -- and when they wou1d do
9 what they were dong, t wou1d be out on -- on the
10 street and they wou1d be protestng, expressng ther
11 rght to -- to re1gous 1reedom re1ated to what they
12 thought that your husband was dong wth the Scento1ogy
12 re1gon, correct?
14 ^. Sometmes.
1S q. ^nd they understood that n your house you were
16 conductng audts usng an L-meter that they be1eved
17 was nconsstent the orthodoxy o1 ther church, s that
18 correct?
19 ^. 1hat's what they sad, yes.
20 q. 0kay.
21 1uL C0u81: Who s he?
22 1uL W11uLSS: 1hey. 1 sad they.
22 M8. S181L8L8: ue beng Mr. 8athbun
24 conductng audts nconsstent wth -- wth the --
2S 1uL C0u81: 1 understand, but then she
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. ^nd they've never assau1ted you, correct?
4 ^. hysca11y, no.
S q. 0kay. uave they ever -- dd the squrre1
6 busters ever trespass on your property?
7 ^. uot that 1 know o1.
MR826
207
1 q. 0kay. ^nd -- and dd he -- when you met wth
2 hm, dd he -- dd he brng a bag wth hm contanng
2 tems?
4 ^. ue had a bag, but 1 don't know what was n t.
S q. 0kay. 1s t your testmony today that you had
6 no know1edge o1 hm brngng to your husband
7 con1denta1 n1ormaton contaned dsks that he
8 obtaned at hs work as an emp1oyee o1 CS1?
9 ^. ue dd not gve Mark dsks.
10 q. 0d he gve t to anyone on beha11 o1 Mark?
12 q. 0kay. let me ust touch upon a de1cate
12 subect and that re1ates to the sex toy that you
14 receved n a box n Corpus Chrst. 0d t have any
1S ndcaton on t -- on the box as to who was sendng t
16 to you?
17 ^. uo, sr.
18 q. Same wth the 11owers, any ndcaton who t
19 was 1rom?
20 ^. uo, sr.
21 q. You asked n your exchange wth -- wth
22 counse1 -- 1 thnk t was a rhetorca1 queston -- how
22 do we make ths stop. 0o you reca11 that?
24 ^. Yes.
2S q. 0urng ths entre tme perod, your husband
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
q. 0kay. let me ust touch upon a de1cate
12 subect and that re1ates to the sex toy that you
14 receved n a box n Corpus Chrst. 0d t have any
1S ndcaton on t -- on the box as to who was sendng t
16 to you?
17 ^. uo, sr.
18 q. Same wth the 11owers, any ndcaton who t
19 was 1rom?
20 ^. uo, sr.
MR827
220
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF COMAL
2
4 I, Cindy Cummings, Official Court Reporter in and
S for the 433rd District Court of Comal, State of Texas,
6 do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains
7 a true and correct transcription of all portions of
8 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by
9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of
10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered
11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in
12 chambers and were reported by me.
12 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND, this the 14th day of September,
14 2013.
1S /s/ Cindy Cummings

16 Cindy Cummings, Texas CSR 3210
Official Court Reporter
17 433 Judicial District Court
150 N. Seguin Street
18 Suite 317
Tel 830-221-1279
19 Fax 830-608-2030
Expiration: 12/31/13
20
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR828
EXHIBIT 8
MR829
10/11/13 Casablanca Tejas, population 4 | Moving On Up a Little Higher
markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/casablanca-tejas-population-4/ 1/40
Mark "Marty" Rathbun's Place
Casablanca Tejas, population 4
Posted on October 23, 2010 by martyrathbun09 | 155 Comments

After watching Clint Eastwoods latest masterpiece Hereafter last night I was inspired to open a new
forum. I highly recommend Hereafter to every Scientologist. There are many parallels in the
experience of the protagonist (Matt Damon) to Scientologists and other spiritualists who perceive and
act in the theta universe. The built-in prejudice and violent denial reaction to matters spiritual in this
civilization was well portrayed. Doesnt exist? Then, why were Mosey and I surveilled during the movie
and all the way home? Contemplating the absurdity of such expensive spying at such an innocuous
event, made me recognize that ultimately, this is why Miscavige spends millions in attempts to thwart
us. It is our recognition of the theta universe, our agreement to not invalidate perception of it, and our
use of Scientology to make it more real and permanent.
Hereafter illustrates how lonely and desperate life can become for those who recognize the spiritual in
an environment that willfully remains ignorant of it. It prompted me to realize the corporate churchs
war has had its toll. When I am doing what I do for a living, counsel Scientologists with Scientology, and
I am in communication with those people to whom I apply Scientology, magical things happen quite
routinely between us. Telepathic communications, effortless postulate realization, premonitions of
great accuracy, the power of ARC over great distances, you name it. At bottom I attribute it to
validation through recognition of theta and the theta universe as transcendent to the physical universe.
Most importantly, the movie artistically represented how as-isness occurs when a person seemingly
alone with what the non-spiritually inclined write off as ethereal, nutty ideas unites with one or more
others who see what he sees.
See the movie, please.
In the meantime, Mosey and I are preparing to move into new quarters down the canal from the Shack.
We are doing so in order to be better prepared to deliver. Since the place is a little larger than a shack,
and since it has a distinct all white exterior, and because South Texas is 65% latino and once was
Mexico until the US pulled off what President Ulysses S Grant called the most unjust land grab in the
history of the world we have named her Casablanca Tejas (original Spanish spelling for Texas),
population 4.
In the meantime, Mosey and I are preparing to move into new quarters down the canal fr ff om the Shack.
We WW are doing so in order to be better prepared to deliver. Since the place is a little larger than a shack,
Wh WW en I am doing what I do fo ff r a living, counsel Scientologists with Scientology, and
I am in communication with those people to whom I apply Scientology, magical things happen quite
routinely between us.
MR830
10/11/13 Casablanca Tejas, population 4 | Moving On Up a Little Higher
markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/casablanca-tejas-population-4/ 2/40
Share this:
Like this:
As a coincidence, what goes on at Casablanca is much like the classic motion picture by the same name.
All manner of refugee, patriot, spy, and counter spy find neutral territory by which to make safe
passage to freedom in Casablanca. In addition to delivery of services well continue to do what we can to
get Lazlos on their flights. Besides, we all know now that Ive been known to smoke and drink like Bogie.
Ultimately, in addition to the playful nature of such titles, there is a long term purpose for dealing in
such parables publicly. This will become abundantly clear later this week.
There is much to do on a number of fronts, offensive and defensive, to assure the survival and
expansion of independence. And so Moving On Up A Little Higher will continue to expand. Many
disparate viewpoints and even reasonable amounts of antagonism will continue to be entertained. But,
in order to keep my focus and others similarly inclined to keep theirs and never again lose site of
what the real purpose of this movement is, I have created a new blog: Casablanca Tejas, at
http://casablancatejasmyblog.wordpress.com/. That forum is dedicated to people with a strong reality
on the theta universe. I wont be allowing trolls, antagonists and materialist commentary. It is
dedicated to the spiritual, wins in attaining that with Scientology and enhancing that with continued
study of wisdoms.
Welcome to Casablanca!
Loading...
StumbleUpon Digg Facebook Tw TT itt tt er LinkedIn Google
Reddit Email Print Pinterest Tumblr
Like
MR831
EXHIBIT 9
MR832
ABC News Nightline
October 22, 2009
MR833
EXHIBIT 10
MR834
Channel 4 (UK)
J une 17, 2013
MR835
EXHIBIT 11
MR836
N-TV (Germany)
December 11, 2012
MR837
EXHIBIT 12
MR838
The Independent Magazine (UK)
April 7, 2012
MR839
EXHIBIT 13
MR840
The Simplicity of Scientology
Posted on February 10, 2013 by martyrathbun09
MR841
EXHIBIT 14
MR842
Posted on September 26, 2010 by martyrathbun09 | 372 Comments
A lot of people have noted that Miscaviges events and speeches are taking on more of an hypnotic sounding tone,
and yet his sheep dont seem to notice. There are also many comments here wondering aloud how on earth kool
aid drinkers can keep compulsively drinking kool aid in the face of the abuses escalating within the church. I
believe the following may shed a bit of light on those concerns.
David Miscavige developed a technique that he called rolling thunder for his event presentations. Mike Rinder
and others who worked on events over time can describe this far more competently than me since I was not so
intimately involved in the event evolutions as they were. But I know this much, Rolling thunder consisted of a
series of facts and stats of the church all exaggerated, and some made up out of whole cloth being
forcefully communicated to the audience and accented with overwhelming and building music, lights and
graphics being flashed in the recipients faces until the climax of an applause line is reached. Rolling
thunder is considered achieved if, and only if, the entire crowd is swept to their feet in adoring, accepting, and
rapturous AGREEMENT with the applause line of the speaker. Miscavige was obsessed with ensuring his
speeches in particular had several rolling thunder moments. Over the years, he weeded out the involvement of
other speakers in the events until over the past few years there has only been one, David Miscavige. When you
add to the equation that virtually all church of Scientology staff have been forced, coerced and conditioned into
immediately and savagely punishing the slightest indication of doubt about the infallibility of David Miscavige
that manifests itself with any church staff or public, youve got a perfect recipe for disaster. That is, mind
controlling hypnotism on a mass scale.
While reading a section of the Phoenix lecture Axioms, Part III, on the subject of how Scientology can be
reversed to effectuate hypnotism all of the above came back to me. I believe the following passage sheds light
on what Scientology public have been subjected to, increasingly, for the past twenty years in very regular,
predictable intervals.
The whole of existence, actually, is run very much like an hypnotic trance. How do you hyptnotize somebody?
Well, you get them to agree with you. And then you get them to agree with you a little bit more. Oh, most
people think that its done by watches or something or other. Its not done that way. Its done in a very
interesting way.
I dont know much aboutWestern hypnotism. I myself studied hypnotism in the East and when I came over to
America again, I wondered what on earth this strange practice was that these people were practicing and
calling hypnotism. Because it wasnt even vaguely what is taught in the East to induce trances. Its quite
remarkable that hypnotism is inducible on small or large groups.
Now, the worse off a group is, which is to say, the less communication they have, actually, the more
Reverse Scientology: Hypnotism | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/reverse-scientology-hypno...
1 of 127 10/15/2013 4:44 PM
A lot of people have noted that Miscaviges events and speeches are taking on more of an hypnotic sounding tone,
and yet his sheep dont seem to notice. There are also many comments here wondering aloud how on earth kool
aid drinkers can keep compulsively drinking kool aid in the face of the abuses escalating within the church. I
believe the following may shed a bit of light on those concerns.
MR843
communication can be forced upon them. And you can get a form of hypnotism there. But the interesting
thing is that they must have been prepared by an enormous number of agreements before they got into that
state. In other words, somebody else prepared them, so they didnt care who they agreed with after a while.
Anybody in a uniform walks up to a soldier, if that uniform has a higher rank on, the soldier will obey them.
Well, this is a form of hypnotism.
Now, you can take an audience and simply get them to agree with you. And you get them to agree more and
more and more and more and more and the next thing you know and, by the way, when I say agree with
you, I mean you could get them to agree first that you were simply standing there.
And then, the next thing that you could get them to agree to is the fact that they were listening to you. And then
you would give them a few little things on which they would agree with. And the next thing you know, you
could tell them that the world was on fire and the audience would rush out to find out. Or maybe they just sit
there and burn. Its quite interesting. But you could move it out that way.
Now, what is this all about? Does that mean that anybody bringing about an agreement would bring about
hypnotism? Oh no. The reason why in Scientology we do not bring about a hypnotism, even by Opening
Procedure by Duplication every Case V, thats had this run on him claims, its a way to induce a trance but
every single one of the tenets of Scientology could be reversed and with a bad intention, and so forth, could be
worked out in the opposite direction.
We are undoing the agreements which people have been making for 76 trillion years. Only were undoi ng
them, so this makes them freer and freer and freer.
Now, show you this fellow on the stage who simply gets the audience to agree and agree and agree and agree
and then tells them the place is on fire. Oh? He isnt really going in the direction of making them freer, is he?
His intention for this is entirely different.
It isnt that intention is above agreement. Its that consideration is always above agreement. And he is trying
to work them into a situation where they will accept what he says without question. Were not interested in
Scientology, in anybody accepting what we say without question. We ask them to question it. We ask them to
please look at the physical universe around you, please look at people, at your own mind and understand,
thereby,that what we are talking about happens to be actual. This i s the series of agreements. These are. They
arent just fancy ideas.
Let us also consider the following facts. First, over the past thirty years the churchs Bridge has altered to consist
on average of more than fifty percent security checks. And those security checks are done within an imposed
mores that considers the highest crime one can commit is to question the infallibility of David Miscavige.
Second, over those same thirty years church staff have been pressured and coerced into immediately, and
ruthelessly, punishing anyone who might manifest the slightest doubt about the veracity of the utterances of
Miscavige. Third, RTC has been programmed to immediately target and destroy the life of anyone who dares
report on false reports delivered in events by Miscavige. Those are people who actually observed arrogantly
announced Miscavige facts to not in fact exist in the physical universe. Fourth, church policy has evolved that
has any member seriously punished for exposing himself or herself to any source of information (by personal
contact, by way of media, or the internet) that does not agree with Miscaviges official state of Scientology
2 of 127 10/15/2013 4:44 PM
MR844
Share this:
Like this:
Be the first to like this.
utterances.
Is there really any question why once intelligent and caring people are now acting like so many cattle dutifully
lining up for slaughter?
372 RESPONSES TO REVERSE SCIENTOLOGY: HYPNOTISM
This entry was posted in black dianetics, ethics, healing, l. ron hubbard, miscavige crimes, propaganda, tech
alterations, Uncategorized and tagged mark rathbun, David Miscavige, david Miscavige Marty Rathbun,
scientology. Bookmark the permalink.
Victoria | September 26, 2010 at 7:31 am | Reply
Is there really any question why once intelligent and caring people are now acting like so many cattle
dutifully lining up for slaughter?
Yeah, I still dont get it. Maybe I never will.
crashingupwards | September 26, 2010 at 11:06 am | Reply
I think it takes more to come out of agreement than it does to go into agreement. Even those who
left the church cling to many of the agreements we shared while inside. Which brings me to a
point.
Why do some leave when others do not, given the same level of exposure to agreement/hypnosis
over time.
I have always felt that it takes someone getting mistreated in order for the light to come on in their
head. Then all the agreements are put on hold . They are not done away with, just given a
temporary backseat.
The mistreatment can be any number of things and we all know what it was that sent us
individually out the door or into this blog or some other venue.
And to the extent the agreements we had built up over the years are still in force, such as the tech
works, LRH was a genius, managment sucks, etc, we are still willing to beat those drums. The
agreements are still there.
My point is people, especially public scientologists, look at this blog or at the st.pete times article
or AC360 AFTER something happened. They will still have their agreements for the most part and
3 of 127 10/15/2013 4:44 PM
MR845
EXHIBIT 15
MR846
Toni ghts report
Posted on April 23, 2010 by martyrathbun09 | 88 Comments
TIe reporL you wIII reud LonIgIL Is IIvIng prooI oI LIe vuIIdILy oI u very reuI concern LIuL expressed u yeur ugo.
L wus LIe prImury reuson grunLed un InLervIew wILI LIe SP TImes. TIey dId noL prInL my reuson, perIups
concerned IL wus Loo InIIummuLory. LoId CNN Loo; und LIey Loo were uppurenLIy uIruId Lo run IL. ucL oI LIe
muLLer Is, onIy guve LIe InLervIews uL LIoses LImes becuuse Iud Ieurned Lo wIuL depLIs DM`s Iouse oI
Iorrors Iud sIId sInce Iud IeIL. AILer speukIng Lo Tom DevocIL, MIke RInder und oLIer (wIose numes musL
sLIII be proLecLed) ubouL wIuL occured uL nL uILer Iud IeIL, wus gruveIy concerned IIves mIgIL be In dunger.
LoId LIe TImes und CNN, und ÌI LeII you rIgIL now, spoke In LIe Iopes oI prevenLIng wIuL wus
concerned mIgIL deLerIoruLe InLo u JonesLown sILuuLIon. predIcLed LIuL, IeIL Lo IIs own devIces, DM couId very
weII become IomIcIduI (In IucL uIreudy wus, buL IL mIgIL grow Lo overcome uny resLruInL Ie wus ubIe Lo musLer
Irom IuIIy drumuLIzIng IL). doubLed LIuL Ie wouId Iuve LIe common decency Lo do IImseII In Lo proLecL
oLIers; buL InsLeud wouId go down In u IuII oI buIIeLs In response Lo IIs own IuII murderIng us muny
Lreusonous busLurds us Ie couId Luke down. n my vIew LonIgIL`s reporL conIIrms my concerns. TIInk ubouL
LIe WIId AnImuI ReucLIon OI TIe MIssed WILIIoId. TIuL Is undersLundubIe, purLIcuIurIy wIen one knows - us
do und Ie does - wIuL we ure brIngIng Lo IIgIL over LIe nexL severuI monLIs. Now, consIder LIuL DM pIunned
ouL Loduy`s evenLs, wILI IengLIy und meLIcuIous brIeIIngs Ior duys In udvunce. TIInk ubouL LIe mInd LIuL wouId
so ucL . `ve sLudIed KoresI und Jones. TIey were Boy ScouLs compured Lo MIscuvIge uL sImIIur sLuges In LIeIr
cureers.
Tonights report | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/tonights-report/
LoId LIe TImes und CNN, und ÌI LeII you rIgIL now, spoke In LIe Iopes oI prevenLIng wIuL wus
concerned mIgIL deLerIoruLe InLo u JonesLown sILuuLIon.
MR847
EXHIBIT 16
MR848
ARC i s sacred
Posted on December 6, 2009 by martyrathbun09 | 46 Comments
TIunks Lo OId AudILor now Iuve u brund new seL oI LIe MunugemenL SerIes voIumes. ook wIuL jumped oII
LIe puges oI LIe IIrsL P In LIe IIrsL voIume!
RH Irom An Essuy On MunugemenL (q Junuury 1q1):
He uho holds the pouer oj cn orcnizction is thct person uho holds its communicction lines cnd uho is c
crossrocd oj communicctions. Therejore, in c true roup, communicctions cnd communicctions lines should
be cnd cre sccred. Communicction lines cre sccred. The hcte been considered so instinctitel since the oldest
ces oj mcn. Messeners, herclds cnd riders hcte been the object oj the rectest ccre eten betueen combctcnts
on enMEST missions. Priesthoods hold their pouer throuh postin or bein communicction relc points
betueen ods cnd men. And eten most oternments consider cults sccred. Communicction lines cre sccred
cnd uho uould interrupt or pertert c communicction line uithin c roup is entitled to roup decth - exile.
And thct usucll hcppens cs c ncturcl course oj etents. Communicction lines cre sccred. The must not be
used cs chcnnels oj ticiousness cnd enthetc. The must not be tuisted or perterted. The must not be lutted
uith mcn uords cnd little mecnin. The must not be setered. The must be estcblished uhereter c
communicction line seems to ucnt to exist or is needed.
An mcncement oj cnthin ccn rcise tone cnd ejjicienc b estcblishin cnd mcintcinin zeclousl, cs c
sccred trust, communicction lines throuh cll the roup cnd jrom outside the roup into the roup cnd jrom
in the roup outside the roup.
ARC is sacred | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/arc-is-sacred/
MR849
The most titcl lines oj c roup cre not operctioncl lines, clthouh this mc cppecr so to mcncement. The
cre the thetc lines betueen cn thetc cnd the roup cnd the ocl mcler cnd the roup. Mcncement thct
tcmpers uith these lines in cn uc uill destro itselj. These cctucll hcte tension cnd explosion in them. It is
cs inetitcble cs nihtjcll thct these lines uill explode, uhen tcmpered uith, ct the excct point oj the tcmperin.
This is c ncturcl lcu oj communicction lines.
A line is cs dcnerous to tcmper uith cs it hcs truth in its chcnnel. It is scje cnd eten presertin oj c line to
cut it uhen it contcins enthetc. Ior excmple uhen c true line is cut, it chcres c little pouer into the cutter cnd
he hcs cuthorit jor c moment thereb. ut it is onl the cuthorit oj the cut line. Ij the line is thus mcde to
perish, the cutter loses his cuthorit. Ij there is much truth in thct line, it does not ite cuthorit to the cutter,
it explodes him.
A roup hcs the riht to exile cnone it discoters to be uilt oj tcmperin uith cn communicction line.
A mcncement uhich uill pertert cn cjjinit or seter one mc cin c momentcr pouer but the lcus here cre
the scme cs those relctin to communicction cnd cn cjjinit tcmpered uith uill louer the tone oj c roup.
A mcncement uhich uill pertert or suppress c reclit, no mctter hou recsoncble the cct seems, is cctin in
the direction oj the destruction oj c roup. It is not uhct mcncement thinls the roup or the ocl mcler
should lnou, it is uhct is true. A primcr junction is the discoter cnd publicction, in the briejest jorm uhich
uill cdmit the uhole jorce oj the dctc, the reclit oj cll existin circumstcnces, situctions cnd personnel. A
mcncement uhich uill hide dctc, eten in the hope oj spcrin someone's jeelins, is operctin toucrd c
decline oj the roup.
A true roup must hcte c mcncement uhich decls in cjjinit, reclit cnd communicction cnd cn roup is
totcll uithin its rihts, uhen c jull cnd recsoncble excminction discloses mcncement in jcult oj pertertin
or cuttin ARC, oj slcuhterin, exilin or suspendin thct mcncement. ARC is sccred.
ps: Mosey moderuLes Sunduy.
ARC is sacred | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/arc-is-sacred/
ps: Mosey moderuLes Sunduy.
MR850
EXHIBIT 17
MR851
r $^ CLEARWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT
===^^^ TRESPASS WARNING
F9^^yq^^q
P
t
P
1 Time : , Grid Zone Report No.
1n estig'ating Officer(s) Badge No(s):
SUBJ ECT (Person to whom trespass warning was given)
Name (Last, First, Middle) . ,,
,.,
Race Sex Date of Bi rth
Height /,, Weight Hair_ Eyes
y
Scars/Marks/Tatoos
Street Address Apt./Lot No.
City, State, Zip Code / -rF'' _ Phone No.
COMPLAINANT (Person who issued trespass warning)
Name (Last, First, Middle)
i
Race Se Date of Birth
Street Address l - -- _ Apt./Lot No.
City, State, Zip Code Phone No.
LOCATION (Premises ror which trespass warning was issued) r "
Name of Business Type of Premises
i l!
Up s%
Street Address Apt./Lot/Suite[Room No.
REMARKS (Reason for issuing trespass warning)
I
,
dc'
is
,beingthe - t_--*- .
-
=>ti^
Name of person issuing warning TiUe of person issuing waf ng
of the premises located at r ^ ^
t17/,.- u: ,, ;'
/
Y '
'
f
Address for which warning was issued
have told
/ V' t7'. r
; ,'t
T % . rz
Name of person to whomwarning was issued
that he/she is not wanted on these premises and that if he/she returns I will have him/her arrested for trespassing
as provided for in F.S.S. 810.09 and will testify in any subsequent prosecution.
Signature of Complainant
Signature of Officer
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this trespass warning.
Page of
Sigriaiure of person receiving warning
CPD 200 (Rev. 12-2000)
MR852
EXHIBIT 18
MR853
Know your ri ghts
Posted on August 26, 2010 by martyrathbun09 | 220 Comments

To: ExecuLIves und sLuII oI nL, GoId, OSA, eLc
Know your rIgILs.
know you Iuve Ieurd IorrIIIc LIIngs ubouL Iow Iormer sLuII wIo IeIL LIe cIurcI wILI evIdence In LIeIr
possessIon wIII be prosecuLed . You sIouId know LIuL LIuL Is propugundu.
TIuL propugundu Is dIrecLed Lo one pubIIc und one pubIIc uIone: YOU.
And IL Is ASE PROPAGANDA.
TIe InLenL oI LIe propugundu Is LIe sume InLenL beIInd IorcIng you Lo perIodIcuIIy sIgn IIve yeur empIoymenL
conLrucLs wIIcI muke you you Iuve sIgned your rIgILs Lo Iree speecI uwuy.
TIe purpose Is Lo keep you In u sLuLe oI eIecLrIIIed Ieur oI ever even LIInkIng u neguLIve LIougIL ubouL DuvId
MIscuvIge und IIs reIn oI Lerror, IeL uIone ever doIng unyLIIng ubouL IL.
Now, IeL`s geL Lo LIose rIgILs oI yours LIuL you probubIy don`L know ubouL.
n LIe UnILed SLuLes oI AmerIcu, und In mosL cIvIIIzed nuLIons, one cunnoL sIgn uwuy IIs or Ier Ireedom oI
speecI. TIe IIuLs oI DuvId MIscuvIge do noL Lrump LIe BIII or RIgILs nor LIe UnIversuI DecIuruLIon oI Humun
RIgILs. MIscuvIge`s bIovIuLIng does noL even Iuve LIe sIIgILesL eIIecL upon seLLIed CuIIIornIu cuse Iuw.
So, no muLLer wIuL you Iuve sIgned or been LoId Lo LIe conLrury, recognIze IL Ius no eIIecL upon LIe IoIIowIng
seLLIed Iuw:
I you Iurbor InLenLIons Lo Ieuve, und you Iuve u reusonubIe beIIeI LIuL LIe cIurcI mIgIL pursue you In order Lo
coerce you Lo reLurn Lo some Iorm oI envIronmenL wIere you Iuck LIe Ireedom oI movemenL, speecI, or
ussocIuLIon you Iuve LIe rIgIL Lo Luke wILI you evIdence LIuL supporLs LIuL beIIeI.
I you beIIeve peopIe wIo were once In your posILIon, wIo Iuve uIreudy IeIL, ure beIng uLLucked by LIe cIurcI In
order Lo coerce LIem InLo gIvIng up uny oI LIeIr rIgILs Lo Iree movemenL, speecI or ussocIuLIon, you Iuve LIe
rIgIL Lo Luke wILI you evIdence oI InIrIngemenL oI sucI rIgILs.
Know your rights | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/know-your-rights/
you Iuve LIe rIgIL Lo Luke wILI you evIdence LIuL supporLs LIuL beIIeI.
you Iuve LIe
rIgIL Lo Luke wILI you evIdence oI InIrIngemenL oI sucI rIgILs.
MR854
I you ure IeuvIng becuuse you reusonubIy beIIeve you Iuve wILnessed crImes uguInsL persons or ucLs LIuL Iuve
denIed peopIe LIeIr God-gIven rIgILs Lo Ireedom oI speecI, movemenL, or ussocIuLIon LIen you ure wILIIn your
rIgILs Lo Luke wILI you evIdence oI LIose crImes undJor denIuIs oI CIvII und Humun RIgILs.
I uny doubL exIsLs us Lo wIeLIer you wIII be proLecLed sIouId you cIoose Lo exercIse LIese rIgILs, personuIIy
guurunLee you proLecLIon. TIe IeguI mInds uvuIIubIe Lo proLecL your rIgILs on LIe ouLsIde muke MIscuvIge`s
overpuId crImInuI cover-up urLIsLs Iook IIke LIe pIkers LIey ure.
MIscuvIge Is Iess und Iess seen by LIe uveruge sLuII member becuuse Ie Is IIguruLIveIy burrowIng IImseII
IurLIer und IurLIer InLo IIs HILIerIun bunker. He Ius good reuson Lo cIoose IIs ground Iog sLruLegy.
HIs reIn oI Lerror Is under InLense scruLIny by peopIe wIo muke LIeIr IIves` work Lo end eIIecLIve sIuvery und
muIIu-IIke InLImIduLIon LucLIcs by dIcLuLors.
WIIcI Ieuds Lo LIe nexL bIL oI propugundu you wouId be III-served Lo Ieed. TIuL Is LIe noLIon beIng broudcusL
wILIIn LIuL MIscuvIge Is beIng IunLed by LIe Iorces oI evII on LIe pIuneL. QuILe LIe conLrury, LIose InvesLIguLIng
IIm IIrmIy IoId Lo LIe vIew LIuL ScIenLoIogy Is u reIIgIon enLILIed Lo ILs own proLecLIons under LIe IrsL
AmendmenL Lo LIe UnILed SLuLes ConsLILuLIon.
TIe IucL oI LIe muLLer Is LIe bIggesL LIreuL Lo LIe vIubIIILy oI LIose proLecLIons Ior LIe IuLure Is MIscuvIge`s
conLInuous crImes commILLed In LIe nume oI LIe reIIgIon.
TIInk ubouL IL.
Or, II you cunnoL conIronL LIougILs uIong LIose IInes, Lry noL Lo LIInk ubouL IL.

Know your rights | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/know-your-rights/
you ure wILIIn your
rIgILs Lo Luke wILI you evIdence oI LIose crImes undJor denIuIs oI CIvII und Humun RIgILs.
personuIIy
guurunLee you proLecLIon. T
MR855
EXHIBIT 19
MR856
DECLARATION OF DANIEL MONTALVO
I, Daniel Montalvo, declare as follows:
1 . I am over 1 8 years of age and a resident of the State of Colorado. I have
personal knowledge of the statement contained in this declaration and could competently
testify thereto, except where I have indicated that a statement is made on information and
belief, in which case I firmly believe the statement to be true.
2. In November 2007, I joined the staff of Bridge Publications, Inc. Over a
period of months prior to leaving Bridge, I downloaded confidential information of many
staffers at Bridge without authorization or permission. Using Internet Explorer, I was able
to access the entire FTP site.
3. I downloaded materials for several months prior to September 2010 on to my
desktop computer. I also downloaded these private files onto several flash drives I
possessed.
4. I decided to leave Bridge staff in September 2010. At that time, I tried to
contact Tom DeVocht but I couldn't locate a working phone number for him. I called
Mike Rinder, whose number I found through Nexis-Lexis, and asked him for the phone
number of Torn DeVocht. DeVochthad been a friend of my parents when he was in the
Sea Org. l phoned Tom DeVocht and asked for his help to leave the Sea Organization and
Bridge staff. De Vocht agreed to help me.
5. I called De V ocht several times on September 24 2010 and De Vocht
aqfil!ged to have a friend of his Tiziano LtJgli eet up with me that evening. DeVocht
informed me where to meet Tiziano L!!gli at a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant that was near the
MR857
offices of Church of Scientology International in Hollywood. When I arrived at Jack-in-
the-Box, I was met up with by Tiziano Lugli and Marty Rathbun.
6. On September 24, 2010, I was assigned to do some work at my desk during a
staff meeting, during which all of the other staff from Bridge would be occu ied and away
from my office. Bridge Publications is located in Commerce, CA. Seizing upon this
opportunity to leave Bridge, I removed the five hard drives from my computer and
acka ed them in a Federal ~ r e s s box to car them. I also took four flash drives with
me which contained Brid e files. Before I left I called DeVocht and told him I was about
to leave Bridge and that I was taking several hard drives with me. I took a car belong!ng
to Bridge and drove about 20 miles to the offices of the Church of Scientology
International in Holl ood. DeVocht arran ed for me to meet with Lu Ii at a Jack-in-the-
Box a cou le blocks away from the Church of Scientolog}'. International building in
Hollywood.
7. When I left Brid e and went to the Jack-in-the-Box I met u with Lu Ii and
Rathbun. I knew DeVocht had s oken to Rathbun about the hard drives because Rathbu
asked me if I had taken the hard drives from Brid e. Both Lugli and Rathbun were full))
aware that 1 was uttin these stolen hard drives in their trunk. I did this so that security at
the church offices would not see me carrying anything and uestion me.
8. I arranged to drive Bridge's car to the Church offices to dro it off in their
_P-arking lo a d have Lu Ii nd Rathbu Qick me U.Q a block awa . I dro R,ed the Brid e
car off at the Church offices and walked from there north from Holl}'.wood and Ivar to
Yucca Street where Lugli and Rathbun were parked, waiting for me. I got into the car
2
MR858
nd we drove off. After getting something to eat, we all went to Lugli 's home where
l!lathbun and his wife were also sta}:'. ing.
9. The next morning, I tried to access the hard drives on Tiziano Lugli's
computer. However, it was a Mac computer and the hard drives were Microsoft based.
Thus, they could not be opened. Lugli then had the idea of going over to Marc Headley's
house and drove me over to the Headley's home in Burbank, California, because Headley
had Windows 7 computers. When we arrived we went to Headley's home office and
Headley plugged one of the hard drives into his computer. I typed in the encryption codes
to unencrypt them, and each was accessed in tum. Headley copied some or all of the hard
drives onto his own computer.
10. At that time I remember feeling scared when over at Headley's house
because T was talking to Suppressive Persons (SPs) and I was concerned that these SPs
were copying Church information because I was concerned about how this would affect
me if I decided to go back to the Church.
11. As Headley was opening up the hard drives, he pulled up the file listings and
saw that private and confidential files were on these hard drives. This included
confidential session KRs (confidential ministerial notes of confessions), and internal
personnel records prepared by individual staff, known as a "Life History," which contains
substantial confidential and personal information about those staff members. I saw
Headley downloading files from these drives, but I do not know if he downloaded all of
the hard drives or just parts thereof. I do know at one point I looked over and I saw
3
MR859
copying and it was loading for awhile. It may have been my "Data" drive which
contained all the Bridge material plus anything else that I may have had on it.
12. I later spoke to Lugli who told me that he had copies of some of the
information downloaded by Headley. Exactly what Lugli possessed from Ileadley -
downloaded from the stolen hard drives - I do not know but it was clear he had some of
the material. Later that day, after Lugli and I had returned to Lugli' s house, I did see
Lugli give some CDs to Marty Rathbun. I don' t know for sure if these CDs contained
files downloaded from the hard drives at Headley's lace.
13. On September 25, 2010, Rathbun gave me an airline ticket to fl)' to Florida to
go to Tom DeVocht's house. This was aid for by Tiziano Lugli but was reimbursed
through donations Rathbun collected. Rathbun aid for m cab fare to get to the ai ort.
14. While at Lu ti's home Lugli and Rathbun asked me to ose for a icture
with a co y of Marc Ileadley' s book, "Blown for Good." After bein arrested, Rathbun
\QOSted it on his Internet website. I did not know the hoto was going to be s read on the
Internet.
IS. In addition to the hard drives, I also took several flash drives with me that
contained confidential information from Bridge. Although I had attempted that day to
mail the hard drives back to Bridge, when we got to FedEx, the place was closed. Lugli
agreed to send them back to Bridge Publications. However, I kept the flash drives.
16. After I arrived in Florida, I was picked up at the airport by Tom DeVocht. I
stayed at DeVocht's house overnight, and the next day, went with my grandmother. I left
the satchel containing the flash drives at DeVocht's house. DeVocht told me later, that he
4
MR860
had searched my possessions and found the flash drives, but said they were encrypted and
he was unable to open them. However, one of the flash drives had been loaned to me by
Dignus Lavooij, a Church of Scientology International staff member. That one was not
encrypted, and could have been accessed by De Vocht.
17. I came back to Los Angeles on October 6, 2010, and spoke to a Deputy
Sheriff who was investigating the theft, and was arrested. I was bailed out by Lugli, and
taken to live at the home of Jason Beghe. Beghe informed me after some months living
there, that Marc Headley had contacted him because he was worried about having
possession of the Bridge material on his hard drive, due to the fact that he [Headley] was
involved in litigation with the Church. Headley and Beghe arranged that Beghe would
take possession ofHeadley's hard drive containing the material he had downloaded from
the hard drives. Beghe told me he was going to hide the hard drive in one of several large
metal shipping containers located on his property. I did not confirm that this actually
happened, but I do know that Headley came to visit Beghe on a number of occasions after
Beghe told me that Headley was going to tum over the hard drives.
18. Months later, I spoke to Lugli and he told me that he had spoken to Tom
DeVocht who then informed Lugli that I had taken some flash drives. Lugli asked me
what was on the flash drives and when I told him there were a large number of life
histories he said he could have used them to contact family members of staff to cause
Ill
Ill
Ill
5
MR861
problems and upset within families using this confidential information.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this ? day of December, orado.
6
MR862
EXHIBIT 20
MR863
Free Dani el Montal vo
Posted on October 8, 2010 by martyrathbun09 | 366 Comments

Free Daniel Montalvo | Moving On Up a Little Higher http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/free-daniel-montalvo/
MR864
Daniel Montalvo's first taste of freedom
AbouL Lwo weeks ugo wIIIe wus LukIng u brIeI respILe In LIe Iorm oI u wonderIuI evenIng uL LIe Iome oI Mury
Jo euvILL, receIved un urgenL pIone cuII Irom Tom DevocIL.
Tom LoId me LIuL Ie needed IeIp wILI LIe escupe oI u 1q-yeur-oId sLuII member oI BrIdge PubIIcuLIons. DunIeI
MonLuIvo never knew LIe ouLsIde worId - IuvIng been In LIe Seu Org mosL oI IIs IIIe. SeveruI monLIs ugo
DunIeI und LIe resL oI BrIdge PubIIcuLIons sLuII were Iorced Lo reud MIscuvIge`s reedom muguzIne uLLuckIng
myseII, MIke RInder, Amy Scobee, und Tom DevocIL. DunIeI knew IL wus gurbuge becuuse oI wIuL LIe rug Iud
Lo suy ubouL Tom. He knew Tom (wIen Tom wus CO CMO CW) wIen DunIeI wus u young cIIId und
remembered IIm IondIy Ior beIng so generous Lo und LoIerunL oI cIIIdren, IncIudIng DunIeI IImseII.
ConsequenLIy, DunIeI seurcIed LIe InLerneL und, LIrougI my bIog Ie Iound u meuns Lo geL IoId oI MIke RInder,
wIom Ie IIgured correcLIy couId (und dId) geL IIm In LoucI wILI Tom. DunIeI LoId Tom Ie couId no Ionger Luke
LIe IncessunL sLuL pusI on books und Lupes, LIe orders Lo curry ouL IruuduIenL prucLIces uguInsL ScIenLoIogy
pubIIc,und LIe nL-IIke DM LorLures now beIng prucLIced by CMO PAC messengers reguIurIy uL BrIdge
PubIIcuLIons. He suId Ie knew noLIIng ubouL LIe ouLsIde worId, und knew vIrLuuIIy no one us never Iud u IIIe
ouLsIde LIe Seu Org. Tom LoId DunIeI Ie`d Iouse IIm und empIoy IIm so LIuL Ie couId muke u new sLurL II Ie
wIsIed.
DunIeI pIoned LIuL purLIcuIur rIduy nIgIL becuuse LIere wus u CMO mIssIon runnIng u reIn oI Lerror LIrougI
BrIdge Ior LIe usuuI down sLuLs. AII sLuII were beIng InLerroguLed on LIe meLer Ior ouLsIde connecLIons und
InIIuences. DunIeI wus cerLuIn Ie couId noL geL uwuy wILI wILIIoIdIng LIuL Ie wus reudIng my bIog und Iud
concIuded LIuL IL conLuIned noLIIng oLIer LIun 1oo% gospeI LruLI.
TIzIuno ugII beIng my IosL In A, und beIng LIe IeusL PTS person LIInk know on pIuneL eurLI, boILed InLo
ucLIon. TIe kId onIy Iud u Iund IeId LexL messuge sender und receIver, no pIone. We coordInuLed IIs rouLe
ouL, IosL uII our LuIIs, und pIcked IIm up uL u pre-desIgnuLed spoL.
We Look IIm Lo u Iur uwuy DeII und deIIgILed uL wuLcIIng IIm euL u cIeeseburger und IrIes wILI IIs eyes IIL up
IIke Ie wus IngesLIng un eIgIL course gourmeL IeusL prepured by SInur Purmen IImseII.
DunIeI brougIL u coupIe Iurd drIves wILI IIm LIuL conLuIned musIc und muy Iuve been mIxed wILI some oLIer
BrIdge LruIIIc. We udvIsed DunIeI Lo reLurn LIem Lo BrIdge wIIcI Ie dId vIu messenger servIce. TIen we goL
DunIeI on u IIIgIL Lo IorIdu Lo see Tom DV.
Tom und DunIeI were beseIged by wuves oI DunIeI`s IumIIy members und OSA Iug sLuII usIng every pIoy und
LIreuL possIbIe Lo geL DunIeI Lo reLurn. Tom IougIL LIem oII IIke u sIe-guLor proLecLIng Ier young. AILer
survIvIng duys oI LIe onsIuugIL, DunIeI becume InLenL on speukIng wILI IIs moLIer. He pIoned LIe cIurcI Lo
urrunge LIIs, buL recepLIon puL IIm LIrougI Lo KendrIck Moxon - un uIIeged uLLorney. Moxon proceeded Lo IIe
Lo DunIeI LIuL LIe Iurd drIves were never reLurned, und mude u convIncIng cuse (noL dIIIIcuIL Lo do wILI u 1q
yeur oId wIo doesn`L even know LIe LIree bruncIes oI governmenL) LIuL DunIeI wouId be puL beIInd Iron burs
Ior u good Iong LIme, UNESS oI course, Ie reLurned und cooperuLed wILI Moxon und rouLed ouL properIy.
Tom sugeIy udvIsed DunIeI LIuL Ie wouId Iuce onIy one oI Lwo IuLes sIouId Ie reLurn, u) be senL Lo juII, or b)
spend Len yeurs In LIe RP. AILer severuI sIeepIess nIgILs und IncessunL budgerIng und LIreuLs Irom LIe
MR865
DunIeI reLurned Lo A Lo rouLe ouL.
DunIeI wus pIcked up by un InvesLIguLor In u bIuck cur wILI bIucked ouL wIndows. nsLeud oI beIng Luken Lo u
IoLeI, wIere Ie couId rouLe ouL us promIsed, Ie wus Luken Lo LIe CenLury CILy Towers. He wus deposILed In un
oIIIce on LIe rd IIoor wIere u prIcy cIurcI Iuwyer InLerroguLed IIm Ior Lwo Iours. OnIy LIen, dId Moxon
come In und sLurL InLerroguLIng Iurder, demundIng LIuL DunIeI IInger TIzIuno, Tom, und myseII us LIe musLer
mInds oI IIs IuvIng Luken Iurd drIves Irom BrIdge. DunIeI expIuIned LIuL Ie couId noL suy LIuL becuuse IL Is u
bIuLunL IIe. QuILe LIe conLrury, Tom udvIsed IIm noL Lo Luke LIe Iurd drIves und udvIsed IIm Lo reLurn LIem
once Ieurned LIuL Ie Iud Ignored Tom`s orIgInuI udvIce.
Moxon LIen suId LIey wouId need Lo go LIe A CounLy SIerIII`s oIIIce Lo cIeur everyLIIng up. nsLeud oI cIeurIng
IL up, Moxon puIIed ouL u Iuge bInder wILI sIoLs und dossIer`s on Tom, TIzIuno und myseII. Moxon pIIed LIe
SIerIII`s deLecLIve wILI u grund conspIrucy LIeory, cIurucLerIzIng me us LIe unLI-cIrIsL oI LIe cIurcI oI
ScIenLoIogy. guess KIngpIn Ius become pusse.
TIe nexL LIIng DunIeI knows Ie`s In u ceII wIere Ie suL Ior LIe nexL o Iours. Hud IL noL been Ior TIzIuno
IronLIng $z,ooo LIrougI credIL DunIeI wouId be LIere now und Ior God knows Iow Iong.
DuvId MIscuvIge - wIo promIse wIII go Lo juII beIore LIIs Is uII over - ordered KendrIck Moxon - wIose bur
curd um now promIsIng Lo Luke uwuy - sLubbed u nIneLeen yeur oId sIuve In LIe buck LIe second Ie goL u wIIII
oI Ireedom. Iuve never Ieurd oI sucI Iow-IIIe LreucIery. And ord knows `ve seen my sIure oI IL under LIe
LuLeIuge oI LIe musLer oI LreucIery, DuvId MIscuvIge.
TIzIuno, JumIe SorrenLInI, Tom, MIke RInder, Juson BegIe und Iuve been workIng In u IIurry LIIs uILernoon Lo
geL DunIeI ouL oI LIe A CounLy (EusL A bruncI) juII.
As oI LIe mInuLe posL LIIs, DunIeI wuIks Iree once uguIn, uL IeusL LemporurIIy, IuvIng been buIIed ouL by JumIe
und TIzIuno.
We Iuve urrunged Ior u compeLenL uLLorney Lo represenL DunIeI uL IIs urruIgnmenL Lomorrow.
Iuve been IesILunL Lo ruIse money Ior our cuuse despILe LIe need - recognIzIng Iow Iormer cIurcI members
Iuve been IIeeced Lo LIe bone over und over. However, my ruIe on LIuL score doesn`L uppIy Lo u 1q yeur oId kId
IucIng LIe penILenLIury In LIunks Ior LIe IoIIowIng sIns:
u) euvIng u IIIeIood oI sIuvery Lo geL u LusLe oI Ireedom und LIe worId.
b) ReIusIng - despILe every provocuLIon und IncenLIve und LIreuL - Lo Irume LIree guys wIo wenL ouL oI LIeIr
wuys (und dIpped InLo LIeIr pockeLs) Lo IeIp LIe kId ucIIeve LIuL Ireedom.
AccordIngIy, um creuLIng LIe ree DunIeI MonLuIvo und. We ure LryIng Lo InILIuIIy ruIse LIe ,ooo doIIurs
(buII und uIrIures) we`ve uIreudy personuIIy IronLed) und unoLIer ,ooo Ior u reLuIner Ior u crImInuI Iuwyer
skIIIed und LougI enougI Lo Luke on LIe cIurcI und LIe A CounLy SIerIII eroy D. Bucu. Yes, LIe SIerIII
IImseII. Do you serIousIy LIInk LIe cIurcI couId geL uny oLIer ugency In LIe worId Lo do LIe kInd oI IIIeguI,
underIunded work LIey`ve goLLen LIe SIerIII`s OIIIce Lo do? TIey wouIdn`L Iuve u pruyer wILIouL ownIng LIe
SIerIII IImseII. As Lo wIeLIer LIuL Is LIe cuse, InvILe you uII Lo peruse cIurcI promo over LIe pusL Len y
We Iuve urrunged Ior u compeLenL uLLorney Lo represenL DunIeI uL IIs urruIgnmenL Lomorrow.
AccordIngIy, um creuLIng LIe ree DunIeI MonLuIvo und.
MR866
Bucu Ius exLoIIed LIeIr vIrLues over und over - In excIunge Ior geLLIng Lo Iob nob wILI CruIse, TruvoILu, AIIey,
eLc - even wIIIe dozens upon dozens oI sLuII Iuve been conLInuuIIy IeId In vIrLuuI bonduge by LIe
very InsLILuLIon - In IIs jurIsdIcLIon - Ie IuvIsIes wILI pruIse.
or now, II you ure InLeresLed In conLrIbuLIng, you cun go Lo my puypuI uccounL - under LIe donuLe secLIon on
LIe IronL puge oI LIe bIog, ILLp:JJmurkruLIbun.wordpress.comJdonuLeJ . WIen you ure prompLed Lo wrILe u
messuge wILI uny donuLIon, jusL puL In ree DunIeI MonLuIvo und. ÌI keep exucL uccounLIng oI sucI
desIgnuLed Iunds.
WILIouL you uII, LIIs young mun wouId Iuve uIreudy been crusIed IIke u bug und IorgoLLen. WILI you, Ie wIII
never be IorgoLLen. LIInk LIIs Is one oI LIose pIuces wIere we ure compeIIed by conscIence Lo eLcI u very
dIsLIncL und durubIe IIne.
ree DunIeI MonLuIvo!

MR867
EXHIBIT 21
MR868
DECLARATION OF DANIEL MONTALVO
I, Daniel Montalvo, hereby declare:
1. I am over I 8 years of age and a resident of the State of Colorado. I have
personal knowledge of the statements contained in this declaration and could competently
testify thereto, except where I have indicated that a statement is made on information and
belief, in which case I firmly believe the statement to be true.
2. I have been involved in several legal cases this past year. One was a
potential case against me related to computer hard drives and flash drives that I took,
without authorization or permission when I left my work at Bridge Publications. John
Duran, an attorney referred to me by Jason Beghe, represented me in this case. I also
brought civil cases against Bridge Publications and the Church of Scientology
International.
3. I know a person named Marty Rathbun, who used to be a senior executive
of the Church. Rathbun has attempted to get involved in m legal cases. He went to visit
m t t o m ~ John Duran to talk to him about my cases. Rathbun talked about the
Church and the Church' s wa of dealing with legal matters like the legal tactics the
Church would use in litigation. John was not very interested and his reaction was "OK,
whatever." Rathbun was coming up with all these legal conclusions acting like he was the
boss and John was like ''You just let me do my job." John was not particularly fond of
Rathbun. I was living at Jason Beghe's home at the time. Rathbun and Mike Rinder
were in town and they stayed over at Beghe's house one night in early December 2010
and we talked about my cases. Rathbun and Rinder said they were very experienced with
MR869
how the Church handles legal cases. They wanted to talk to my lawyer, John Duran, to
get him to "play hard with the Church" and to have them and others testify for the
purpose of putting Scientology and the Church on trial, even though I was a potential
defendant in one case, and a defendant in another case, and the Church's actions were not
at issue in these cases. Mr. Duran did not agree with what Rathbun wanted and thought
his suggestions were over the top.
4. Rathbun, who I have been informed was a "legal fighting guy" when he
worked for the Church, and Mike Rinder, who used to be the head of the Office of
Special Affairs that handles legal matters, both became consultants to the attorney who
represented me in my civil case against Bridge and the Church. Prior to the suits being
filed, Rathbun and Rinder came to Beghe' s house and met with me for some hours where
they talked to me about my involvement in the Church. The then came with me to meet
my civil attorney Kit Winter and 12rovided information to mx attorney on the organization
of the Church background and information about the Church of Scientolog and legal
strategies used b the Church. Rathbun and Rinder a12Rarentl)'. had ex erience with the
Church's legal matter and could n vide information about the way the legals stem
worked within the Church and the WID' the Church uses the le al system. I was resent
for one meeting with my attorney where Rathbun and Rinder were resent. It is my
understanding that after that meeting, my attorney spoke with Rathbun and Rinder on a
few occasions outside m resence.
2
MR870
5. I also sent the comn aints Qrior to them b in filed to Rathbun to review.
Shortly thereafter Rathbun posted about the filing of the cases, which resulted in the St.
Petersburg Times and other media running a story about the lawsuits.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that
the foregoing is true and c01Tect.
.::-;')
Executed this ~ d y of December, 201 1 at Castle R:6c
7 --
3
MR871
EXHIBIT 22
MR872
RECENT ACTI VI TY
Mimi Armagh Parrow Bwahaha! I'd love to steal this but no one
in the history of the world has ever told me I'm quiet!
J uly 12, 2012 at 9:31am via mobile Like 2
Lori Hodgson Lol!!!
J uly 12, 2012 at 9:38am via mobile Like
Lise O'Kane OMG...I feel naked..like I've been found
out..hahaha...have to share this one.
J uly 13, 2012 at 6:58am Like
Write a comment...
Monique Banks Rathbun
More and more exposure of the COS lies! Well done Babe!
Like Comment Share J uly 11, 2012 at 12:45pm
Lori Hodgson, Sam Domingo, J oy Graysen and 7 others like this.
3 shares
Sam Domingo Cartwheels xxx
J uly 11, 2012 at 12:52pm Like
Sam Domingo Spreading the word far and wide.
Monica Martinez-Salinas Wow is all I can say. I think Dianetics
is a very insightful book, but the way the current board has twisted
its information is disturbing.
J uly 11, 2012 at 1:18pm via mobile Like
J oy Graysen Shared!
J uly 11, 2012 at 1:18pm via mobile Like 1
Carol Kramer Yes! I like it!!!
Lori Hodgson I shared it too!!
J uly 11, 2012 at 3:10pm Like 1
Tom Cruise's former Scientology
auditor speaks about
Cruise/ Kidman divorce
rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com
By Anna SchecterRock Center Katie Holmes
and Tom Cruise's settlement is now final and
neither of them have publicly addressed
reports that the Church of Scientology-and
the future role of Scientology in their
Write a comment...
"lol" on Natalie Hagemo's photo.
(1) Monique Banks Rathbun https://www.facebook.com/monique.rathbun?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
203 of 616
Tom Cruise's former Scientology
auditor speaks about p
Cruise/ Kidman divorce
rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com
By Anna SchecterRock Center Katie Holmes
and Tom Cruise's settlement is now final and
neither of them have publicly addressed
reports that the Church of Scientology-and
the future role of Scientology in their
More and more exposure of the COS lies!
MR873
RECENT ACTI VI TY
March 2, 2012 at 9:33am via mobile Like
Renere Lopez Actually, it's because she knows I'll be there in a
week and she's getting excited...
March 2, 2012 at 2:02pm via mobile Like 2
Missy Montana I love the adventures of cat!
March 2, 2012 at 2:24pm Like
Carol Kramer tink you are precious...you are such a lady
October 4, 2012 at 9:27am Like
Write a comment...
Monique likes Running with Scissors.
Monique and Tracy Lynn Ray are now friends. Like Comment Add Tracy as
Friend
"Happy birthday Martin! M&M" on Martin Padfield's timeline.
Mimi Armagh Parrow
Word of warning, do not EVER go to Ihop then do burpees!
Like Comment February 29, 2012 at 5:25pm
Monique Banks Rathbun LMAO!!! Never do anything heavy
before burpees.....they are best done on an empty stomach!!!
February 29, 2012 at 5:38pm Like 1
Mimi Armagh Parrow OH my tummy became empty shortly
thereafter , Oy Vey!!
February 29, 2012 at 5:49pm Like
Monique Banks Rathbun Thats what they call a Pukie LOL
Mimi Armagh Parrow Bwahaha, I was gonna say....that was no
mere burp!
February 29, 2012 at 5:54pm Like
Write a comment...
Good Morning America and later on Nightline.......Will the big celebs(Tom
Cruise, J ohn Travolta, Kirstie Alley) ever wake up and stop supporting this
abusive madman? How much more testimony of the abuses does the American
law enforcement need to shut them down? Geez!!!
Like Comment Share February 29, 2012 at 5:57am
Natalie Hagemo, Tara Morgan Bryant, Dee McMurdie
Another PR Crisis?
ABC news Nightline dubs Miscavige's abuse and torture as Another
Scientology PR Crisis. Ya think? Tony Ortega at the Village Voice has
published a bunch of Cook litigation related documents...
258 of 616
Good Morning America and later on Nightline.......Will the big celebs(Tom g g g
Cruise, J ohn Travolta, Kirstie Alley) ever wake up and stop supporting this g
abusive madman? How much more testimony of the abuses does the American
law enforcement need to shut them down? Geez!!!
MR874
RECENT ACTI VI TY
"Happy Valentine's day Mims!!! " on Mimi Armagh Parrow's post on Monique
Banks Rathbun's wall.
"Happy Birthday C.R.!! M&M" on C.r. Hodgson's timeline.
Monique is now friends with Mark Patterson and Keri Easton.
Mimi Armagh Parrow
Hope you have a phenomenal weekend!XOXO
Like Comment February 11, 2012 at 2:14pm
Dee McMurdie likes this.
Monique Banks Rathbun Thanks Babe, J ust recovering from all
the fireworks!! Slept till 12:30
Mimi Armagh Parrow The rest was well deserved! I went to
spin, came home & did burpees and went right back to bed, lol!
Write a comment...
Monique Banks Rathbun shared a link.
Pete Griffiths and Michelle Wentling like this.
1 share
Scientology Inc. v. Debbie Cook, Day 2
On going coverage: Village Voice updates from inside the courtroom
MikeBoard1200 Twitter feed from inside the courtroom I will be adding links
to the post as they become available. -Mosey
Write a comment...
OMG I am still awake and I have no idea why!!
View 6 more comments
Mimi Armagh Parrow Yup 34!!
February 10, 2012 at 3:47am Like
Monique Banks Rathbun ok i can do that! Gonna try and get in
an hour or two of sleep before Day 2!! Check with ya later
February 10, 2012 at 3:47am Like 2
Sara Finning you're on GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)
February 10, 2012 at 4:53am Like
Mimi Armagh Parrow Holler or text if there's anything I can do!
288 of 616
Scientology Inc. v. Debbie Cook, Day 2 g
On going coverage: Village Voice updates from inside the courtroom g g g g
MikeBoard1200 Twitter feed from inside the courtroom I will be adding links
to the post as they become available. -Mose y y
Monique Banks Rathbun shareda link.
MR875
RECENT ACTI VI TY
RECENT ACTI VI TY
Friend
Hasta la vista B*%$ês
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-02-01/letterfrominglesideonthebay.php
Like Comment Share J anuary 26, 2012 at 8:45am near Ingleside, TX
Sinar Parman, Dee McMurdie and 2 others like this.
1 share
Amy Scobee Woohoo!
J anuary 26, 2012 at 6:36pm Like
Dee McMurdie Yah!!!!!!
J anuary 26, 2012 at 10:08pm Like
His Town
www.texasmonthly.com
When Marty Rathbun became an outspoken defector from
the Church of Scientology, a group of filmmakers began to
disrupt life in his adopted hometown. But they werent
Write a comment...
"She is just adorable!!!" on Mareka Backus's photo.
"Happy Birthday Linda!! M&M" on Linda Monnens-Mcginley's timeline.
Mimi Armagh Parrow
I'm not in the ER *only* because I didn't have one of those "I've fallen and I
can't get up" buttons. I will never skip again.
Like Comment J anuary 24, 2012 at 5:01am
Monique Banks Rathbun and Dee McMurdie like this.
Write a comment...
"The Notebook was great ...ummm..." on Mimi Armagh Parrow's status.
"I know!! It was so much easier..." on Mimi Armagh Parrow's status.
"Ingleside Texas, J ust started..." on Lisa-Marie BodyRock.Tv Host's status.
Monique likes Abs Transformation with Yoot Tang.
Monique likes She Loves Basketball.
Monique Banks Rathbun shared J erome Morgan J r.'s photo.
WOW!! Food for thought!
294 of 616
J anuary 26, 2012 at 8:45am near Ingleside, TX
His Town
www.texasmonthly.com
When Marty Rathbun became an outspoken defector from
the Church of Scientology, a group of filmmakers began to
disrupt life in his adopted hometown. But they werent y
Hasta la vista B*%$ês
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-02-01/letterfrominglesideonthebay.php
MR876
RECENT ACTI VI TY
More information on the crimes of the "Church of Scientology" that continue to
go unnoticed by authorities!!! Help wake up the Federal Government who are
supposed to be protecting citizens rights!!
If you have not signed the petition please do so, this is not about
religion......this is about basic human rights!!!
Like Comment Share October 16, 2011 at 6:19am
Tara Morgan Bryant, Dee McMurdie and 2 others like this.
Why the Federal Government Must Be Held to
Account
Please see the documentation of illegal and
unconscionable conduct of David Miscavige's Radical
Write a comment...
"Well done !!!! :-)" on Ziba Feulner's post on Marty Rathbun's wall.
Another example of what this so called "church" is doing! Please read this
article, these are friends and well intentioned individuals!!!
WE CAN NOT LET THIS "CHURCH" GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!
SIGN THE PETITION!!!!
http://wh.gov/4Os
Sinar Parman, Laura Ann Fowler Wilson, Dee McMurdie and 3 others like
this.
Mareka Backus I can't believe they did that to Susan!! They are
fkn insane.
Monique Banks Rathbun I can totally believe it, it's the same
crap they have been doing to everyone who has any connection to
Mike or Marty. I just can't believe they are allowed to get away with
it, I mean FFS...enough already, how much proof do you need before
the authorities get off their asses!!!!!
October 14, 2011 at 9:30am Like 4
Karla Zamudio We'll make it!
October 14, 2011 at 12:01pm Like
Scientology Hates Clean Ice, Part 2:
Another Target, and the Web as
Weapon
blogs.villagevoice.com
On Wednesday, we told you about a
Scientology
Write a comment...
334 of 616
More information on the crimes of the "Church of Scientology" that continue to g
go unnoticed by authorities!!! Help wake up the Federal Government who are g
supposed to be protecting citizens rights!!
If you have not signed the petition please do so, this is not about
religion......this is about basic human rights!!!
Why the Federal Government Must Be Held to y
Account
Please see the documentation of illegal and
unconscionable conduct of David Miscavige's Radical
Monique Banks Rathbun I can totally believe it, it's the same
crap they have been doing to everyone who has any connection to
Mike or Marty. I just can't believe they are allowed to get away with
it, I mean FFS...enough already, how much proof do you need before
the authorities get off their asses!!!!!
Another example of what this so called "church" is doing! Please read this g
article, these are friends and well intentioned individuals!!!
WE CAN NOT LET THIS "CHURCH" GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!
SIGN THE PETITION!!!!
http://wh.gov/4Os
MR877
RECENT ACTI VI TY
Hello Lady...it has been a long time...you look amazing! Hope all is well!!! :-))))
Like Comment October 13, 2011 at 10:05am
Monique Banks Rathbun Yes things are really good! How are
things with you...
Write a comment...
Recent example of how the "Church of Scientology" rips families apart. Heart
Breaking!! If you have not signed the petition ...Please do so!! No "church"
should be allowed to hid behind "religion" to get away with these abuses!!!
http://wh.gov/4Os
Dee McMurdie, Svetlana Shketik, Graham Berry and 4 others like this.
Karla Zamudio just email over 100 people on my database got
about 300 more to go..... xo
Knowledge Report: Lori Hodgson on
Disconnection
www.youtube.com
Scientology's policy of Disconnection breaks up
families.
Write a comment...
Lori Hodgson
Dee McMurdie, Graham Berry, Mary Elle and 2 others like this.
Mareka Backus Disconnection sucks ass! Poor Lori, I hope her
kids see sense soon!
October 11, 2011 at 10:43am Like 3
Paul J ay Salerno Lori is seeing things more clearly day by day....I
hope those poor kids break free of all the unhealthy influences that
they may be experiencing soon.
October 22, 2011 at 7:05pm Like 1
Scientology and Disconnection: 'No One's Going to Take My
Eternity Away'
blogs.villagevoice.com
Lori Hodgson keeps telling me she's going to give me the entire story of her
time in Scientology. Well, I'm...
Write a comment...
Monique likes Scientology Hates Clean Ice, Part 2: Another Target, and the Web as
335 of 616
Recent example of how the "Church of Scientology" rips families apart. Heart g
Breaking!! If you have not signed the petition ...Please do so!! No "church" g g
should be allowed to hid behind "religion" to get away with these abuses!!!
http://wh.gov/4Os
Knowledge Report: Lori Hodgson on g
Disconnection
www.youtube.com
Scientology's policy of Disconnection breaks up
families.
MR878
RECENT ACTI VI TY
This is what the "church of Scientology" spends donation money on. Tracking
down our travel reservations and ambushing us at the airport in
Phoenix....http://youtu.be/5xQolLCu700
If you have not already signed this petition, please do! No one should be
allowed to get away with this kind of behavior in the name of "religion".
http://wh.gov/4Os...
See More
Like Comment Share September 29, 2011 at 6:34am
Sam Domingo, Dee McMurdie and 2 others like this.
Laura Ann Fowler Wilson J im doesn't know what to do when
confronted with Mosey and Carol! Grrrrrrrr! You go girls!
September 29, 2011 at 7:22am Like
J ack Airey Get EM Mosey...I signed the P
September 29, 2011 at 8:09pm Like
http:/ / www.youtu.be/ 5xQolLCu700
www.youtu.be
Write a comment...
LauraLee Hunnicutt
Your still an AMAZING person that I met when I was a kid, you ALWAYS had
the biggest heart! I hope we never lose contact again! xoxo
Like Comment September 28, 2011 at 9:13pm
Monique Banks Rathbun Nope!!! Never !!!!
September 29, 2011 at 5:48am Like 1
Write a comment...
Monique and Tatiana Baklanova are now friends. Like Comment
To my FB friends and Family, Please read the attached petition and sign. Please
help to get the government to investigate the abusive and criminal behavior of
this "church". What they are doing is wrong and should not be allowed to get
away with it. All you need is a valid email account, you can even just sign using
your first and last initials if you would prefer to remain anonymous! Help bring
justice for so many victims of the church! Thank you!! Currently at 1400 almost
halfway there!!
EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO
INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND
wwws.whitehouse.gov
357 of 616
read the attached petition and sign. Please g
help to get the government to investigate the abusive and criminal behavior of g g g
this "church". What they are doing is wrong and should not be allowed to get
away with it. All you need is a valid email account, you can even just sign using
your first and last initials if you would prefer to remain anonymous! Help bring
justice for so many victims of the church! Thank you!! Currently at 1400 almost
halfway there!!
To my FB friends and Family, Please
EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO
INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND
wwws.whitehouse.gov
MR879
EXHIBIT 23
MR880
mosey | J uly 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Reply
My real concern is that as the church continues to lie to their members and operatives about
how evil Marty and the independents are, seeing how deluded they already are, might do
something very stupid. Who is to say that one of these poor souls who are on some sort of
ethics amends project or trying to get on the next level of the bridge, or trying to be a hero that
DM will raise in status, wont do something really crazy. Ive looked Joanne Wheaton and Ed
Bryan in the eyes. They are deranged individuals. The church is breeding these extremists.
Radicalism is dangerous. Look what was done in the name of Islam. My hope is that
Scientologists dont go the same route. Having been exterior to the situation all along and
simply watched what has played out before my eyes, I think it is naive not to have such
concerns.
Martin| J uly 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Reply
Completely agree Mosey; this is a real concern, and why, despite everything collectively we
need to see the goodness within all these people, even the radicalised ones, and be ready
with help and support when needed. Pretty soon there will be a lot of very confused and
disorientated SO and staff in particular who will need stable reference points and friendly
arms. I have the wherewithal and willingness in my area to help house and support those in
genuine need.
splog | J uly 16, 2011 at 9:53 pm | Reply
I promised myself a while ago that every now and then when this aspect comes up (SO
members find themselves with nowhere to go), Id make an offer to help sooner or
later old friends of mine will read this and maybe find themselves needing a helping
hand. The time has come around again.
Page 53of 85 Sneering, Whining and Lying DMs Trademarks | Moving On Up a Little Higher
10/16/2013 http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/sneering-whining-and-lying-dms-trademar...
mosey y | J uly 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Reply
My real concern is that as the church continues to lie to their members and operatives about
how evil Marty and the independents are, seeing how deluded they already are, might do
something very stupid. Who is to say that one of these poor souls who are on some sort of
ethics amends project or trying to get on the next level of the bridge, or trying to be a hero that
DM will raise in status, wont do something really crazy. Ive looked Joanne Wheaton and Ed
Bryan in the eyes. They are deranged individuals. The church is breeding these extremists.
Radicalism is dangerous. Look what was done in the name of Islam. My hope is that
Scientologists dont go the same route. Having been exterior to the situation all along and
simply watched what has played out before my eyes, I think it is naive not to have such
concerns.
MR881
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,

GREGORYSLOAT,MONTYDRAKE,
Defendants.
207m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID LUBOW
I, David Lubow, hereby declare and state:
1. I make the following statements of my own personal knowledge and if called to
testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.
2. I am a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
3. I am a licensed private investigator. I am also an independent documentary film
producer. I started my documentary film career in 2004. Because there was so much false and
derogatory information about me on the Internet arising out of my investigative work, I decided
to use the pen name David Statter for my documentary work. My first documentary, which I
wrote and produced, was the feature length documentary Prescription: Suicide? addressing
psychiatric abuse of prescription medication with children. My film and producer credit can be
found on IMDB (Internet Movie Database, containing - the standard database for film makers
and movies) under the name David Statter (Executive Producer: Prescription Suicide? 2005). In
November of2005, Prescription: Suicide? premiered at the Ft. Lauderdale International Film
1
MR882
Festival where it won the "Spirit of Independents" award. TI1e film has appeared in many other
film festivals across the US and Canada, including the Beverly Hills Film Festival, where it
received an Honorable Mention. The film has been seen by at least 600,000 people thus far. It is
currently for sale through a national distributor. As producer of the film, my responsibilities
included financing the film, writing scripts and dialog, hiring the director, editor and film crew
and arranging worldwide distribution. Through my international distributor, Prescription:
Suicide? has appeared on television stations in the USA, Canada, Israel, Norway, Finland,
Sweden, Brazil, The Middle East, Hungary and in Germany on ZDF as recently as August of
2013. After the success of Prescription: Suicide? I began work on a second film dealing with
the same issues. That sequel to Prescription: Suicide? is in pre-production.
4. Prior to 2009, I was retained by Los Angeles attorney Elliot Abelson on behalf of
his client, the Church of Scientology International ("CSI") to perform investigative actions in
support of litigation, prospective litigation and threatened litigation in which the CSI was or
could be involved. I was also retained to investigate potential violations of intellectual property
rights licensed to CSI relating to the Scientology religion.
5. This assigrunent arose in part out of public record research and investigation, in
which it was determined that Mark ("Marty") Rathbun (sometimes hereinafter "Rathbun") was
potentially violating religious trademarks for which CSI is the exclusive licensee by delivering
an altered form of Scientology. Rathbun also made public statements on his blog in August
2010, exhorting Scientologists to steal church records from CSI or any other church available to
them, to bring the stolen materials to him and that he would "protect" the thieves as purported
whistleblowers. Rathbun was overtly working with persons involved in litigation with CSI,
Scientology parishioners and the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization church and
2
MR883
purporting to be a "consultant" to attorneys engaged in litigation with CSI and Flag Service
Organization. Mr. Abelson hired me on behalf of his client CSI, to investigate the matters
addressed in this paragraph respecting Mark Rathbun, and also to determine what facts might be
applicable to bringing both civil and criminal actions against Rathbun. I took direction from Mr.
Abelson and coordinated and reported to him or to staff at CSL I have never reported nor
consulted with any staff member or representative of Religious Technology Center, nor with
David Miscavige, regarding any investigation relating to Rathbun. I have never met nor spoken
to Mr. Miscavige.
6. In the context of this assignment, I performed investigations regarding Mark
Rathbun. At no time did I or anyone working under my direction or in coordination with me,
undertake any unlawful actions or actions which would violate the privacy of Monique Rathbun.
Indeed, the investigation was targeted at Mark Rathbun, and Monique was at best tangentially
involved because she lived with Rathbun and she was engaged with him in the business of
delivering "Scientology" services in violation of religious trademarks ..
7. Neither I nor any investigator working for me or within my knowledge
photographed inside the Rathbuns' place of business/residence, used any form of electronic
surveillance with respect to the interior of his business/residence, used any form of microphone
to overhear private conversations of plaintiff or her husband inside or on the porch of the place
of business/residence, interfered with or wiretapped the Rathbuns' telephone or internet service,
physically blocked or interfered with the Rathbuns, freedom of movement, or physically touched
or threatened the Rathbuns. No surveillance was conducted by photographing into their
windows or doors. No electronic devices were ever used to track Rathbun or his wife. The only
investigative actions undertaken respecting Rathbun (or his wife) were conducted for the purpose
3
MR884
of obtaining, information with reference to (a) the identity, habits, conduct, business, occupation,
honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, activity, movement, whereabouts, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of Marty Rathbun, (b) the location and
disposition of stolen property; and ( c) securing evidence to be used before a court or for
complaints to appropriate law enforcement pursuant to California Business & Professions Code
section 7521 and section 1702.104 of the Texas Occupations Code.
8. In 2010 I interviewed some former co-workers of Monique Rathbun. The
purpose of the interviews was to acquire information regarding Marty Rathbun, his finances, his
activities, his associations and his mental state. I interviewed Monique's ex-husband for all the
same reasons. Monique Rathbun called me in 2010 after these interviews and indicated she was
available to answer questions. These conversations were all for the purpose of the investigation
of Mark Rathbun for the reasons addressed above.
9. In 2009 through early 2011, Rathbun made many virulent and malicious attacks
against the Scientology religion - of which I am a member. These included appearances in the
electronic media through live interviews, interviews to print reporters and his own blog entries.
Among public assertions by Rathbun, were that the way the religious procedures are utilized in
churches of Scientology were somehow incorrect, and his own claims that he could provide
services to Scientologists in a fashion different from the services the churches offered but
supposedly more true to the religion - assertions that are very offensive to me as a Scientologist,
to CSI and to any Scientologist. And, as noted above, Rathbun was engaged in delivering
Scientology services and counseling at his office/home, for compensation, even though he had
been expelled from the religion and possessed no religious authority to provide Scientology
services to anyone. These actions of altering standard Scientology practice, and the delivery of
4
MR885
altered Scientology counseling, is known in the religion as "squirreling." In Scientology
vernacular, Mark Rathbun was a "squirrel."
10. I was informed, and I saw for myself, that many church parishioners were upset
over the false and derogatory assertions by Rathbun and were upset that this "squirrel" was
offering a bastardized version of Scientology to former members, and seeking to entice
parishioners to leave the faith with false assertions that his brand of so-called Scientology was
more correct than standard Scientology delivered in churches.
11. In March of2011, I learned that CSI was willing to provide assistance and some
funding for Scientologists who wished to demonstrate against what were perceived as heinous
acts by Rathbun. I met with Mark Warlick and John Allender, both dedicated Scientologists, at
CSI offices in Los Angeles, to discuss the potential details and roles for such a project. We
agreed that we would simultaneously demonstrate at Rathbun' s office and make a documentary
regarding Rathbun, part of which would include footage of protestors outside the location where
Rathbun was undertaking his "squirrel" activities, and which he was using for his backdrop for
media interviews. A working title for the documentary was "The ~ o r y of a Squirrel," arid it was
planned as both a film and short videos of Rathbun and the protests against him to educate other
Scientologists and the general public that Rathbun was a squirrel. We designed a logo for
"Squirrel Busters" to put on T-shi.rts for the filming. Mr. Allender, as a producer for the
documentary, filed a fictitious business name statement as "Squirrel Busters Productions" and
registered two potential websites we would use: sqbproductions.com and squirrelbusters.org.
Mr. Allender would be a producer and one of the primary voices for the documentary.
12. Starting in April 2011, I coordinated some of the Squirrel Buster's activities in
and around Ingleside-on-the Bay, Texas, where Rathbun's squirrel activates were in operation. I
5
MR886
was present during most of the time the Squirrel Busters protested and/or filmed. I briefed any
new volunteers who came to act as "squirrel busters" on the project about Rathbun's propensities
to violence, and the need to always keep the cameras running when Rathbun was in the vicinity.
We also discussed the necessity not to react to Rathbun's violence, screaming, and rage and
predicted efforts to incite the squirrel busters to fight with him. We agreed that no matter what
Rathbun did, each person would maintain a totally non-violent form of demonstration. In fact, I
received approval from Mr. Abelson to retain a security guard who stood by during much of the
filming. The hope was that through pointed questions and sincere demonstrations we might
enlighten Rathbun to stop making false and malicious statements about Scientology and
Scientologists, or barring that result, to create a documentary showing his true nature as a
violent, foolish, "squirrel."
13. I hired professional videographers for the project to accompany the Squirrel
Busters in their confrontations with Rathbun and to film the protesting outside of his office.
Professional videographer Bart Parr did most of the filming for the project. For a three-day
period, I hired a local videographer named Bert Leahy to assist Mr. Parr. Mr. Leahy turned out
to be extremely umeliable and incompetent and I informed him after three days that his services
were no longer needed, and paid him for his time. Leahy called a couple of weeks later asking
for further employment, but I declined to use him again. He apparently was upset at his
termination and contacted Mr. Rathbun. Leahy allegedly gave a statement to Rathbun asserting
that I told Leahy the Squirrel Buster project was "to make Rathbun's life a living hell." This
assertion is utterly false; I never said that or anything similar to Leahy. After Rathbun publicly
posted an interview with Leahy making this assertion, Leahy called me several times and left
messages suggesting he would change his story ifI paid him to do so. I viewed these messages
6
MR887
as an attempt to extort me with threats unless I paid him. Following these messages, I spoke to
Leahy on the phone, at which time he admitted that I did not make the "make Rathbun's life a
living hell" statement he had asserted and that Rathbun had "put words in his mouth." Leahy
also advised me that Rathbun had said he would "take care of me," paid all of his expenses to
come back to Ingleside-on-the-Bay for the recorded interview, and gave Leahy a personal check
for $300 which Rathbun characterized to Leahy as a "gift'' from a lady in Switzerland Rathbun
refused to identify. In that conversation Leahy attempted to extort me by offering to change his
story ifl paid him $20,000, which I refused.
14. The composition of the Squirrel Busters was primarily volunteers who changed
from week to week, as each volunteer had other responsibilities. Mr. Abelson provided some
financial and legal support to the Squirrel Busters from the Church of Scientology International.
15. The Squirrel Busters were in Ingleside-on-the-Bay near Rathbun's place of
business from April 18-21, 2011. In the month of May 2011, none of the Squirrel Busters were
in Texas and no filming was done. On or around June 10th, filming and protest actions
recommenced from time to time, schedules of the Squirrel Buster volunteers permitting. In
September 2011, all filming and protests ended. Some of the filming was done in locations far
from Rathbun's home or office. Rathbun was not present at these other locations. Except for the
few minutes on April 18, 2011 when Messrs. Allender, Warlick and Hirst knocked on Rathbun's
door, all filming was done on public property.
16. Much ofthis filming was done with one or more of the Squirrel Buster's reading
from signboards with script, and discussing religious issues with the Rathbuns' office/home in
the background. Some of the filming was "B-roll" filming at places Rathbun had claimed to
work, and locations around Texas where he lived or traveled.
7
MR888
17. CSI covered my expenses for the project, but several of the Squirrel Busters paid
their own travel and food expenses. I rented a house for the Squirrel Busters in the neighborhood
near the filming locations to reduce the costs for lodging, and to increase security.
18. RTC or David Miscavige has never retained me. I have never taken any direction
from, met or communicated with David Miscavige.
Affiant further sayeth naught"
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this I (;-th day of October, 2013,
to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
f e OFFICIAL SEAL f
. ~ KERRI P A U T ~
5 . NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA ~
(ii ' . COMMISSION # 1911945 C
; ... LDS ANGELES COUNTY ~
t . MY COMM. EXP. DECEMBER 1, 201.:t l
8
MR889
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
Defendants.

207To JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN ALLENDER
On this day, personally appeared John Allender, who, after presenting proper
personal identification and being sworn, upon his oath, stated as follows:
1. My name is John Allender. I am over 18 years of age, have never been
convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, and am otherwise competent to
make this affidavit. The statements made herein and facts st ated in this affidavit are true
and conect and based upon my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a resident of Santa Clara County, California.
3. I have been an active member of the Scientology religion for over 40 years.
I participated as a religious volunteer on the staff of the Church of Scientology Stevens
Creek in the 1970s for several years, and was the Executive Director of the Church of
Scientology Mission of San Jose for more than 15 years. For many years I have been
1
MR890
active in defending my religion from persons seeking to attack its precepts and practices
and harassing the members of my faith. For example, I worked extensively to resolve the
attacks by a hate-group calling itself "Anonymous" which made numerous threats to our
churches and members, and promoted hateful "demonstrations" outside our churches. I
worked extensively with an anti-hate network in Santa Clara County, California, the
Office of Human Relations who were investigating the Anonymous group and who
issued a formal letter finding them to be a hate group. I actively participate in our
religious activities and outreach in this County and elsewhere in California.
4. I saw Marty Rathbun on CNN in 2010, when he made many false and
hateful statements against my faith, and I was outraged to hear these assertions. I spoke
with Mark Warlick, who was my friend and a staff member at the Los Gatos church and
the Director of Special Affairs for that church and offered to help ifthere was anything I
could do.
5. In or about March of 2011, I received a call from Mr. Warlick, who told me
more about what Rathbun was doing in attacking our religion and its Founder with many
false statements which the media was willingly repeating. I learned that Rathbun, who
was expelled from the Church of Scientology, was promoting himself as an "independent
Scientologist," and claiming that our religious practices were somehow wrong, that he
could do better than the standard church practices in delivering Scientology, and
encouraging Scientologists to leave our faith. I saw some of the public statements and
articles quoting Rathbun in this regard, which I viewed as outrageous. The Scientology
2
MR891
religion has very precisely defined procedures and Rathbun's assertions were the
equivalent of religious heresy, called in Scientology "squirreling." The term means
altering the exact Scientology procedure set forth in works of the religion's Founder, and
in Rathbun' s case, pretending it is real Scientology practice. Squirreling is about the
worst thing that one can do in the Scientology religion. Mr. Warlick said he intended to
go to Texas where Rathbun lived and let Rathbun know very directly that church
parishioners knew what Rathbun was doing and we knew he was a squirrel. I discussed
this with Mr. Warlick and volunteered to help and to speak to Rathbun personally about
his wrongful conduct.
6. Mr. Warlick and I thereafter met with Dave Lubow and a staff member of
the Church of Scientology International at the CSI offices in Los Angeles to discuss
Rathbun. Mr. Lubow informed me he was a private investigator but also a filmmaker,
and had made a documentary about harmful psychiatric drugging of children. We came
up with the name Squirrel Busters and discussed creating a documentary regarding
Rathbun. Mr. Warlick was a professional photographer and videographer and with Dave
Lubow's documentary experience we discussed how this could work to protest Rathbun' s
actions and to create a documentary to help educate other Scientologists and the public in
general that Rathbun was a squirrel and a liar. Mr. Lubow was the director and a
producer and general coordinator. I was to be a producer. We would talk to other
members of our church to undertake protest actions in exercise of our First Amendment
3
MR892
rights. The CSI staff member told us that CSI would help with some of the expenses
involved to allow us to undertake this protest action and make the documentary.
7. I thereafter filed a fictitious business name statement as Squirrel Busters
Productions with the city of Campbell, CA. In June 2011, I also registered two potential
websites we would use sqbproductions.com and squirrelbusters.org. I registered the sites
for 2 years and they have now expired.
8. I thereafter traveled to Ingleside on the Bay, Texas and met with Mark
Warlick, and Richard Hirst (another Scientologist who volunteered for the protest and
documentary project). We discussed what should happen in terms of reacting to Marty,
because there was concern that he could be volatile and violent, and determined that no
matter what he did, we would maintain a totally non-violent form of demonstration. I
hoped through pointed questions and demonstrations, but not reacting in kind to anything
Rathbun might say against my religion, to shame him into changing his ways. The goal
was to get him to stop presenting himself as a Scientologist and to recant. To me he was
obviously trying to make some cash over his notoriety and relying on the media to do
that. Religiously, it was very offensive for Rathbun to pretend to practice Scientology
and to denigrate the real practice of Scientology.
9. We also wanted to show who Rathbun really was through videos,
interviews and a documentary - a man who was dishonest, illogical and a "squirrel," and
that the "Squirrel Busters" exercised their rights to protest that squirreling and attacks on
our religion. We hoped to do this by asking questions to Rathbun to get him to reveal his
4
MR893
squirreling and his true nature. We wanted to let him know that we knew what he was
doing. Thus, our first visit was a "tech inspection." In a Church of Scientology, a tech
inspection may be done where it is suspected or apparent that non-standard practices are
being undertaken by a minister or in a religious course room. In that event, a senior
ecclesiastical person or authority would demand to see if the practices of the offending
church or minister was true to the "technology of Scientology." Thus, our first visit was
appropriately, a "tech inspection" of Rathbun. On April 18, 2011, with a professional
videographer named Bart Parr, and Scientologists Mark Warlick and Richard Hirst, I
knocked on Rathbun's door with video rolling. When he opened the door, I asked to see
his parishioner folders to see ifhe was correctly applying Scientology procedure, or
"tech." Rathbun told us to get off his property and pushed Richard Hirst. We
immediately did leave his front doorway, again with video rolling. Rathbun followed us
to the street, taking video himself, where he assaulted me and ripped a microphone out of
my camera. This incident was posted by us on the internet on .our squirrel buster
Y ouTube channel, and was also posted by Rathbun on his own Y ouTube channel. This
was the one and only time that the Squirrel Busters went onto Rathbun's property.
10. The composition of the Squirrel Busters was mostly different volunteers
who changed from week to week, as all of us had other work or responsibilities at our
respective homes. The Church of Scientology International provided some financial and
legal support to the Squirrel Busters. The crew included, from time to time, a
professional photographer, and at some point, a security professional who was hired by
5
MR894
Lubow. These professionals were hired to assist in documenting the events and to protect
the Scientologists from any potential harm.
11. In one incident when I attempted to interview Rathbun on the street in front
of his office/home where he was operating his squirrel practice, he repeatedly sprayed me
and my microphone with a hose. The water ruined the microphone.
12. During the course of our filming activities, the Squirrel Busters had non-
violent verbal encounters with Rathbun and plaintiff in public areas, in the course of
which we discussed, ofien in heated or argumentative terms, Rathbun's "squirrel'' and
anti-Scientology activities. Except for the few minutes on April 18, 2011, when I
knocked on Rathbun's door, all the rest of filming was done on public property.
13. Many of our videos were put up on Youtube and I saw a number of videos
taken by Rathbun of our actions, which were also posted by him on the Internet.
14. No member of the Squirrel Busters in my observation or within my
knowledge, ever entered the Rathbuns' place of business/residence, peered into it,
photographed inside of it, used any form of electronic surveillance with respect to it, used
any form of microphone to overhear private conversations of Rathbun or his wife inside
or on the porch of the business/residence or interfered with or wiretapped the Rathbuns'
telephone or internet service, physically blocked or interfered with the Rathbuns'
freedom of movement, or physically touched or threatened the Rathbuns.
15. On June 21, 2011, the City of Ingleside passed an ordinance directed at the
Squirrel Busters, requiring us to file for a permit in order to film. We filed an application
6
MR895
for a permit, but subsequently withdrew it upon legal advice that the ordinance was
unconstitutional as drafted. A local attorney was located for us by the Church of
Scientology International, Richard W. Rogers, to assist as needed. On our behalf, on July
20, 2011, Mr. Rogers wrote to the County Attorney on the matter and the City thereafter
repealed the Ordinance.
16. On September 20, 2011, our lawyer, Richard Rogers, received a call from a
San Antonio attorney, Christopher Gale, who said he represented Marty Rathbun and
threatened to file a lawsuit. Rogers met with Gale and Rene Rodriguez, another lawyer
representing Rathbun, and told them that his clients' acts were protected by the First
Amendment, as our acts were solely the exercise of our rights to protest and the creation
of a documentary regarding what we saw as important religious issues. Gale requested
that the Squirrel Busters agree to stay 150 yards away from Rathbun's property. Rogers
told Gale the Squirrel Busters could possibly agree to remain at least 20 feet away from
the property. Informal negotiations continued between Rogers and Gale, but no
agreement was reached and no lawsuit was filed.
17. I have never had any dealings or communications with any RTC staff
members on this subject or any matter relating to Texas, Marty or Monique Rathbun, the
Squirrel Busters or any remotely related matter. I have never met or communicated with
David Miscavige prior to or during the filming of the documentary. I did meet Mr.
Miscavige for the firnt time at the Grand re-openings of the newly renovated Stevens
Creek and Los Gatos Churches of Scientology in 2012. Mr. Miscavige was present as the
7
MR896
ecclesiastical leader of the religion at these ceremonies to dedicate the newly opened
church buildings. At each, I literally said a quick hello and shook hands and had my
picture taken to commemorate the events. I was not paid by RTC, directed by RTC or
communicated with RTC on the Squirrel Buster project.
18. I covered my own expenses traveling to and from Texas to my home in
California several times.
State of California )
c.3 tG/I <:fl!A k-
County ofb6s Angeles )
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before meil, {l<i!J 4(j (,6k,. "-"" on this
J_{p_dayof (2(h}.M ,2013,by , proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory eviden person( s) who appeared before me.

: PATIENCE ANNE
l ' COMM. NO. 1943113
NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA s
1 . , COUNTYOFSANTAClARA !
,.,. COMM. EXPIRES JULY 29, 2015 :l
00QSOBUOODDDOOUOUOUOU900UOODODOOm
8
MR897
CAUSE NO. C-2013-lUlf:l.U
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
l>A VID MISCA VIGE, RELIGIOUS

Defendants.

COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD HIRST
On this day, personally appeared Richard who, after presenting proper
1. My name is Richard Hirst. I run over 18 years of age, have never been
convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, and am otherwise competent to
make this affidavit. The statements made herein and facts stated in this affidavit are true
and correct and based upon my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a resident of the State of Florida.
3. I own a small electrorucs company which manufactures equipment for
various companies, including the aviation industry.
4. I have been an active and devoted Scientologist for 40 years.
l
MR898
5. In April of 2011, I received a call from a staff member of the Church of
Scientology International, telling me that John Allender, Dave Lubow and Mark Warlick
were planning to go to Texas to protest the actions of a man named Marty Rathbun, and
to create a documentary regarding their protest efforts and Rathbun's activities. I had read
about RathbWl and knew that he was a former member of the Church, but that he was
now an apostate of the religion making lurid and false statements about my faith. I agreed
to participate in the project in support of my religious rights.
6. I thereafter paid my own way to fly to Texas. I met with John Allender,
Mark Warlick, and a videographer named Bart Parr neur Corpus Christi. Mr. Allender,
Mr. Warlick and Mr. Lubow had already worked out many of the details of the project. It
was to perfonn protests against Mark Rathbun arising out of his public attacks against the
standard practice of Scientology -- which he denigrated"- in lieu of his own distorted
practice of pseudo-Scientology which he offered. Our second purpose was to create a
documentary of those protests and Rathbun's acts. I considered Rathbun's acts to be to
be an altered form of Scientology, called in our religion, a "squirrel/' offbeat and totally
wrong practice. So we called ourselves "Squirrel Busters."
7. I was in Ingleside-on-the-Bay four different times for several weeks in all. I
participated in the movie making and demonstrations against Mark Rathbun outside of
his office/home where be was undertaking this practice. I felt very strongly
about the religious issues involved in our demonstrations and our right to exercise our
right to _protest Rathbun's wrongful acts.
2
MR899
8. Often Marty Rathboo and sometimes his wife would come out to the street
where we were staging the movie making and the protests. I was assaulted by Rathbun
dwing this process, having been shoved by him several times. Rathbun came up to me
on one occasion and knocked my hat off to intimidate me to stop protesting. However,
despite Rathbun's assaults and batteries, I and my fellow Squirrel Busters felt it important
to maintain a totally peaceful protest, and we did so. On several occasions, Rathbun's
wife, named Monique, came out to talk to us and engaged in debate on religious issues. I
requested that she try to keep her husband under control so we could make our movie and
protest without his intimidation and assault and disruption of our filming.
9. During our protests and movie making, never did I or my fellow Squirrel
Busters film into Rathbun's house, doors or windows. We never blocked the way of Mr.
or Mrs. Rathbun or physically intimidated them in any way.
l 0. Only once did we go on Rathbun' s property - the very first day we arrived.
On that date in mid-April 2011, we knocked on Rathbun's door to talk to him and asked
to do a ''technical inspection" of his notes and materials. This is a Scientology tenn,
meaning to review the procedures of a Scientology minister/auditor. We knew that
Rathbllll could not pass a tech inspection because he was a "squirrel" and was not
perfonning st.andard Scientology procedures. He told us to leave his property, which we
immediately did.
1 l. The subject of the protest was not Monique Rathbun. Rather, the subject
was Marty Rathbun and the primary object was Marty Rath.bun's improper application of
3
MR900
Scientology materials in an offensive manner, pretending what he was doing was actual
Scientology, as well as his false and highly derogatory assertions against my religion.
Affiant further sayeth naught."

RICHARD HIRST
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE "MEon this J 5 day of October,
2013, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
NOT ARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
-;cz_ {)""','"-"'
(Printed Name ofNotary Publiy)
My Commission Expires: 7; r.o r b
4
J0R DAllM IMTRMo
Natlly Pubic ltali of .....
f - Comn.. bpltn Aug 7, 2011
Comnt!Hlon {I EE 223113
MR901
CAUSE NO. C-2013-10828
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,

DA VE LUBO\\' and ED BRYAN,
Defendants.
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF MONTY DRAKE
On this day, personally appeared Monty Drake, who, after presenting proper personal
identification and being sworn, upon his oath, stated as follows:
1. "My name is Monty Drake. I am over 18 years of age, have never been convicted of a
felony or crin1e involving moral turpitude, and am othenvise competent to make this affidavit.
The statements made herein and facts stated in this affidavit are true and correct and based upon
my own persona] knowledge.
2. I am a resident of Hood County. Texas.
3. I am a private investigator licensed in the states of Texas and Oklahoma, and have been
in the private investigation industry since 1986. My work has been diverse and includes
investigation of third party personal injury cases, workers' compensation and non-subscriber
cases, background checks and investigations for employers and other business entities, witness
and asset location, skip tracing and other general investigations.
I
MR902
4. One specialty of my work has been investigahng vioJations of intellectual property rights,
production and marketing of counterfeit goods and, particularly, trademark violations. In this
role, I have worked with dozens of major national and international fashion designers and
producers, investigating and coordinating civil and criminal prosecution of violations of their
intellectual property rights. I have been involved in hundreds of cases and many large atTests
and seizures relating to trademark violations. While many of my clients are in California, New
York, France and Italy, my investigations for each have been focused in Texas. I often
coordinate with law enforcement entities to pursue c1iminal charges against intelJectual property
violators, and have frequently assisted law enforcement and prosecutors in arrests and
prosecutions.
5. Another focus of my work has been investigations for the telecom industry relating to the
bulk purchasing and misuse or illegal use of prepaid mobile phones. I have worked for most
major telecommunication phone companies. Many such mobile phones are purchased in the
U.S., and then sent to the Middle East and other foreign countries. Telecommunication
companies lose money from the illegal use. These phones are also susceptible to use by
terrorists or for other illegal activities, since the phones are inexpensive and often used only once
and, therefore, are difficult to trace.
6. I have never been sanctioned or disciplined by the Texas State Board of Private
Investigators and/or the Counsel for Law Enforcement Education and Training ("CLEET") in
Oklahoma.
7. Los Angeles attomey Elliot Abelson retained me in 2009 on behalf of his client, the
Church of Scientology International ("CSf'), to undertake an investigation in support of
litigation, prospective litigation and threatened litigation related to CSI and to investigate
2
MR903
potential violations of intellectual property rights licensed to CSI relating to the Scientology
religion. My retention arose in part out of public record research and investigation, in which it
was determined that Mark ("Marty") Rathbun (sometimes hereinafter "Rathbun") was potentially
violating trademarks for which CSI is the exclusive licensee. Mr. Abelson hired me on behalf of
his client CSI to investigate the matters addressed above respecting Mark Rathbun, and also to
gather facts which might be app1icable to bringing both potential civil and criminal actions
against Mark Rathbun. Rathbun also made public statements on his blog in August 2010,
encouraging Scientologists to steal church records and/or infonnation from CSI or any other
church entity and to bring the stolen materials to him. [ was also told that Mark Rathbun had
received property stolen by a staff member of Bridge Publications (the religion's publishing
house) in September 2010. All of these matters were the subject of my investigation.
8. At no time did 1, or anyone working under my direction or in coordination with me,
undertake any unlawful actions, actions exceeding my license as a private investigator, or any
action which otherwise violated the privacy of Mark Rathbun or his wife, Monique Rathbun.
The focus of the investigation was directed at Mark Rathbun and not at Monique Rathbun.
9. The extent of my investigation was lawful surveillance for the reasons noted above. It
consisted of surveillance, photographing, videotaping and static cameras focused on the area
outside the Rathbuns' office/home and publicly visible from the street or other public area. The
static video and photographing were performed from another house in the neighborhood which I
rented for that purpose. The cameras allowed me to observe persons coming and going from the
Rathbuns' office/home premises. Anything the camera. could see, a person could also see from
the street. No surveillance was ever done by me, anyone working with me, or within my
knowledge, which was directed inside the Rathbuns' office/home. No surveillance was done by
3
MR904
photographing into their windows or doors. No electronic eavesdropping or listening devices
were used in our investigation. No electronic tracking devices were used to track Rathbun or his
wife. Neither I, nor anyone working with or for me, ever entered upon the Rathbuns' property.
Neither I, nor anyone working with or for me, ever spoke with or sent anything to Monique
Rathbun or to her place of employment.
10. The investigative actions undertaken respecting Rathbun were surveillance and
interviews conducted for the purpose of obtaining information concerning (a) crimes or wrongs
done or threatened against CST or other churches of Scientology, (b) the identity, habits, conduct,
business, occupation, honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, activity, movement,
whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of Rathbun and
those associated with him, (c) the location, disposition and recovery of misappropriated or stolen
prope1ty, or (d) securing evidence to be used before a court or for complaints to appropriate law
enforcement.
11. Some of my investigation was via the Jntemet sites which Rathbun publicly used to
communicate his activities and sometimes I or an associate followed Rathbun's car to determine
with whom he was meeting.
12. These sources of information indicated that both Mark Rathbun and his wife were
apparently engaged in business pursuits from their office/home potentially in violation of and
profiting from Scientology trademarks and copyrights, were seeing clients and others at their
office/home who were persons who had evidently left the Church of Scientology, who were
present members of the Church of Scientology and/or were individuals involved in potentially
criminal, to1tuous and/or litigation actions against tile Church. The Rathbuns were providing
4
MR905
inte1views from their office/home to media members who had been critical of the Church, and
journalists were meeting with them at their office/home.
13. I billed CSI's counsel. Mr. Abelson. for my services.
14. I never had any dealings or communications with any Religious Technology Center
(''RTC") staff members or David Miscavige, have never worked for or received funds from RTC,
and have never met or communicated with David Miscavige, either directly or indirectly.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ( 5 - day of October. 2013,
KELLY JO WILCOX
Mr Commitaion EJCPires
Auoutt 28, 2017
'IJIUJL.JJ.\.l-IN AND FO
THE STAT OF XAS
30 klileox
5
MR906
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
DAVE LUBOW and ED BRYAN,
Def end ants.

207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COMAL TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT
On this day, personally appeared Steven Gregory Sloat, who, after presenting proper
1. My name is Steven Gregory Sloat. I am over 18 years of age, have never been
convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, and am otherwise competent to make
this affidavit. The statements made herein and facts stated in this affidavit are true and correct
and based upon my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a resident of Harris County, Texas.
3. In 1976 and 1977, I was a police officer in Houston, Texas. I was recommended
for appointment to the President by Senator John Tower and became a Deputy U.S. Marshal in
1977, which position I held for 11 years, until 1988. In 1989 I became a professional race car
driver through 1996, and still teach racing to younger drivers. I am now an author, having
written and published A Day to Die, and am in the process of a writing a further book.
4. In early 2013, I was retained by J.R. Skaggs, a licensed Texas Private
Investigator because of my investigative and law enforcement background. I was asked to
assist Mr. Skaggs as an undercover contractor in an investigation in Comal County relating to a
former member of the Church of Scientology. But, I had no oral or written communications with
AMidallit of Steven Gregory Sloat Paoa t
MR907
anyone in any Church of Scientology. All of my communications and directions on this matter
were with Mr. Skaggs.
5. I was informed by Mr. Skaggs that the client who retained Mr. Skaggs had
concern regarding a man named Mark ("Marty") Rathbun, who had recently moved to B u ~ e r d e
Texas. Mr. Skaggs told me Rathbun was a former Scientologist who was trying to divert people
away from the Church of Scientology. Mr. Skaggs told me that Rathbun was engaged in some
sort of practice similar to Scientology of his own creation at that location and was seeing clients
there. I was to attempt to see who was going to the premises where he was undertaking this
I
activity, get pictures if possible of persons associating with him, and.to meet Rathbun and to get
to know him and, if possible, so he would tell me more about what his activities were at that
location.
6. I rented a property next to Mr. Rathbun's business/residence in Bulverde, in a
wooded area. I was provided three low resolution cameras in the hopes that a camera could
determine when a car arrived at the parking area of Mr. Rathbun's property adjacent to my
property. These were cameras typically used in deer runs, had a focal length of about 1-20
yards and could not be adjusted. There was no zoom capability. Objects much beyond the
focal length gradually became obscure. The cameras are the type typically used to photograph
game, operating on a motion detector and taking a picture when something moved in front of
the camera, and had the capability of sending the pictures via cell phone to a web site where
the pictures could be seen. The manual for the cameras indicated they were for game purposes.
In addition to the motion detector setting, I set the cameras to take one picture an hour.
7. I placed one camera pointed towards the driveway area next to Rathbun's
premises, one towards the road facing away from his premises to record who was coming onto
the property, and one on a deer stand on the property, facing away from his property.
8. The cameras never pointed directly at Rathbun's office/house. The cameras
each took a picture when the motion detector perceived motion in front of it and was also set to
Affidavit of Sreven Gregory Sloat Page2
MR908
take one picture per hour. The camera facing Rathbun's premises was 60-70 yards from the
area where a car might be parked. The distance was much too great for the device to detect
motion on his property, and therefore took no pictures caused by motion on his property. The
camera pointed through trees and saplings towards the driveway and shed area. The Cllmera
pointing towards his property was not useful for the intended purpose, as the resolution was
poor, and the camera had no zoom or focal adjustment capabilities. An example of the scene
viewed from the camera is attached as Exhibit 1. I tried a different location, seen in the picture
of Exhibit 2, but it was equally unworkable.
i
9. There was an old deer stand on the property, where i placed one of the cameras
facing away from Rathbun's property. I left a note on that deer stand with my name and phone
number to attempt to locate who had placed the stand there. Rathbun evidently came onto my
property, as he called me at the number given. I told him I was working on a book I was writing,
had leased the property and intended to bring a camper there in the future to do work in an
undisturbed location. We chatted for about 1 O minutes.
10. In early July of 2013, I came onto the property to change the batteries, as I did
occasionally. Rathbun was standing at the edge of my property. I spoke to him briefly. Rathbun
evidently came onto the property a few days later on July 27, 2013, as seen by the motion
detector photo at Exhibit 3. This was the last visible picture from this camera, as he placed tape
over the lens so that pictures could no longer be taken. The cameras were removed a few days
later.
11. I never saw the plaintiff, Monique Rathbun. I never talked to her, never had any
communication with her and never photographed her. The subject of the investigation was not
Monique Rathbun. Rather, the subject was Mark Rathbun and the object was Mark Rathbun's
associations and business dealings.
Affidallit of Steven Gregory Sloat Page3
MR909
- - - - ----- .
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this
to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
11-iL- day of October, 2013,
I
Affidavit of Steven Gregory Sloat
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
THE STATE OF TEXAS
e/, nl J,W\ v .\-
,
(Printed Name of Notary Publig_
My Commission
!
Page 4
MR910
EXHIBIT 1
MR911

MR912
EXHIBIT 2
MR913

MR914
EXHIBIT 3
MR915

MR916
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
OCTOBER 18, 2013
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 2 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C2013-1082B
2 MONIQUE RATHBUN ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
4 vs. ) COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
)
S DAVID MISCAVIGE, )
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY )
6 CENTER, CHURCH OF )
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,)
7 STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND )
MONTY DRAKE, ) 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8
9
10 _____________________________________________
11 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
_____________________________________________
12
12
14 On the 18th day of October, 2013, the following
1S proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
16 numbered cause before the Honorable Dib Waldrip, Judge
17 Presiding, held in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas.
18 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
19 machine.
20
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR917
OCTOBER 18, 2013
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 Counsel for Plaintiff:

2 Mr. Ray B. Jeffrey
SBOT NO. 10613700
4 JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P.C.
2631 Bulverde Road
S Suite 105
6 Telephone: 830-438-8935
Fax: 830-438-4958
7

8 Mr. Marc F. Wiegand
SBOT NO. 21431300
9 THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
434 N. Loop 1604 West
10 Suite 2201
11 Telephone: 210-998-3289
Fax: 210-998-3179
12

12 Mr. Elliott S. Cappuccio
SBOT NO. 24008419
14 PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN
BENSON & JONES, L.L.P.
1S 2161 N.W. Military Highway
Suite 400
Telephone: 210-222-9494
17 Fax: 210-892-1610

18
Counsel for Defendant: Gregory Sloat
19
Mr. Jonathan H. Hull
20 SBOT NO. 10253350
Reagan Burrus, PLLC
21 401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
22 Telephone: 830-625-8026
Fax: 830-625-4433
22

24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR918
OCTOBER 18, 2013
2
1 Counsel for Defendant:
Church of Scientology International
2
Mr. Ricardo G. Cedillo
2 SBOT NO.
Mr. Isaac J. Huron
4 SBOT NO.
Mr. Les J. Strieber (Not present)
S SBOT NO. 19398000
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
6 755 E. Mulberry Avenue
Suite 500
Telephone: 210-822-6666
8 Fax: 210-822-1511

9
Mr. George H. Spencer, Jr.
10 SBOT NO. 18921001
CLEMENS & SPENCER
11 112 E. Pecan Street
Suite 1300
12 San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
Telephone: 210-227-7121
12 Fax: 210-227-0732

14
Mr. Bert H. Deixler (Not present)
1S California Bar No. 70614
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER, LLP
16 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Suite 1725
17 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: 310-556-2700
18 Fax: 210-556-2705
Pro Hac Vice
19

20 Counsel for Defendant:
Religious Technology Center
21 and David Miscavige

22 Mr. Lamont A. Jefferson
SBOT NO. 10607800
22 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
112 East Pecan Street
24 Suite 1200
2S Telephone: 210-978-7413
Fax: 210-554-0413
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR919
OCTOBER 18, 2013
4
1 Counsel for Monty Drake:

2 Mr. Gary D. Sarles (Not present)
SBOT NO. 17651100
2 SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
4 900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 78202-4436
S Telephone: 214-573-6301
Fax: 214-573-6306
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR920
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S
1 VOLUME 1
2 PRETRIAL HEARING
2 OCTOBER 8, 2013
PAGE VOL.
4 Anti-SLAPP motion filed 6 1 ..................

S Motion for confidentiality and protective order 12 1 ..

6 Motion to restrict Mark Rathbun from
revealing confidential information................13 1
7
Court's Ruling 121 1 ..................................
8
Adjournment 123 1 ....................................
9
Reporter's Certificate 124 1 ..........................
10
11 EXHIBITS OFFERED BY DEFENDANT CSI
12 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED USE

12 1 9 v1 Monique Rathbun, The
Creed of the Church
14 of Scientology,
7-18-11 video
1S
2 9 v1 A talk to OSA Staff
16 by Marty Rathbun,
10-25-12 video
17
3 9 v1 Rathbun's Video of
18 Ed Bryan, 8-12-11
video
19
20
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR921
OCTOBER 18, 2013
6
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 1uL C0u81: Y'a11 can be seated. Y'a11
2 want to te11 me what we are workng on today?
4 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, wth the Court's
S permsson, 1 wou1d 1ke to ntroduce myse11.
6 1uL C0u81: 6ood to see you.
7 M8. CL01ll0: 1'm 8cardo Ced11o. 1've
8 been on the p1eadngs, but 1've been n ury tra1s n
9 two d11erent states snce the proceedngs began. 1'm
10 here today and 1 wanted to ntroduce myse11.
11 ^nd 1 wanted to te11 you, Judge, that 1
12 came bearng g1ts, 1 1 may.
12 M8. SLuCL8: lavsh g1ts.
14 M8. CL01ll0: 11 1 may approach.
1S 1uL C0u81: You may.
16 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, ths mornng we
17 e-11ed an ant-Sl^ moton under Chapter 27, 1 thnk.
18 ^nd we have a courtesy copy 1or the Court that 1 wou1d
19 1ke to 1eave wth you. 0bvous1y, t's not on the
20 docket 1or today.
21 ^nd then these other notebooks, Your
22 uonor, we've -- we've assemb1ed the case 1aw and the
22 ctatons there 1or you. We've put them n a1phabetca1
24 order. ^nd t ended up takng two bg notebooks.
2S ^nd we have provded opposng counse1, o1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR922
OCTOBER 18, 2013
7
1 course, wth a dup1cate set o1 what we're provdng 1or
2 you here. ^nd 1 don't know how many ant-Sl^
2 motons -- the statute s on1y a year or two o1d, but --
4 1uL C0u81: 1t wou1d be a 1rst.
S M8. CL01ll0: 1t w11 be a 1rst and --
6 1uL C0u81: ^nd they've got that much case
7 1aw?
8 M8. CL01ll0: Yes, t does actua11y, but
9 t's -- t's a good thng to knd o1 peruse through as
10 you're watchng the Cowboys beat the Lag1es ths weekend
11 or 1or your readng p1easure. 1t's actua11y pretty 1ast
12 readng. 1 thnk that 1 you devote maybe an hour or so
12 1or the body o1 the moton, the cases, o1 course. 8ut
14 t s somethng 1 thnk that --
1S 1uL C0u81: ^re we gong to try to set
16 that at that same date n 0ecember or somethng or --
17 M8. CL01ll0: We11, Your uonor, the one
18 aspect about the moton s that a1though t's got some
19 1eeway n t, you're supposed to act on t wthn
20 60 days.
21 So t's -- t's -- the 1egs1ature bu1t a
22 short tme 1use on t. 8ut o1 course, 1 your docket
22 doesn't a11ow t, there's -- there's provsons 1or
24 that. ^nd then 1 thnk there's a 20-day turnaround
2S a1ter you ho1d the hearng. So that's ust one o1 the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR923
OCTOBER 18, 2013
8
1 aspects o1 t.
2 8ut when 1 ntroduce myse11, 1 1ke to
2 1eave an mpresson. Where can 1 put t down 1or you?
4 1uL C0u81: 8ght there s good.
S M8. CL01ll0: Ine.
6 Your uonor, one other pont on that -- and
7 1 con1erred wth Mr. Cappucco and we 1e1t a message
8 wth Mr. 8ay {sc) ths mornng a1ter we 11ed t, under
9 the terms o1 the statute, a11 dscovery s supposed to
10 come to a screechng ha1t. 1he case s supposed to come
11 to a screechng ha1t once the ant-Sl^ moton gets
12 11ed.
12 We are not takng that poston. 1 don't
14 know 1 we have to 1orma11y get an order to you to a11ow
1S t, but what 1've to1d Mr. Cappucco s that the -- the
16 partes have been cooperatng, workng towards gettng
17 the -- the ursdctona1 dscovery and the speca1
18 appearance. We're gong to keep our word on that.
19 We w11 proceed and -- and get what the
20 partes have been workng towards accomp1shng on the
21 speca1 appearance. ^nd -- and t -- and so that you
22 can go 1orward wth the speca1 appearance. We are not
22 takng the poston, a1though 1tera11y the statute says
24 you're supposed to shut t down. We're okay wth you
2S not shuttng down the ursdctona1 porton o1 the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR924
OCTOBER 18, 2013
9
1 dscovery, whch s what we've a11 been workng 1or.
2 1've read every transcrpt. 1 know a11 o1
2 the work that's been done. We're not settng any o1
4 that work asde. We're gong 1orward wth a11 o1 that
S to the extent that the -- that the partes are workng
6 on that.
7 1uL C0u81: We11, to the extent that any
8 dscovery s beng sought goes to the ursdctona1
9 ssue, 1 wou1d thnk we need to contnue that,
10 otherwse --
11 M8. CL01ll0: 1echnca11y, the statute
12 says even that s supposed to shut down, but we're not
12 takng that poston. We're takng the contrary
14 poston. We're gong 1orward wth what the partes are
1S workng on.
16 1uL C0u81: 0kay. very good.
17 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd then, Your uonor,
18 1rom -- a 1tt1e bt more housekeepng. Irom the
19 prevous meetngs we've had wth you, the court reporter
20 requested that we submt certan excerpts o1 vdeos and
21 so 1orth to make the record. We have marked them as
22 0e1ense Lxhbts 1, 2 and 2 wth our cover 1etter o1
22 transmtta1 and -- and we'd 1ke to -- to provde that
24 to -- to the court reporter on the record now.
2S 1uL C0u81: Mr. 8ay {sc), 1'm assumng --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR925
OCTOBER 18, 2013
10
1 are those some o1 the vdeos that were prevous1y
2 p1ayed, s that what we're ta1kng about?
2 M8. CL01ll0: 1hey were p1ayed at the
4 September 12th hearng n ths matter, Your uonor. ^nd
S at that September 12th hearng, t was ndcated to the
6 Court that we wou1d be provdng copes o1 those c1ps
7 so that they wou1d be nc1uded as part o1 the record.
8 ^nd that's what we're dong now and 1 want to do t on
9 the record.
10 1uL C0u81: very good. Just, 1 guess,
11 tender them to Mr. 8ay.
12 1 obvous1y haven't revewed those,
12 Mr. 8ay, but 1'm presumng those are copes o1 what was,
14 n 1act, p1ayed. 1 can't ver1y that, 1 y'a11 want to
1S try to ver1y that.
16 M8. CûCC10: Yeah. 1 thnk we need to
17 1ook at -- they dd gve them to me today 1or the 1rst
18 tme. 1 need to 1ook at them and see 1 they match up.
19 ^nd we're gong to have ours to tender as we11. So
20 probab1y we'11 ho1d o11 on o11erng them nto evdence
21 now because 1 wou1d obect to them because 1 need to
22 1ook at what s actua11y on them.
22 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, as an o11cer o1
24 the court, 1 can represent to you that -- that that's an
2S exact copy o1 what was p1ayed. 1 ust want the record
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR926
OCTOBER 18, 2013
11
1 to re11ect that we --
2 1uL C0u81: 1'm not gong to 1orce them to
2 make a ru1ng or -- 1 mean make an obecton unt1
4 they've had an opportunty to revew what was done a
S month and a ha11 ago.
6 M8. CL01ll0: 1 agree that no obecton
7 has been waved. 1hey reserve ther rght to obect
8 a1ter they -- they revew t to ther p1easure. 1 ust
9 need t on the record to show that 1've brought 1orth
10 what we sad we wou1d do on September the 12th. ^nd
11 they can reserve ther rght to 1ook at t, obect
12 1ater. 1'm 1ne wth a11 o1 that.
12 1uL C0u81: 0kay. Just somebody remnd me
14 at a 1ater tme to make a ru1ng, so --
1S M8. JLII8LY: 1hank you, Your uonor, and
16 we'11 do the same.
17 1uL C0u81: Wthn a reasonab1e perod o1
18 tme, 1et me know 1 you've got some obecton.
19 M8. JLII8LY: 1hank you.
20 M8. SLuCL8: Your uonor, 1 the Court s
21 ready, 1 be1eve we're now at the pont o1 takng up the
22 two motons that are actua11y set 1or ths mornng. ^nd
22 the 1rst o1 those -- 1 be1eve there are courtesy
24 copes up on the bench, yes, sr.
2S 1he 1rst o1 those 1 be1eve s on top,
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR927
OCTOBER 18, 2013
12
1 and that's 1or an entry o1 a con1denta1ty and
2 protectve order, whch s the -- wth very s1ght
2 mod1catons, the -- the con1denta1ty and protectve
4 order that s an exhbt to the 1oca1 ru1es o1 the
S unted States 0strct Court 1or the Western 0strct o1
6 1exas.
7 1he moton descrbes about a ha11 dozen
8 changes 1 made n that. Ior examp1e, 1 made a re1erence
9 to the 1edera1 ru1es o1 evdence to -- to change t to
10 the correspondng 1exas 8u1es o1 Cv1 rocedure,
11 changed some -- where -- some typographca1 errors and
12 have submtted that.
12 1n gettng ready 1or ths mornng, t's my
14 understandng 1rom opposng counse1 that the so1e and
1S exc1usve dsagreement they have wth the 1orm o1 that
16 order s that 1 you 1ook -- 1 you have the -- the
17 order s attached to the moton.
18 1uL C0u81: Yes, sr.
19 M8. SLuCL8: 0n the 1rst page o1 t, t
20 ta1ks about -- paragraph number two, t ta1ks about
21 qua11ed persons and descrbes 1or the -- 1or the two
22 categores o1 c1ass1ed n1ormaton, the 1rst beng
22 counse1ors,attorneys on1y, and then a second category
24 8 -- ths s on page two -- 1or con1denta1
2S n1ormaton.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR928
OCTOBER 18, 2013
12
1 1he on1y change the p1ant11s are
2 requestng s that n two -- or that's -- you know,
2 doub1e 1owercase 1, {b){2), they want to add the words
4 or the party's spouse -- or and the party's spouse to
S that.
6 ^nd the request, o1 course, s that the
7 p1ant11's husband, Mark 8athbun, wou1d be permtted to
8 see ths con1denta1 n1ormaton n the case. ^nd we
9 tota11y oppose such a change.
10 1he basc ru1e, the mode1 ru1e, the one
11 that we've been workng on contans no such 1anguage.
12 1here s no provson n the 1edera1 mode1 ru1e on ths
12 mode1 order that permts a spouse to 1ook at any type o1
14 c1ass1ed n1ormaton. 1here s no need 1or the spouse
1S to 1ook at c1ass1ed n1ormaton.
16 What ths s s an ndrect way by the
17 p1ant11s to try to get around the 1act that they do
18 not want to desgnate Mark 8athbun, who s the
19 p1ant11's spouse, as a consu1tant or an expert
20 because, o1 course, 1 they do that, they're gong to
21 have serous prob1ems wth the ssues n our -- n the
22 other moton that s set be1ore you ths mornng, whch
22 s to restrct Mr. 8athbun's revea1ng con1denta1
24 n1ormaton.
2S 1n 1act, n your order that you -- your
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR929
OCTOBER 18, 2013
14
1 eght-page order that you -- 1 be1eve you sgned t on
2 September 20th and t's 11ed on 0ctober 1st. 8ut n
2 your eght-page order denyng the moton 1or
4 dsqua11caton, you ponted out that there was no
S evdence be1ore you that Mr. 8athbun was -- was servng
6 as a pad consu1tant n ths case, that he -- that n
7 the record be1ore you, he was -- there was not -- that
8 was not shown.
9 1hey don't want to have to desgnate
10 Mr. 8athbun as a consu1tant. 11 they dd that --
11 because 1 you 1ook back at the 1rst page o1 the order,
12 consu1tants can 1ook at c1ass1ed n1ormaton. 1hey
12 don't want to do that. 1hey want to do an end-around on
14 t by addng ths spouse 1anguage. 1t's smp1y
1S napproprate. 1t's not n the -- n the mode1 order
16 and -- and we very much request that t not be added n
17 ths case.
19 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, you -- you've
20 had be1ore you snce, oh, 1ve or sx weeks the
21 a11davt 11ed by Mr. 8athbun. ^nd -- and n
22 Mr. 8athbun's a11davt, he descrbes n deta1 an
22 entre structure and a seres o1 -- o1 mechansms and
24 protoco1s done by these corporatons to make sure that
2S no one can 1nd out what t s they're dong.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR930
OCTOBER 18, 2013
1S
1 When t comes to matters 1ke the
2 harassment o1 Mrs. 8athbun, they've provded no evdence
2 to the contrary. ^nd so what they're sayng s ths
4 hgh1y secretve organzaton that works day a1ter day
S to make sure that ther actvtes aren't dscovered --
6 1'm ta1kng about tortous and crmna1 actvtes are
7 not dscovered.
8 What -- what they want to do s to produce
9 to -- to Mrs. 8athbun, who has never been n the Church
10 o1 Scento1ogy and has no know1edge o1 t and her
11 attorneys who have never been n the Church o1
12 Scento1ogy, they want to produce the documents to them,
12 but her husband cannot 1ook at them. ue's the one that
14 understands how thngs work wthn ths corporaton.
1S 1hat's not anythng con1denta1.
16 ^nd 1'11 pont out to the Court once agan
17 that every moton they ever 11e, every argument they
18 ever make n court, they never te11 you what ths
19 con1denta1 stu11 s.
20 uow, 1'11 remnd the Court that ths
21 1ormat that -- we're n agreement wth ths 1ormat o1
22 the Western 0strct o1 1exas. ^1though t's ca11ed the
22 protectve order, t doesn't actua11y ru1e that anythng
24 s con1denta1 or protected. 1t ust sets up the
2S procedure.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR931
OCTOBER 18, 2013
16
1 Corporatons gve up the documents. 11
2 you thnk they're con1denta1, you stamp them
2 con1denta1 and ths s how the p1ant11s w11 treat
4 them. 11 the p1ant11s don't agree that they're
S con1denta1, the p1ant11s w11 ca11 them on that and
6 then they have to come to court and convnce you that
7 t's con1denta1.
8 So one thng 1 -- 1 ust want to make
9 c1ear and be a remnder o1 s there's nothng here
10 dent1yng or gettng you to ru1e that any partcu1ar
11 thng s con1denta1. ^nd now we've been through a11
12 o1 these 1engthy hearngs, they've st11 never to1d us
12 what anythng s that they c1am s con1denta1.
14 So documents are gong to be produced.
1S Mrs. 8athbun s gong to be ab1e to 1ook at those
16 documents and her attorneys are gong to be ab1e to 1ook
17 at those documents. We have no know1edge about exact1y
18 how the documents work wthn these corporatons, but
19 Mr. 8athbun does.
20 So the other pont that we made n our --
21 n our response to ther moton 1or protectve order s
22 ths: 11 the Court w11 go and 1ook -- 1ook at the
22 answer that CS1 11ed n ths case, t gves seven pages
24 o1 1acts. ^nd the nterestng thng about the seven
2S pages o1 1acts that support ther de1enses s -- s they
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR932
OCTOBER 18, 2013
17
1 a1most never even menton or re1er to Mrs. 8athbun.
2 1t's seven pages o1 attacks on Mr. 8athbun.
2 So Mrs. 8athbun s supposed to prepare her
4 de1ense to ther de1enses, 1or want o1 a better way o1
S sayng t, wthout beng ab1e to communcate wth her
6 husband and share wth her husband the documents that
7 they produce that supposed1y w11 support a11 o1 these
8 1actua1 a11egatons they've made aganst Mr. 8athbun.
9 So t -- one o1 the thngs that we've
10 tred to do wth our response s to pont out what s
11 the -- the -- what s the begnnng pont 1rom whch we
12 address a11 o1 these ssues, and that s -- s dscovery
12 n and o1 tse11 n any way con1denta1 or to be hdden
14 1rom pub1c vew, 1rom Mr. 8athbun's vew or the press'
1S or anybody e1se's? uo. 1here's nothng n the 1edera1
16 or the state ru1es o1 procedure that say that -- that --
17 that -- ab nto, 1rom the begnnng, there's any
18 con1denta1ty about dscovery.
19 So movng 1or a protectve order s an
20 excepton 1rom the norma1 openness that we have n our
21 courts. ^nd we cted to and provded many quotatons
22 1rom the courts about the rght o1 sharng.
22 1n 1act, the 1exas Supreme Court has made
24 c1ear n 1exas, we have a doctrne that documents
2S produced -- even where there's a protectve order, a
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR933
OCTOBER 18, 2013
18
1 p1ant11's counse1 can -- can share those documents
2 wth other current or -- or 1uture 1tgants aganst
2 those same de1endants.
4 So our pont s ths: 1hey have an
S ob1gaton to show the Court under the ru1e on
6 protectve orders -- 1've 1ooked at so many ru1es
7 1ate1y. 1s t 192?
8 under the ru1e on protectve orders,
9 they've got to come n and show you that they need ths
10 protecton. We have no prob1em wth settng up a
11 procedure 1or how we dea1 gong 1orward. We ust have a
12 prob1em and we announced ths n court the 1ast tme we
12 were here. We're 1ne wth dong t, but our prob1em s
14 exc1udng Mr. 8athbun 1rom beng ab1e to he1p hs w1e
1S as she prepares her case.
16 1hey can characterze t that, oh, what
17 our motvaton s, we don't want to name hm as a
18 consu1tant. We don't have any ob1gaton. Mr. 8athbun
19 s a 1act wtness and he's the spouse o1 the p1ant11.
20 un1ess they show you some compe11ng
21 reasons 1or why you shou1d carve hm out and keep hm
22 out o1 ths, then -- then he shou1d be a11owed to, that
22 s, to have access to these documents and consu1t wth
24 her -- wth hs w1e and be -- and her attorneys on ths
2S matter.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR934
OCTOBER 18, 2013
19
1 So you know, there's a coup1e o1 thngs
2 they've asked 1or that even n -- that, you know, one o1
2 them ths -- ths askng -- 1 can't qute 1gure out
4 what s the moton n 1mne and what s the moton 1or
S protectve order.
6 1he -- 1 guess t's the moton n 1mne
7 that says we can't ta1k to Mr. 8athbun. ue can't te11
8 us anythng about hs 20 years n the Church o1
9 Scento1ogy, et cetera, et cetera.
10 M8. SLuCL8: Yes, sr. 1hat s a
11 separate moton that we'11 take up next.
12 M8. JLII8LY: 1her motons, at 1east what
12 we've been gven, say nothng about why they're entt1ed
14 to ths or what -- what the spec1c n1ormaton s.
1S 1hat's not rea11y the -- you know, we have
16 pretty 1bera1 p1eadng ru1es n 1exas. 1t's a notce
17 p1eadngs. We're 1tera11y not on notce o1 what t s
18 they c1am s ether con1denta1 or -- or what ther
19 ust1caton s 1or dong ths.
20 8estrctng Mr. 8athbun and Mrs. 8athbun
21 and ther attorneys 1rom ta1kng s a pror restrant on
22 1ree speech, presumptve1y unconsttutona1. ^nd n
22 essence, what they're askng 1or s a gag order on -- on
24 Mr. and Mrs. 8athbun and the attorneys n ths case.
2S 1he other thng s we have on 11e among
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR935
OCTOBER 18, 2013
20
1 the court records the a11davt o1 Mr. 8athbun. ^nd
2 they are, n essence, askng that that be sea1ed.
2 1hey're sayng that that must not be dssemnated.
4 We11, 1ast tme 1 checked, t's a pub1c record on 11e
S wth the court and ava1ab1e to anyone who wants t.
6 11 they want to ask 1or a sea1ng o1
7 records, they have to comp1y wth 8u1e 76{a). 1hey
8 haven't even made an attempt. 1nstead what they have
9 done s -- s 11ed ust a p1an van11a moton that
10 says here's the re1e1 we want wthout gvng us any
11 authorty or any partcu1ar n1ormaton that needs to be
12 protected.
12 1hat's where we are, Your uonor. ^nd we
14 thnk t's a very mportant pont. ^nd there's no
1S reason to exc1ude Mr. 8athbun 1rom assstng hs w1e
16 and her attorneys n ths case.
17 1uL C0u81: Mr. Spencer, what was t on
18 page one that you suggested was a change or s t
19 ust --
20 M8. SLuCL8: 1her proposed change s on
21 page two and t wou1d add.
22 1uL C0u81: 8ut t's under --
22 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's under 8, Your uonor,
24 1tt1e 8oman numera1 two.
2S M8. SLuCL8: 1hey wou1d add the words
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR936
OCTOBER 18, 2013
21
1 party and her spouse.
2 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd the party's spouse.
2 M8. JLII8LY: uere s our -- our proposed
4 1anguage rght there on the -- on the -- under 8 t says
S the party and her spouse.
6 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd, Your uonor, may 1
7 respond to -- to -- to the comments by Mr. 8ay?
9 M8. CL01ll0: Mr. 8ay says, what s the
10 compe11ng reason. ^nd t goes back, Judge, to -- to
11 what you wrest1ed wth on the moton to dsqua11y. 1he
12 compe11ng reason s that that -- and counse1 s -- s
12 admttng t. 1her poston s that Mr. 8athbun has
14 speca1zed know1edge. ue has that speca1zed
1S know1edge because 1or 20 years he was head o1 the 1ega1
16 a11ars o1 the company.
17 ^11 o1 the authorty that Mr. Spencer
18 brought be1ore you on the moton to dsqua11y, a11 o1
19 that wou1d kck n. us queston, dent1y wth
20 partcu1arty or spec1cty the con1denta1
21 n1ormaton tse11 -- Judge, the authorty that you're
22 gven and 1 know that you 1ooked at and you wrest1ed
22 hard because that's a very thought1u1 order that you
24 presented to us, you're 1ookng to -- to -- to do
2S somethng short o1 dsqua11caton. You're 1ookng 1or
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR937
OCTOBER 18, 2013
22
1 the 1esser measure.
2 1he 1esser measure, Your uonor, s not
2 gong to be acheved 1 you a11ow them to end-run and
4 say, we11, because he's the spouse, then we're not gong
S to app1y what shou1d be app1ed under the
6 dsqua11caton and the rrebuttab1e presumpton that
7 someone n that poston who ganed that speca1zed
8 know1edge by beng n that poston s someone that they
9 ought not to be consu1tng wth, and 1 they had, then
10 they need to be dsqua11ed.
11 We asked 1or that. We understand your
12 answer. You sad, gve us a 1esser measure. We're here
12 wth a 1esser measure. ^nd -- and t s not a 8u1e 72
14 or a gag-order-type stuaton, Your uonor. You mpose
1S ob1gatons o1 not communcatng wth spouses every tme
16 that -- that the ury box s 111ed.
17 What we're 1ookng 1or s to keep
18 somethng con1denta1 under the -- the order that the
19 Western 0strct -- the 1orm that the Western 0strct
20 has approved, whch s what we're workng under.
21 1he who1e spousa1 communcaton thng,
22 Judge, 1 you begn 1ookng at t as a prv1ege, t
22 works very, very d11erent1y. Spousa1 communcaton s
24 such that you can't compe1 them to test1y aganst each
2S other. You keep that n con1dence 1or that reason.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR938
OCTOBER 18, 2013
22
1 1hs s a stuaton where they want to use
2 spousa1 communcaton to render vod the very
2 protectons that the Western 0strct mode1 order wou1d
4 be gvng us.
S 1hey're sayng, you know, we rea11y want
6 to rewrte Secton 2{a) because we're gong to say
7 ndependent experts and consu1tants, except that 1 you
8 don't want to name an ndependent expert -- and you
9 heard Mr. 8ay te11 you that Mr. 8athbun has speca1zed
10 know1edge. 1hat's the de1nton o1 an expert, or a
11 consu1tant, someone that can assst.
12 What they're sayng s 1et's ust ca11 hm
12 a spouse and t won't 1a11 under 2{a) because 1 t dd
14 1a11 under 2{a), Your uonor, we're back to the moton
1S 1or dsqua11caton and you're not gvng us the 1esser
16 measure and so we wou1d be nsstng on the
17 dsqua11caton. 1he on1y way we can get the e11ectve
18 1esser measure that 1 thnk you're urgng us to come up
19 wth s 1 you get the spouse not to be nc1uded.
20 uow, 1et's make sure that we understand
21 the -- the 1ne 1ne, Your uonor. ^t the end -- or
22 towards the end o1 hs comments, Mr. 8ay was sayng, you
22 know, he's gong to be a 1act wtness. 1here are many
24 1actua1 matters that the spouse s gong to be a11owed
2S or -- or w11 be test1yng on.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR939
OCTOBER 18, 2013
24
1 ^nd -- and the -- and the Western 0strct
2 mode1 order wou1d n no way a11ect ther ab1ty to have
2 the spouse's partcpaton n those thngs. We're not
4 tryng to drve a wedge between husband and w1e or to
S keep them 1rom beng ab1e to -- to, you know, com1ort
6 each other or dscuss wth each other the 1actua1
7 a11egatons that are beng made o1 the husband.
8 1 suspect 1'm gong to have a chance to
9 cross-examne hm some day on the e11ects o1 -- or -- or
10 the man1estatons o1 the a11eged emotona1 dstress.
11 Certan1y he's n a poston to gve 1act testmony on
12 that. 1hat's not what ths order wou1d be touchng. 1t
12 wou1d be precse1y what Mr. 8ay has used n hs examp1es
14 to us. 1hey want to use hm sayng, we11, because o1
1S who he s and who he was and what he's done, he's n a
16 partcu1ar poston to be ab1e to come n and he1p us.
17 We11, that's -- under -- under the
18 authortes that were argued 1ast tme -- and 1'm not
19 gong to argue those agan -- that's what we were
20 addressng 1ast tme. 1hat's why he shou1d not be --
21 and that's why the dsqua11caton wou1d go 1orward.
22 ^nd 1 don't want to rehash a11 o1 that,
22 Judge. You put an order together that sad a 1esser
24 measure. 11 you nc1ude the spouse, then t's not a
2S 1esser measure at a11. You're -- you're a11owng them
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR940
OCTOBER 18, 2013
2S
1 to -- to -- to have 1u11 access to someone who has
2 speca1zed know1edge whch they shou1dn't have because
2 o1 the way he acqured t.
4 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, may 1 respond?
S 1uL C0u81: 8re11y.
6 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, we, too, have
7 read your order. Your order was not an order sayng,
8 hey, come back and get some knd o1 extra measures.
9 Your order sad that ths same canard that they're
10 argung now does not app1y to ths case.
11 1hs s the 1rst sentence 1rom your
12 order: Lach o1 the cases cted by CS1 that estab1shed
12 the standards 1or use o1 ether rrebuttab1e or
14 rebuttab1e presumptons nvo1ved emp1oyees o1 1aw 1rms
1S or 1tgants who 1or varous reasons swtched sdes, 1
16 you w11, mdstream.
17 Your uonor 1ound that -- that ths who1e
18 area o1 ust sayng con1denta1, you know about what
19 went on behnd the scenes and we don't have to show
20 harm, we don't have to show that t's actua11y a trade
21 secret or an attorney-c1ent prv1eged matter, you --
22 you have ponted out that those cases do not app1y to
22 our stuaton, so we dd read that.
24 1he ru1es that -- the 1exas ru1es
2S spec1ca11y recognze that spouses are d11erent 1rom
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR941
OCTOBER 18, 2013
26
1 everybody e1se. Spouses are exempted 1rom the
2 exc1usonary ru1e. 1he spouse can attend depostons.
2 1he spouse can st n on the testmony durng the tra1.
4 Mr. 8athbun w11 sgn o11 on what everyone
S under the con1denta1ty order s requred to sgn o11
6 on, that he won't dssemnate t anywhere. We're
7 ta1kng on1y about communcatons between Mrs. 8athbun
8 and Mr. 8athbun and the attorneys 1or Mrs. 8athbun.
9 So once agan, as 1 maybe nart1u11y tred
10 to pont out n my ear1er remarks, you have ponted out
11 we're not under those cases that say, hey, these
12 corporatons don't have to show that there's a trade
12 secret nvo1ved or that there's somethng that the 1aw
14 recognzes as con1denta1. 1hose cases don't app1y.
1S So there1ore, where are they. ^nd we wrote to them a
16 1etter and sad, 1 you have some matera1s that you
17 have a concern about, you can dent1y them 1or us by
18 category. You know how t s n the typca1 case:
19 rcng n1ormaton, customer 1sts, b1ah, b1ah, b1ah.
20 We11, you sent us away 1rom here
21 1ve weeks ago to go do some dscovery. 1he dscovery
22 was some depostons and document producton. 8y the
22 way, they've responded to the document producton and
24 gven us zero, not one mo1ecu1e o1 producton and -- and
2S what they've sad s, we're not gong to do depostons.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR942
OCTOBER 18, 2013
27
1 We're not gong to do document producton. We're not
2 gong to do anythng unt1 we get a protectve order.
2 ^nd 1 you remember the context o1 ths
4 overa11 case, t's a war by the Church o1 Scento1ogy
S aganst Mr. 8athbun and -- and they nc1uded
6 Mrs. 8athbun n that and attacked her vcous1y.
7 1hs s ust an -- an attempt n the
8 courtroom to contnue that same war. We're gong to --
9 we're gong to attack Mr. 8athbun throughout ths case,
10 but Mr. 8athbun cannot 1ook at any o1 the dscovery
11 matera1s we produced.
12 1hey have not made a showng to you -- to
12 you, Your uonor, under the good cause standard or any
14 other standard that -- that ths protecton they're
1S askng 1or, whch s that Mr. 8athbun not be ab1e to see
16 these matera1s, s ust1ed.
17 1uL C0u81: uow wou1d that work,
18 Mr. Ced11o, when we get to tra1 1 the husband s
19 a11owed to st n the case, he's a 1act wtness and --
20 and he can't -- n sttng at counse1 tab1e wth hs
21 spouse --
22 M8. CL01ll0: We11, Your uonor --
22 1uL C0u81: -- can't ta1k about the --
24 what some o1 the other testmony s 1rom other
2S wtnesses, nc1udng n1ormaton about documents that
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR943
OCTOBER 18, 2013
28
1 may be n evdence or -- that creates a very tenuous
2 stuaton smp1y to manage.
2 M8. CL01ll0: Judge, t's a tenuous
4 stuaton n any tra1 that s a1ways managed. 8ecause
S the spouse s a11owed to st n a courtroom and not
6 exc1uded under the ru1e, that doesn't a11ow that spouse
7 to go and te11 wtnesses that are comng up what s
8 gong on. ue's -- he's exc1uded 1rom the app1caton o1
9 the ru1e, but he's st11 under the -- t's an excepton.
10 1he ru1e st11 app1es to --
11 1uL C0u81: 1 understand that. 8ut 1'm
12 ta1kng about then hs ab1ty to dscuss thngs wth
12 hs spouse, the party and,or the party's attorney.
14 M8. CL01ll0: We be1eve, Your uonor,
1S that -- that the --
16 1uL C0u81: 1hat's somethng that s not
17 norma11y managed.
18 M8. CL01ll0: We11, t's somethng that
19 sn't norma11y managed, Your uonor, because norma11y n
20 a -- n a spousa1 re1atonshp, one o1 the spouses sn't
21 someone that s 11ng a11davts, runnng the b1ogs,
22 encouragng peop1e to stea1 documents and brng them to
22 hm because he'11 gve them 1ega1 protecton.
24 1 mean, Mr. 8ay wants to turn every 1ega1
2S argument that we're havng here nto a ury argument
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR944
OCTOBER 18, 2013
29
1 and -- and we can do that, too. 0kay. We're askng the
2 Court to 1ocus on -- on the -- on the -- the standards
2 1or -- 1or protecton under the protectve order.
4 1hat's a 1ega1 argument, Your uonor.
S 1he -- the pont that -- that he's makng
6 about, you know, ths s an attack on Mr. 8athbun --
7 Your uonor, ths s Mr. 8athbun's attack on the church
8 whch s consstent wth everythng he's been dong. ue
9 ust so happened to use hs w1e ths tme as the
10 vehc1e 1or the attack thnkng that somehow he wou1d
11 have the best o1 both wor1ds. ue wou1d be nsu1ated
12 because he's not a party and yet st11 be nvo1ved.
12 11 he was a drect party n the attack,
14 Your uonor, we wou1d be havng ths dscusson about --
1S about the protecton wthn the -- the con1nes o1 the
16 protectve order that wou1d app1y to hm as a party and
17 the dsqua11caton moton wou1d take on a d11erent --
18 a d11erent 11avor and a d11erent vent.
19 What he wants to do s crcumvent a11 o1
20 that and come n wth an art1u11y cra1ted excepton,
21 1oopho1e, 1 you w11. 8ut any way you 1ook at t,
22 Judge, t's a head 1ake. You know, she s a pub1c
22 1gure because she has been ncorporated nto hs status
24 as a pub1c 1gure and -- and that goes to a 1ot o1 our
2S de1enses, o1 course, on the Irst ^mendment ssues, on
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR945
OCTOBER 18, 2013
20
1 the prvacy ssues, on the ntentona1 n11cton
2 ssues.
2 We're -- we're -- we're n a stuaton,
4 Your uonor, where we're the ones reactng to the batt1e
S that's been brought to us. 1hey -- they're -- they want
6 to get up and cast themse1ves as the vctm n a11 o1
7 ths, and they're not. ue's practcng hs ndependent
8 re1gon.
9 We have a Irst ^mendment rght. We have
10 propretary rghts 1or -- 1or our trademarks, perhaps
11 copyrght, that any church -- any church wou1d stand
12 be1ore you and have the same poston to advance. ue
12 wants to conduct a busness out o1 hs home where he
14 practces ndependent Scento1ogy. ue wants to charge
1S peop1e money to provde those servces ca11ng t
16 ndependent Scento1ogy. ^nd he's the one that wants to
17 drect ths attack by usng hs w1e and -- and the
18 a11egatons that we've somehow commtted torts aganst
19 her to contnue what he's been dong a11 a1ong.
20 ^nd our de1ense s necessar1y gong to
21 have to center on hm and the 1act that he was who he
22 was and dd what he dd and s dong what he's dong on
22 hs b1ogs and encouragng peop1e to stea1 documents and
24 brng them to hm and -- and o11erng them 1ega1
2S protecton when they do. ^11 o1 that, Judge, s part o1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR946
OCTOBER 18, 2013
21
1 what we have to contend wth.
2 ^nd when that person wants to get n on a
2 1oopho1e to be ab1e to contnue dong ths and 1ookng
4 at our documents so that they can end up on hs b1og or
S end up beng somethng we -- we -- that's not part --
6 1uL C0u81: 1hose are two d11erent
7 thngs, are they not?
8 My pont s ths, that we're probab1y
9 gong to end up wth certan exhbts o11ered that y'a11
10 have a11eged and may have ru1ed that are gong to be
11 con1denta1 -- they're gong to be 1ound con1denta1.
12 M8. CL01ll0: Yes, sr.
12 1uL C0u81: 0kay. ^nd we're gong to have
14 a tra1. 1hat's gong to be n evdence. ^nd wh1e
1S that's n evdence, he's gong to be sttng there at
16 counse1 tab1e or nearby wth hs spouse.
17 M8. CL01ll0: We11, Your uonor, 1 don't
18 know that they'11 be n evdence, number one, dependng
19 on the document. 1 mean, 1 t's somethng that s
20 con1denta1 and attorneys' eyes on1y and -- and there's
21 room 1or that document to never see the 1ght o1 day n
22 a courtroom -- 1 do ths n 1edera1 court a11 the
22 tme -- we go through a very e1aborate process. ^ 1ot
24 o1 stu11 s deemed con1denta1.
2S 11 t -- 1 t nvo1ved the secret 1ormu1a
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR947
OCTOBER 18, 2013
22
1 1or Coca-Co1a, Your uonor, or the -- or the Co1one1's
2 herbs and spces 1or the chcken and that somehow had to
2 be revea1ed attorneys' eyes on1y under a con1denta1
4 order o1 protecton n dscovery, they get to see that.
S 1hat document wth the spces and the Coke 1ormu1a, that
6 never gets ntroduced nto evdence.
7 1uL C0u81: 0r there's testmony re1evant
8 thereto, maybe not -- my -- my dscusson mght be
9 nart1u11y espoused. My pont s there mght be some
10 testmony re1evant to con1denta1 n1ormaton and so
11 t's gong to be out on counse1 tab1e. 1 mean, we --
12 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor -- my on1y
12 answer, Judge, s we've got to dea1 wth that when we're
14 there dependng on the document, dependng on the
1S crcumstance, dependng on what protectons we can --
16 1uL C0u81: 0r 1et's put t n the -- n
17 the terms o1 a deposton.
18 M8. CL01ll0: 1 thnk t's a -- t's a --
19 the same procedure -- same 11avor, you know, d11erent
20 ce cream cone, but we have to dea1 wth t as t came
21 up, Your uonor. 1 mean, you know --
22 1uL C0u81: 1'm ust -- does that mean we
22 stop the deposton at a certan pont to say that a
24 certan person who otherwse s entt1ed to be present
2S under the ru1es has to be exc1uded 1or 1S mnutes or
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR948
OCTOBER 18, 2013
22
1 somethng 1ke that?
2 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd we do that n
2 depostons a11 the tme, Your uonor, where we say ths
4 s on1y 1or attorneys' eyes. 1t's gong to be
S attorneys' ears. We desgnate ths q&^ porton o1 the
6 deposton as con1denta1, attorneys' eyes on1y. 1he
7 court reporter has to do that on the spot and then we
8 te11 them when t stopped.
9 1n patent 1tgaton when we get to, you
10 know, some trade secrets that were never put nto a
11 patent, 1've had udges n 1edera1 court c1ear the
12 courtroom and we sea1 t 1or the -- there's a 1edera1
12 procedure 1or that, but we -- we conduct the tra1 st11
14 respectng a11 o1 those con1dences.
1S 1he Western order s wrtten, you know,
16 to -- to -- as a 1ramework or a base so that a11 o1 that
17 can st11 be happenng because, you know, Judge, you
18 can't be a 1tt1e bt pregnant on ths. 11 you dsc1ose
19 somethng and t's waved, t's waved. ^nd so the
20 order s to 1ook at t 1or the protecton.
21 ^nd 1 know t's not a very good answer to
22 te11 you we have to do t on a case-by-case bass, but
22 the practca1 answer s that's done a11 the tme because
24 that's the on1y way to do t.
2S M8. JLII8LY: 8ut you're not dea1ng, Your
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR949
OCTOBER 18, 2013
24
1 uonor, wth norma1 1tgants. 1hey've estab1shed that
2 over -- over severa1 decades. We sent them dscovery n
2 1urtherance o1 -- o1 the -- n 1urtherance o1 the
4 ursdctona1 ssues to whch they gave us no
S documents.
6 ^nd ust to gve you one examp1e, we asked
7 them -- now mnd you, ths s the partes c1amng that
8 there's no ursdcton over them n 1exas and they do
9 nothng n 1exas. We asked them 1or documents -- or any
10 documents or vdeotapes, et cetera, o1 surve11ance they
11 have done n the state o1 1exas. 1hey obected and sad
12 that was a trade secret.
12 So what's gong to happen, 1or examp1e, at
14 depostons s they're gong to say everythng s
1S con1denta1. ^nd so we'11 constant1y be havng to run
16 back here to court and gettng the Court to ru1e that,
17 n 1act, Mr. 8athbun, 1 that's the case, may -- may st
18 n on the deposton, that that's rea11y not
19 con1denta1.
20 1hs -- ths s a stuaton that s rpe
21 1or abuse by them and -- and -- and 1 ust thnk t s a
22 reasonab1e and norma1 accommodaton gven that the --
22 the -- the ru1es recognze that a spouse s d11erent
24 1rom other partes and that Mr. 8athbun, 1 he s
2S nc1uded n the protectve order, w11 be subect to
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR950
OCTOBER 18, 2013
2S
1 contempt o1 court and w11 have to keep the matera1s
2 con1denta1.
2 1hey -- they are sort o1 re1erencng that
4 maybe he'11 stck these on hs b1og or somethng 1ke
S that. uo. 1hs s pure1y so that he and hs w1e and
6 ther -- and her attorneys can -- can ta1k about these
7 thngs and we can have the bene1t o1 hs experence,
8 none o1 whch s mproper.
9 1hnk about every product 1ab1ty case
10 aganst 6enera1 Motors or Irestone tres or the te1 --
11 the -- the cgarette companes. Iormer company
12 emp1oyees cooperate wth and ta1k to the p1ant11s'
12 counse1 and to the p1ant11s a11 the tme. 1he on1y
14 queston s, s t about a matter that s a trade secret
1S or prv1eged n some way. 1hey st11 have not ponted
16 to anythng that s a trade secret or prv1ege and made
17 that argument to you.
18 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 understand. ^nd --
19 and 1 -- 1've got the 1ramework o1 the ssue here and
20 1'11 -- 1'11 probab1y do a 1tt1e bt o1 research on my
21 own.
22 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, 1 you a11ow me,
22 one 1ast thng to pont out: 1he person you're hearng
24 argung -- 1'm not assertng a speca1 appearance. ue's
2S argung that the peop1e 1ghtng ursdcton s dong
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR951
OCTOBER 18, 2013
26
1 ^, 8 or C. You're not hearng 1rom them. 1've
2 answered. 1'm here.
2 M8. JLII8LY: 8ut they are 11ng the
4 moton 1or protectve order on beha11 o1 the speca11y
S appearng de1endants. 1hs s to cover a11 o1 the
6 dscovery n the case.
7 M8. JLIIL8S0u: Just very bre11y, Your
8 uonor, we dd 11e a speca1 appearance. ^nd because we
9 11ed a speca1 appearance, we're constraned n what
10 a11 we cou1d do -- we can do and the postons we can
11 take wthout makng t a genera1 appearance.
12 1hat s the on1y reason why we have a
12 1mted nvo1vement n the case to ths pont. We hope
14 that the speca1 appearance w11 be sustaned. 1'm not
1S sure what he's re1errng to n hs comp1ant about --
16 about our dscovery responses. We'11 obvous1y ta1k --
17 that -- that's 1or another day.
18 We're gong to provde whatever documents
19 we're gong to provde on ursdctona1 ssues once
20 there s a protectve order n p1ace that 1mts the
21 dssemnaton o1 that n1ormaton that -- and we ta1ked
22 about ths the 1ast tme we were n 1ront o1 the Court,
22 that we wanted to have a protectve order n p1ace
24 be1ore we proceeded wth dscovery. ^nd that's why
2S we're here today because we cou1dn't work out the terms.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR952
OCTOBER 18, 2013
27
1 8ut 1 -- ust very bre11y on -- on one
2 1ast pont. 1t's them who are askng 1or the excepton.
2 We're not askng 1or an excepton 1rom the 1orm that s
4 n the Western 0strct. 1t's the p1ant11 that s
S askng 1or an excepton to the 1orm to a11ow a spouse.
6 1hat's a sgn1cant devaton 1rom what
7 s n the Western 0strct 1orm and -- and t's -- the
8 reason why we're askng 1or t s c1ear, but we're n
9 agreement other than that one devaton that they're
10 askng 1or n the -- n the 1orm o1 the -- o1 the
11 Western 0strct protectve order.
12 1uL C0u81: 0kay. lke 1 sad, 1 thnk
12 1've got the 1ramework and -- and 1 understand what
14 we're dea1ng wth.
1S 1s there some partcu1ar deposton or
16 somethng -- or dscovery that s due on a short 1use,
17 n other words, that 1 need to make a ru1ng?
18 M8. JLII8LY: We11, they won't gve us any
19 documents or do any depostons unt1 there s a
20 protectve order 1ramework n p1ace. So that s -- that
21 does make t s1ght1y tme-senstve.
22 1uL C0u81: 0kay.
22 M8. JLIIL8S0u: 1here's not a deposton
24 set now. Correct?
2S 1uL C0u81: So we ddn't get the ones done
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR953
OCTOBER 18, 2013
28
1 1ast week or two weeks ago?
2 M8. JLIIL8S0u: 1hose got reset.
2 M8. JLII8LY: 1hose are a11 rght now --
4 n 1act, today we shou1d be ssung a11 o1 the
S deposton notces on them because we've been gettng
6 the dates 1rom a11 o1 the counse1.
7 8ut the one c1ar1caton 1 wou1d 1ke
8 1rom -- 1rom Mr. Ced11o s, he sad that they're not
9 opposng the -- the dscovery that's a1ready ongong.
10 We11, there are two -- two depostons that are -- have
11 been schedu1ed and now are beng reschedu1ed. 1hat s
12 1ommy 0avs and leah 8emn.
12 1s that nc1uded n there, or do we -- do
14 we need to 1ght over that?
1S M8. CL01ll0: We11, 1 haven't been part o1
16 those dscussons, and 1 apo1ogze 1or that.
17 1uL C0u81: We11, 1'11 probab1y 1et y'a11
18 have that dscusson outsde the courtroom.
19 M8. CL01ll0: What 1 was attemptng to
20 convey, Your uonor, was that we have been n dscussons
21 and 1 be1eve that there are depostons that we've
22 agreed -- maybe we got to work on schedu1es or whatever.
22 We're not tryng to get those thrown out and get back to
24 square one or any o1 that.
2S 11 there are others that we are st11 -- 1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR954
OCTOBER 18, 2013
29
1 mean, the on1y answer 1 can gve s that when he notces
2 t, then we'11 react to t 1 t's, you know --
2 1uL C0u81: 0kay.
4 M8. CL01ll0: When do you want to -- 1
S thnk we've gven you dates.
6 M8. JLII8LY: 1 thnk we have dates on a11
7 o1 the depostons. 1t's ust a matter o1 ssung the
8 notces, whch we're gong to do today, so --
9 M8. CL01ll0: 1here w11 be some, Your
10 uonor, that we w11 agree wth. 1here may be some, when
11 1 get hs notces, that -- 1'm reservng my rght to
12 react to those.
12 My openng remark was on1y to make very
14 c1ear that we are not takng the poston that Chapter
1S 27 wou1d a11ow us to take, and that s that everythng
16 shuts down. We're not dong that.
17 11 we've a1ready agreed on -- on the names
18 and the tmes and the p1aces o1 peop1e, those are gong
19 1orward. 11 we have not agreed on the names and p1aces
20 and tmes o1 peop1e, we'11 contnue dscussng that, and
21 1 we have to assert obectons, we w11.
22 1uL C0u81: 0kay. ^nd 1 understand we
22 have -- there s another moton that we w11 probab1y
24 end up takng up a1ter 1unch because 1've got a bar
2S meetng that 1 need to go to. 1'm supposed to be
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR955
OCTOBER 18, 2013
40
1 ava1ab1e to answer questons. 1hat's the on1y reason
2 1'm rea11y needng to go.
2 M8. SLuCL8: 1here s an mportant moton
4 that we need to take up. ^nd t probab1y wou1d be wse
S to take t up a1ter 1unch, or at the Court's p1easure.
6 1uL C0u81: 1hs bar meetng starts here
7 n 1ve mnutes. 1 probab1y need to run to t, so --
8 but we'11 ust be back here about 1:20.
9 M8. SLuCL8: 1:20.
10 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, may we 1eave our
11 thngs here?
12 1uL C0u81: We'11 1ock t up. You're
12 we1come to 1eave t there.
14 {lunch recess)
1S 1uL C0u81: Sometmes you have epphany
16 when you're eatng 1ood, but te11 me why -- ths s ust
17 a matter o1 1aw ssue rght now. 8ut why shou1d the
18 con1denta1ty -- assumng there s somethng that s
19 1abe1ed and he1d to be con1denta1, why shou1d t app1y
20 at ths stage o1 the game when we're ta1kng about ust
21 a matter o1 1aw ssues and not matters o1 1act 1ater on
22 down -- 1ater on down the road?
22 1 ust thought that that seemng1y to me
24 rght now wh1e we're ust gong through these
2S ursdctona1 ssues, that maybe t rea11y doesn't
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR956
OCTOBER 18, 2013
41
1 matter.
2 M8. CL01ll0: 11 1 understand the Court's
2 nqury, the protectons that are a11orded to a
4 con1denta1 document do not turn on whether or not
S the -- the use n the case s gong to be 1or purposes
6 o1 -- o1 1ega1 ana1yss or 1or 1actua1 deve1opment.
7 1he -- the con1denta1ty wou1d app1y
8 because o1 what cou1d be done wth that n1ormaton n
9 mproper hands, 1or examp1e, that -- that -- that's the
10 mmedate examp1e that comes to me. You don't --
11 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 -- but my pont s, t
12 keeps t out o1 the pub1c's eyes.
12 M8. CL01ll0: 0r -- or use n -- n --
14 Your uonor, what --
1S 1uL C0u81: 1t keeps 6oodyear 1rom havng
16 to -- to come up wth a new tre 1ormu1a.
17 M8. CL01ll0: Lxact1y, or -- or to use t
18 compettve1y to ther advantage somewhere e1se.
19 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 there was a
20 protectve order post-1tgaton, anybody who dd have
21 access to whatever n1ormaton durng 1tgaton,
22 wou1dn't that at 1east be a 1ayer o1 protecton? ^nd
22 obvous1y t wou1d -- t wou1d subect somebody to --
24 to, at the very 1east, contempt o1 court 1 they
2S vo1ated t?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR957
OCTOBER 18, 2013
42
1 M8. CL01ll0: 1 can't dsagree or argue
2 wth -- wth that as 1ar as t goes, Your uonor. 8ut
2 what was -- what's gong on here, ths s one skrmsh
4 n a batt1e that has many, many 1ronts.
S 11 the Court -- 1 the Court can get an
6 apprecaton o1 how ths cou1d be used and s beng used
7 n 1tgaton that Mr. 8athbun s nstgatng n,
8 partcpatng n, nstrumenta1 n ursdctons across
9 ths country and, qute 1rank1y, Your uonor, across the
10 wor1d. ue s nvo1ved n -- n -- hs attempts n
11 p1aces beyond the borders o1 ths country. 1he
12 con1denta1ty --
12 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, 1 need to
14 obect. 1'm sorry, they keep sayng ths. ue has been
1S ca11ed as a wtness n some cases. ^nd 1 ust can't st
16 here and 1et them go on and on about how he's
17 nstgatng 1tgaton anywhere.
18 M8. CL01ll0: 1'm answerng the Court's
19 queston, Your uonor. ^nd 1 wou1d apprecate dong t
20 wthout nterruptons. 1hat's a11 he's dong s
21 nterruptng. 1here's no ury here he's p1ayng to. ue
22 may be p1ayng to the move cameras. 1'm tryng to
22 answer your queston.
24 1he con1denta1ty protectons, Your
2S uonor, are g1oba1. 1t's a thou sha11 not, and that
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR958
OCTOBER 18, 2013
42
1 covers us 1or thngs that we can't even magne or
2 conceve that mght be on hs agenda.
2 1t's -- your order wou1d have to be
4 respected and then we've got -- we've got the water1ront
S covered. 1 don't know what a11 he's gong to do wth
6 t. 1 don't have to know 1 1 have the -- the
7 protecton and -- and the order ust1ed here. 1t
8 has -- t has that e11ect.
9 1hat's why -- the dstncton the Court s
10 makng that -- you know, we11, maybe at the stage when
11 we're dea1ng wth ssues o1 1aw, t may not be as
12 mportant as 1 we get nto the 1act, you know,
12 app1caton and so 1orth. 1hat's where the
14 dstncton -- a1though t may app1y n many, many
1S cases, 1 don't thnk t qut 1ts our stuaton s -- s
16 the answer 1 wou1d gve you.
17 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 thnk, agan, we get
18 ust nto the ba1ancng o1 --
19 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd, Judge, on the ba1ancng
20 part --
21 1uL C0u81: -- a 1ot o1 ssues because 1'm
22 one -- and 1'm sure that everybody n ths room s ust
22 as -- or at 1east as to maybe d11erng -- obvous1y
24 everybody s d11erent. So to d11erng degrees, but
2S 1'm very much a proponent o1 the sanctty o1 marrage
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR959
OCTOBER 18, 2013
44
1 and husband and w1e and that t -- t -- t's ust --
2 un1ess there s some, you know, mmedate, overarchng,
2 crtca1, mperatve ssue that cannot be otherwse
4 nsu1ated --
S M8. CL01ll0: ^nd 1 have --
6 1uL C0u81: -- by way o1 a protectve
7 order that's n ths stuaton -- 1 hate to nvade that
8 sanctty.
9 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd 1've got two answers 1or
10 that, Your uonor. ^nd 1 had ths epphany when 1 was
11 havng my sandwch, be1eve t or not. We are not
12 seekng any b1ockng o1 communcaton that wou1d take
12 p1ace n any case that wou1d be n 1ront o1 you where
14 the -- the spouse wasn't possessed o1 ths speca1zed
1S know1edge acqured n the way Mr. 8athbun wou1d have t.
16 1n other words, 1 -- 1 ths was a case
17 where he had no connecton as he does here, there wou1d
18 be no menton -- 1 wou1d agree to the spouse beng
19 added, that's 1ne. We -- that spouse n that
20 stuaton, Your uonor, wou1d be engaged n a11 the --
21 the -- the sanctty-type communcatons that a norma1
22 husband and w1e wou1d have. 1hey wou1d be there to see
22 each other through t, ho1d ther hands, ta1k t
24 through, gve com1ort, a11 o1 the thngs that you want
2S to 1oster, and we're not attemptng to -- to prevent hm
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR960
OCTOBER 18, 2013
4S
1 1rom dong any o1 that.
2 1he best way, 1 thought o1 t actua11y
2 over 1unch was, s 1 you segregate away what he has
4 done and how he has done t and where he has been and
S why they want hm to be an expert and a speca1zed -- a
6 speca1zed know1edge expert -- and counse1 was very
7 1orthcomng wth you. ue sad, he has speca1zed
8 know1edge. 1hat's an expert. ue -- we need to consu1t
9 wth hm. 1hat's a consu1tant.
10 11 -- 1 the husband was not n a poston
11 to provde those two, he wou1d be n a -- n a
12 re1atonshp wth the w1e where they cou1d gve each
12 other a11 o1 the com1ort and ta1k and do everythng and
14 nobody up here wou1d be sayng boo.
1S 8ut ths s the stuaton that they're
16 creatng. ^nd, Judge, 1 mean, qute 1rank1y, he's
17 manu1acturng t. 0ne o1 the thngs that s very
18 ronc -- you know, counse1 wants to te11 you about, you
19 know, 1tgous hstory or our sports dearth and so
20 1orth.
21 Your uonor, he has admtted that -- that
22 whatever reputaton we have as a church 1or beng
22 1tgous, he orchestrated and created t and was the
24 movng 1orce behnd t. ^nd -- and then he gets to
2S Wkpeda what we are because that's what we were when
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR961
OCTOBER 18, 2013
46
1 he was runnng everythng.
2 We have had remarkab1e peace snce he
2 exted. 1he on1y wars we have are the ones he keeps
4 brngng up. We were ab1e to sett1e thngs that had
S been ragng 1or 20 years wth the 18S. We were ab1e to
6 sett1e a11 knds o1 1tgaton he had been nvo1ved n.
7 M8. JLII8LY: May 1 obect to ths
8 argumentaton, Your uonor?
9 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's ronc.
10 M8. JLII8LY: 1a1k about ury arguments.
11 M8. CL01ll0: 1'm tryng to answer your
12 queston, Your uonor. 1hat s who the spouse s n ths
12 case.
14 1uL C0u81: 1 understand a11 o1 that
1S 1ramework.
16 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd 1 he wasn't that, then
17 t wou1d be the norma1 case where the spouse can gve
18 whatever com1ort they want on t.
19 1uL C0u81: ^nd, Mr. 8ay, don't we open
20 the door 1or 1uture attacks on my ru1ng regardng
21 the -- the dsqua11caton ssue to the extent that --
22 that t s true that -- that a11 o1 a sudden potenta1
22 con1denta1 n1ormaton mght be used to consu1t wth
24 to whatever degree -- quote, unquote consu1t wth
2S Mr. 8athbun over hs pror know1edge a1ong wth whatever
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR962
OCTOBER 18, 2013
47
1 s con1denta1?
2 M8. JLII8LY: uo, Your uonor.
2 1uL C0u81: uo?
4 M8. JLII8LY: ^nd n 1act, we're dyng to
S do batt1e wth hm on whatever ths supposed
6 con1denta1 n1ormaton s.
7 1he on1y reason why we're n ths somewhat
8 nebu1ous area s they keep tryng to push you nto the
9 ana1yss o1 what happens where -- where an attorney or a
10 nonattorney emp1oyee o1 a party or a 1aw 1rm changes
11 sdes -- changes sde n the same matter, n the same,
12 et cetera.
12 1he pont 1 want to make to you s 1 you
14 1ook, 1or examp1e, at Mr. 8athbun's a11davt that he
1S gave, the a11davt s about ust practces and
16 procedures and how thngs work n that organzaton.
17 1hat's not con1denta1 under any sense o1 protecton
18 that we have 1or protectve orders, et cetera.
19 ^nd 1'11 pont out to the Court -- and
20 we'11 brng them -- Mr. Mscavge and Mr. Cartwrght who
21 s sttng over there, and Warren McShane, one o1 ther
22 other corporate representatves, they have gven
22 a11davts and sworn dec1aratons 20, 40 pages 1ong
24 gong nto every deta1 o1 how thngs work 1rom ther
2S perspectve.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR963
OCTOBER 18, 2013
48
1 ^11 we have done s gven one a11davt
2 that contradcts what ther party 1ne s about how
2 thngs work. Where s ths con1denta1 stu11? 1hat's
4 what 1 don't understand, and -- and they st11 -- as
S many tmes as 1 ask them, they st11 don't dent1y what
6 the con1denta1 stu11 s. 1nstead they want to say --
7 1uL C0u81: We11, we're ust not to that
8 pont yet.
9 M8. JLII8LY: Correct.
10 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd, Your uonor, there's --
11 here's the argument you ust heard: ue says, there are
12 ten thngs that -- that are con1denta1. let's say
12 that we cou1d dent1y a unverse -- and 1'11 ust use
14 ten thngs. ^nd he says, sx o1 those thngs have
1S a1ready been dscussed n a11davts, or they're here or
16 they're there. 1e11 me what the other 1our are.
17 M8. JLII8LY: ^11 we asked 1or s
18 categores. We ddn't ask 1or the tems.
19 M8. CL01ll0: Lxcuse me, sr. 1 don't
20 nterrupt you. 1 wou1d apprecate t 1 you ddn't
21 nterrupt me.
22 us argument s, te11 me what the other
22 1our are that we don't know about so we can 1ght about
24 whether or not they're con1denta1.
2S Judge, t doesn't -- t rea11y doesn't
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR964
OCTOBER 18, 2013
49
1 matter that -- that -- that we don't have a stuaton
2 where -- where a -- a para1ega1 1e1t -- you know, went
2 1rom pont ^ to pont 8.
4 1he -- 1 you 1ook at t under the ana1ogy
S 1'm -- 1'm suggestng to you, Your uonor, the -- the
6 reason t's an rrebuttab1e presumpton s because to
7 make t somethng other than rrebuttab1e, 1 wou1d have
8 to dsc1ose the other 1our thngs n order 1or you to
9 decde and the cat's out o1 the bag at that pont.
10 1hat's why t's rrebuttab1e.
11 11 t 1a11s wthn t -- and 1 understand
12 the Court's concern that the cases are not, you know,
12 whte-horse cases, dead on. 1hs s a very unusua1
14 stuaton. 1he pub1c po1cy and the 1ogc n a11 o1
1S those cases that Mr. Spencer argued be1ore you covers a
16 stuaton that 1'm ta1kng about here.
17 We are not -- we are not requred to te11
18 hm what the other 1our thngs are n my examp1e be1ore
19 you ru1e whether or not we were rght. 11 he 1ts n
20 the speca1zed know1edge category, and he does by
21 counse1's own argument and admsson, and they want to
22 use hm as a consu1tant, they want hm to 1t the
22 Western con1denta1ty order n the 1rst part, but
24 they don't want to name hm that way because they thnk
2S they can get t n through the second part by addng the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR965
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S0
1 spouse and that -- and that s somethng the Western
2 0strct order doesn't contemp1ate.
2 1t's not part o1 t and -- and t's not
4 unusua1, Your uonor, because 1 thnk -- 1 thnk rea11y
S what s gong on -- t's presumed that you're gong to
6 go home. You're gong to ta1k to your w1e to whatever
7 extent you need to or want to or have to, but you're
8 not -- t's not contemp1ated you're gong to do t and
9 your w1e happens to be ab1e to say, ah, 1 can now use
10 ths as your consu1tant or as your expert wtness
11 because o1 these crcumstances and be ab1e to assst you
12 and -- and not be under the consu1tant or the -- or the
12 expert wtness coverage n the protectve order.
14 1 mean, they want to put us n a Catch-22
1S by creatng somethng that the Western 0strct 1orm
16 does not contemp1ate and -- and they want us -- ther
17 argument s, gve t a11 up and then we'11 te11 you
18 whether you can respect t or not. ^nd under the 1acts
19 and crcumstances that have us here, Your uonor, that --
20 that -- that's not 1ar.
21 1uL C0u81: 0kay. We11, 1 mean, the
22 thought process about d11erence between matter o1 1aw
22 that's ust knd o1 beng decded here amongst us
24 chckens was a -- potenta11y a -- 1 thought maybe that
2S we cou1d -- that wou1d create a 1ramework wthn whch
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR966
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S1
1 everybody cou1d potenta11y agree. 8ut t sounds 1ke
2 we're not there.
2 1 dd a1so speak to a 1edera1 dstrct
4 udge wthn the I1th Crcut. Just wthout gong nto
S deta1s 1 ust asked does party under the deta1s o1 --
6 or the de1ntons 1or the purposes o1 con1denta1
7 n1ormaton, ust o11 your cu11, wou1d that nc1ude
8 spouse? 1he udge sad, why o1 course. So -- 1 don't
9 know.
10 1 wou1d ust 1ke to thnk whether t's
11 1mted to a matter o1 1aw ssue or a matter o1 1act,
12 that that -- 1 wou1d certan1y 1ke to thnk that a
12 protectve order wou1d be e11cacous, at 1east 1or the
14 tme beng and 1or the purposes o1 ths ursdctona1
1S 1ght -- matter o1 1aw 1ght, 1 -- 1 don't mnd addng
16 the word spouse to that. 8ut 1 thnk once we get beyond
17 ths, 1 probab1y wou1d remove t.
18 So y'a11 are gong to have to manage that
19 because n my mnd, the dea o1 the con1denta1ty s
20 to 1mt the wor1d's access to that n1ormaton. So
21 wh1e we're ust dea1ng wth ssues that are here c1ose
22 to the vest wthn 1ewer 1o1ks, that's my pont, s 1
22 don't thnk t's that bg o1 an ssue to not a11ow
24 spouse to be nc1uded.
2S ^nd does that n any way -- wou1d that
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR967
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S2
1 ru1ng n any way a11ect the other moton, Mr. Spencer?
2 M8. SLuCL8: We11, 1 thnk we need to
2 have a hearng on the second moton. 1t's not
4 dspostve o1 t, no.
S 1uL C0u81: 0kay. 1'm ust kddng.
6 M8. SLuCL8: May 1 proceed?
8 M8. SLuCL8: ^nd, Your uonor, 1
9 notced -- havng been n ths courtroom many tmes, 1
10 was used to beng seated because the mcrophones were at
11 a 1eve1 that was approprate to beng seated. ^nd 1
12 notce 1 was the on1y person not standng up and 1
12 certan1y was not ntendng any dsrespect. May 1 use
14 my usua1 custom and reman seated?
1S 1uL C0u81: You may, abso1ute1y.
16 0ne tme many years ago 1 was n Judge
17 Sutt1e's courtroom as an ntern and he -- 1 had to gve
18 my coat up to a 0L^ agent who ran n the courtroom. ^nd
19 they were makng sure 1 had speca1 dspensaton to
20 reman n the courtroom. ^nd Judge Sutt1e ust 1ke
21 waved them o11, don't waste my tme, 1et the boy st
22 down. 1 1ee1 the same way. 1'm not that partcu1ar.
22 M8. SLuCL8: 1hank you, Your uonor.
24 Your uonor, do you st11 have the bound
2S book1et that 1 1e1t up at the bench, because 1'm gong
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR968
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S2
1 to re1er to a coup1e o1 thngs n there as 1 go a1ong.
2 M8. SLuCL8: Your uonor, the second
4 moton s our moton n 1mne and 1or protectve order,
S whch s 1anguage that we took 1rom the conc1udng
6 paragraph o1 your order denyng the dsqua11caton.
7 ^nd 1 sent -- snce you wrote t, you probab1y don't
8 need to be remnded o1 t very much, but you dd say --
9 and t's under tab -- your order s under tab one.
10 1here on the 1ast page, page eght, you
11 sad, short o1 dsqua11caton, one cou1d 1ook to
12 1esser measure -- measures to 1mt and,or prevent any
12 1urther dsc1osure o1 the a11eged con1denta1
14 n1ormaton.
1S ^nd o1 course, your pont n sayng that
16 was that dsqua11caton s such a severe and harsh
17 remedy as recognzed by the supreme court and many
18 others. 8ut what ths moton ths a1ternoon s --
19 addresses s my attempt -- our attempt to request a
20 1ramework o1 1esser measures, restrctons on
21 p1ant11's counse1, and through them on -- on
22 Mr. 8athbun, that w11 n -- n the words o1 your order,
22 1mt and,or prevent any 1urther dsc1osure o1 -- o1 my
24 c1ent's con1denta1 n1ormaton.
2S ^nd because the 1aw on ths s not
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR969
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S4
1 necessar1y ntutve, wth your permsson 1 wou1d 1ke
2 to go through -- back through a coup1e o1 these cases
2 and bre11y pont out why Mr. Je11rey's arguments about
4 the scope o1 con1denta1 n1ormaton, whch s the
S 1anguage the supreme court has used, and -- and some o1
6 the other thngs that he has sad wth respect to what
7 the 1aw s are, n my opnon, ncorrect.
8 8ut be1ore we get to the cases, 1'd 1ke
9 you, 1 you cou1d, to turn to tab 1our, whch s a copy
10 o1 Mr. 8athbun's a11davt. 1hs -- ths the Court w11
11 reca11 s the a11davt that was attached to the 1rst
12 amended petton that the p1ant11 11ed back n
12 September.
14 ^nd as Mr. Cappucco to1d the Court n an
1S ear1er hearng, they -- they were mnd1u1 o1 the
16 seven-day ru1e that evdence that's gong to come n on
17 a speca1 appearance has to be -- 1 t's n a11davt
18 1orm has to be 11ed at 1east seven days be1ore the
19 hearng.
20 ^nd the way that 1rst speca1 appearance
21 hearng got schedu1ed, they were rea11y under the gun
22 and scramb1ng to get somethng put together. ^nd 1
22 actua11y dd not rea1ze that tme constrant -- or 1
24 hadn't thought o1 t n my head. ^nd 1 want to say
2S about that that 1 -- and 1 thnk your order has been
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR970
OCTOBER 18, 2013
SS
1 he1p1u1 to me as we11, ust persona11y. 1 -- some o1
2 the 1anguage that was used ear1er such as unethca1 or
2 mmora1 or words to that e11ect was -- was ntemperate
4 and not ust1ed.
S 1t's very approprate 1or ths Court to
6 contro1 the -- any 1urther asperson o1 the con1denta1
7 n1ormaton to my c1ent, but 1 thnk t may be gettng
8 carred away sometmes n the moment. 8ut 1 you wou1d
9 turn to that a11davt, and what 1 wou1d 1ke you to
10 1ook at s paragraphs 2S and 26. 1t's tab 1our o1
11 the --
12 1uL C0u81: Yes, sr. 6ot t.
12 M8. SLuCL8: -- bnder 1 handed up. ^nd
14 paragraph 2S -- and 1've hgh1ghted the 1rst 1ne
1S there. 1hs s Mr. 8athbun's descrpton o1 the
16 1awsuts: 11 a 1awsut named or sought dscovery that
17 nvo1ved Mr. Mscavge, 1 oversaw every aspect o1 that
18 1tgaton unt1 Mr. Mscavge was no 1onger subect to
19 nqury.
20 ^nd then he contnues -- and t s
21 paragraph 26 whch we've a1so hgh1ghted, the thng
22 that -- that has come up so many tmes and ust the
22 mportance o1 whch cannot be overemphaszed,
24 Mr. 8athbun says 1or more than 20 years the 011ce o1
2S Speca1 ^11ars, 0S^, o1 the Church o1 Scento1ogy
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR971
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S6
1 1nternatona1 answered to me.
2 ^nd 1 ust remnd the Court that the
2 church -- de1endant, Church o1 Scento1ogy
4 1nternatona1, s Mr. Ced11o and my c1ent.
S Contnung: under the c1ose supervson
6 o1 Mr. Mscavge, 1 drected 0S^'s extensve -- varous
7 thngs nc1udng crmna1 and cv1 1ega1 matters.
8 Mr. 8athbun was the -- was the drector o1
9 1ega1 a11ars 1or two decades o1 our c1ent and -- and
10 1 you 1ook now at -- to go to how the Supreme Court o1
11 1exas has repeated1y characterzed what occurs when
12 somebody n that type o1 a poston or even much 1esser
12 postons swtches sdes, t s very c1ear that
14 restrctons are needed.
1S 11 -- 1 the Court cou1d 1ook -- 1et's
16 1ook 1rst at the 1n 8e ^mercan uomes case, whch s
17 under tab seven -- and 1 wou1d 1ke the Court to 1ook at
18 page 1our. ^nd the 1rst -- on the 1e1t-hand sde o1
19 that page, the part that's hgh1ghted there, the
20 supreme court ponts out that there was an argument n
21 that case about what to ca11 Ms. ve1aquez. Was she a
22 1ree-1ance consu1tant, was she a para1ega1 or even
22 somethng e1se.
24 1hey sad the tt1e s not mportant.
2S What s mportant s that -- as they say n the 1ast
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR972
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S7
1 sentence o1 that hgh1ghted paragraph: 1he tasks she
2 per1ormed were the same as those that mght be executed
2 by a 1ega1 assstant as a 1u11-tme emp1oyee o1 a 1aw
4 1rm or by a 1ega1 assstant n the 1ega1 department o1
S a party.
6 uow, here -- so the ob tt1e sn't
7 mportant, but what 1 wou1d want to emphasze to the
8 Court s, Mr. 8athbun, as expressed n hs a11davt,
9 was dong 1ega1 work and 1ega1 tasks that are so 1ar n
10 excess o1 what a 1ega1 assstant wou1d do that t can
11 scarce1y be put nto words.
12 So that beng true that Mr. -- that
12 despte beng a nonattorney, not ho1dng a -- a state
14 1aw 1cense, Mr. 8athbun was the drector o1 1ega1
1S a11ars. ^nd that beng true -- 1 you 1ook over to the
16 opposte co1umn on that same page 1our, the supreme
17 court says that they had square1y he1d n the ear1er
18 case o1 hoenx Iounders that when a para1ega1 or 1ega1
19 assstant who has worked on a case must be subect to a
20 conc1usve presumpton that con1dences and secrets were
21 mparted. ^nd ths s what Mr. Ced11o was re1errng to
22 n hs argument a moment ago.
22 1hey contnued the -- the need 1or that
24 conc1usve presumpton s exhbted n ths case. 1t
2S served to prevent the movng party 1rom beng 1orced to
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR973
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S8
1 revea1 the very con1dences sought to be protected. ^nd
2 that, o1 course, s, agan, what Mr. Ced11o was
2 emphaszng n hs arguments to you.
4 ^nd drect1y contrary to Mr. Je11rey's
S contnung cha11enge to us that Mr. Ced11o and 1 have
6 to dent1y what the con1dences are, how many there
7 are, what categores they have, a11 o1 that s an
8 argument that was -- that was urged by -- by the -- the
9 1osng party n the ^mercan uome roducts case reected
10 by the supreme court. We need to do none o1 that.
11 1here's a conc1usve presumpton that
12 peop1e even 1unctonng at much 1esser 1eve1s o1 -- o1
12 nvo1vement n 1ega1 a11ars than Mr. 8athbun --
14 1uL C0u81: 8ut t's a11 -- t's a11 the
1S uorp1ant 1tgaton, rght --
16 M8. SLuCL8: Yeah, that case.
17 1uL C0u81: -- or on ths case when
18 they're ctng hoenx?
19 M8. SLuCL8: 1hat's correct.
20 1uL C0u81: ^nd that's not what we're
21 dea1ng wth, and that's --
22 M8. SLuCL8: 1 understand that
22 dstncton and 1 abso1ute1y promse the Court 1'm gong
24 to come to that n ust a moment because you're ta1kng
2S about the substanta1 re1atonshp o1 components,
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR974
OCTOBER 18, 2013
S9
1 that -- that we need to show -- we need to show you why
2 t s that -- that what Mr. 8athbun worked on n
2 20 years has somethng to do wth ths case. ^nd 1
4 abso1ute1y understand that and 1 promse the Court 1
S w11 come to t.
6 8ut be1ore we 1eave the -- ths page o1
7 the ^mercan uome roducts, 1 do want to ust contnue
8 to -- wth -- wth the supreme court's ho1dngs whch
9 rea11y are mportant n drect1y rebuttng and re1utng
10 what Mr. Je11rey has -- has been argung contnuous1y
11 because they say that -- that -- and agan, ths s n
12 that -- on the rght-hand co1umn on that page: 1hat
12 the -- the rsk that a person -- ths s the 1na1
14 sentence o1 -- we11, actua11y there s a 1tt1e bt
1S be1ow t, but the rsk that a person who has 1unctoned
16 as a 1ega1 assstant may dsc1ose con1denta1
17 n1ormaton to a new emp1oyer under crcumstances such
18 as these s unacceptab1y hgh.
19 ^nd need1ess to say, our c1ent says amen
20 to that. 1t s unacceptab1e to us that Mr. 8athbun may
21 dvu1ge our con1dences to -- to, you know, a party who
22 s sung us and tryng to get, she te11s t, a 1ot o1
22 money.
24 8ut then ths ssue o1 what t s that --
2S that he shou1d be prec1uded 1rom passng on s -- s the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR975
OCTOBER 18, 2013
60
1 supreme court adopts the term "con1denta1
2 n1ormaton" -- and ths s at the -- at the bottom o1
2 page 1our -- that they adopt as the unverse o1
4 n1ormaton con1denta1 n1ormaton whch s a de1ned
S term.
6 1uL C0u81: 8roader than prv1ege.
7 M8. SLuCL8: 1t's much more. 8ecause,
8 agan, as Mr. Je11rey was ta1kng about t, 1 pu11ed out
9 my, you know, bar book. ^nd t's 8u1e 1.0S{a) and t's
10 a de1ned term, quote, con1denta1 n1ormaton, c1ose
11 quote, nc1udes both, quote, prv1eged n1ormaton,
12 c1ose quote, and, quote, unprv1eged c1ent
12 n1ormaton. ^nd prv1eged n1ormaton s ust what
14 you thnk t s. 1t's attorney-c1ent prv1ege, work
1S product, stu11 1ke that.
16 ^nd to ther -- and 1 want to gve, you
17 know, the -- credt where credt s due. Mr. Je11rey
18 has to1d us n a 1etter that -- that they w11 not try
19 to get con1denta1 n1ormaton 1rom Mr. 8athbun and we
20 respect that.
21 M8. JLII8LY: ^ttorney-c1ent prv1eged.
22 M8. SLuCL8: What dd 1 say?
22 M8. JLII8LY: Con1denta1.
24 M8. SLuCL8: 1 msspoke. 1 apo1ogze.
2S 1uL C0u81: So you take back the credt?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR976
OCTOBER 18, 2013
61
1 M8. JLII8LY: 1'm so uncom1ortab1e wth
2 t, Your uonor, 1 ust as soon he dd.
2 M8. SLuCL8: ue s correct. 1hey have
4 o11ered to -- to set up whatever barrers and
S restrctons they can such that Mr. 8athbun does not
6 pass on prv1eged n1ormaton. 1hank you 1or that.
7 8ut the -- but he a1so -- the ru1ng
8 encompasses unprv1eged c1ent n1ormaton, whch s a
9 de1ned term. 1 ust want to read the de1nton:
10 unprv1eged c1ent n1ormaton means a11 n1ormaton
11 re1atng to a c1ent or 1urnshed by the c1ent other
12 than prv1eged n1ormaton acqured by the 1awyer
12 durng the course o1 or by reason o1 the representaton
14 o1 the c1ent. Just about as broad as -- as
1S concevab1e.
16 1t's everythng you 1earn n -- n the
17 course o1 representng someone ether as an attorney,
18 whch s the way the ru1e s worded, but as app1ed by
19 the supreme court, 1 your nvo1vement has been as a
20 para1ega1, a consu1tant, a 1ega1 drector, everythng
21 you 1earn durng the course o1 that s -- s
22 con1denta1 -- we11, t's -- t's the subset
22 unprv1eged c1ent n1ormaton whch s a part o1
24 con1denta1 n1ormaton. 1hat s a very, very broad
2S unverse o1 n1ormaton.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR977
OCTOBER 18, 2013
62
1 uow to come to the queston the Court
2 rased, whch s that -- we11, what s t about what
2 Mr. 8athbun 1earned n hs 20 years as 1ega1 drector
4 that s substanta11y re1ated to what's n controversy
S n ths case.
6 We11, you'11 reca11 that n hs a11davt
7 he ta1ks about the 1act that any tme Mr. Mscavge was
8 sued, he, Mr. 8athbun, was -- was abso1ute1y nvo1ved n
9 the deta1s o1 t and n everythng that needed to be
10 done to get Mr. Mscavge out.
11 What s the case n 1ront o1 you? 1t s
12 that very type o1 case. 1he -- the c1am and -- and
12 1 -- and 1'm certan1y not gong to read t because t
14 wou1d take way too 1ong, but the p1ant11's p1eadng
1S and Mr. 8athbun's a11davt n ts entrety can be
16 summarzed n the concept that Mr. Mscavge and 81C,
17 Mr. Je11erson's c1ents, are n tota1 contro1 o1 my
18 c1ent, that they do everythng and then hde t and
19 hde t n a11 knds o1 ways that -- that are supposed1y
20 deta1ed by Mr. 8athbun n hs a11davt.
21 1hat's exact1y what s n controversy n
22 ths case. 1hat's what they've p1ed. ^nd that's what
22 Mr. 8athbun says n hs a11davt s the type o1
24 n1ormaton that he has. ue knows he has con1denta1
2S n1ormaton that he acqured as 1ega1 drector about the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR978
OCTOBER 18, 2013
62
1 practces, about the procedures, about the strateges o1
2 that -- that are supposed1y p1ead.
2 ^nd, agan, as Mr. Ced11o -- rea11y, 1
4 shou1d 1et hm ta1k because he's done such a great ob.
S 8ut as he was pontng out to you ust moments ago,
6 Mr. Je11rey has repeated1y argued both ths mornng and
7 ths a1ternoon that Mr. 8athbun s an expert on these
8 thngs, that he's gong to be consu1tng wth them on
9 these thngs, that -- what thngs? uow do they keep
10 Mr. Mscavge out o1 1awsuts? uow do they dssemb1e
11 and hde stu11 and do thngs? 1hat's exact1y what they
12 have p1ed n ths case. ^nd that's exact1y what
12 Mr. 8athbun n hs a11davt says he knows about.
14 You know, one other thng that -- that may
1S occur to the Court or wou1d rase t, even 1 1 haven't,
16 s that Mr. 8athbun n hs a11davt says that he 1e1t
17 the church n 2004. So what's that, nne years ago mas
18 or menos. 1hat -- the passage o1 tme by tse11 does
19 not prevent ths ru1e o1 1orbddng 1awyers 1or a party
20 1rom gettng con1denta1 n1ormaton 1rom someone such
21 as Mr. 8athbun.
22 ^nd -- and ust by way o1 examp1e to -- to
22 1nd a case where t was even 1arther n the past that
24 the -- that the person had worked 1or the other sde, we
2S have attached the 8e11 ue1copter case, whch s under
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR979
OCTOBER 18, 2013
64
1 tab ten. You don't need to -- un1ess you wsh to, 1
2 w11 ust represent to you that n that case the person
2 had worked -- had been -- 14 years had passed between
4 the tme that the -- that the person had worked on the
S 8e11 ue1copter sde and the tme that t had come up n
6 court. 1hat's on page 1our o1 that 8e11 ue1copter
7 case. 8ut un1ess you ust wsh to con1rm that, 1 don't
8 thnk you need to --
9 1uL C0u81: What type o1 substanta1
10 nvo1vement?
11 M8. SLuCL8: She had been workng on that
12 product 1ab1ty, those type o1 cases. ^s 1 say, the
12 mere passage o1 tme does not --
14 1uL C0u81: 8ut t was over the same
1S product, the -- n other words, that then 14 years 1ater
16 t was beng 1tgated agan wth a d11erent p1ant11
17 or somethng?
18 M8. SLuCL8: 1 wou1d have to reread the
19 case to be ab1e to accurate1y answer the Court.
20 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's product 1ab1ty
21 de1ense work s the connecton, sr.
22 M8. SLuCL8: Cou1d you hear hm?
22 M8. CL01ll0: roduct 1ab1ty de1ense
24 work. 1 haven't read t n a wh1e, but that's --
2S 1uL C0u81: Was t 1ke the --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR980
OCTOBER 18, 2013
6S
1 M8. SLuCL8: 1'11 show t to you.
2 1uL C0u81: Was t the same product? 1n
2 other words, 1ke --
4 M8. JLII8LY: 1t's the same 1tgaton.
S M8. CL01ll0: Components that keep comng
6 up as product 1ab1ty 1actors n 1tgaton.
7 M8. SLuCL8: uow 1've turned to t. 1t's
8 the very 1rst page o1 that, the sa1ety systems, crash
9 resstant 1ue1 systems, thngs that are deta1ed there.
10 M8. CL01ll0: 1hngs --
11 M8. JLIIL8S0u: 011erent 1awsuts.
12 M8. SLuCL8: 011erent 1awsuts.
12 M8. CL01ll0: What they had n common,
14 Your uonor, were product 1ab1ty contentons about
1S components and parts.
16 M8. SLuCL8: 1hank you very much.
17 ^nd that's the same thng here, d11erent
18 1awsut but the same contenton. Mr. Mscavge runs
19 everythng. 81C s -- 1 can't even remember how they
20 c1am t a11 happens. 8ut the dea s that ths -- that
21 the de1endant s the -- the partes represented by
22 counse1 at ths tab1e here, those de1endants are, you
22 know, one sng1e bad bunch o1 guys run by Mr. Mscavge
24 and that any corporate 1orms are -- are 11usons -- 1
2S don't know what words they used, but you get the dea.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR981
OCTOBER 18, 2013
66
1 1hat's the same thng that n hs
2 a11davt he descrbes how he was workng on
2 accomp1shng when he worked there.
4 1uL C0u81: We11, can 1 ust set up a
S hypothetca1? 6et Mr. Je11rey and a11 o1 the guys out
6 o1 the 1awsut and new counse1 comes n or -- or 1
7 mean --
8 M8. SLuCL8: Yeah.
9 1uL C0u81: -- Mr. 8athbun s sttng
10 rght where he s at a 1uture date and -- and a11 o1 a
11 sudden hears somethng that he be1eves he possesses
12 certan know1edge, but he wou1d be 1orbdden to convey
12 that to whoever counse1 was sttng there at the tab1e?
14 You cou1d counter that we -- what we ust heard wth
1S ths.
16 ^nd my u1tmate pont there agan s
17 that -- 1 we can nvade the sanctty o1 marrage and
18 prevent that 1rom happenng, we can a1most nvade, 1
19 mean, parent,ch1d re1atonshp wth ust a1most
20 anythng and that s rea11y --
21 M8. SLuCL8: 8ut sn't that the pont --
22 1uL C0u81: -- troub1ng.
22 M8. SLuCL8: -- o1 a11 o1 these
24 dsqua11caton cases s that 1 you don't stop that --
2S 1 you don't stop n most cases the para1ega1, n ths
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR982
OCTOBER 18, 2013
67
1 case the drector o1 1ega1 a11ars, 1 you don't stop
2 hm 1rom dong that, the -- the con1dences o1 -- w11
2 be betrayed. ^nd ths s -- and 1 thnk you recognze
4 ths n your order and the cases do themse1ves, there s
S a ba1ancng here o1 competng pub1c po1ces.
6 1uL C0u81: We11, 1ke there was one case
7 where t was -- 1'm tryng to remember the case, but
8 there was -- there was some dscusson about the -- 1
9 thnk 1 cted t n my order.
10 M8. SLuCL8: 1 thnk perhaps the 1n 8e
11 Meador case, s that the one you're rememberng, Judge?
12 1hey dd ta1k about -- or the ut1a.
12 1uL C0u81: uo. 1t was where 1 mentoned
14 n my order that there's a ba1ance o1 soca1 concerns to
1S be had and --
16 M8. SLuCL8: 1 remember that 1anguage as
17 we11, and 1'm not mmedate1y --
18 1uL C0u81: 1 thnk t's on page sx.
19 M8. SLuCL8: 1t s page 1ve. 1t starts
20 wth -- the paragraph starts, 1ramng the ssue n ts
21 broadest context.
22 1uL C0u81: robab1y so. Yeah. let's
22 see. Maybe t was n the -- ether n the Co1umba and
24 then 1 -- 1 then dd some research on my own on that
2S 8ng case.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR983
OCTOBER 18, 2013
68
1 M8. SLuCL8: 1he Co1umba case s
2 attached under tab -- 1et me make sure 1 get the rght
2 one.
4 1uL C0u81: 1n lawyer versus uon1awyer
S Lmp1oyees.
6 M8. SLuCL8: 8ght, but there s no
7 queston that there -- that by sayng that -- that
8 someone who has con1denta1 n1ormaton n ths broad
9 unverse o1 n1ormaton may not use t, sure, yeah,
10 that -- that -- that pnches. 1hat's what -- 1 t
11 ddn't, we wou1dn't be havng ths argument, and 1 --
12 1uL C0u81: We11, and a11 o1 those -- 1ke
12 n the 8e11 ue1copter case, that, agan, s gettng
14 down to an ssue o1 1act whereas ths ursdctona1
1S ssue that we're dea1ng wth --
16 M8. CL01ll0: 8ut, Your uonor, 1 -- 1'm
17 sorry. 8y habt 1 a1ways get up.
18 8ut, Your uonor, ths s -- ths s the
19 part o1 the pub1c po1cy that 1 thnk sn't beng
20 1ocused on. 1he reason that you have the con1denta1
21 mandate n a stuaton 1ke ths -- yeah, Mr. -- we11,
22 anyone -- anyone can say, 1ook, 1 was there 1or x number
22 o1 years and ths s how they dd t and he 1sts,
24 agan, ten thngs that are wrong, you know, they're
2S secret. 1hey're hdng. 1hey're dong somethng, you
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR984
OCTOBER 18, 2013
69
1 know, mmora1 or corrupt. 1hat's the a11egatons
2 aganst us.
2 0kay. 1he reason you say to someone who
4 says, 1 was there, 1'm n a poston to te11 you that 1
S know that they do these 1ve thngs that are mora11y
6 despcab1e -- the reason you shut that down, Your uonor,
7 sn't because you want to hde what s mora11y
8 despcab1e, t's because the pub1c po1cy s that knd
9 o1 person shou1dn't be n a poston to make that
10 a11egaton whch w11 be be1eved because t seems to
11 have the ndcaton o1 re1ab1ty because a1ter a11, he
12 says 1 was there, when the on1y way 1 can re1ute t,
12 Your uonor, s to say no, ths s how we do t or ths
14 s actua11y what we do. ^nd that nvades our work
1S product. 1hat nvades attorney-c1ent communcaton.
16 1hat nvades proprety n1ormaton, con1denta1ty.
17 1he harm or the -- or the po1cy behnd
18 shuttng t down at the bud s because t s
19 mpractca1 -- mpractca1 and unworkab1e 1 you're
20 gong to respect the rghts o1 -- o1 partes. 1t's --
21 you can't do that. You cannot respect my rghts when
22 you say under guse o1, we11, the sanctty o1 marrage
22 or how --
24 1uL C0u81: We11, the other sde o1 the
2S con s -- to take my poston 1urther wou1d be to say
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR985
OCTOBER 18, 2013
70
1 that wou1d -- say t wou1d -- n a hypothetca1
2 stuaton wou1d wrte a b1ank check, so to speak, to a
2 1ormer emp1oyee's company to do whatever you want to do
4 to my 1am1y because 1 -- we can't combat t.
S M8. CL01ll0: We11, Your uonor, 1 thnk
6 that's takng t -- takng t much more --
7 1uL C0u81: Maybe t's to the absurd.
8 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's way beyond what we're
9 ta1kng about here. What we're ta1kng about here s,
10 here s what the supreme court has sad. 11 you 1t
11 ths category o1 person, there are reasons why t's a
12 conc1usve presumpton -- rrebuttab1e presumpton.
12 art o1 that reason, Your uonor, s
14 because t's un1ar to -- to the party that s gong to
1S resst t, to come 1orth and negate t by showng what
16 the secrets rea11y are, especa11y when the a11egatons
17 are beng made that you're dong 11ega1 thngs to
18 accomp1sh t. ^nd we're sayng no, we're not. We're
19 dong these thngs, 1ega1 thngs. 1hat's the on1y way
20 you cou1d get the queston be1ore a 1act 1nder.
21 ^nd what the ru1es say s no, you --
22 the -- n the 1rst nstance when the guy says, 1 know
22 they were dong these 11ega1 thngs because 1 was
24 there. 1 drected that and 1 worked wth 1awyers and 1
2S to1d them what to do. 1 was the head o1 the 1ega1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR986
OCTOBER 18, 2013
71
1 a11ars and 1 dd ^, 8 and C. We say no, you ddn't do
2 that. We ddn't do that. You know, we can say
2 everythng we want, but we're not gong to wn that --
4 that argument n ths court or the court o1 pub1c
S opnon -- they want to be ab1e to do t 1or a 1ot o1
6 d11erent reasons -- wthout dsc1osng our actua1 work
7 product or our -- our menta1 mpressons or trade
8 secrets or whatever t s 1 you're dea1ng over here.
9 1hat's the ratona1e o1 the 1aw, Your uonor, and --
10 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 apprecate -- 1
11 understand -- 1 understand and apprecate that.
12 0ne o1 the thngs that 1 -- n addton to
12 a 1ot o1 the d11erent dchotomes that we're dea1ng
14 wth s -- and 1 go back to t agan. 1t's probab1y
1S part o1 the reason why 1 had the thought over 1unch
16 about the d11erence between matter o1 1aw and matter o1
17 1act.
18 Most o1 these cases that we've a11 1ooked
19 at be1ore are a11 gong to -- and 1ke 8e11 ue1copter,
20 t's the ssues o1 1act that are gong to be decded,
21 maybe the -- the uorp1ant 1tgaton as we11 where
22 ssues o1 1act that had to be decded by the ury or
22 somethng e1se that was -- you can't swtch sdes
24 mdstream and go revea1 -- are any o1 these cases
2S 1mted to ssues o1 1aw that a udge s gong to
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR987
OCTOBER 18, 2013
72
1 decde --
2 M8. SLuCL8: We11, 1 thnk --
2 1uL C0u81: -- 1ke on ursdcton.
4 M8. SLuCL8: Jursdcton s an ssue o1
S 1aw, but t s determned based on the 1acts that wou1d
6 be presented to you.
7 ^nd, Judge, we do not have a ury n the
8 box, and a11 o1 us know that. 8ut ths courtroom s
9 open to peop1e. 1here's -- 1 don't know 1 t's runnng
10 rght now, but there's a move camera rght over there.
11 1uL C0u81: We11, we're not revea1ng any
12 such --
12 M8. SLuCL8: uo. 8ut 1 your dea s as
14 1ong as we're ust n ths ursdctona1 phase that --
1S that maybe you -- you gve them more rope or have a
16 1onger 1eash than you w11 1ater on, there's a 1ot o1
17 n1ormaton that -- that s gong to be comng out
18 that -- that s -- they're gong to be tryng very hard
19 to get ths con1denta1 n1ormaton be1ore you and --
20 even 1 you're the on1y 1act 1nder on ths. ^nd t's
21 gong to be ust as harm1u1 and ust as detrmenta1 to
22 our c1ent 1 that happens n ths courtroom where t's
22 a nonury hearng as -- as t wou1d be 1 there were 12
24 ctzens sttng n that box.
2S M8. CL01ll0: ^nd, Your uonor, ust to
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR988
OCTOBER 18, 2013
72
1 conc1ude so you can hear everythng that we're sayng --
2 1 don't want to nterrupt -- the -- t ust occurred to
2 me, Judge, the 1act 1aw s a dstncton wthout a
4 d11erence.
S 1he uorp1ant cases, yeah, they dea1t wth,
6 you know, spec1c 1acts, you know, tendng to prove
7 1ab1ty, 1et's say. 0kay. 11 that para1ega1 had
8 know1edge about, you know, ursdcton 1ghts or -- or
9 statute o1 1mtatons 1ghts or anythng that s
10 decded by app1yng 1acts to the 1aw, the prohbton
11 wou1d app1y to that para1ega1 ust as we11 as 1ong as --
12 1 mean, questons o1 1aw are 1actua11y determned.
12 1uL C0u81: Correct.
14 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd so 1 don't -- 1 don't
1S thnk t makes any d11erence, Your uonor.
16 1uL C0u81: 1o d11erent degrees dependng
17 on the ssue.
18 M8. CL01ll0: We11, to ths degree 1
19 there was a para1ega1 who was n charge o1, you know,
20 creatng, 1et's say, scenaros so that a statute o1
21 1mtatons de1ense wou1d work -- 1et's say a person
22 ca11s n and comp1ans about a product and ther ob s
22 to, you know, pro1ong and stretch t out and -- and get
24 them beyond the statute o1 1mtatons, then that's a
2S 1act-drven app1caton o1 a 1ega1 -- somethng that's
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR989
OCTOBER 18, 2013
74
1 1ega11y determned under the statute o1 1mtatons,
2 those 1act stuatons.
2 11 the para1ega1 were to come up and say,
4 you know, yeah, 1 was nstructed to -- to pro1ong ths
S thng so that they'd have statute o1 1mtatons
6 prob1ems, okay, our answer -- or the de1ense answer
7 wou1d be, that's not true. 1hat sn't a drectve. We
8 ddn't -- we ddn't do t that way.
9 0kay. 1hen how dd you do t? 1 mean,
10 1'm 1e1t wth -- actua11y, 1 saw ths n an argument
11 once. 1 dd an argument and -- and the on1y thng the
12 other guy cou1d say was, huh-uh. 1hat was t. 1hat's
12 a11 we'd be sayng s huh-uh.
14 1he para1ega1 says 1 was there and 1 was
1S drected to do ths, ths, ths and ths so that these
16 peop1e wou1d have statute o1 1mtatons prob1ems,
17 queston o1 1aw. What am 1 supposed to say n de1ense
18 to that, huh-uh? 1hat's a11 1 wou1d be dong 1 1 sad
19 no, we ddn't.
20 1 wou1d have to come 1orth wth what our
21 po1ces and procedures were nterna11y. 1 wou1d have
22 to come 1orth wth thngs that -- that s nobody's
22 busness. ^nd the ru1e wou1d app1y to te11 that person
24 that you were there and you want to say x, Y, 2 because
2S you were there? 1he ru1e app1es and says no, you
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR990
OCTOBER 18, 2013
7S
1 don't.
2 1uL C0u81: ^nd 1 don't know -- under your
2 hypothetca1, 1'm ust sttng here thnkng cou1d
4 certan prophy1actc measures be taken such as c1osng
S the courtroom or e1mnatng the meda? 01 course we'd
6 have to 1ght those batt1es, too, 1'm sure.
7 1here's got to be 1esser or -- or
8 a1ternate measures n my vew as a 1ast resort
9 n nvadng a -- you know, certan re1atonshps that --
10 that to me are o1 the hghest 1eve1.
11 M8. CL01ll0: 1'm not suggestng you
12 nvade t, Your uonor. 1'm suggestng you a11ow t,
12 a11ow t to the 1eve1 that t wou1d exst n any
14 stuaton where the spouse wasn't tryng to be
1S back-doored n as a -- as an expert or someone there --
16 they cou1d have a11 o1 the -- the spousa1 communcaton
17 that anybody e1se wou1d have absent ths stuaton.
18 What makes ths d11erent s the
19 app1caton o1 the con1denta1ty orders. ^nd 1
20 understand the Court's search 1or 1esser measures. 1he
21 supreme court has not gven us 1esser measures n a
22 stuaton 1ke ths, Your uonor.
22 M8. SLuCL8: ^nd, Judge, 1 know
24 Mr. Je11rey s very eager to rep1y. 1 asked hm to
2S keep -- to 1et me -- 1'm very c1ose to the end o1 my
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR991
OCTOBER 18, 2013
76
1 presentaton and -- and 1 apprecate hs 1orbearance on
2 that.
2 Judge, the -- the 1ast case 1 want you to
4 1ook at s a new one. 1t's new both because 1 ddn't
S cte t ear1er and a1so because t's qute new n terms
6 o1 when t was decded. 1t's under tab nne. 1t's the
7 1n 8e 6uaranty 1nsurance case. 1he Supreme Court o1
8 1exas decson n 2011.
9 ^nd 1 you wou1d 1ook on page 1our, ths
10 s a case n whch the supreme court recognzed that a
11 para1ega1 who had changed sdes, you know, created a
12 prob1em and -- and that prob1em needed to be addressed.
12 ^nd the ssue was, had the Strasburger 1aw 1rm
14 adequate1y nsttuted protectons and 1orma1
1S nsttutona1 measures to make sure ths para1ega1
16 ddn't dvu1ge any con1denta1 n1ormaton.
17 ^nd the supreme court conc1uded that the
18 types o1 measures that the Strasburger 1rm had emp1oyed
19 were su11cent and reversed the dsqua11caton. So
20 the pont o1 ths -- o1 ths case 1or -- 1or you s what
21 type o1 measures does the supreme court say you need to
22 take to make sure that -- that con1denta1 n1ormaton
22 s not -- you know, doesn't go where t shou1dn't go.
24 ^nd you'11 see there that -- that at the
2S top o1 the rght-hand co1umn where they're ta1kng about
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR992
OCTOBER 18, 2013
77
1 the way to rebut presumpton that they have been passed
2 s to nstruct the 1ega1 assstant not to -- not to work
2 on ths, not to do thngs. ^nd then the second thng s
4 to take other reasonab1e steps.
S ^nd 1 you turn over to the top o1 page
6 1ve, they ta1k about -- that the non1awyer shou1d be
7 cautoned, you know, not to do thngs. ^nd t s that
8 1anguage "nstruct," "cauton" -- those are the thngs
9 that 1 have trans1ated nto the sx rea11y very smp1e
10 requests that are n my moton. ^nd that's, o1 course,
11 the very top -- top o1 the book1et.
12 ^nd -- and what we're askng you to do s
12 to requre the p1ant11 and her counse1, number one,
14 not to s seek con1denta1 n1ormaton. ^nd agan,
1S we're usng that term because that's the one that the
16 supreme court has repeated1y used, don't -- don't try to
17 get t 1rom her.
18 uumber two s -- s perhaps sayng the
19 same thng n d11erent words, not to attempt to e1ct
20 con1denta1 n1ormaton regardng the de1endants 1rom
21 Mr. 8athbun wh1e he's test1yng. 1n other words, te11
22 these 1awyers don't -- be care1u1, be certan that when
22 you're questonng hm that you don't 1rame your
24 questons n a way that wou1d cause hm to revea1 t,
2S ths con1denta1 n1ormaton.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR993
OCTOBER 18, 2013
78
1 1hen we ask that the p1ant11's counse1
2 nstruct Mr. 8athbun as to what con1denta1 n1ormaton
2 means so he won't have any queston about what we're
4 ta1kng about there, and nstruct hm not to vo1unteer
S t, you know, ether wh1e test1yng or n other
6 contexts.
7 ^nd then we're askng that you 1orbd them
8 1rom usng hm as an expert, consu1tant or an advsor n
9 ths case because 1 they do that, they're gong to
10 get -- then we're gong to have to be back n court
11 seekng dsqua11caton. 1hey'11 be n a stuaton
12 where they're wthn those cases, that they -- the 1ast
12 two are that -- that they not use the con1denta1
14 n1ormaton, 1 any, a1ready -- we11, they -- certan1y
1S the a11davt use s a1ready out there.
16 8ut 1 there s anythng out there that
17 they have gotten nadvertent1y or otherwse that wou1d
18 consttute con1denta1 n1ormaton 1rom Mr. 8athbun,
19 that they not -- that they not use t n ths case. ^nd
20 then 1ast1y, that -- that they, not the pub1c, not
21 anybody e1se, but that the p1ant11 and her counse1 not
22 1urther dssemnate the a11davt that was 11ed.
22 1 thnk those are very straght1orward,
24 smp1e types o1 cautons and nstructons that are the
2S types o1 thngs that the supreme court commended the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR994
OCTOBER 18, 2013
79
1 Strasburger 1rm 1or dong and that they are the 1esser
2 measures that are approprate here n ths case.
2 1hey're approprate 1rom day one. 1hey're
4 approprate now because there are gong to be
S depostons taken. ^s we've sad repeated1y, we -- the
6 de1endants have agreed to certan depostons. ^nd 1
7 thnk we've even got dates 1or them now.
8 ^s soon as the protectve order s -- s
9 entered, there are gong to be documents supp1ed to --
10 to them. We rea11y -- we rea11y need these types o1
11 common sense nstructons on Mr. 8athbun, the drector
12 o1 1ega1 a11ars, a man who says he knows -- he was
12 ntmate1y nvo1ved n exact1y these types o1 cases.
14 We need to restrct that, and that's what
1S the supreme court has sad. 1hank you 1or your
16 patence, Your uonor.
17 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, when the smoke
18 c1ears, 1 thnk t's crtca1 that we dent1y and
19 acknow1edge that there are three categores o1 1ormer
20 emp1oyees o1 some partes or emp1oyees or agents that
21 make a d11erence n how you ana1yze these ssues.
22 0ne ssue s, what 1 you have a 1awyer
22 who worked 1or these corporatons and then that 1awyer
24 1eaves and wants to go ta1k about what he knows 1rom
2S workng 1or those corporatons? 1hey -- they -- ther
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR995
OCTOBER 18, 2013
80
1 request, whch Mr. Spencer makes sound so reasonab1e and
2 moderate, s to use that -- that dea o1 con1denta1
2 n1ormaton whch s n the -- n the ru1es o1
4 pro1essona1 conduct 1or 1awyers, 1.0S{a).
S ^nd -- and 1 -- 1 you come to me and 1
6 represent you as a 1awyer under 1.0S{a), 1 can't revea1
7 any o1 our attorney-c1ent communcatons. ^nd
8 1urthermore, 1 can't revea1 anythng that 1 ever 1earn
9 about you 1rom any source n connecton wth that
10 representaton. 1hat's the broad -- and that's what we
11 agree to as 1awyers.
12 1he second category, a person who has
12 worked wth a corporaton and then -- and then goes over
14 and wants to n some way be nvo1ved n some 1tgaton
1S aganst that corporaton s a 1awyer or non1awyer who
16 worked on the matter -- on that type o1 1tgaton.
17 ^nd -- and you cou1d never get a rea11y c1ear answer to
18 ths queston 1rom the -- 1rom the 8e11 ue1copter case.
19 1n conc1uson, the Court says very
20 c1ear1y, the record shows that wh1e va1e worked 1or
21 8e11, she obtaned con1denta1 n1ormaton about the
22 Mode1 412 arcra1t and ts 1ue1 sa1ety system as we11 as
22 con1denta1 n1ormaton about 8e11's 1tgaton
24 strateges and attorney-work product n 1awsuts
2S nvo1vng the Mode1 412 arcra1t.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR996
OCTOBER 18, 2013
81
1 0kay. 1hat's what a11 o1 these cases are.
2 ^nd -- and when you have that type o1 stuaton, then --
2 then there -- they don't -- they don't de1ne t exact1y
4 as 1.0S, but t s a broader category. 1he courts ust
S say, hey, when you're umpng sdes n that -- n that
6 1tgaton or n that matter or n that -- whether t's
7 the partcu1ar case or a chan o1 cases on that matter,
8 we're ust gong to presume that you've got, you know,
9 harm1u1 n1ormaton, con1denta1. We're ust gong to
10 presume that.
11 Mr. 8athbun 1a11s n the thrd category o1
12 person, whch s -- and ths wou1d app1y to a1most any
12 hgh-1eve1 person at any corporaton, and -- and that s
14 that he worked at the corporaton. ue worked at the top
1S 1eve1s. ue worked wth the top peop1e. ue was a1so
16 nvo1ved wth 1ega1 matters. 1hat's n hs a11davt.
17 We don't contest that.
18 8ut the queston s, number one, he's not
19 changng sdes. ue -- he ddn't work on a bunch o1
20 cases o1 harassng some -- some 1ady who was out there
21 n South 1exas, you know, the same type o1 1tgaton,
22 so he doesn't 1a11 nto those categores.
22 So the queston becomes -- and ths s why
24 1 keep askng, what s the con1denta1 n1ormaton?
2S ^nd we've never asked 1or any tem o1 con1denta1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR997
OCTOBER 18, 2013
82
1 n1ormaton. We ust want to know categores. What s
2 the knds o1 stu11, 1ke n other cases, customer 1sts
2 and that sort o1 thng.
4 ^nd -- and so 1 want to ust get -- you
S know, the Judge has approached a 1ot o1 these thngs
6 wth -- wth -- wth hypothetca1s, what-1s. ^nd
7 remember, a11 o1 ths comes up n respondng to ther
8 a11rmatve moton to get a dsmssa1 on ursdcton
9 grounds.
10 ^nd Mr. Mscavge and Warren McShane at
11 81C have submtted these a11davts sayng, hey, we
12 don't have anythng to do wth 1exas. We're not
12 nvo1ved n any o1 ths stu11, and -- and n response to
14 that, we produced ths evdence.
1S ^nd 1 want to gve you a hypothetca1:
16 What -- what wou1d happen 1 n response to ths
17 Mr. 8athbun sad, wat a second, 1 11ew once a month
18 wth 0avd Mscavge to 1exas to co11ect donatons 1rom
19 Scento1ogsts n 1exas 1or 20 years?
20 uow, because he has worked on some 1ega1
21 matters, that matter whch s not con1denta1, whch s
22 not a matter o1 1ega1 strategy n some case, he cannot
22 rebut a 1e n a dec1araton or a11davts that's been
24 submtted to the Court that he has persona1 know1edge
2S o1?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR998
OCTOBER 18, 2013
82
1 1hat s not the case and they have not
2 shown you one case that a person wth know1edge -- even
2 a hgh-1eve1 person cannot ta1k about anythng when he's
4 n 1tgaton n an unre1ated matter. 1hat's what 1
S thnk s crtca1 here.
6 11 you 1ook at what he s sayng n hs --
7 n hs a11davt, he's sayng, wat a second. 0kay.
8 1've seen ths speca1 appearance and these dec1aratons
9 11ed n whch they say, we don't have anythng to do
10 wth 1exas. ^nd he says yes, ths s how t works.
11 1hs type o1 matter he mcromanages. ue's not revea1ng
12 some con1dence 1rom ths case. ue's ust te11ng you
12 what the procedures and practces o1 the corporatons
14 and the top-1eve1 peop1e at the corporatons are. 1hat
1S s not approprate.
16 uow, they have phrased ths -- and we
17 haven't even addressed ths. 1hey have phrased ths as
18 a moton n 1mne. ^ moton n 1mne s a moton made
19 to -- 1et me see. 1 thnk 1 wrote that down.
20 1uL C0u81: 1 thnk -- 1 understand what a
21 moton n 1mne s.
22 M8. JLII8LY: ^ moton n 1mne -- n
22 e11ect what t s s an nuncton.
24 1uL C0u81: 1t basca11y serves as a
2S protectve measure to prevent o11ensve use rather than
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR999
OCTOBER 18, 2013
84
1 de1ensve use o1 certan n1ormaton.
2 M8. JLII8LY: 8ut t's -- what type o1 a
2 protectve measure? 1t s, n essence, an nuncton.
4 1hey're askng the Court to ssue an nuncton and --
S an order.
6 ^nd an nuncton s ust an order
7 requrng certan behavor or prohbtng certan
8 behavor. ^nd they're askng the Court to ssue an
9 nuncton sayng what Mr. 8athbun and 1 can ta1k about
10 or what Mr. 8athbun and hs w1e can ta1k about, and
11 that s not a moton n 1mne. 1hat s a gag order
12 nstructng peop1e what they can ta1k about wth whom.
12 1hat s presumptve1y unconsttutona1. ^nd they
14 haven't even made an attempt to show why that wou1d not
1S be unconsttutona1.
16 ^gan, wth ths category o1 human beng,
17 not an attorney, not a nonattorney emp1oyee who has
18 swtched sdes n the same matter, nstead a hgh-1eve1
19 executve 1rom an organzaton -- by the way, 1 don't
20 thnk he ever had the tt1e drector o1 1ega1 a11ars.
21 1hat was never hs tt1e. 1hey keep sayng that,
22 hgh-1eve1 emp1oyee who 1e1t the company ten years ago,
22 or whatever t s, and who has know1edge about the
24 practces and procedures.
2S 0kay. 1hey -- they ust went through down
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1000
OCTOBER 18, 2013
8S
1 n I1orda -- n 1edera1 court down there two or
2 three weeks ago a hearng to dsqua11y the attorneys
2 down there n that case and they comp1aned about
4 Mr. 8athbun. 1hey comp1aned about Mr. 8nder. 1hey
S comp1aned about an attorney who had actua11y used to
6 work 1or the Church o1 Scento1ogy that was workng on
7 the other sde.
8 ^nd the Court kept askng them agan and
9 agan, where s the con1denta1 n1ormaton? What s
10 the con1denta1 n1ormaton? ^nd ust 1ke here, they
11 never can dent1y t. ^nd that moton was dened on
12 the spot that day.
12 So what they are, n essence, askng -- 1
14 you step back and take the 20,000-1oot vew, they're
1S sayng 1et us put anythng we want nto the record, the
16 a11davts and dec1aratons 1rom anyone that we have
17 current1y wthn our organzaton sayng that we don't
18 have anythng to do wth 1exas, but you cannot 1nd
19 anyone who used to be wth the organzaton to say
20 that's smp1y not true.
21 1uL C0u81: ^nd that's why 1 mentoned the
22 d11erence or dstncton between o11ensve and
22 de1ensve, and 1 don't know what -- yes, sr?
24 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, they cou1d ask
2S the p1ot. 1hey cou1d ask the peop1e that they
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1001
OCTOBER 18, 2013
86
1 supposed1y came and 1und-rased wth. 1o say that --
2 that, you know, they're power1ess practca11y, no,
2 that -- that s ust 1aca11y -- t's absurd.
4 Second1y, are you aware, Your uonor, that
S every tme you ssue orders n 1mne n every case that
6 you are nvo1ved n, you have unconsttutona11y done a
7 pror restrant and ssued gag orders? 8ecause
8 that's -- that's what s beng argued s what a moton
9 n 1mne request or -- or order on your part wou1d be.
10 ^nd that's abso1ute1y 1udcrous.
11 ^nd -- and 1 thnk the Court -- n the
12 1ast paragraph o1 your order you -- you -- the reason we
12 dd the moton n 1mne s because we took gudance by
14 your ana1yss and your 1ogc. ^nd you sad, the
1S aggreved party cou1d seek a ru1ng on a moton n
16 1mne and,or obect to the admsson o1 con1denta1
17 n1ormaton.
18 1 grant you, most 1mes -- 1mne requests
19 that you see on the eve o1 tra1 are part o1 the 1na1
20 pretra1 con1erence, but there s nothng that 1mts us
21 to dong them there. ^nd when we knd o1 1ook at -- at
22 the hard work you put nto cra1tng ths order and we
22 seek gudance 1rom t and we say, okay, wthn the
24 1ramework o1 what the Court s tryng to do here, how
2S can we acheve the -- the 1esser measures and so 1orth.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1002
OCTOBER 18, 2013
87
1 So we came 1orth be1ore you wth a moton
2 n 1mne, not because we're seekng nunctons, not
2 because we want gag orders, not because we want you
4 to -- to unconsttutona11y ssue pror restrants o1
S 1ree speech because that's not what a moton n 1mne
6 s. ^nd to suggest otherwse ust doesn't border on the
7 absurd, Your uonor. 1t s absurd.
8 M8. JLII8LY: We11, Your uonor, n a
9 moton n 1mne, norma11y what happens s the -- the
10 party asks on the eve o1 tra1 -- the party asks the
11 udge, wou1d you ust ru1e that they have to approach
12 the bench and -- and brng ths up outsde the presence
12 o1 the ury.
14 1uL C0u81: ^nd that's what 1'm gettng
1S ready to ask you, Mr. 8ay -- or Mr. Je11rey. 1o what
16 extent cou1d these sx requests by Mr. Spencer be
17 ta1ored that y'a11 cou1d agree to n the 1orm o1 a
18 moton n 1mne as opposed to a protectve order?
19 M8. JLII8LY: We11, certan1y 1 t says
20 attorney-c1ent prv1eged n1ormaton, we cou1d agree
21 to that. 1hat's prv1eged n1ormaton. ^nd that's
22 why -- and we are w11ng to entertan -- that's why we
22 have asked them agan and agan, te11 us the categores.
24 11 there's 1ke a 1st o1 parshoners or -- or -- 1
2S have -- 1 wou1d have to dream up what t mght be, we
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1003
OCTOBER 18, 2013
88
1 mght agree to that.
2 8ut motons n 1mne, Your uonor, are
2 norma11y very spec1c. 1t's, Your uonor, don't 1et
4 them brng up that my c1ent had a 0W1 n 1992 wthout
S 1rst approachng the bench outsde the presence o1 the
6 ury. uere they're -- they are 1tera11y sayng that
7 everythng he knows 1rom hs 20 years n the Church o1
8 Scento1ogy s con1denta1 n1ormaton and we've got to
9 stay away 1rom t.
10 ^nd we've a1ready nstructed Mr. 8athbun
11 not to dsc1ose to us any attorney-c1ent prv1eged
12 n1ormaton and we wou1d have no -- no prob1em wth
12 that. ^nd 1 they can show any other category o1
14 prv1eged n1ormaton, trade secret, et cetera, then we
1S wou1d consder that, Your uonor.
16 ue sad t -- excuse me, that t's -- 1
17 don't know what the words were, rdcu1ous or whatever,
18 to suggest absurd that -- that -- that an order te11ng
19 partes, te11ng attorneys and -- and nonparty
20 ndvdua1s that they can't speak to each other, that
21 that's ust a norma1 moton n 1mne, that s not a
22 norma1 moton n 1mne.
22 1uL C0u81: We11, 1ke -- but number two,
24 cou1d that not be a moton n 1mne? 1 mean, n other
2S words, they're ta1kng about wh1e test1yng.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1004
OCTOBER 18, 2013
89
1 M8. JLII8LY: Yeah. 1hat wou1d be n a
2 moton n 1mne.
2 8ut, Your uonor, there's a case 1rom
4 uouston, 2012 case, ^11son versus 1he Commsson 1or
S lawyer 0scp1ne. ^nd n there the Court says, absent
6 a ury -- absent a ury, a moton n 1mne s
7 rre1evant. 1here1ore, a moton n 1mne s mproper
8 n a bench tra1.
9 We have comng up speca1 appearance. We
10 have ths ant-Sl^ moton that they gave you the bg
11 box on and we have an nunctve hearng. uone o1 those
12 thngs nvo1ve a ury.
12 M8. SLuCL8: 11 1 may --
14 M8. JLII8LY: Yes, go ahead.
1S M8. SLuCL8: 1 hope we don't get o11 on
16 the 1abe1 "n 1mne" because that rea11y s not that
17 mportant.
18 ^s the Court knows, the tt1e o1 a -- o1 a
19 moton s -- s ust the body o1 t, the substance o1
20 t. ^nd 1 you 1ook at the ntroductory paragraph o1
21 our -- o1 the moton t says that t s a -- t's --
22 t's -- the de1endant, Church o1 Scento1ogy, 11es
22 ths, ts motons n 1mne and 1or protectve order, as
24 provded by 1exas 8u1e o1 Cv1 rocedure 192.6{b).
2S ^nd -- and the -- as Mr. Ced11o sad, the reason we
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1005
OCTOBER 18, 2013
90
1 used "n 1mne" s because we were pckng up on your
2 order.
2 8ut 192.6{b) gves very broad authorty to
4 a tra1 court, 1 t's the same -- we11, t 1ooks 1ke
S you've got a d11erent verson than 1 do. 1t's 192 -- 1
6 was gong to see what page t's on, but t's 192.6{b),
7 to protect the movant 1rom -- and there are many thngs
8 that can be protected. 8ut here t's undue burden,
9 unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance or nvason
10 o1 persona1 consttutona1 or property rghts, the Court
11 may make any order n the nterest o1 ustce and may,
12 among other thngs -- and then they gve a nonexhaustve
12 1st.
14 1hat s the authorty 1or the Court to do
1S what we're askng the Court to do, 1 -- actua11y, 1
16 even anybody needed -- because 1 thnk the supreme court
17 cases that we have repeated1y dscussed make t c1ear
18 that you wou1d have the power to do ths to contro1 the
19 1awyers who are be1ore you.
20 ^nd you w11 notce there s no -- the
21 request 1or re1e1 s -- s to the party, the p1ant11
22 herse11, and -- and to the 1awyers. 1hose are the ones
22 who are askng you to nstruct and to -- and to cauton.
24 So o1 course you have the authorty to do that. ^nd
2S whether t's ca11ed an n 1mne or somethng e1se s
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1006
OCTOBER 18, 2013
91
1 rea11y not an argument to be had.
2 M8. JLII8LY: 8ut, Your uonor, he
2 correct1y reads 1rom 8u1e 192.6{b)), but they actua11y
4 have a burden. 11 they come to the Court and -- and
S seek a protectve order, they have a burden to say here
6 s the matter. 1hs wou1d harm us. 1hey have to show
7 a11 o1 those thngs. 8emember the 1n 8e ut1a case.
8 8ut they have taken the poston they
9 don't have to do any o1 that because they want to be
10 governed by the ru1es where someone swtches sdes n
11 mdstream as you sad n your order. You reected that
12 proper1y. 1here s no case that wou1d be ana1ogous to
12 ours that wou1d put that burden on us.
14 So 1 they don't have that, they cannot
1S come down here and ust say, Judge, presumptve1y ths
16 s a11 con1denta1. We don't have to show harm. We
17 don't have to show how t's a trade secret. We don't
18 have to show anythng.
19 We ponted out n our moton -- n our
20 response to ther moton that -- that the -- and ths
21 very much bears on ths, quote, moton n 1mne. 1exas
22 8u1e o1 Lvdence S01 provdes that no person has a
22 prv1ege to prevent another 1rom beng a wtness or
24 ds -- or dsc1osng any matter or producng any obect
2S or wrtng except 1 there's a consttutona1 provson
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1007
OCTOBER 18, 2013
92
1 or the -- or the prv1eges that are recognzed n the
2 ru1e.
2 So you notce they don't ever a11ege any
4 o1 these thngs. 1s there somethng that s
S 1awyer-c1ent prv1eged? ^s 1've sad, we wou1d agree
6 not to seek 1awyer-c1ent prv1eged matera1s. ^nd we
7 wou1d nstruct Mr. 8athbun as we a1ready have not to
8 gve us any 1awyer-c1ent prv1eged matera1s.
9 uusband-w1e prv1ege, communcatons to
10 c1ergy, po1tca1 vote, trade secrets, denttes o1
11 n1ormer prv1ege and physcan-patent prv1ege, you
12 don't get to ust go to court and say, we want a
12 protectve order, te11 them not to ta1k to these peop1e,
14 and they never gve you any bass.
1S 1 1ee1 sometmes 1ke 1'm n ^1ce n
16 Wonder1and. 11 we're not dea1ng wth the presumptve
17 changng o1 sdes n a mdstream stuaton, t s ther
18 burden to show you how they are beng harmed, what the
19 stu11 s that wou1d harm them, et cetera.
20 ^nd we've been n hearngs 1ke that over
21 customer 1sts and prcng and a11 o1 that knd o1
22 thng. 8ut they re1use to say what t s, how they'11
22 be harmed, et cetera, and they do have that burden.
24 M8. SLuCL8: ^nd 1 -- some o1 these
2S thngs do become ust repetton, what has a1ready been
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1008
OCTOBER 18, 2013
92
1 sad. 11 we haven't made t c1ear that based on hs own
2 a11davt, Mr. 8athbun comes wthn the -- the umbre11a
2 o1 the unverse peop1e that shou1d not be revea1ng
4 con1denta1 n1ormaton, then 1'm never gong to get
S there.
6 ^nd ths case -- so that's the 1rst part
7 o1 t. 11 we prove t out o1 hs a11davt that he
8 was -- he doesn't use the word drector o1 1ega1
9 a11ars. What he says s, 1 drected 1ega1 a11ars. So
10 1 -- 1 shortened t and turned t nto a noun. 11 an
11 apo1ogy s needed, 1 apo1ogze.
12 1hs s the same type o1 case. 1he --
12 read that a11davt. 1he who1e pont o1 t s -- and t
14 goes on 1or page a1ter page a1ter page, s that he was
1S drect1y nvo1ved n the way n whch Mr. Mscavge and
16 the church and the -- and -- when 1 sad the church,
17 that's both 81C and our c1ent CS1, supposed1y do bad
18 thngs n 1tgaton, how they hde the ba11, how they
19 1e.
20 1n 1act, Mr. Mscavge -- Mr. 8athbun n
21 hs a11davt, n paragraphs nne and 12 o1 t, ta1k
22 about how he persona11y 1a1se1y swears n -- and -- and
22 dened thngs 1a1se1y, 1a1se dec1aratons. ue's the
24 person that we need to be care1u1 about out o1 hs own
2S mouth.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1009
OCTOBER 18, 2013
94
1 8ut the pont s, t's the same thng that
2 Mr. -- that Mr. Je11rey s accusng o1 us dong. 1hs
2 s changng sdes because ths s -- ust n the same
4 way as t was the sa1ety systems n the he1copter case,
S the same thngs are n controversy here. ^gan, we
6 cou1d ta1k a11 day. 11 1 have -- haven't made my case,
7 1'm not gong to make t.
8 1uL C0u81: 1he pont o1 a moton n
9 1mne, wh1e we're not n 1ront o1 a ury, rea11y s --
10 whether rre1evant s the rght term or not, 1 don't
11 know, but t's pont1ess. 8ut yet 1 we're not n 1ront
12 o1 a ury, 1 mean, smp1e obectons and ru1ngs
12 thereupon w11 dea1 wth the ssue.
14 8ut 1 -- 1 thnk 1 understand the purpose
1S o1 seekng -- whether t's ca11ed a moton n 1mne or
16 whatever e1se t mght be ca11ed, protectve order under
17 192.6, t bo1s down to that d11erence between the
18 o11ensve use o1 somethng that's -- whether t's
19 prv1eged or whether t's broader than that,
20 con1denta1, or whether t's n response, 1 t's a
21 de1ensve use, 1 thnk t's -- because 1 don't thnk
22 that a person has -- or an entty has the ab1ty to
22 come n n e11ect -- n a hypothetca1 stuaton, 1'm
24 not ta1kng about any o1 the partes current1y, but
2S to -- to perpetrate a 1raud on the Court wthout reprse
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1010
OCTOBER 18, 2013
9S
1 1rom the other sde. 1 ust don't thnk you can do
2 that. Whether t's ursdctona1 1mtatons, 1act
2 ssues down the road on the merts o1 the cause o1
4 acton, 1 ust don't thnk you cou1d do that.
S M8. SLuCL8: Judge, 1 understand your
6 concern 1 you do that. 1 don't know 1 you 1ook at --
7 1uL C0u81: My pont s 1 don't thnk they
8 can come o11er t, come say, 1ook, the ursdcton s
9 estab1shed, boom, because we -- we garnered ths
10 through some con1dence.
11 uow, 1 mean -- n other words, they can
12 come try to rebut the prma 1ace case o1 no
12 ursdcton by way o1 usng the depostons that they
14 use that -- that estab1sh that. ^nd then 1 t's
1S 1urther rebutted wth somethng e1se and they thnk they
16 maybe have some n1ormaton, that's when we'11 start
17 havng that rea1 debate, 1 thnk, as to whether
18 somethng was prv1eged or whether t was mere1y
19 con1denta1 n1ormaton or whether they have the
20 ab1ty to use t n a de1ensve posture or not.
21 ^nd, Mr. Ced11o, 1 apprecate the grant
22 o1 the mert to the 1ast paragraph o1 my order. 1
22 ddn't rea11y contemp1ate t wou1d be used as such, but
24 that you wou1d come back and -- but 1 -- as 1ar as
2S grantng a moton n 1mne, 1'11 wat unt1 we get to
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1011
OCTOBER 18, 2013
96
1 the pont where we're n 1ront o1 a ury.
2 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, t rea11y s --
2 doesn't make any d11erence. 1he purpose o1 the moton
4 n 1mne s to get a protecton n p1ace be1ore you
S throw the skunk n the ury box. You know, t's a --
6 t's a proactve, you know, preventatve measure up
7 1ront.
8 1uL C0u81: 8ght now t's ust a box. 1t
9 doesn't have a ury n t, so --
10 M8. CL01ll0: 1he pont s, t's a measure
11 that you take be1ore the harm s done. ^nd 1 you want
12 to, you know, thnk about t n generc terms nstead o1
12 what -- a spec1c moton n 1mne, we 1a11 wthn the
14 generc purpose. So 1 was very com1ortab1e usng that.
1S 1 knd o1 know when moton n 1mnes come up and when
16 they don't, but 1 thought you were 1ookng at t
17 conceptua11y. ^nd 1 thnk conceptua11y you're correct.
18 1uL C0u81: 1 am -- whether we ca11 t a
19 protectve order or moton n 1mne at ths uncture
20 snce we don't have a ury, 1 thnk the -- semantcs and
21 the d11erences n those terms are rea11y mmatera1.
22 1 don't mnd mposng whatever we're gong
22 to ca11 t to the 1o11owng extent, that 1 thnk the key
24 phrase as 1 see t n Mr. Spencer's number one s n --
2S on the thrd 1ne, n any communcatons. ^nd what 1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1012
OCTOBER 18, 2013
97
1 wou1d mpose or nter1neate n there between any and
2 communcatons wou1d be prv1eged communcatons. ^nd
2 wth that understandng, 1'm okay, 1 thnk, wth the
4 1anguage there.
S ^nd then n two -- number two, 1'm okay
6 wth -- agan, 1 thnk the key word there s wh1e he s
7 test1yng. So 1 we thnk we're gong nto some
8 con1denta1 n1ormaton or queston about -- that's
9 gong to e1ct an answer that contans con1denta1
10 n1ormaton or re1ates thereto, ust smp1y say, Judge,
11 be1ore 1 ask the next queston, you w11 have to
12 approach, but we're gong to go nto certan
12 con1denta1 matters because, and get my approva1 be1ore
14 we go there. 1 thnk we can manage that.
1S M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, may 1 ask a
16 queston?
18 M8. JLII8LY: You're sayng "n any
19 prv1eged communcatons" -- you're sayng con1denta1
20 n1ormaton --
21 1uL C0u81: 1hat was garnered by.
22 M8. JLII8LY: -- that was wthn a
22 prv1eged communcaton that he got --
24 M8. CL01ll0: uo.
2S M8. JLII8LY: -- or what are you sayng?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1013
OCTOBER 18, 2013
98
1 8ecause as they've de1ned con1denta1 n1ormaton n
2 that 1anguage, t's 1tera11y everythng that he ever
2 1earned n the Church o1 Scento1ogy, nc1udng whether
4 the 1ood s good n the mess ha11 or -- or whether the
S co11ee s served hot or not.
6 1uL C0u81: 1 saw t as beng somethng
7 that Mark 8athbun garnered by and through a prv1eged
8 communcaton.
9 M8. JLII8LY: 1hat's what -- that's what 1
10 was understandng to you say, but 1 was a 1tt1e 1ear1u1
11 about how that wou1d be construed by them.
12 What we thought that -- the way to adust
12 that wou1d be to say not to seek to obtan prv1eged
14 n1ormaton because what they have s as de1ned n
1S 1exas 0scp1nary 8u1e o1 ro1essona1 Conduct 1.0S s
16 1tera11y a11 n1ormaton.
17 M8. SLuCL8: ^nd we dd that because
18 that's what the supreme court has repeated1y sad s
19 what we're entt1ed to protecton 1or.
20 M8. JLII8LY: 1n the case o1 someone
21 changng sdes.
22 1uL C0u81: 1 saw the n any prv1eged
22 communcaton as beng a category o1 whch you were
24 seekng -- you were seekng some categorzaton. ^nd so
2S 1 was usng t, 1 guess, n a 1mtng sense.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1014
OCTOBER 18, 2013
99
1 M8. JLII8LY: 1hen why wou1dn't the -- t
2 ust be changed to say not to seek to obtan prv1eged
2 n1ormaton because con1denta1 n1ormaton as t s
4 here n the case o1 someone changng sdes s a11
S n1ormaton. You -- they 1tera11y cannot touch you or
6 ta1k to you.
7 ^nd 1 you ust put prv1eged n1ormaton
8 where t says con1denta1 n1ormaton through any o1
9 these, we can -- we agree to that, one, two, three and
10 1ve. 8ut what they're sayng -- and 1 ust want to
11 make sure the Court understands what that ru1ng wou1d
12 be s that there s nothng we can ta1k to hm about
12 1rom hs 20 years n the Church o1 Scento1ogy,
14 anythng.
1S M8. SLuCL8: uo, that's not correct. 1t
16 s not -- to re1ate -- to use your examp1e, and 1 know
17 you use t n a -- n a, you know, a short, absurd
18 extreme. ue, o1 course, can ta1k about the 1ood n the
19 mess ha11 or -- or what he was served or wasn't served
20 or how t tasted.
21 What he -- the de1nton o1 con1denta1
22 n1ormaton, whch s -- agan, that's the term -- t's
22 not one 1 chose because t's, you know, advantageous to
24 my c1ent n ths -- n ths context. 1t's what the
2S supreme court has ust over and over and over agan sad
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1015
OCTOBER 18, 2013
100
1 s what a c1ent s entt1ed to protecton regardng.
2 ^nd -- and t s prv1eged -- prv1eged
2 n1ormaton, but t's a1so unprv1eged c1ent
4 n1ormaton and -- and that s de1ned as n1ormaton
S re1atng to a c1ent or 1urnshed by the c1ent,
6 acqured durng the course o1 or by reason o1 the
7 representaton o1 the c1ent.
8 1n other words, t's what he 1earned n
9 the 20 years o1 drectng 1ega1 a11ars. 1t's 1ega1
10 stu11. 1t's not the qua1ty o1 the 1ood. 1t's not --
11 t's not those types o1 thngs. 1t's what he 1earned
12 durng the tme he was drectng 1ega1 a11ars. ^gan,
12 that's what the supreme court has sad over and over
14 agan, sad what s the scope o1 the unverse o1 what
1S we're entt1ed to.
16 M8. JLII8LY: 1hat's smp1y not correct.
17 11 he -- the way he read t 1ast, t's 1 1'm a -- 1'm a
18 1awyer and 1'm representng a c1ent, 1tera11y anythng
19 1 1earn about them. ^nd so 1 you're gong to app1y
20 that to Mr. 8athbun, t's 1tera11y everythng --
21 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 don't put hm n that
22 category.
22 M8. JLII8LY: -- and that's the prob1em.
24 1hs s a ru1e that app1es to 1awyers and -- and
2S accordng to Mr. Spencer, what he keeps argung s
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1016
OCTOBER 18, 2013
101
1 that -- that a para1ega1 that swtches sdes n the
2 mdd1e o1 a case has that same broad duty o1
2 con1denta1ty, but the thrd category o1 person s
4 Mr. 8athbun. ue has some prv1eged n1ormaton and he
S has nonprv1eged n1ormaton. So 1 -- 1 1 understand
6 what the Court s attemptng to -- to make c1ear,
7 t's --
8 1uL C0u81: 1'm tryng to ba1ance a11 o1
9 these soca1 concerns here --
10 M8. JLII8LY: Sure. We're not -- we're
11 not gong nto prv1eged n1ormaton.
12 1uL C0u81: -- and po1cy and --
12 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, the prob1em wth
14 that s that the supreme court has de1ned con1denta1
1S n1ormaton to nc1ude both prv1eged and unprv1eged
16 n1ormaton. unprv1eged n1ormaton that was obtaned
17 under certan set o1 crcumstances, that's -- whether
18 you're a 1awyer, a para1ega1 or -- or a 8 man, drector
19 o1 1ega1 a11ars, whatever you want to ca11 t, there s
20 unprv1eged n1ormaton that s c1ear1y --
21 1uL C0u81: 1 mean, we're dea1ng wth
22 somebody who s a hgh-1eve1 part o1 an organzaton,
22 but n1ormaton that s -- does not go drect1y to the
24 merts -- the 1actua1 merts o1 a partcu1ar cause o1
2S acton.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1017
OCTOBER 18, 2013
102
1 ^nd so that's the prob1em 1'm havng s --
2 s that's the -- that's the category or the extent to
2 whch he mght have some other n1ormaton gong to ths
4 ssue as a matter o1 1aw as opposed to a matter o1 1act
S that a1though t s based on 1act, t w11 be -- t's a
6 de novo decson --
7 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd 1 know we're not n a
8 moton n 1mne stuaton.
9 1uL C0u81: -- as opposed to a
10 su11cency-type stuaton.
11 M8. CL01ll0: 1 know we're not n a moton
12 n 1mne stuaton, but under the concept o1 a
12 protecton, what wou1d be wrong wth a system 1 they
14 come to you and they te11 you -- or they come to us and
1S they te11 us, we want to 1earn about the ca1etera
16 practces, and why dd you not have ench1adas on
17 Wednesday because that caused me emotona1 dstress
18 because 1 grew up wth ench1adas every Wednesday? 1
19 thnk, Your uonor, we're gong to be ab1e to work out
20 among us -- but that sn't the knd o1 nonprv1eged,
21 con1denta1 n1ormaton that we're gong to need to
22 1ght over.
22 M8. CûCC10: 1hs s the prob1em. 1hey
24 want to gag us ahead o1 tme and then make us go to them
2S and ask them, now, guys, s t okay 1or us to ask ths
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1018
OCTOBER 18, 2013
102
1 queston.
2 1uL C0u81: uo. 1t's to ask me.
2 M8. CûCC10: We11, that's the prob1em.
4 8y tryng to 1t a dscp1nary ru1e that app1es to a
S 1awyer to a non1awyer, that's the prob1em. 1t's wth
6 ther de1nton, Your uonor. 1hen we're askng you to
7 extend a dscp1nary ru1e to a non1awyer.
8 M8. CL01ll0: Lvery protectve order s a
9 pror restrant. Lvery protectve order s a gag order.
10 Lvery protectve order -- 1or very, very good reasons,
11 they operate as a -- as a way o1 gatekeepng.
12 We're not extendng a dscp1nary ru1e.
12 1he -- the dscp1nary ru1e de1ntons or standards as
14 app1ed to -- to a para1ega1 or to a drector o1 1ega1
1S a11ars that s a non1awyer wou1d st11 be app1cab1e.
16 1t ust happens to concde wth what t says n the
17 dscp1nary ru1e. 1hat doesn't mean we're extendng
18 t, Your uonor. 1'm sure the Court understands that
19 dstncton.
20 ^nd there's nothng nherent1y ev1 or
21 wrong wth a protectve order 1unctonng to protect the
22 way a 1mne protects, the way a protectve order
22 protects. 1t -- t's -- t's a come check wth me
24 1rst. 11 t's nonprv1eged n1ormaton that dea1s
2S wth the ca1etera, 1 promse you we'11 never grace your
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1019
OCTOBER 18, 2013
104
1 presence wth that queston.
2 M8. CûCC10: Your uonor, we w11 not --
2 1 take -- whatever order ths Court enters, we take
4 obvous1y extreme1y serous1y that we comp1y wth t.
S We w11 have no way to know whether we're n vo1aton
6 o1 an order or not 1 ths de1nton s mposed.
7 1here's smp1y -- the way t s worded n the
8 dscp1nary ru1es, to cover anythng the c1ent te11s
9 hs 1awyer, whch s not the case here, we w11 never be
10 ab1e to know what we can ta1k to hm or can't ta1k to
11 hm about. 1hey w11 e11ectve1y prec1ude us 1rom
12 e11ectve1y representng our c1ent.
12 M8. CL01ll0: Your uonor, t's gong to be
14 a queston. 1t's a smp1e queston here. 1s ths
1S n1ormaton that you know because o1 the work you dd
16 1or -- durng the tme that you were there.
17 M8. CûCC10: ^nd that's the prob1em.
18 M8. CL01ll0: 0kay. 1hat -- that's
19 exact1y what the ru1e says you're supposed to do. 1
20 mean, he wou1d have 1earned, but 1or your presence as
21 head o1 --
22 1uL C0u81: We11, agan -- see, that gets
22 me back to my hypothetca1. 8egard1ess o1 the 1awyer,
24 regard1ess o1 the 1ega1 team that the p1ant11 mght
2S have, then the spouse ust gets to st back there on the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1020
OCTOBER 18, 2013
10S
1 back row and --
2 M8. CL01ll0: ^nd not 1uncton as an
2 expert wtness and not 1uncton as a consu1tant
4 because -- because the supreme court has sad that when
S you 1t ths part, you can 1uncton as a spouse the way
6 any other spouse wou1d be ab1e to 1uncton. 8ut you
7 want to 1t n as a spouse 1unctonng as an expert
8 wtness, and that's not what the spousa1 --
9 1uL C0u81: ^nd even assumng that
10 somebody tota11y -- a hypothetca1 stuaton -- came n
11 and was attemptng to -- 1rom whatever ssue t was, n
12 e11ect -- whatever you want to ca11 t, create a
12 msmpresson, commt a 1raud upon the Court or
14 whatever, that they cou1dn't come and say, hey, you need
1S to know ths --
16 M8. CL01ll0: We11 -- and, Your uonor,
17 the -- 1 what they're sayng s true, 1 see that the
18 Court --
19 1uL C0u81: -- or you can rebut that wth
20 ths n1ormaton --
21 M8. CL01ll0: 11 that's --
22 1uL C0u81: -- because that's ms1eadng.
22 1hat's a msmpresson.
24 M8. CL01ll0: 11 your hypothetca1 assumes
2S that the c1am they're makng s the gospe1 truth, 1
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1021
OCTOBER 18, 2013
106
1 cou1d see where the Court wou1d have a rea1 hard tme
2 wth that. 1 wou1d, too.
2 8ut 1 you 1ook at t as ths s somethng
4 he says because o1 what he 1earned nsde and the on1y
S way to rebut t s 1or us to wave our prv1ege or
6 wave the con1denta1ty, that's what the ru1e -- ru1e
7 s sayng no, we're not gong to take t n the 1rst
8 nstance 1rom hm because we don't want to put you n
9 the untenab1e poston.
10 ^nd that's not to say that, you know,
11 they're not gong to be ab1e to prove ther case. Lvery
12 examp1e they've gven you -- and 1 -- they can gve me
12 a11 o1 the examp1es they want. 1hey say, we -- 1 know
14 t's a 1e because 1 went wth hm to 1und-rase n
1S 1exas, assumng that s re1evant or determnatve o1 the
16 speca1 appearance ssue. 0kay. 1hat's not the on1y
17 way they can prove that, Your uonor.
18 M8. CûCC10: Your uonor --
19 1uL C0u81: 8ut they're prohbted 1rom
20 usng that n1ormaton? 8ecause that's an actvty. 1
21 mean, that's a -- t's not -- t's not con1denta1
22 because they came to be on the town square to do that --
22 M8. CL01ll0: Lxact1y.
24 1uL C0u81: -- but they can't use hm as a
2S wtness?
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1022
OCTOBER 18, 2013
107
1 M8. CL01ll0: 1hey can't use hm to
2 estab1sh t, Your uonor. 11 he -- he's on1y n a
2 poston to do t because o1 the poston that he has,
4 especa11y when they can estab1sh t e1sewhere because
S you gve t a stamp o1 re1ab1ty that everythng he
6 says, because 1 was there, wou1d requre us to come
7 1orth and rebut t wth exposng the con1denta1ty n
8 another nstance.
9 ^nd that's why you can't be a 1tt1e bt
10 pregnant n terms o1 wavng the prv1ege. You assert
11 t or you don't. You wave t or you don't. uow,
12 that's -- 1'm not here argung anythng that s extreme
12 or -- or new or nove1, Your uonor. 1hat s the
14 prncp1es behnd the ru1es.
1S M8. CûCC10: 1t s new and nove1. ^nd
16 the de1ensve use s the pont. 1hey keep swtchng
17 ths, Your uonor.
18 Mr. Ced11o sad t. ue reversed t.
19 1hs s ther speca1 appearance. 1hey 11ed a11davts
20 1or Mr. Mscavge and others. 1hat's how ths came up.
21 We 11ed a response wth an a11davt
22 rebuttng t, whch s exact1y what he sad a ha11 hour
22 or an hour ago that we cou1d do. 1hat's how we got t
24 here. 1hs s not a11rmatve use.
2S We are rebuttng the 1actua1 naccuraces
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1023
OCTOBER 18, 2013
108
1 that were contaned n ther a11davts. ^nd they're
2 tryng to stop us 1rom dong that. 8eyond that, they're
2 tryng to stop us 1rom even askng anybody whether these
4 statements are true or not.
S M8. CL01ll0: ^nd, Your uonor, the ru1e
6 when t app1es -- take the stuaton rght there. 0oes
7 that mean, Your uonor, that -- that 1 cou1d go to the --
8 the current emp1oyee workng wth the executve who
9 11ed the a11davt sayng no, no, 1'm not. 1'm not
10 gong to 1exas -- cou1d they go to hs genera1 counse1
11 and compe1 hm and 1orce hm to gve n1ormaton o1 the
12 contradcton?
12 ^nd -- and 1 thnk the answer s no. ^nd
14 why not? 8ecause there s a prv1ege there. 1t
1S doesn't matter -- hs dstncton about o11ensve or
16 de1ensve use, the ru1e -- the queston s, does the
17 ru1e app1y because the partes 1t. ^nd then t's
18 o11ensve, de1ensve. 1t doesn't matter.
19 11 t app1es, Your uonor, t wou1d app1y
20 there. 1hey're gong to have to rebut that a11davt
21 another way. 1hey can get the p1ot. 1hey can get
22 the -- someone they met wth. 1hey can do ther work,
22 but they don't have to do t and the ru1e says they
24 can't do t --
2S 1uL C0u81: We11, so cou1d -- cou1d the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1024
OCTOBER 18, 2013
109
1 spouse n a hypothetca1 stuaton say go ta1k to -- who
2 s the guy that 1anded the ar1ner on the uudson, say
2 he was the p1ot?
4 M8. CL01ll0: Su11y.
S 1uL C0u81: Su11y -- go ta1k to Su11y.
6 1hat's who you need to ta1k to, hs phone number s, can
7 they do that? 1 mean -- or s that a vo1aton o1 a
8 con1dence? 1 don't know how 1ar you take t. 1hat's
9 the prob1em.
10 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's Su11y that 11ew them
11 there?
12 1uL C0u81: ^nd a11 o1 the brds that 1e11
12 n the engne.
14 M8. CL01ll0: Judge, 1 thnk the way the
1S ru1e operates -- 1 t was somethng he 1earned because
16 o1 hs poston -- but, you know, Judge, there's --
17 there's 11ght man1ests. 1here's records that are
18 kept -- that get done. 1here are other ways o1 dong
19 ther work wthout gong to an area that the supreme
20 court says s out o1 bounds.
21 M8. CûCC10: 1he queston s s t
22 prv1eged. 1hey don't get to contro1 how we conduct
22 our dscovery and how we ntervew wtnesses. 1hs s
24 what s crazy and nove1 about ths who1e concept that
2S they're argung here, tryng to mpose a de1nton that
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1025
OCTOBER 18, 2013
110
1 app1es on1y to attorneys and n1ormaton they ganed
2 1rom ther c1ents onto a nonattorney, Your uonor, and
2 then te11 us that we can't -- we wou1d have no way o1
4 even knowng these other ssues because 1 mght rsk
S beng n vo1aton o1 your order. 11 t adopts ths
6 de1nton, 1 won't be ab1e to even ask the queston the
7 way ths s worded rght now, Your uonor.
8 M8. CL01ll0: Judge, 1 mean, the ^1ce n
9 Wonder1and s to say that we're on1y gong to 1ook at
10 somethng that -- that everyone w11 agree s prv1eged
11 and w11 stay away 1rom that. 1he prv1ege s the easy
12 part, Judge. 1he unprv1eged, con1denta1
12 n1ormaton, that's the hard part.
14 M8. CûCC10: ^nd that's dscoverab1e --
1S 1'm sorry.
16 M8. CL01ll0: 1hat's what they want to do.
17 1hey want to on1y 1mt t to the prv1ege. ^nd that
18 supreme court sad con1denta1 orders or -- or
19 en1orcement o1 -- con1denta1ty sn't 1mted to ust
20 the -- the genera11y accepted prv1eges. 1t's
21 unprv1eged n1ormaton as we11.
22 ^nd agan, t's not the dscp1nary ru1e.
22 1t's the supreme court's de1nton and ther ho1dngs.
24 1he 1act that they concde wth that de1nton s
2S concdenta1. We're not extendng anythng.
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1026
OCTOBER 18, 2013
111
1 Judge, 1 mean, 1've had con1denta1
2 n1ormaton restrctons and protectve orders that meet
2 exact1y verbatm what you have n the ru1es o1
4 pro1essona1 conduct. ^nd 1've had them app1ed to
S engneers that 1e1t kC1 n San ^ntono, the medca1
6 devce peop1e.
7 1've had them app1ed to any number o1 --
8 o1 non1awyers who had con1denta1 n1ormaton that s
9 not prv1eged. Lvery trade secret case has that.
10 1hat -- ths -- yeah, the words are the same. So what?
11 1he concept that we're -- that s beng mposed s
12 because they 1t nto an area that protectons are
12 requred. ^nd yeah, the de1ntons --
14 1uL C0u81: ^nd 1 understand the trade
1S secret aspect o1 t. 8ut whether or not there was a
16 p1ane rde and who was on the p1ane, 1 --
17 M8. CL01ll0: 11 t was 1earned by
18 somebody who was drectng 1ega1 a11ars, Your uonor, 1
19 thnk t wou1d app1y to the engneer, 1 the engneer
20 was runnng that. 1 mean, the trade secrets are -- you
21 know, the ana1ogy goes on1y so 1ar because they're
22 not -- 1 mean, they're -- they have ther scope o1 work.
22 1hey have ther nvo1vement and t's very easy to
24 determne s ths what you dd or ddn't do.
2S 1uL C0u81: We11, and that's why 1 was
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1027
OCTOBER 18, 2013
112
1 tryng to come up wth a way to 1mt ths. 8ut 1 thnk
2 as wrtten rght here under the crcumstances that 1'm
2 dea1ng wth, t's -- 1 we're havng ths much prob1em
4 rght now, 1'm ust -- wth understandng -- 1 was
S tryng to read t a 1tt1e bt d11erent1y and add to
6 t, but --
7 M8. CL01ll0: Judge, he says that he
8 oversaw and drected the de1endant's 1ega1 a11ars. ue
9 sad that under oath. 1 thnk --
10 1uL C0u81: ^nd to the extent that we're
11 gettng nto prv1eged n1ormaton, 1 thnk that's
12 understood. 1 thnk they've nstructed hm. 1've heard
12 them.
14 M8. CL01ll0: 8ut t's broader than that,
1S Your uonor.
16 1uL C0u81: 0kay. 6reat.
17 M8. CL01ll0: 1hat's why the
18 attorney-c1ent prv1ege doesn't stop and end -- begn
19 and end on the -- on the communcatons.
20 1uL C0u81: 8dng on a p1ane 1or a
21 1und-raser s not rea11y a 1ega1 a11ar. Just because
22 1've got that tt1e over my name, assumng he was 1ega1
22 drector --
24 M8. CL01ll0: 1 understand, and 1 accept
2S the Court's dstncton. 1t's not -- t's -- t's --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1028
OCTOBER 18, 2013
112
1 the -- the attorney-c1ent or any prv1ege -- 1et's
2 take attorney-c1ent. 1he protecton that's a11orded
2 doesn't end wth ust attorney-c1ent communcaton,
4 work product, strategy, the processes o1 -- o1 thought
S that -- that the attorney undertook that -- that do not
6 1a11 nto the technca1 de1nton o1 a prv1eged
7 communcaton.
8 1uL C0u81: We11, but that's work product.
9 M8. CL01ll0: 8ut agan, Judge, t -- t
10 s somethng that sn't technca11y the -- the
11 attorney-c1ent communcaton prv1ege and you st11
12 a11ord t protecton. 1he ana1ogy 1'm makng s that
12 there are thngs that he 1earned.
14 1uL C0u81: 8ut that's a category o1 a
1S we11-recognzed prv1ege.
16 M8. CûCC10: ^nd even work product --
17 and Mr. Ced11o knows that. We had ths n the other
18 case. Lven that s not abso1ute. ^ttorney-c1ent
19 communcatons are ust about as abso1ute as you get.
20 Work product s not.
21 1hs argument now that s comng up wth
22 work product s a comp1ete red herrng on us, Your
22 uonor. We're n the dscovery phase. 11 they have
24 evdentary ssues, they're 1ree to rase those
2S obectons at the 11 hearng or the speca1 appearance
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1029
OCTOBER 18, 2013
114
1 hearng. 8ut the ssue rght now s they're tryng to
2 stop us n our nvestgaton to rebut c1ams they made.
2 M8. CL01ll0: We're attemptng, Your
4 uonor, to have them respect the supreme court's mandates
S on -- on what s protected n1ormaton. ^nd -- and
6 agan, your approach to try to get to a 1esser
7 measure -- and we -- we ca11ed t a moton n 1mne
8 concept, 1 guarantee 1 you want to devse somethng
9 a1ong those 1nes, 1 don't know what Mr. 8athbun s
10 gong to say. You know, 1 was there and x.
11 0kay. We11, 1 was there and x and t
12 dea1s wth the ca1etera? You know, 1 -- we're not
12 gong to brng t to you. 1 was there and x dea1s wth
14 somethng that he on1y 1earned because he drected and
1S oversaw the 1ega1 a11ars? 1hat's somethng that then
16 we can brng to you. 1hat's a 1esser measure, whch s
17 what you were tryng to -- to come to.
18 M8. JLII8LY: Your uonor, Mr. Spencer read
19 to you 8u1e 1.0S. 1 don't know 1 you have 1ooked at
20 that. 1hat's what they're askng you to sgn an order
21 on. 1.0S says any n1ormaton about the c1ent n the
22 course o1 representaton. So they're app1yng that --
22 1uL C0u81: ^nd that's part o1 the prob1em
24 s n the course o1 representaton as opposed to n the
2S course o1 emp1oyment --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1030
OCTOBER 18, 2013
11S
1 M8. JLII8LY: 8ght.
2 1uL C0u81: -- and those are two dstnct,
2 d11erent thngs.
4 M8. JLII8LY: ^nd he's not a 1awyer,
S ddn't represent them.
6 1uL C0u81: ^nd 1've been wrest1ng wth
7 that and --
8 M8. JLII8LY: So as t s wrtten now,
9 1tera11y we cou1d not ta1k to Marty 8athbun about
10 anythng that happened n 20 years at the Church o1
11 Scento1ogy.
12 1uL C0u81: 0kay.
12 M8. JLII8LY: ^nd by the way, we're back
14 here agan. 1hey're argung compe11ng1y that there's
1S ths con1denta1 n1ormaton. 1hey have yet to
16 dent1y one pece o1 con1denta1 n1ormaton.
17 1uL C0u81: ^nd 1 understand they -- they
18 c1am they don't have to do t and somebody s gong to
19 grade my papers 1ater on on that ssue.
21 1uL C0u81: So to have ths debate -- 1
22 understand the 1ramework o1 the debate. 1 was tryng to
22 come up wth a good way to do t. 8ut the on1y way 1
24 know now to do t -- make t as c1ear as possb1e s
2S ust change t to be prv1eged n1ormaton strkng the
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1031
OCTOBER 18, 2013
116
1 de1nton under 10S and then 1eavng the rest a1one,
2 but -- 1 mean, number two, 1 see that as beng wh1e
2 he's test1yng n 1ront o1 me or a ury. 1'm okay wth
4 that.
S M8. CûCC10: Lxcept t uses the same
6 de1nton. We can agree to two, Your uonor, 1 we say
7 prv1eged n1ormaton. 1hey have the con1denta1 n
8 quotes there to come back to ther de1nton under
9 1.0S{a). 11 we take -- anywhere they have quoted
10 con1denta1 n1ormaton, 1 we substtute prv1eged
11 attorney-c1ent n1ormaton there 1or one, two, three
12 and 1ve, we've a1ready to1d them we cou1d 1ve wth
12 that.
14 1uL C0u81: We11, 1'm not 1ookng at t as
1S on1y beng attorney-c1ent prv1eged. 1t cou1d be work
16 product. 1t cou1d be trade secrets. 1t cou1d be other
17 categores. So 1 mean -- but maybe --
18 M8. JLII8LY: ^t 1east that gves us some
19 gudance, Your uonor.
20 1uL C0u81: -- prv1eged n more genera1
21 terms, occupaton.
22 1 guess 1 -- wth those amendments, 1'm
22 havng to amend my amendments. 8ut 1 one, two and
24 three s prv1eged n1ormaton where t says
2S con1denta1, that makes t a 1ot smp1er 1or me at
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1032
OCTOBER 18, 2013
117
1 1east.
2 ^nd then number 1our, 1 mean, 1 wou1d
2 1mt t rght now to beng an expert wtness. 1 don't
4 want to start debatng what does t mean to advse or
S consu1t. ^gan, we're ta1kng about a -- the spouse o1
6 a party that had hgh-1eve1 nvo1vement wth the
7 de1endant nne or ten years ago.
8 ^nd 1 see number 1ve as rea11y beng
9 unmanageab1e un1ess you 1mt t to prv1ege. 11 you
10 1mt t to prv1ege, t's probab1y pretty manageab1e.
11 ^nd 1 have abso1ute1y no prob1em wth
12 number sx. ^nd rght now we can order that a11davt
12 sea1ed, part o1 the 11e and not to dssemnate t
14 1urther wthout order o1 the Court.
1S M8. CûCC10: Your uonor --
16 1uL C0u81: 1s there a prob1em wth that
17 or --
18 M8. CûCC10: 1here s a prob1em. 1
19 don't thnk they've comp1ed wth 76{a) n order to sea1
20 a record that's a1ready pub1c. 1've never done t
21 be1ore, but as 1 read the ru1e, they've got to provde
22 notce to -- to newspapers. 1here's pub1c nterest
22 concerns. 1 had ths come up once up n 0a11as.
24 1here's a number o1 tems they have to comp1y wth n
2S order to sea1 --
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1033
OCTOBER 18, 2013
118
1 1uL C0u81: ^11 rght. 8ut as 1ar as
2 y'a11 1urther dssemnatng t, s there any prob1em
2 wth that? 1 was takng t 1urther than what they were
4 askng.
S M8. CûCC10: We may need to use t n
6 another p1eadng. 1hat's the prob1em.
7 1uL C0u81: ^11 they've got to do s re1er
8 to t.
9 M8. CL01ll0: 0r come and ask you 1or
10 permsson.
11 M8. CûCC10: So we may be amendng our
12 response to ther speca1 appearance. We wou1d be
12 attachng t. We wou1d be nc1udng t agan.
14 1uL C0u81: 1 thnk a11 you have to do s
1S re1er to t.
16 M8. CL01ll0: You can attach that under
17 sea1 wthout gong through the process o1 sea1ng the
18 courtroom. ue's ta1kng about sea1ng the courtroom.
19 You can attach t under sea1.
20 under the genera1 -- the genera1 ru1e,
21 Your uonor, s that you have the rght to run your
22 courtroom how -- how you thnk you need to. 1hat gves
22 you the -- the authorty to do that.
24 M8. JLII8LY: uot accordng to 8u1e 76{a).
2S 1uL C0u81: 1 thnk he's ta1kng about
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1034
OCTOBER 18, 2013
119
1 papers n the 11e.
2 M8. CûCC10: Yeah. 1hat's rght.
2 M8. CL01ll0: 1t's not n the 11e 1 he's
4 gong to be 11ng somethng new, Your uonor.
S 1uL C0u81: 8ut t's a1ready there.
6 M8. JLII8LY: 1t says -- here's what the
7 ru1e says -- 1'm sorry.
8 M8. CL01ll0: 11 t's a1ready there -- 1
9 understand what the ru1e says.
11 M8. CL01ll0: 1'm suggestng that the
12 Court has the p1enary power to say, when you 11e a new
12 thng and you want to add somethng that 1've to1d you
14 not to 1urther dssemnate, even 1 t's a copy o1 what
1S you've a1ready done, 11e that under sea1 --
16 M8. JLII8LY: 0r ust re1er to t by
17 re1erence.
18 M8. CL01ll0: -- or re1er to t by
19 re1erence.
20 1uL C0u81: Just re1er to t by re1erence.
21 M8. CL01ll0: You have the power to do
22 that wthout pub1shng n the newspaper that you're
22 gong to shut thngs down.
24 M8. CûCC10: 1'm not an appe11ate
2S speca1st. 1 read the ru1e on speca1 appearance
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1035
OCTOBER 18, 2013
120
1 responses. ^nd any a11davts or thngs we've got to
2 attach, t's got to be seven days be1ore the hearng.
2 11 t was ust me, an abundance o1 cauton, when 1
4 11ed that amended response, 1 wou1d attach that
S a11davt agan ust because 1 don't know what the court
6 o1 appea1s s gong to say, so that's my concern.
7 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 you 1ee1 1ke you
8 need to attach t, 1 don't have any opposton to --
9 to -- t's ust -- t's a somewhat ho11ow sea1ng snce
10 t's --
11 M8. CûCC10: 8ght.
12 1uL C0u81: -- a1ready n there. 8ut 1or
12 the purpose o1 preservng the record 1or any appe11ate
14 revew, 1 you want to attach t n an enve1ope 1abe1ed
1S Lxhbt ^ or whatever, 1 don't have any prob1em wth
16 that.
17 M8. CL01ll0: 1hat s done and t -- t s
18 attached and t s n the record.
19 M8. CûCC10: What norma11y -- what
20 norma11y happens -- that a11davt s severa1 pages
21 1ong. 1 thnk they're on1y comp1anng about a
22 paragraph o1 t. You don't get to sea1 an entre
22 a11davt ust because you obect to one or two
24 paragraphs they asked to be redacted or sea1 those
2S partcu1ar portons. 1 don't thnk t's proper to ust
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1036
OCTOBER 18, 2013
121
1 say the who1e a11davt s now sea1ed 1orevermore.
2 1uL C0u81: 0kay. We11, 1 -- and the
2 who1e ssue about sea1ng 1 vo1unteered. Iorget 1 ever
4 mentoned t. Just don't dssemnate t any 1urther
S beyond the court 11e.
6 M8. CL01ll0: You have the power to do
7 that.
8 Judge, ust to be c1ear, when you are
9 nsertng prv1ege -- or prv1eged documents, 1 -- the
10 prv1eges n the -- n the broad sense, 1 -- 1 we say
11 no, we were -- 1 they say we're prohbted 1rom
12 dsc1osng attorney-c1ent prv1ege on1y, that's not
12 what you're sayng. You're sayng 1 t's a
14 work-product prv1ege, 1 t's a menta1 mpresson, 1
1S t was --
16 1uL C0u81: ^ recognzed -- o1 course a11
17 o1 the 1edera1 stu11 s n the common 1aw. 1he state
18 stu11 s n the -- s n the statute or the ru1es --
19 M8. CL01ll0: 0kay.
20 1uL C0u81: -- or other statutes. So
21 yes --
22 M8. CL01ll0: 1hank you.
22 1uL C0u81: -- any 1edera1 common 1aw
24 prv1ege, be cognzant o1 those ssues as we11 as any
2S state statute or ru1e or other common 1aw, 1 guess, as
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1037
OCTOBER 18, 2013
122
1 we11 --
2 M8. CL01ll0: State common 1aw, okay.
2 1uL C0u81: -- prv1ege n the broad
4 sense.
S ^nythng e1se today?
6 M8. JLII8LY: We11, we do have the matter
7 o1 the protectve order. ^nd n vew o1 your ru1ng,
8 that's -- that's the bg protectve order that sets up
9 the 1ramework. 1n vew o1 your ru1ng, we dd submt to
10 you a proposed order that exc1udes the spouse or -- or
11 nc1udes the spouse as --
12 1uL C0u81: ^nd 1or the purposes o1 these
12 ursdctona1 ssues, whch s rea11y the thresho1d --
14 or that's as 1ar as we've gotten, rght now 1'm okay
1S wth addng the spouse. 8ut ust wth everybody's
16 understandng that once we get beyond that, 1'm probab1y
17 gong to go rght back to -- to the standard 1anguage
18 1rom the I1th Crcut.
19 M8. JLII8LY: ^nd do you have a copy o1
20 the order up there wth the spouse, or do you want us to
21 gve you another copy? We have t rght here.
22 M8. CûCC10: We ust need somethng
22 sgned because they're not gvng us any dscovery unt1
24 we get t sgned.
2S 1uL C0u81: We11, 1 don't know -- t may
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1038
OCTOBER 18, 2013
122
1 be up here somewhere.
2 M8. CûCC10: 1've got another copy.
2 M8. SLuCL8: Mr. Je11rey s representng
4 and we're acceptng hs representaton that the so1e and
S exc1usve change he's made n ths order to the one that
6 we prepared s that he's added the words "and the
7 party's spouse" on page two, Secton 8, doub1e sma11 1.
8 M8. JLII8LY: 1hat's correct, Your uonor.
9 ^nd a1so to take care o1 your ssue about
10 the sgnature 1nes, a1though they're not sgnng o11 on
11 t, we'11 stpu1ate that they're not wavng ther
12 speca1 appearance by -- we11, they're not --
12 1uL C0u81: 1've sgned t. ^nd whoever
14 e1se wants to sgn t, have at t.
1S M8. JLII8LY: Yours s the on1y mportant
16 sgnature and we can get a copy o1 that 1rom Savannah.
17 1uL C0u81: We11, the c1erk's o11ce.
18 M8. JLII8LY: 1hank you, Your uonor.
20 M8. SLuCL8: May we be excused?
21 1uL C0u81: Yes. 1hank you. 1t's a
22 prv1ege to work wth good 1awyers.
22 {roceedngs adourned)
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020
MR1039
OCTOBER 18, 2013
124
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF COMAL
2
4 I, Cindy Cummings, Official Court Reporter in and
S for the 433rd District Court of Comal, State of Texas,
6 do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains
7 a true and correct transcription of all portions of
8 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by
9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of
10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered
11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in
12 chambers and were reported by me.
12 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND, this the 22nd day of October,
14 2013.
1S
,s, Cndy Cummngs
16
Cindy Cummings, Texas CSR 3210
17 Official Court Reporter
433 Judicial District Court
18 150 N. Seguin Street
Suite 317
19 Tel 830-221-1279
Fax 830-608-2030
20 Expiration: 12/31/13
21
22
22
24
2S
C1u0Y CuMM1u6S, CS8
0II1C1^l C0u81 8L081L8 - 42280 01S181C1 C0u81
1Ll. {820) 221-1279 I^x {820)608-2020

Digitally signed
by Cindy
Cummings
DN: cn=Cindy
Cummings,
c=US, o=Comal
County,
ou=433rd District
Court,
email=cummic@
co.comal.tx.us
Date: 2013.10.22
15:23:15 -05'00'
MR1040
MONIQUE RATHBUN

v.

OF SCIENTOLOGY
GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT
TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF THOMAS "TOMMY" DAVIS
TO: All parties, by and through their attorneys of record.
Pursuant to TEx.R.C1v.P. 199,please take notice that on the December 4, 2013 at 10:00
a.m., Plaintiff will take the deposition of Thomas "Tommy" Davis. The deposition will take
place in the offices of Scott, Douglass & McConnico, 600 Congress A venue, Suite 1500,
Austin, Texas 78701. Said deposition will additionally be videotaped. Both the stenographic
and video recording will be provided by DepoTexas (210) 481-7575 and may be used as
evidence in trial of this cause.
2631 Bulverde Road, Suite I 05
Bulverde, TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)
rjeffrcy:@sj ml awvcrs.com
dm i 1chel l'ii;sj m lawvers.com
MR1041
THE WIEGAND LAW FIR,1, P.C.
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
m:i.rc:({j.,,icgandlawtirm.com
PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSO:\", LLP\
(210) 222-9494
(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)
ccappuccio(tlmulmanlaw.com
FOR MONIQUE R<\ THBUN
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forward
via facsimile to the following of record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on this the day of October, 2013:
Lamont A. Jefferson
J. Iris Gibson
Austin, Texas 78701
Les J. Strieber III
DA VIS CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
CLEMENS & SPENCER
Via Facsimile (210) 554-0413
MR1042
Jonathan H. Hull
REAGAN BURRUS
0. Paul Dunagan
SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Bert H. Deixler
KENDALL BRILL & KLEIGER LLP
Steve Wingard
SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP
600 Congress A venue, Suite 1500
Austin, Texas 78701-3234
Via facsimile (830) 625-4433
Via Facsimile (512) 4 74-0731
MR1043
MONIQUE RATHBUN

v.

DAVID MISCA VI GE, RELIGIOUS
OF SCIENTOLOGY
GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF I NTENT TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF
CORPORATE R EPRESENTATIVE OF R ELIGIOUS T ECHNOLOGY CENTER
Please take notice that the deposition of the designated corporate representative(s) of
Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), will be taken upon video and oral examination,
pursuant to Rules 199, 201and 205 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public
or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths on November 18, 2013, at
2:00 p.m. in the offices of Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 112 E. Pecan St. , Suite 1200, San Antonio,
TX 78205. Such deposition(s), when taken, will be used in the trial of the above-styled and
number cause. You are invited to have counsel present for the purpose of cross-examination or
representation of the witness( es). The Court Reporter and videographer for the above-referenced
deposition shall be DepoTexas (210) 481-7575; facsimile (210) 481-5252.
Pursuant to Rule 199 .2(b ), RTC, must, a reasonable time before the deposition, designate
one or more individuals to testify on its behalf and set forth, for each individual designated, the
matters on which the individual will testify. Each individual designated must testify as to the
facts referenced in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
MR1044
y Jeffre
1
State Bar Number l 0613 700
Bulverde, TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)
rjeffrev(q),sjmlawyers.com
dmitchell(@.s jmlawyers.com
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
marcCa),wiegand la wfirm. com
PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON, LLP\
(210) 222-9494
(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)
ecappucci o(qi pul man law. com
ATTORNEYS FOR MONIQUE RATHBUN
via facsimile to the following record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on this .. of October, 2013:
Lamont A. Jefferson
MR1045
J. Iris Gibson
HA ThES & BOONE, LLP
Austin, Texas 78701
Les J. Strieber III
CLEMENS & SPENCER
Jonathan H. Hull
REAGAN BURRUS
New Braunfels, Texas 78 130
0 . Paul Dunagan
SARLES & OUIMET
3 70 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Bert H. Deixler
KENDALL BRILL & KLEJGER LLP
Via Facsimile (5 12) 867-8650
Via facsimile (210) 227-0732
MR1046
Exhibit "A"
I. RTC's contacts with the State of Texas and the allegations in its Special Appearance.
2. Captain David Miscavige's contacts with the State of Texas and the allegations in his
Special Appearance.
3. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with the Sea Organization;
4. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with Scientology corporations
other than RTC;
5. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with the Office of Special
Affairs (hereinafter "OSA");
6. History, practice, and procedures for reporting from OSA to RTC;
7. History, practice, and procedures for reporting from OSA to Captain David Miscavige;
8. History, practice, and procedures for recording and transcribing Captain David
Miscavige's verbal comments and commands for distribution to responsible individuals
within Scientology corporations, and for corresponding compliance reports.
9. All of CSI' s (including OSA's) direct or indirect involvement with Monique and Mark
Rathbun.
I 0. All of RTC's direct or indirect involvement with Monique and Mark Rathbun.
11 . The facts and circumstances of the matters referenced in Exhibit I A hereto.
12. CSI's (including OSA's) use of private investigators in Texas, including but not limited
to Dave Lubow, Monty Drake, Paul Marrick, Greg Arnold, Steven Gregory Sloat, David
Caton, and Ralph Gomez.
13. Any direct or indirect involvement of CSI, RTC, or any other Scientology corporation
with websites critical of former members of the Church of Scientology.
14. Any direct or indirect involvement of CSI, RTC, or any other Scientology corporations
with the Squirrel Busters.
MR1047
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 145-6 Filed 07/12110 Page 25of38 Page ID .
#:6487
. 1. I I .
.
1 ADDITIONAL PERSONS:
2 John .R. Brolisseau- Mr. Brousseau was a me:mberaf.tke Church of Scientology and an
3 .employee of Religious Teclmolo-gy He-liv.eef. and thz fadlity knowi as "Golden Era .
4 P7oauctions"' located on. Gi_lman spr:mgs Road. unin<::>rporatiUI.atea of Hemet..
s . . . . - .
6 . -Warren .. pm;.zy_ IJJ:-. McShani is a 11ll!TTlher of the Churc1z a/Scientology and is" the
7 . Presidertref-Rengfous (RTCJ Mi'. McShmt.eTTiaintains .ducd offices m Los and
:s, at the-Golden Era Praductions facility.
9
10
n
12
iv.&rk (Marty) R.athbnn- Mr. Rathbun is a fonner :member and employee of th_e Church of
Sciemology. He is currenti.y re5iding in the State-ofTeX:as and is a critic of the chuJ:ch.
13 James Perry- Otl:er. Mr. Perry is amemher of the ChurCh ofScientok>gy and is a
14 Directer (Il) for the Golden Ertr. Productions fecil.ity.
15
16
17
Ciaramitaro-' Ofit,er . Mr. CJar.amitaro ts a senior irrfestior with privare seeurity company
k:ruJwn f!S "Online Secu:fity". !vft. Ciaramitaro responded.to. the_ Goldm :Era Productions ftzdlity to
pr.eserve aJ'!d analyze. electromc.data stored 0n coTn:puters useil 'by Mf'.1Jro11Sseim. 18
19 . . . .. .
. . .
. .
20 Alhadeff- Other.: ftfr. Alhadejf is an attorney whose compan:y ;s retainedb:P Jae.. He was
pr.eseFJL at the initial meing :with Jaw errforwnent, which ocaitrred atthe. Golden Era Proifui::tions 21
22
,,.-... . 23
fecility. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .
24 Sgt. Steve MSk.e-.Ooter. Sgt Mrke is the investiga!Ums 'bureau sergeant (zysfgn.ed to Hemet Sheriff's.
25 Station. He-Was presentatth.e initial meitingwh:ich occwrid at the Golden facility.
;.26.. .. . . -- . - .; - . . -- .. __:_ : .. --- - . . -.- - . - - . ---
27 ..
2& A'IT.ACBED DOci.JMENTs:
. 29 RSO Property (2) pages .
30 (Atta.c!wumtB) RSO Property Receipt form (4) pages
31 (Attachmetit CJ ."Onlf!le SecWtty" Evidence Chain of Custody . . .
32 . (Attachment D) "Online Sei;wi.ty'' Rlqlort of Forensic AniilysrS and Fmdings of John Brousseau's
33 . computers . . .
34 (Attaalt.meitt E) "Online Security" Report ofLinkfi!.es from Jolm.Brcrusseau. 's fnterndwcrk CCl111J?UfiP'
35 . (AttaclmteJZt F) .Photocopy of Personal. ktter azahored b:y Jolm Brousseau
36 (Atfac!m1.ent 0 Phot.ocopy of /ohn. Brousseau 's signe..d "Declaration alid. No1'Jtiisclosur.e AgreemenI.,,
37 with R1'C .
38 (Atto.cfmient HJ Photocopy of Jolm 'Brousseau's signed RTC Employment Applicatit.Jn
39 (Attachment l) Photocopies of (J) jpeg digital images. and printed web page, mairitain.ed by .};ltzrk .
40 "Marty" Rathbun.
41
42
. 43
44
45
46
47
EVIDENCE:
Bar Code#1000874
(1) Desk Top Computer "Dell" brand. S/TAG#96YlSK.l, Model 760, IntC'lllet comparer.
Bar Code #1000S75
(1) DeSk Top Cqmputer "De.If' brand. Serial #42C04Ml, Model 780, Standalone computer.
EXHIBIT
IA
MR1048
,...-.._
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 140-0 t-11ea
#:6489
"Lr or .jl:S 1u
. jo-1450064

I :Page Nmnber:
5
/-eil
.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 .
H
12
13
14
.15
16
17"
.18
19
20
. : :21
:22
23
24
. 25

27
28.
i9
30 .
31
32
33
34

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
SUMJ.\.RY:
John Brousseau. accessed two assigned (RTC) work computers, .(mternet & Stantloione.) whU;.h were
m.ai:tltained in his office f!l Golden Era Prod?'Cfioll3, just prio': to pennan.ently leaving the chwch and his
employmel'll Mr ... Brousseau. transferred electronic daia, files an!f images to p<taale st,orage devices and
left the informatio'n... Mr. Brousseau also downloaded computer software programs de.signed t.o mask
his cmdlor erase or destray the files malntai{i.ed on the computers. It appears that much, if nst
all) the i/ifOnn.ation and images cantairzed in the two annptaers we proprietary in nature related to the .
internal operati07ZS and projects of the Church ofScient:Clogy.
DETAUS:
On. M.ay 2.5> 2010 at approx:im.ateLy 0930 hotJIS _Sgt S. Mike. and I attended a meeting at Golden Era
Productions, at 19625 Gilman S.Prings Rd. Heme; CA.. The pm:pose 9f the meeting y;?.S to discuss
possible criminal violations conceming a fonner employee's actions xelated to computers owned by
Technology
Note- (RIC wu1er ofthe. Chur.c]b.ef Scidrtology; speci;ficaily it is the. legal arm
prof1!r;timz>for:.thl*:dmf.cfa)
Upon arrival we by Warren McSbane and-escorted 1o a con:fei:ence room.. Inside 1he
confE}i:ence room we were iritrodnced to the following individuals; James Peay, :Michael and
Alhadet: who remafue4 dm:ing the meeting. The :fullowing is a summary of our convemltio.n.
the sbatedw us by Mr. McShane;
The iiv?lved church me:o:ilie:r/employee was identified as John R. Brousseau. (Hereafter to as
"JB") JB is .described as a 25 to 30 year of the Church of Scientology. At the time of the
Jl3 lived and wo:xbd at known. as Golden &a Prodnctions, located on .Gilman Springs- .... :
Rd... CA.. JB,s office was on the tlrlrd ffoor of the Administ:afion bnilding> which is
the street from the .t;nain facility... JB was. ari employee of Religions Technology Ceim:r-
which is under the supervision. 0.M.r. McShane. JB did not have an official title within RTC, however,
doe to tenare -with the chw:cli and bis uclque skill set he was an integral part 01: the lead on xiiany high
profile iDfemal church projects. Mr. McSlum.e described JB as a tmsted member of the chnroh,
consequently be had access to the private living qcatters of ftie Chall:man. of the cp.urch. of Scien1ology,
offices, etc. The. projects and all the material, dab, and images associated wifu those projects
. were descnoed as not for public caosnm.ption, and to the. Church of Scientology.
In tbis capacity JB Was assigned two (2) computers in his office on the third floor of 1lle RTC
Administration building. The tWo desk top computers we:re descnl>ed as an ''Intemef" computer and a .
"Standalone" computer. The two systems do not interface in arr/ capacif:.1. The Snmdalone an
in1emal system for churob. members/eniployees worlcing at the Gilman Springs :f.acility . JB's intemet
comDuter was different from o!her employees, in that it did not have a:a.y :filte:rs and JB cotlld search the
inremet without :restrictions. He was given this aroess in. part because of his statos within the church, and
primarily out of necessity, due to the various pi:ojectS he woi:ked on for tbe church. Daring the Uto.e period
of January 1, 2010 through April 22, 2010, JB shared this of'.iice space with two other employees,
identified as Truax and Brenden O'Hare. Ms. Truax and Mr. O'Hare had the same computer
cori.figi.iration as JB. however their Intemet computers had filtei:s. told that employees each mainVlm
own. log-on and password inforina:tion for the'- .:SSsigned It was conveyed that the
MR1049
,,.-.
Case Document 145-6 Filed 07/12/1 O
#-6490
Page 28 of 38 Page ID
I Page Nmnber.
,l AdmhUStratlon building is alockeQ."buildlng and' physially separated from theprunacy facility. On1y
2 employees assigned to the access to it .
3
"4 On Aprll 22,. 2010 0730 hours IB lefr1he maiJl.fucility drl:ving-hi.s privately
s o-wned vehicle. It was not clear where he was going, or the nature of fh.e trip, however it was not mmsual
6 for; JB to come and go due to bis W0Ik projects. His ability to come go ftoxn the fucility is in COIIIJ.'ast:
. 7 to other .church viho do not enjoy the same freedom of rooV"ement. JB .retmDed. to 'the
8. maiJ::t at about0900 homs and sttende<i what is refeJre4 to as "Roll Call" where.
SI members/employees check in for a briefing of 1he dayg schednle, em. At about 1030 homs JB again. eZited
-io. the facility driving bis privatelr owned JB security persomrel working the :front gate he was,
11 goln,g to tuwn and be left the fucility,
u :
13 At the dinner hour mem.be.rs/ew.ployees realized. that JB was not present and efforts were made to cont.act
14 him by 1elephone. m had two cell ph'Ones issued 10 hitn ey RTC; one and one
15 A1temots to xeach JB wer.e 1lnsoccessful and at about 1930 hours Mr. McSha:ne received notificatlon from
i6 employee Liz R:ossi that JB had not rettmied to .. that he conld not reached by
17 phone and his.whereabouts were unknown: Mr. McShane instructed Ms. Rossi te go. to JB's living
.18 quarters and ascartain if he was present. Ms. Rossi and anothei: .employ.ee, Carol BUrke, -went to J.W.s
19 livitig quarters and enttted tD look him. lt was discovered 1hat all of .lB's pei:sDn?l wete
20 missing. The two phones asSigned to JB {Nexml & Blackherry) were found his along with
21 bis unifonn. Ms. Rossi to up both .and discovered the Sllvf cai:ds for both
22 ph0nes. -were missing. The Sllv.I: later discov.ered a night in JB>s
23 room.. Al.so fonnd .was a band written. letter Smh.ored by JB> .ex:nlaining 1hat he could no loriger li\)'e :the
24 way and :bad decided to !ave the Mr. specalated -that JB was upset over recent
25 disciplinary issue$ conceming JB's repest.ed violations of Mr. McShane felt that
26....: .. JB would xetm:n in a couple.deys had a chance to coot -off _ _.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
.3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. McSbane did not hear fiom JB as Ire began to. !}lat m would attempt to meet up
with Marty who was. descnoed to me as a fomier church and now Church of .
Scient.ology antagonist. Mr. Mc:S'l:iane told me RTC.had..previcmsl}':-cont:ractl:d.wifh.a prlvat.e secudty firm
m the State ofTexas,.to.mollitot..M'r.1&1Iilimrs activities;:::Mr. McShane..contacted the sicmity firm and
proviaeo tlienrwi:ffi:JB:s:PW:rto_ana inffirmation a asked''tliif: lie:(McShane) be COJif:acted. iii tbeevent :
was seen meeting with M"r. Rathbuti. $otted by the security detail on
April 24, 201-0 meeting wifh Mn....Rathbun at a restaurant in 1fie=eitf'oflil,,.oleside, Te:x:B!!. Thesecmity
detail reported that at the conclasion of meeting they followed.m to a "Best Western.'' motel in fue
City of Ingleside. The secority called Mr. McShane and adVised him of JB's arrival and the
meeting.; Addiiionally, they did DOt see arry mate.rial of any kind exchange hands between Mr. Rathbun
and JB, dm:ingtheir Fearing that JB had taken .information, and images from the clmrch
ovmed. computers, Mr. McShane asked James Peny to Secure JB's assigned work computets, which he
did. Mr. Perry con4ucted some initial analysis on the two compute.rs and detemrin.ed infomlation/data had
ooen removed, deleted and files destroyed. utilizing a comp'IIl:er software cleaning prognml.S.
Mr. McShane summoned ( 4) chm:cli members/employees who know JB the best and sent them to :r exas to
attempt to contact him and perhaps-petsuade him to retum tJ the facility in Hemet; CA. r.According to Mr.
McSb.ane the fo-JI dispatched employees were able to contact JB in the lobby of the Best W esrem motel on
April 26 or 2.,W. 2010. The group iried to persuade JB to retum. with them. JB :retreated to his room and.
refused to come out or speak with the gro"?. -
f
;
.J.-
!
. i
i
j

i
l
I
r
1
i
l
!
i

MR1050
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 145-6 F.iled OJ:/1211 O" Page 29 of 38 .Page ID
#:6491
. .
l . Mr. McShane stated that.either JB or.lvfr.::Rathbun called local law and an a:ttenxpted
l . . kidnapping in.progress at the motel. Membern of the had left 1he. motel prfor arrival.
3 . . . .
4 O.a May 2; Mr. McShane contacted "Online Security" and asked that they resp0nd to the f.3ci1n:y in
5 Hemet to cfonduct. a forensic audit of JB' s two assigned wo1k' computeis, as well as fue Blackbeizy
6 Mr. Ciaramitaro was 1he facility and a fuxensfo audit of JB's T.nt.emet
7 and Standalone computers. .Mr. Ciararoitro produced a 71 page report their work and
8 detailed A -report was provided i.'O IQe at the meeting .
. 9
10
.H
12
13
Mr. McShane handed me a colored copy of a digital photograph. 'fha1.b.ad been posted on 1Y.fr.. .
. web site o.n April 23; 2010. The.site lrifurmaJion is.listed as :fullows;
. .
14 Mr. told me 1he structure :in.1he digital image is the front of the RT-C Admirii.st:ration huildin&
15 located across the street ftom us. "Piere m:e three motorcycles parked in :front of a founi:ain,. 'With. 1he
10 stroctnre behind the foun:tain. Iv.fr. McSb{me told m.e the mororcycles are privately owned by members of :
. 17. . the chrch. Accordfug to Mr. McShane the photh wai .1ake,n m 2005 by employee Yvonne GOnzalvez,
. . 18 JB's personal digital camera :. JB i.ater <lovmloaded the image to .his 'WOik computer(s). Mr.
19 saia this photo ""'!2S not to 1he "?'35 for meoniy. The:mct tbarit
20 appeared on Mt. Rathbun' s -web site the dzy after JB left the facility was intended: to send a l),leSsage 1o
21 RTC. Mr. told ineihatflie digital used t0 'fake fi:.xis left 1'ehind. in JB's
22 o:ffice;howevey the me:moxj card ha!i been xemoved. . : ." . : , . ._: : .
,..-...,. 23 . .
...--..
24 I Mr. McShane:if JB,.s specific ofJiee located. inside the RTC building W2S seemed
ey ti:aclitional lock & key or outfitted with .an card key system. He tcldme ihe bail.ding itself 1s
26
. '27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
. 45
46.
47
secured; but not individual office:: The office: is locatea on the tbixdfioor and is accessiole by-stalls
only. l asked if 1.S's office had security they do not. I asked Mr. McShane if RTC was .niissing
any physical told me I Im :wbat :kind of .inib:cmation JB stored an t1ie two
computers. Mr. McShane told me years worth of .:images, weekly stams reports on as well as
pl.ans and .budget it.ems for various projecis. 1he "B13C?kberry" device woold have.oontact
infc?rm.ation. for all high ranking members of ihe church, which m:e not publicized and were not intended to .
be possessed by non church. . .
End of Statement from Mr. McShane.
. .
MI. rela1:ed the following infumlation to us; .
Ile was sen.t to Golden Era Producti9ns on May 2, 20i 0 topreseive and analyze stored on two
co:tnputers used by JB. Mr. McSha:ne provided the two cOlllpUters te which were identified as an
"fntemet" computer and a "Standalone" com.purer, as well as a .. BlackbeDY,' device. Mr. C.iara.mitaro tISed
a s?ftware program to crea1e mirror images of the hard drives to work from. He strl:ed thst the
In.temet and Stand.alone computers had been accessed using temporazy storage devices (2), known as
thmnb drives, on April 20 and 21. 2010, 1h.e day before JB had left the fa.cility. He ex>ncluded that large
volumes of data had been stored to those devices. In addition it appeared fuat i:xoon.ation the
Black:bercy had bee.n transferred to one of the compnte.i:s and later accessed and. store4 to one thumb
drives. Mr. Ciaramitaro also concluded that two anti forensic computer software programs were i.nstalled
and run. on. both compute.rs; the puip<>se being permanent and u:oxecoverable destruc:tio:n of electronically
. .
!
r
. i
i
I
r
MR1051
,--..
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN
Filed 07112/10 Page 30of38 Page ID
. #:6492 .
I CONTiNUATION .SHEET I jPageNmnber:f1/d
. 1 stored data. These programs wer:e in the niontb. of April 2010 and nm an.April 21, 2010, again.
2 the day prior to JB leaving. It was also disco-vered fbat to tmirnmtlHhe inask:
3 his activities orx the two collll'.>utets. Mr. Ciaramitiro was also able lo capture .ms World Wide.Web .
. 4 . sctivity log. (Please see Pages 1-26) . .
5 . . .. . . .
6 End of fr.am Mr.
7-
g
9.
. 10
11
. 12
Af the conclusion of fue meeting. it; was decided that I meet "Witli Mr. McSDane the following day
(Ma:y 2010) . to recover all items of evidence and to schednle interviews with church
members/employees, who had con:mct with JB ihe day heleft or had access "t.o bis living quartel'S.and
office.
. i3 On May 25, 2010 I800 h91l1S I met with. Investigator Pelaio,. who is assigned tQ 1he :RSO
.14 Computer and. Tecbn.ology Crime High-Tech Response Team (C-A-T:C.Hj. I pro-vided In:v! Pelato :with a
15 copy of 1he "On Line _mrthored -by MX: Ciarmiran and ?Sked. if he would review it I
16 advised Inv. Pel.ata.oflhe general eircUmst:ances smrounding the investigation and explained. th.at I would ..
17 be meeting w.itb:Mr. the following day to secure used.by JB- . I aSked Inv. Pelato
l8 or not it woukfbe.necessary to access the cl:i:urch.'s _comput.et servers for
19 pui:poses; Inv. Pelatosaid fWit he wobl.d review the report and wot!ld. accompany the :w.ifu.
20 McShane. .
. Zl
22
23
zv
25
.26
29
On May.26, 2oio. Pelafo, Pieri, With: Mr. McShane at" the Kie
of?S.ce lqcated af Hemetfacn.y. We spoke m the Mr. PQ:IY piesent:as "Well.
Iilvestjgators Pela:to and. Pico Bsked M;r. Perry a series of.questions telat.ed to 1he in:terruU of
as well as actianswithJB's computers on.April 24fh,2010. xt
was decided Mr. a doc;mment outlining his.actions related to the computers and !t
t.cr me at a later tiine. Mr . .Per.r;y also advisedm had utilized. three accounts on.his !ntc:m.et
compU,ter. 'The us is as follovis; . . . .. . . . . .
.. . . .. . . .
30 . 1. Hotmail accollllt; .JbxkISO@hotmail.com
.Jabiel313@Yahoo.com 31 2. acco\llll::
. 32 3. Gmail account . Jl?.freewinds@gmail.com
33
.34
35
36
37
. 38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Prior to .c!>llecting the eVi,dence we surveyed JB's qffice on 1he tbii:d floor. The area can best be descnoed
as an attic area. Nothing of sigllifica:n.ce was noted in the a:nd no one was. present at 'the time. Inv .
Pelm:o inspected the wiring at9UDd area where JB's. computers had been situated: N01lDng of
significance was noted. Retm:itlng to the conference room Mr. McShane brongbi the above listed property
to us . All evidence bad been secured in his office: I proVided M"r- McShane wi1h a copy of the property
receipts and we agreed to meet again on May 2010 for the pm:pose of imerviews. Inv . Pelato bad
dete:onined that it would not be necessary to access the church's compta:.e( servers- .Additionally, he
advised me "On Line Security" had conducted a thorough and indnStry.a6cepted forensic examiwrtiou of
the two computers, as well as the Blackberry deVice. He descnoed as compi:ehellsive. On
1, 1010 I faxed "Preservation Request" letters to the above listed int.em.et iequesting
they hold onto all .stored. electronic coillIIlUllications and files for m s accoonts. .
.
CASE STATUS:
;
i
I
f-

i
I
i
.
J

l

:
L
i
;

I
!
i
i
I
!
J
I
l-
f

J
t
t
t
r-
r
j
f
{

i
I
i
i

I
I
I
I
j
!
t
;
l
'
L
i
i
i

MR1052
MONIQUE RATHBUN

v.

OF SCIENTOLOGY
GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE
COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAJNTIFF' S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF I NTENT TOT AKE DEPOSITION OF
CORPORA TE REPRESENTATIVE OF C HURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY I NTERNATIONAL
Please take notice that the deposition of the designated corporate representative(s) of
Church of Scientology International ("CSI''), will be taken upon video and oral examination,
pursuant to Rules 199, 201 and 205 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public
or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths on November 18, 2013, at
9:30 a.m. in the offices of Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1200, San Antonio,
Texas 78205. Such deposition(s), when taken, will be used in the trial of the above-styled and
number cause. You are invited to have counsel present for the purpose of cross-examination or
representation of the witness( es). The Court Reporter and videographer for the above-referenced
deposition shall be DepoTexas (210) 481-7575; facsimile (210) 481-5252.
Pursuant to Rule 199.2(b), CSI, must, a reasonable time before the deposition, designate
one or more individuals to testify on its behalf and set forth, for each individual designated, the
matters on which the individual will testify. Each individual designated must testify as to the
facts referenced in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
MR1053
y Jeffre
State B Number 10613700
Bulverde, TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)
rjeffrey{a),sjmlawvers.com
dmitchellrcV.sjmlawvers.com
THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P .C.
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
marc@wiegandlawfinn.com
PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & LLP\
(210) 222-9494
(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)
ecappuccio@pulmanlaw.com
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been fotward
via facsimile to the record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on this the of October, 2013:
Lamont A. Jefferson
MR1054
J. Iris Gibson
Austin, Texas 78701
Les J. Strieber III
Mccombs Plaza, Suite 500
CLEMENS & SPENCER
Jonathan H. Hull
REAGAN BURRUS
0. Paul Dunagan
SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Bert H. Deixler
KENDALL BRILL & KLEIGER LLP
Via Facsimile (310) 5 56-2705
MR1055
Exhibit "A"
l. Religious Technology Center's (hereinafter "RTC") contacts with the State of Texas and
the allegations in its Special Appearance.
2. Captain David Miscavige's contacts with the State of Texas and the allegations in his
Special Appearance.
3. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with the Sea Organization;
4. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with Scientology corporations
other than RTC;
5. Captain David Miscavige's authority over and interaction with the Office of Special
Affairs (hereinafter "OSA");
6. History, practice, and procedures for reporting from OSA to RTC;
7. History, practice, and procedures for reporting from OSA to Captain David Miscavige;
8. History, practice, and procedures for recording and transcribing Captain David
Miscavige's verbal comments and commands for distribution to responsible individuals
within Scientology corporations, and for corresponding compliance reports.
9. All of CSI's (including OSA's) direct or indirect involvement with Monique and Mark
Rathbun.
10. All ofRTC's direct or indirect involvement with Monique and Mark Rathbun.
l l. The facts and circumstances of the matters referenced in Exhibit lA hereto.
12. CSI's (including OSA's) use of private investigators in Texas, including but not limited
to Dave Lubow, Monty Drake, Paul Marrick, Greg Arnold, Steven Gregory Sloat, David
Caton, and Ralph Gomez.
13. Any direct or indirect involvement of CSI, RTC, or any other Scientology corporation
with websites critical of former members of the Church of Scientology.
14. Any direct or indirect involvement of CSI, RTC, or any other Scientology corporations
with the Squirrel Busters.
MR1056
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 145-t:> Filed 07/12110 Page 25of38 Page ID .
#:6487
1 PERSONS;
2 John .R. BrolJSseau- su.spet1. Mr. Brousseau was a me:mheref.the Church of Seientowgy and an_
3 mployee of Religious TecJmolow Center. He.liveef. and work?d tit the ffJdlity known as "Golden Era .
4 Procluctions"' located on Gi_lman SP'.1ngs Road, urzinCf>rporatiz.iJ.area.ofHemet..
s . . . . .
6 Warren McShani is a member of the Chureh ofScie.ntologytmd is"'/Jr.e
1 . Prwfdenr-qfReligfous Mr. McSlimz2'm:aintains.d:aalojfieesmLos
. s, ax the Golden Era Praductitms facilit;y.
9
(Martj) RathbnD.- Mr.. Rathbun is a former :memlJer and empl()yee of th_e Church of
Scientology. He is cun-entl.y residing in the State-ofTei:as and is a Critic of the cJrw:ch.
. Jam.es Percy- Other. Mr. Perry is a member of th2 ChurCh of Scientology ana is a Systems/Nf#twork
Director (fl') for the Golden. ua. Productions fa.cility. . .
. .
Michael Ciaramitaro- O:/Jier. Mr. Ciaramitaro ls a senior with a privaJe seeurity company
'Jawwn as Online. Secui'ity.". Mi'. Ciaramitaro responded .to. the Goldm :Era Productions facil.'ity to
pr.eserve aI'ld analyze. electronic.data stored <m co"mputers useil. by Mf. lJrousseinJ..
10
11:
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
0
2G . :Sam,u.el Alhadef:f- Otlter.: Mr. Alhadeff is an whose company ;s by RTC. He; was
21 pr:eseFJI at the i.nitia1 meing :with I.aw eriforwnerrt, which ocaia-red atthe. C-oltitm Era Prcductions
- 22 J-'izcil.it:J!.. . .. .. . .. . . . .
,.--... . 23
24 Sgt. Steve Mrke-oOzer. Sgt Miire is the investigations &ureau sergeant 'to Hemet Sheriffs.
25 Station. He-Was p ese:ntatthe initial. meewzg whi.ch occurrea at the Goldm facility.
;.26.. ... . -- . . - . . -- .. _:_ : .. --- - . . -.-- . - - . --
27 ..
28 A.ITACIIED nocinvmNrs: ..
. 29 RSO Property (2) page&
30 (AttacTmum.t.B) 'RSO Property Receipt form (4) pages .
31 (Attachmeiit CJ .''Onli!ze Sectit:ty'' Evidimce Chain ofCus!Ody Report . . .
3.i . (AttacknteJlt D) "'Online SeCw-it:y'' Report of Forensic AnalysfS and Fmdi:ttgs of John ErO'USseau's ""!ork
33 . cOTllpUieis . . .
34 (Attacltmeitt. "E) "On.line Security" Report of Linkfi!.es frorrt John]Jrausseau 's internet work c077ZpUtf!r
35 . (Altacfunezzt F) .Photocopy of Perso'TZlil krter authored by John Brousseau
36 (A.ttaclmt.ettt G) Photocopy of /olm Brousseau's signed "Declaration and Nondisdosur.e A.greemeni''
37 withkrc .
38 "(Atto.chnient HJ PhotOC()py of John Brousseau's signed RTC Employment .Application
39 (Attachment l) Photocopies of aJ jpeg digital imag?S. and printed web page, maintained by .ark .
40 "Marty" Rathbun.
4l
42 EVIDENCE:
. 43
Bar Code#1000R74
.--..
44
45
46
47
(1) Desk Top Computer "Dell" brand. S/TAG#96YlSK.1, Model 760, Intemet cxmqroter.
, I
Bar Code #1000S75
(1) De3k Top Cqmputer brand. Serial #42C04Ml, Model 780, Standalone computer.
EXHIBIT
.
.

1
:0

i
i
J
I

!
I
i
'
r-
t
I
f
i
!
1
i
f
L
I
i
f
i
l
i
i
I
f-
j
I
f
t
l
1
i
!
i
!
i

f
r-
.
i
I
f
I

. t
i
I
i
MR1057
........... .
. . 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 .
H
12
13
14
. 15
16
1r
.18
19
20
. Ql
22
,,...-_
23
24
. 25

27
2g
29
30 .
31
32
33
34

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Case2:09-cv-03986-DSF'-MAN Document 140-t:.> r11ea urnLnu f-'age zt or 1-'age 1u
#:6489
_. , CONTINUATION SHEET
SUMl\i\RY:
John. Brousseau accessed two assigned (RTC) work computers, .(111ternet & StantJol,one) whit;h were:
1'TUli:nt.atned in his office f:1t Golden Era Prod?tdians, ju.st pio': to permanently leaving the church and ms
employment. Afr_ Brousseau. transferred electronic data, files an[l images to p<111aole storage devices and
left with the information. Mr. Bro'lfSSeau also downloaded computer software programs designed to mask
his a:ndlor'erase or destroy thefiks m.airrtai[led on the computers. It appears t/U1I much, if not
a14 the ieformation and images COFl!ained rn the two computers are -proprietary in nature related to th.e .
internal operati<JTZS ami'projects ofthe Church ofScientiJlogy.
DETAILS:
0.n. May 25; 2010 at approximately 0930 hoUIS _Sgt S. Mike. and I attended a meeting at Goldea faa
Procluclions, a1 19625 Giiman S:Prings Rd. CA. The purpose of the meeting yvas to discuss
possible criminal violations canceming a fonn.er employee's actions related to com.putets own.ed by
Religious Technology Ce.o.tet{RTC).
. . . . . . .
(RIC wuier the:;'Wltbt:e1Ia. o;ft_the Cbur.cb:..cf specificaJl:y it is the legal arm

Upon arrival we were C07?-1acted by Warren McShane to a room. T:n3ide 1he
room. we were introduced to tb.e following indiyidnals; Jam.es Peny, MichBel Ciaxamitaro, and
Alhadeff, who te.a.lafu.ecl during the meeting. The fullowmg is a summary of our conve.t:satiQJl
the shared -ro us by Mr. Mc:Sban.e;
The n'.i.volved chlll'Ch xn.emher!em.Ployee was identified as John R. Brousseau.. (Hereafter referred. to as
"JB'') m is descn'bed. as a 25 'fo 30 ye<a of the ChUICh of Scientology. At the nine of the
mc;j.dent JB ltved a:nd worked at known as Prodnciions; on Gilman. Springs.. . - :
RcL Hemet, CA. JB's office was on the third floor of tb.e A.dministtation bnilding, which is locatM
the street from the .t;nain facility_ JB was. mi employee of Religions Technology (RTC);.
which is under the supervision. oMr. McShane- JB did not ha:ve an. official title within RTC.
&.e 'to tenure with the churcll and his m.Uque skill set he was an integral part oi: the lead on many l:rigb.
profile iIItemal church projects. Mr. McShme described JB as a trusted member of 'the.
consequently he had access to the pxiva:re living quatteI:s of fue Chairman. of the qmrch of Scientology,
offices, vehiclest etc. The projects and all the material, data, and images associated wifh. fuose projects
. were desc:.ribed as not for public caosnmption, and to 1he.Chmch of Scientofogy_
In. this capacity JB Was assigned two (2) compute;:s in his office on the third floor of RTC
.Adminisitation building. The two desk top computers were dese.n"bed as an con:i:puter and a .
"Standalone" 0:mputer. The two' systems do not inrettace i:a. any capacity. The S.tandalone computer is an
in.temal syS!em for church membersf eniployees working at the Gilman Springs fucility_ . JB's inte:.met
computer was diffurent from ofuer employees, in that it did not h!IVe aey filters and JB conld search tbe
internet without restrictions. He was given. this access in part because of his strtos within the chnrcb, and
primarily out of necessity, due to the various pxojectS he worked on for 'the church. Doring the time period
of January 1, 2010 furough April 24 2010, JB shared this oi;fice space with two other employees,
identified as Maggie Truax a:od Brenden O'Hare. Ms. Truax and Mr. O'Hare had the same compo:ter
cori:figtli:atlon as JB, however1heir Iotemet computers had filters. I w_as told that employees each maintam
own log-on and password infomiation for It was conveyed that the
MR1058
,,--...
Case Document 145-6 Ried 07/12/10
Page 28 of 38 Page ID
#6490
' . I I CONTINUATION SBEEt I j:eage
,1 AdmimStmtioA building is alocke<fbuilding and physically from the"prllllaiy facility. On1y
2 employees assigned to the building access to it .
3
:4 On April 22.. 2(:)10 ('.Thuisday) 0730 hours JB lefrtb.e main-mcilify' drl:ving-his privately
s o-wned vehicle. It was not clear whe:re he was going. or the nature of fhe trip. however it was not UD.IISUal.
6 fot JB to come aud go due to his wrn:k projects. His ability to come and go fu.ml the :fucilify is in COIItrasf:
. 7 ID Other Who do not ei:ijoy 1he same.freedom of movement. JB .tetm:D.ed. to 1he
s. inaJn: fayility at about0900 homs and .a:ttende<i what is refel:re4 to as "'Roll Call" ;vb.ere.
9 members/employees check in ioJ.' a briefing of 1he day$ schedDle. etc.. Af about 1030 hours JB again.e;itited
-10- the facility driving his privatel)':O"Wneii -veW:cle. JB security p.."1'SOlllrel worl<:ing the front gate he was,
l l going to town and b.e left the fucility,
12 :
l3 At the dinner hour members/erop1oyees realized. that .JB was not present and efforts were made to con.tact
14 him by JB had two cell phbnes issued to him by RTC; one Nextel and one Blatikbeqy.
15 A1iempts to :teach 3B wer.e linsoccessful and at about 1930 hours Mr. Mc-Shane received. notification :from
i6 employeeLiz R-ossi that JBhad notrewmed to fue ficility .. Additionally, that he could reached by
17 phone and ms.whereabouts were uoknown:. Mr. McShane instructed Ms. Rossi t.a go. to JB's 1iving
_.IS qaarte.ts and ascertain if he WBS present. Ms. R-0ssi and another .employee, Carol Bm:ke, to JW_s
19 livig qn.arters and en1ered w look him. 1t was discovered 1:bat all of JB's personal we.re
20 missing. The two phones asSigned to JB (Nextel & Blackberry) were found inside .biS along with
21 bis uniform. Ms. Rossi to up both _and discoveted the SIM'. cai:ds for both
22 ph<:>nes were missing. SIM cards discov.eted inside a night m JB>s .
23 room.. Also foaod .was a. band written. letter mtthored by JB, .exnla.ining that he could no loriger li-C-e. .the
24 way he and fuld decided to Ieave the chUl."Cll. Mr. 1hat JB was upset over :rece:nt
25 disciplinary issueS concerning JB's iepeated violations of projf#.protocoL Mr. MeShane felt that-
. 26...: . JB woula retum in a couple-deys had a chance to cooi-ore _ _.
Zi
28 Mr. McShane did not hear from JB as Ile began-to. 1hat m would attempt to meet up
with Marty who was. descn"bed to me as a fonner church n:ie:mbei) and now ChUICh of
Scientology antagonist. Mr. McSliane told me RTC.hatfprevionsl,.-coutracb:d..with.a prlvaie secuii.t;y firm
in the State Ridlllimrs McSlrme..oontacted the seCnrity fiIIn and
proviaed ittfoonation ad askootliat be coniaeted iii theevent ffl :
was seen meeting with Mr. Rath1nui. .. spotred by the security detail on
Aprll 24, 201'0 meeting with Mr..Rafb.bun at a restautant in ffieftY .. ofJDgleside, Texas. The secmity
detail reported that at the conclusion of meeting they followed.:JB to a "Best Western" motel in. the
City of Ingleside. The secw:ity called .Mr. McShane and ad.Vised him of JB,s arrival and the
meeting; Add:i:fionally, they did not see aey material of any kind exchange hands between lv.fr. Rathbun
and JB, dmiogtheir contact. Fe.ai:hlg that JB had taken and images :from the chureh
owned computers, Mr. :M.c.Shane asked James Peo:y to secure JB,s assigned work computers, which he
did. Mr. Perry conquered. some initial analysis on the two computers and determined infonnati.onldata had.
been deleted and files destroyed utilizing a computer software cleaning progmms.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
lvfr. McSbane summoned ( 4) ohtn:eh members/employees who know JB the best and sent them to :rexa.s to
attempt to contact him and perhaps-persuade him. to :retum tr> the facility in Hemet; CA. rAccordWg to Mr.
McShane the ftnn- dispatched employees were able to contact JB in 1he lobby of the Best W esrem motel on.
April 26 or 21"' 2010. The gronp tried to persuade JB to retum. with them. !B retreated to his rooni and .
refused t.o come out or speak with fue group.
MR1059
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 145-6 F.iled 07/12110
Page 29 of 38 .Page ID
#:6491
. . .. I CONTINUATION SHEET I
j PageNtuiiber: 7fe>j
1 . Mr. McShane stated tliat.eitber JB or.M.r.::R.athbuo. called local law and reported; an attempted.
2. . kidnapping in.:iJrogress at the motel. Members of the c4Qrchhad le:ft ihe. motel police acival.
3 . - .
4 . O.a May. 2; 0 Mt. McShane contacted "Online Security" and asked that they 1esp0nd to the facility in
s Hemet to donduct _a forensic "au(lit of JB's two assigned wo1k conxputets, as well as the B]fockbe.c;y
6 tefo_ph.one. Mr. Ciaramitaro was the facility and a audit of JB's Jntemet
7 and Standalone computers. _Mt. Ciararni1ro produced. a 71 page .report their worlc and
s detailed A of :fueir report was provided at the meeting .
. 9
10
. H
12
13
Mr. McShane handed me a col0>ed copy of a. digifal photogJ:aph ooen on :MI. .
.web site onApril23; 20lO. The.siteirifumialionis.listed as follows; .
. _
14 Mr. McSmme told me 1he structure :in. the digital image is 1he front of 1he RFC Admiriist:ration building,
15 located across the street from us. rh.ere are three motorcycles parked in from of a .fountaht with. 1he
15 strocture behind the fomrtain. Mr. told me the mot6xeycles ill'e privarely awned by members of :
. 17. . the Acco.rding to Mr. McShane the photb wa5 .take;n. in 2005 by employee Yvonne GOnzaivez,
... 18 JB>s personal JB -:1.arer <lo'<;IJD!oad.ed the image to .his work computer(s). :Mr.
19 fy'fcShane said tbis photo V!3S not to the itseonty. Th.e':fact th.ant
20 appeaied on "Mt. Rathbmi" s -web site the day after JB ieft the 1ac.ili1y was mten.ded to send a :o;iessage 1o
21 Rl'C. Mr. told me tbattlie digital used t01Bke "Wal? left 1'ehind in JB's
22 office;-however the me:mo.rY card haa been removed.
-
24
2;5

. 21
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
. 45
46
47
...--..
I Mr. McShane:if JB,.s specific ofifoe locatc:<i inside the RTC building-was seemed -
by tI:aditional lock & key or omfitted Witii .an card key system. He told me 1he building itself is
-secured; but: not JB<s individual office: The o:ffice:-is located on 1he thirdfioor and js by--stlrirs ..
l asked if JB' s office hatl security oameraS; they do not. I asked Mr. McShane if RTC was niissing
any physical pr<;>perty, told me no; I Im :what 1rind of .iniOo:natioo JB stored on tlie two
computers. Mr. McShane told. me "y_eilrs worth weekly statns reports on proj e$, as well as
plans and .budget ite.IXJ.S for various projecls. Additicmally; the "".Blackberry" device woold ha-ve-coxxf.act
in:fi?rm.afion for all high tanking members of th.e church, which are not :pnblici:zed and were not intended to _
be possessed by non church. . - -
End of Statement from Mr. McShane.
. .
Mr. related the following infunnafion to us; _
He was sent to Golden Era Producti9ns on May 2, 20i 0 toprese;rve and analyze infonDatlon stured on two
computers nsed by JB. Mr. McSha:oe provided the two C:OlllJ>Uf.ers to which we.re identified as an
"'Internet" computer and a "Standalone" computer, as well as a "Blackbent' device. Mr. Cjaramifaro used
a S!Jftware program to create mirror images of the hard drives to wotk from. He- stated that the
Intemet and Standalone compurers had been accessed using t.emporazy storage devices (2), koown as
thumb drives, on April 20 and 21, 20.10, 1he day before JB had left the fucility. He concluded that large
volumes of data had been stored to those devices. In addition it that fton: the
Blackbell)' tra:o.sfened to one of 1he computei:s and later accessed. and. store4 to one thumb
drives. Mr. Ciaramitaro also concluded fha two anti forensic comput.er software programs were installed
and run. on. bOtb computers; the pmpose being pennanem and unrecoverable destruction of elec:lroDically
. ..
I
I

f
I
f
I
!
I
. r
!
I
J;
t
f.
r
MR1060
,......,_
,.-....
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN
D6c_ument145-6 Ried 07/12/10 Page 30of38 Page ID
. #:6492 .
I CONTINuATION.SHEET I [PageNmnber:f;>/d-
. - . .
. 1 stored data. These programs were lllsn;lled in.1he :o:i:onth of A.l 2010 and nm an.April 21, 2010, again.
.. 2 the day prior to JB It was also discovered fhat JB.atmmpted to tminstalMhe prog:rams.sn.dinask
3 his activities oxr the two computers. Mr. Ciaraxnitm:o was also able to captwe .JB>s World Wide.Web.
-4 . activity log. (Please see 'attached Report Pages 1- Z6)
s . . . .. . . .
6 End of SfAtement fr.om Mr. Cial'alllitsro-
. .
... 7-
8
9.
10
11
12
. i3
.14
15
16
17
18
.
At the conclusion of the meeting. ii; -was decided that I meet w:ii:b. Mr. Mc.%.ane the following day
(1v1ay- 2010) . to recover all items of evidence and to schednle interviews with chw:ch
ro.e.mhers/employees, who had conmct with JB ih.e day he left or had access to his living quarters and
office.
On May 25, 2010 approximafely I800 hql3IS I met with Investigator Pelato ... who is assigned to the RSO
Compu.ter and, Technology Crime High-Tech Response Team (C.A.T;c.H). I pro'Vided PelBto
copy of 1he "On Line SecUiitf>. _authored .by' M Ciarmp.it:i:ro, and if he would review .it I
advised Inv. Pelata.of'th.e general eiroWnstau.ces smrounding the and explained. that I would ..
. be wiflrMt. the following day to secure theconwute.xs used J;y JB. . I aSked 1iuJ. Pelato
or not it woulqbe.necessary ro access the cl:i:urch.'s _computer servers for
Tu:v. Pelatosaid 1:W:\t wo'nld :review-the report and wonld. accompany.me t91:he :with
.. 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
4S
JU;
. . . .
On May.26; Pel.ab: Pico, mid With:Mr. McShane at.the RTC Adm:fuistranori
of!ice lqcated at Hem.et fac@itY. We spoke ill the coof Mr. Perry :presem:as well.
J.ilvestjgators Pelato and, Pico asked M;r. Perry a series of .questions related to the internal of
Golden.Eta?s com.pater serve.rs. as well as Mr. actions wi1h JB's computers on April 24th, 2010. "It
was decided Mr. &aft a outlining his 'actioDS.related to the compu.tetS and pro:vide !t
t!1 me at a later 1iine. MI. Feny ;so advised JB had utilized. three different accouxxts on.his Internet
'The infonnationhe gave us"is as folloWs; . . . .. . . . . .
. . . .. .. . ..
1. Hotmail ru:count
2. Y account::
3. Gtnail account
Jbxk!50@hotmail.com
.Jabie1313@Yahoo.com
.
Prior to .C?llecti.ng the eVi,dence we surveyed. JB' s Qffi.ce on the third floor. The $lea. can 'best be described
as an attic area Nothing of sigllmcance was noted in the area, and no one vras. present at 'the 'time. Inv .
Pelato inspected fue wiring arpund area where JB's. computers had been situated: NtJJ:bjng- of
significance was noted. Retm:ilingto the conference room. Mr. McShane brongbtthe above listed property
to us . . All evidence bad been secu:red. in his office; I proVided Mr. McShane with a copy of 1be propeity
;receipts and we agreed to meet again on 28, 20lO for the pm:pose of interviews. Inv . Pelato had
detemrined that it would not be IJeCeSS0!Y t.o access tli.e chuxch's. servers.. .A.dditi.onaliy> he
advised me "'On Line Security" had conducted a thorough and industry accepted foreosic examination of
the two computers> as well as the Blacls:berry deV:ice. He described as comprehensive... On.
1., 1010 I fiixed 'Treservati.on Request" letters to the above listed internet p}:O'Viders, requesting
1hey hold omo all stored electronic communications and files for JB's accounts. .
.
CASE STATUS:
...
f

I
i
r

I
!

i
!
i

i
I

t
J
I

'

i
I
I
!
i
;i
' 1

!
!
'
i
f
i
{
t
,
1
1
r
!
j
i
I:
i
I
i
I
J

!
'
I
l
!
I
1
L
i

I
!
J

!

MR1061
Oct. 24. 201 3 5: 06 PM
No. 0224 P. 5/ 7
MONIQUE RATHBUN

v.

OF SCIENTOLOGY
GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO
TAKE DEPOSITION OF l\lONTY DRAKE
Pursuant to TEX.R.Crv.P. 199
1
please take notice that on the October 29, 2013 at 9:30
a.m., Plaintiff "Will take the deposition of Defendant, Monty Drake. The deposition will take
place in the offices of & Boone, L.L.P., 112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1200, San Antonio, TX
78205. Your attention is directed to the penalties set forth in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
for failure {..)f Defendant to appear as requested. Said deposition will additionally be videotaped.
Both the stenographic and video recording will be provided by DepoTexas (210) 481-7 57 5 and
may be tised as evidence at the trial of this cause.
Respectfully submi
JEFFREY&

Bulverde, TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)
rjefttev@simJawvcrs.tom
dmjtcbell@s jm'lawvi::rs.com
MR1062
Oct. 24. 201 3 5: 06PM
THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, r.c.
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
ma1;ci-i{' WiQgEmdlawfirm.c9m
No. 0224 P. 6/ 7
PULMAN CAPPUCCJO PULLEN & BENSON, LLP\
Elliott S. Cappuc.cio
(210) 222-9494
(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)
ecappuccio(ci)p11Jmar)l!iw.com
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been fonvard
viafi.1csimile to the follmving C,9fpJJ,l record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on this the LL!ff._!2day of October, 2013:
Lamont A. Jefferson
112 E. Pecan Suite 1200
J. Iris Gibson
HA 'r'"NES & BOONE, LLP
Austin, Texas78701
Les J. Strieber III
DA. VIS CEDILLO & NIBNDOZA, INC.
Mccombs Suite 500
Jonathan H. Hull
Reagan Burrus
Via Facsimile (2 10) 822-1151
MR1063
Oct. 24. 201 3 5:07PM
George H. Speneer, Jr.
CLEMENS & SPENCER
SaII Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
0 . Paul Dunagan
SARLcS & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Bert H. Deixler
KENDALL BRILL & K.LEIGER LLP
10 l 00 Santa. Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
No. 0 2 2 4 P. 7 /7
Via Facsimile (2l0) 227-0732
Via Fac5imile (214) 573-6306
Via Facsimi le (3 10) 556-2703
MR1064
Oct . 24. 201 3 5: 05PM
No. 0224 P. 2/ 7
MONIQUE '.RATHBUN

v.

OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTE]:{NATIONAL, STEVEN
GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT
TOT AKE DEPOSITION OF STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT
TO: AU parties, by and through their attorneys ofrecord.
Pursuant to TEX.R.Crv.P. 199, please take notice that on the October 29, 2013 at 2:00
p.m., Plaintiff will take the deposition of Defend.ant, Steven Gregory Sloat. The deposition
will take place in the offices of Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1200, San
Antonio, TX 78205. Your attention is directed to the penalties set forth in the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure for failure of Defendant to appear as requested. Said deposition will additionally
be videotaped. Both the stenographic and video recording will be provided by Depo Texas (210)
481-7575 and may be used as evidence at the tlial of this cause.
JEFFREY & MlTCHELL P. c.
_,,,,,..,
___ -""',..,.;:;.-
ay Jeffr
St.ate Bar Number 24039061
Bulverde: TX 78163
(830) 438-8935
(830) (Facsimile)
t jeffiey@sjmla\\yers.com
dmjtchxll@sj mlawyers. com
MR1065
Oct . 24. 201 3 5: 05PM
Marc F. Wiegand
(210) 998-3289
marc@wiegandlawfinu.com
No. 02 24 P. 3/ 7
PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON, LLP\
2161 N.W. Military Hwy.) #400
(210) 222-9494
(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)
ecappuccjo@oulmanlaw.com
via facsimile to the following counsel of record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on this the Vf/!:J. day of October, 2013:
Lamont A. Jefferson
HA YNES & Boom. LLP
San Antonio! Texas 78205-1540
J. Iris Gibson
HA YNES & BooNE, LLP
Austin, Texas 78701
Les J. Strieber III
Mccombs Plaza, Suite 500
George H. Spencer Jr.
CLEMENS & SPENCER
Via Facsimile (210) S5404 l 3
Vin Facsimile (512) 867-8650
Via.Facsimile (210) 8 2 2 ~
MR1066
Oct . 24. 201 3 5: 06PM
Jonathan H. Hull
REAGAN BURRUS
40 l Main Plaza, Suite 200
0. Paul Dunagan
SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Te){as 75202
No. 0224 P. 4/ 7
MR1067

Monique Rathbun V Scientology, Petition For Writ of Mandamus Supporting Documents

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Monique Rathbun V Scientology, Petition For Writ of Mandamus Supporting Documents

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CAUSE NO.

Potrebbero piacerti anche