Scientology sued for Fraud! It's going DOWN like bird sh**! (The Garcia Suit)

Discussion in 'Media' started by BlackRob, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Gottabrain Member

    Wolfbane, I'm with you, but I take a much harder line on this.

    Undoubtedly, Rathbun was orchestrating things. Rinder has not been directly involved in anything like this for so many years he's just not sharp anymore. And he would, as usual, follow Rathbun's lead, always his dog when called.

    And the attorneys. YES they knew better, YES signing the agreements is standard and it's unheard-of that any attorney would neglect this. Unless someone who claimed to be in charge and was oh-so-expert made a point of saying it wasn't necessary. Gee,,, who might that be?

    Didn't Rathbun tell the attorneys what to do when he worked for COS? As I'm sure he did now. Marty is 4/4 on "oopsy!" on legal matters against COS and he knocks himself out to get involved with all of them.

    Why? Because that's who he is. He is a control freak, obsessed with fooling everyone with some overblown, fabricated image of himself rather than letting others know the messed-up wreck he is and always has been. Marty is about Marty. Marty is about sucking personal power off others, blaming others and wrecking things and he doesn't actually CARE that he's unqualified as hell because he's too vain to see it and he won't learn from this time any more than he learned from when he sent the the Montalvo kid who ended up being traitorous to Jason Beghe. Weird, isn't it, that BOTH of these OSA spies got in through Marty and no legal dox signed to proof up the vulnerable victims/witnesses either time?

    There's no reason for Marty Rathbun to be involved. We've waited years and he STILL hasn't provided any useful testimony - on his blogs, in his books or anywhere. Nothing, nada. He won't ever do so, either. He gets his name on, gets inside and wrecks these legal cases so he will never, ever have to testify in any of them, everyone is paid off and silenced if the case isn't lost altogether, but none of it is his fault, ever. Sound familiar? It does to me.

    Rinder I can say was arrogant, blind and stupid. Marty... well, Wolfbane, all I can tell you is many of the execs of the DM era rose to their positions because they just didn't give a damn about anything or anybody but their egos and obsession with power and controlling things.
    • Like Like x 10
  2. RolandRB Member

    Gottabrain - you're firing on all cylinders today - fuck me - it's beautiful! :)
    • Like Like x 6
  3. Gottabrain Member

    :) :blush: Thank you so much, Roland. Your post about Indies and a few other posts I read today provide the inspiration - just calling 'em as I see 'em. :)
    • Like Like x 2
  4. wolfbane Member

    You make good points. But being that I was never inside the SO way of life, there are a few leaps in your harder line I can't quite beat as my own drum. Not saying that those leaps are wrong, just saying I can't go that far.

    My rant bottoms out in frustration at the "fking cult makes people stupid until they get their brain properly re-wired" low point. Rathbun and Rinder are not properly re-wired yet. And until they realize their own shortcomings and limitations that are a direct result of the personality realignment Scientology does to people, they never will be. As a result, they have a tendency to do more harm than good in the long run. Which is a shame when it's other people (like the Garcias) that end up getting harmed due to asshattery.

    That said, I'm sure M&M meant well and had the best intentions in all this. They just aren't able to execute those well-meaning intentions in an optimal way due to their inability to realize their own shortcomings.
    • Like Like x 8
  5. Anonymous Member

    Babbitt is considered a top of the line lawyer.
    I am having trouble aligning that with what scientology claims is such a big goof.
    He had to have known about Johnson's background, and if Johnson was merely questioning and screening potential clients I don't get where there would be an issue. Not to mention it is pretty ancient history.
    My experience has informed me that the law respects lawyers and their judgement re conflicts of interest, only calling into question the most exaggerated and blatant actions. They are expected to self-assess and all lawyers are deeply familiar with the rules.
    Culkin, in his statement, only said that Johnson MAY have been part of teleconferences.
    And, as for scientology's big, secret, previously-used strategies, aren't most of them already well known and many of them a part of public record?
    • Like Like x 4
  6. RolandRB Member

    • Like Like x 2
  7. Gottabrain Member

    I get you, Wolfbane, but this is where we "normal" people are vulnerable in our thinking - the assumption that when everything keeps going wrong when a certain person is involved, that he/she "means well" anyway.

    Forget intentions. That's too complicated to even touch. It's a matter of priorities. Marty's first priorities are the image of himself he presents and getting involved with everything important so he can feel he's got status and importance. Then comes the control and self- protection. After those are satisfied, then he might have a bit leftover to consider others. Maybe.

    Rinder - I don't know. I'd say arrogance and stupidity. But Marty I know much better. The scn exec cult personality is actually very predictable, when you think about it. The error is believing and trusting that either of them have come out of that. They might never do so, but until they do, their priorities are too messed up to ever be trustworthy.
    • Like Like x 7
  8. I'm not so sure about that. The Garcias have a lot of documentation that supports their claims. Culkin's payoff happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed, and can be discredited. The other declarations can also be discredited.

    I have the feeling that Sulkin Culkin sold his soul for nothing. As Headley said in a comment I read yesterday, he probably would have gotten a refund anyway, after the lawsuit is finally resolved.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. amaX Member

    Didn't the cult not know that Bob Johnson was involved with the Garcia's lawsuit until I showed up with that sign? Because I'll stop making signs if it'll keep them in the dark...
    • Like Like x 8
  10. wolfbane Member

    Heh! Perhaps they are too busy reading WWP rather than reading the actual law firm website who did an epic press conference about the case against them that was full of WIN.

    Also, Petey's declaration says he saw your sign. If so, then why he no take his own pics? His OSA hat is full of fail and he needs to get his Ethics in if he has to count on protesters to gather the evidence of crimes against his church for him.

    Dear Scientology: your desperation is showing. Thank you. Now touch the wall again.
    • Like Like x 11
  11. Random guy Member

    Yeah, I'm with you. I can't really see this toppling the case (of course, I'm not a lawyer, I may be way off here). We should not accept Culkin's or the cults word at face value. They have been known to present things not entirely according to facts before, there's no reason to assume they aren't doing it again.

    Oh, and hos does it feel to sell your soul to a cult, Culkin?
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Gottabrain Member

    cross-posted because it is succinct and relevant.

    IMO, It's not about good intentions because M&M have been severely conditioned and not recovered to the point of recognising this. Behavioural conditioning causes the knee-jerk reactions and responses - automatic trust of one who has come out, automatic assumptions of power as if one is an expert, automatic thinking taking the place of rational judgement, automatic trained-in reactions, automatic personas and huge alter-egos when in similar situations or conditions to what they've experienced in the Sea Org triggers the personas.

    That is why Marty and Mike cannot be trusted. It's not that they don't mean well, it's that they don't realise the depth of the indoctrination and that can hit us at the worst possible moments.

    Culkin also had indoctrination.

    And that's why Indies, FZers, etc. all need to wake the f&*k up already.
    • Like Like x 7
  13. wolfbane Member

    QFT. This is exactly what I was trying to express in my earlier rant.
    • Like Like x 4
  14. Anonymous Member

    Do we even know that they hired Bob Johnson? With all due respect, all that Culkin said is that Johnson was possibly on the conference call, but he is not sure. Also, nowhere does Culkin say that Johnson was part of the Garcia case. Culkin says that Johnson was part of the team trying to get new clients. Legal subtleties.
    But Culkin is still a snake.

    Wait, let me say it again, Brian Culkin from is a snake and a traitor.
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Anonymous Member

    Brian Culkin.
    I kind of want this shoop to get into the google search of images. One other shoop already made it there. There is nothing that upsets Culkin more than being laughed at, because he thinks he is all that. So incredibly full of himself.
  16. Gottabrain Member

    And a good rant it was. :)

    They keep trying to address it cognitively while staying in similar situations that trigger their personas, but after Sea Org, so much of it is directly habit/ritual behaviour. Hard to spot on your own but behaviours have to be broken as well as the thought reform and only those completely out can even see it. Scientology resets a person's priorities while in that persona. Protect the image, enhance the image, lie lie lie if need be but do it, take control, "make it go right" (blech) because you are an OT so already know more than anyone else, superior tek, blahdeblahdeblah. Get the inside knowledge, be in the inner circle.... You get the drift.

    /rant. :p
    • Like Like x 4
  17. Anonymous Member

    I already asked for it yesterday. Did anybody do it? What a moron Brian Culkin is. Looking forward to him losing all his refund money on lawyers representing him in depo, when Babbit will call him to evidentiary hearing. I'd also quit Brian Culkin's yoga school in protest, but it's kind of hard to do, given the fact that I hate yoga, never been to his studio and don't live in MA, like he does.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. amaX Member

    What if The Rinderburns were dickhead creepy asshole douchebags with no humanity or moral compass before they became scientologists? These two may never have meant well to another human being in their whole lives.

    How many chances to fuck up things do these two get?

    Almost everyone wants the indies to wake the fuck up and yet we're supposed to be pc and give the still very destructive fundy indie movement a gold star because they allegedly help these newly blown scientologists transition to a new life.

    I call bullshit. I can't imagine being duped by the cult, blowing, and then getting used again by someone like Rinderburn 1. Have fun unraveling your brain from that.

    A long time ago I learned that many ex-scientologists are probably never going to be okay. They hold onto the stigma of psychology and don't go for much needed mental health therapy. They deservedly have trust issues. Ex-SO are broken. That's always going to suck.

    The best way to feel better about all of this is to try and make sure that the cult of scientology is stopped in it's present form so that very very few people are ever hurt again.

    *Message to Antonio: Can you ask Peter Mansell why he was given orders to use a picture of me holding a sign at a raid?
    • Like Like x 9
  19. wolfbane Member

    We know that the on Babbitt web page for the Scientology litigation mention was made "Or call Bob Johnson..." which is why amaX had it on her awesome signage. So he was definitely coordinating some stuff at least. Plus Babbitt eventually declared his law firm as having an interest in the case.

    They did not call him "co-counsel" which is the cult's big beef, they are claiming he was and it wasn't disclosed. That is the part we do not know and Culkin's declaration doesn't make it specifically clear that Johnson was doing anything more than coordinating and/or consulting on things. So my initial WTF reaction may have been uncalled for.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. wolfbane Member

    Are you inferring you did not even see Petey that day?
  21. Gottabrain Member

    QFT. And for those of us who are exes, to do all we can to grow as individuals from our pre-cult days and learn to love and trust ourselves and others again in a healthy way. That is, if we had a healthy concept of love and a moral compass pre-scn and try real hard at it.

    Newly outs go to FZ or Martydom on the rebound. Many exes initially rebound a few times before settling into life without scn or a placebo cult substitute. They are vulnerable. Those profiting by triggering cult buttons & responses to enhance their ridiculous, bloated self-images and command a following of worshippers are predators. Worse, scavengers of the injured trying to escape.

    Creepy asshole douchebags outside scn are often helped when they are removed from the triggers. Culties need to get out of that environment.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. amaX Member

    I made the sign from info I saw here on wwp. I have not and do not intend to call attorneys Johnson and/or Babbitt. I only have general knowledge of this lawsuit from info I've read here on wwp. Surely even this stupid assed cult cannot be using a sign I made as evidence that Bob Johnson is involved with the Garcia lawsuit?

    And I don't know if Mansell saw me or not that day. He usually avoids me because he can't stare me down and he knows it's useless for him to attempt to talk to me.

    EDIT: I even posted here on wwp that I was going to make the sign.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. Bubbles Member

    When I read the cult's request to remove the Garcia's attorneys due to conflict of interest - the first thought I had was YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.

    What a pathetic excuse of an argument. This 800 lb gorilla cult, who has bullied it's way thru courts by crushing its victims, critics, journalists, etc...for 40 years, is now acting like they're a defenseless 98 lb. victim that needs to be protected.

    IANAL, but if this judge is at all familiar with the cult's history of vexatious litigation, he is probably shaking his head and laughing hysterically at their request.

    As for the argument that by conferring with an attorney - that the cult used 13 years ago - puts them at a huge unfair disadvantage. Really? Seriously? If the cult's strategy hasn't been updated in 13 years , and if the cult is being sued for the same thing over and over again, for 20 - 25 years - why hasn't the cult learned from the experience and taken corrective action? 13 years is a sufficient amount of time to have passed, for the strategy, people, circumstances to have changed substantially. So request denied.

    As for using Mike and Marty. Too bad. There are tons of cases where executives have testified against their former employers. I was stunned to see this. They are so desperate, it was their Hail Mary pass.

    • Like Like x 5
  24. Anonymous Member

    First reasonable comment on this entire thread.
    If Johnson ever worked for Scientology, it doesn't mean that he can never work for a party that is suing Scientology. Lawyers switch sides all the time, as long as there is no conflict of interest. Now, Johnson last worked with Scientology in 1999. His involvement in the Garcia case has not been established at all, Culkin said that he was working on recruiting potential clients for the further case and may or may not have been on a conference call.When all those phone calls took place, the Garcia suit was already before the court.

    Also, you coming hard on Marty and Mike is getting old.
    It was Rinder that worked on the case more than Marty, and Rinder is a sharp, witty, extremely smart individual who probably provided a lot of insight to Babbitt.

    Why are you all taking Culkin's declaration at face value? It's vague, it contains a part of which he has no personal knowledge of [for example what roles Marthy and Mike occupied in the Church - Culkin was only in between 2009-2010]. Culkin will be torn to pieces when he is put on the stand and questioned about his affidavit.
    • Like Like x 7
  25. tigeratbay Member

    Great Balls of Sense! :)
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Gottabrain Member

    lulzy cross-linking of threads. Heinlein fan? ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    First reasonable comment, huh? Sorry, but disagree with you on that one.

    How do you know Rinder worked on the case more than Marty? It seems like only someone associated with the case, like Rinder, Babbitt, Johnson or anyone in the attorney firms would know this for sure.

    And where do you get this opinion about Rinder? If this is Babbitt or Johnson or one of their assistants, if you think that Rinder is "sharp, witty and an extremely smart individual", you better read up some more on him before you buy the car without checking out the entire engine. You may be in for some ugly surprises.

    If this is Rinder, Fuck You.

    Having said that, I do hope you're right about Culkin's declaration.
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  29. Random guy Member

    Before declaring R&R as the scourge of the (legal) Earth and the originators of all fail, I'd like to see how this pans out. If the judges throw out the lawsuit or order the Garcias to find other counsel, then I guess Rinder has bugged up monumentally. If the judge asks the cult to take their request and put it where the sun doesn't shine, then R&R are still providing valuable services in the Garcias case. Not being a lawyer, I don't feel comfortable declaring either or.

    And i have yet to see a proper legal analysis of the cults request.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    This morning, Tony Ortega wrote:

    On Friday, we scrambled to post a story about Scientology’s motion to disqualify the attorneys for Luis Garcia in his federal fraud lawsuit. We could tell from the comments that the documents we posted were tough to interpret. So tomorrow morning, we plan to have more about the motion, with some analysis by Scott Pilutik.
    • Like Like x 6
  31. wolfbane Member

    Which was quoted from the web page about the litigation on the Babbitt website. And I find it hilarious they used the pic on WWP rather than the original web page as an exhibit. Thus I keep mentioning it. Didn't mean to infer anything other than lulz amaX, so it's all good.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. lostatsea Member

    Also lulzy and baffling is that they entered it into a court document in message board post context, rather than just use the photo. Why on earth? They don't know how to save a jpg file from the internet? Oh, silly silly OSA.
    • Like Like x 4
  33. Anonymous Member

    If Rinder authored that post he was talking about himself when he said
    The nasty-nice makes me think of Rathbun's writing --e.g., "first reasonable comment in this entire thread." That's like saying, "You're not as stupid as the other idiots around here." See? Nasty-nice.

    If it is Rathbun then he better be right when he said: "It was Rinder that worked on the case more than Marty..." or he's gonna look like he's setting up his bff to take the blame for this potential fiasco.

    I wonder why it seemed necessary to state which MR worked on the case the most? Did anyone even ask that question?

    I assume the two contributed whatever they could. The amount of time each spent doesn't seem particularly relevant to anything from where I sit. One person might spend an hour, but that hour might be packed with juicy dox that make a huge difference while the other person might spend a week collecting info that doesn't help much.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

  35. Anonymous Member

    Oh, very simple. I get my opinion about Rinder from personal interactions with him. You know, instead of reading about him, I actually talk to him. And then form an opinion based on the conversation.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Babbitt and co' have the right to respond to the CoS motion. On top of that, they have the right to ask for an evidentiary hearing, in order to examine the persons who gave declarations on the stand. Once again - please note that the declarations, and in particular Culkin's declaration does not talk about the Garcia case, but rather about Culkin's own potential case.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Anonymous Member

    If the entire Church motion is based on the veracity of the two faced Brian Culkin's statement, that motion won't go very far. His statement is clearly written by the Church, because we can see Brian Culkin's handwritten corrections on the statement. The statement says that Culkin participated in conference calls with Rinder and several attorneys, but he is not sure that Johnson was online. Extremely weak evidence and can only be ascertained by putting others on the stand and making them testify. But here is a problem - Culkin does not mention anything about the Garcia suit. Why would the court want to hold a hearing about Rinder and other lawyers trying to get potential clients if it has nothing to do with the Garcia case? The entire motion is just a smoke screen.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    Read Culkin's affidavit. He held 75 telephone calls with Rinder, not with Rathbun. Culkin said that Rinder was the one who was "recruiting" new people. Culkin said that he spoke to Rinder, after he was offered a refund. Conclusion - Rinder is more involved in the case than Marty.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. OTeleventy Member

    I think several of the declarations (not so much Culkin's) are ripe to be stricken because rather than testifying to their own personal knowledge, the declarant is arguing the cos' s case for the DQ. A declaration is not a motion. In other words, the declarant is arguing matters of law or conclusions of fact rather than merely testifying to matters which are within their personal knowledge (e.g., "I saw a cat run across the road," vs. "The cat ran across the road because it was scared.") Furthermore, I think some of the declarations (for sure the exhibits to those declarations) attempt to continue the cos' s argument for arbitration. I am hoping that Garcia's lawyer argues those points, and I hope the judge recognizes Pope's shenanigans for what they are. TO is posting an analysis from Tikk tomorrow. I am most interested in hearing what he says.

    Also, 14 years is a long time removed from an entity to continue to claim privilege. I would like to see the judge find that this motion was brought merely for the purpose of a legal advantage (i.e., DQing the plaintiff's counsel simply to gain legal advantage).

    (On a tablet so sorry for typos and incoherency. )
    • Like Like x 4
  40. Random guy Member

    Babbitt's reply will be interesting reading. He does not strike me as the type of lawyer to give in over a bit of resistance, neither has he so far been prone to bullshitting. I suspect he will argue the whole argument is irrelevant to the case.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins