Customize

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

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

  1. tikk Member


    CSRT isn't a California corporation, it's a trust which at one point in time listed a California address; but which claims a more recent Florida residence. I'm only pointing this out because many people here seem hung up on CSRT's old California address. Whatever relevance this holds is negligible, in my opinion, because again, a trust's residence is determined by its members addresses. Per the relevant SCOTUS case law, even if CSRT continued to claim a California address in its mailings, if all its members/trustees were in Florida diversity would not be broken.

    But again, only Glen Stilo's trusteeship was potentially ascertainable by publicly available information in January 2013, so even though Babbitt misread how he should have pled subject matter jurisdiction (he too presumed CSRT was a corporation), the information necessary for him to properly ascertain CSRT's true character was not available. Because of that fact, I think the court will give him the benefit of the doubt in any sanctions/fees motion. I'm not at all hopeful that the case will remain in federal court but I believe there's a better than even chance that he can stick Scientology for much of the legal costs to date.

    And I would guess they'll eventually refile in FL state (Pinellas Cty) and ask that court to accept the federal court's findings and determinations on the previously filed motions, so as to avoid having to truly restart from square one. If it's refiled in California none of the motion practice would be immediately relevant b/c the Complaint would have to be entirely redrafted pursuant to California state statutes and common law. There may be advantages or disadvantages to filing in California as opposed to Florida I'm not aware of without heavy, unpaid research, other than the obvious factor we've already pointed out, that Pinellas County is Scientology's home court.
    • Like Like x 6
  2. rickybobby Member

    Question:

    I am assuming the Garcia's attorney has the ability to request PROOF from the trustees of their respective residences. How does that work? What proof can the trustees be required to provide to establish their residence in California? I have paid income taxes in states where I was not a resident; I currently have two driver's licenses from two different states, and I have worked in states that were not my primary residence. I have been on the voter registration rolls in a state where I no longer lived.

    Frankly, I wouldn't put it past the church to relocate their own folks just for this motion; perhaps that is the REAL reason for the delay. What happens if one of the trustees has recently moved from Florida to California during all this? What happens if they move tomorrow? Is it their residency at the time of the greivance, the time of the serving of the suit, or the time of the trial that determines the jurisdictional issues? What if the trustees have changed recently? What keeps the CoS from continually shuffling trustees so there is NEVER going to be a stable jurisdiction?
    • Like Like x 2
  3. eddieVroom Member

    "Diamond" Dave kinda came off like an Amway pimp, amirite?..
  4. OTeleventy Member

    From what I've read, you're exactly right. It makes diversity an impossibility and, unless there is a federal question, the cases are strictly state court. Something was posted earlier about this. Or I read it somewhere. BRB if I can find it.
  5. tikk Member


    For jurisdiction questions that hinge on residency, like here, residency is fixed at the time the complaint was filed (or served, I'm not sure, but filing and serving typically occur within a day or so of each other). You can't strip the court of jurisdiction by moving after the fact. Glen Stilo properly alleges that David Petit and two unnamed CSRT trustees were trustees on January x, 2013. But Stilo's declaration is suspiciously light on factual backup, especially given the magnitude of the eleventh hour revelation. I don't exactly know how the burdens of proof work when alleging lack of diversity so late, but a judge dismissing this case is going to want more in the factual record to base the dismissal on than Stilo's coy declaration naming someone no one has ever heard of, whose address he doesn't even provide. Babbitt will certainly request something more. I would also bet that the court is also going to require some evidence of the roles Petit and the two unnamed trustees play in CSRT, which could necessitate their depositions.

    That said, I'd be shocked if Scientology fails to show they had California trustees on January x, 2013--I would bet they have the proof, they just don't want to provide it. Which is precisely why, if you're Babbitt, you push to learn everything about CSRT now. My earlier contention that Babbitt has a viable argument that CSRT isn't really a trust but instead a corporation is probably a loser, but very useful to the end of requiring a significant amount of discovery to determine. If you concede that CSRT is actually a trust, then determining its residency can end once David Petit provides his driver's license.
    • Like Like x 5
  6. Anonymous Member

    Technically they could have a trustee in each of the fifty states, and you could never have diversity.
  7. wolfbane Member

    And just to be clear in an overtly anal retentive way and make sure we understand this... just one trustee who resides in California is enough to break the claim of diversity jurisdiction? And it matters not one iota how many trustees have a residency in other states?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. tikk Member

    Right. I can imagine arguing that there should be a distinction between active and inactive trustees but I don't imagine too many judges agreeing with it when there's a trust instrument explicitly stating the trustees powers.

    There's no good reason to think Scientology didn't have a California trustee on January x, 2013 because we know they had at least one, perhaps as many as three, in 2008. But Stilo's declaration suggests that there's something there they don't want to divulge anyway, so it's probably a really good idea to make whatever argument you can to find out what that is.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. wolfbane Member

    Inb4 Barry Van Sickle, Esq. inherits "Garcia II: the Socal Edition" case because fuck you - unknown diversity was unknown - that's why. :D
  10. BigBeard Member

    Pure Speculation
    I wonder if sometime between 2008 and now Shelly Miscavige was named a trustee in California? That's something I believe DM would go to any length to keep from coming out.
    /Pure Speculation

    BigBeard
    • Like Like x 1
  11. muldrake Member

    Doesn't this basically amount to a "get out of federal court free" card for anyone who can just name some random idiot as a trustee, then have a trust commit crimes on his behalf?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. tikk Member

    I've been thinking of other ways this loophole Babbitt has tripped over could be abused since this arose. But I think this situation is so weirdly unique that no rule could ever be proposed. There are significant disincentives already in place to not leave "sleeper trustees" littered about waiting for this moment. First being money; how many defendants besides Scientology would be willing to spend five, six figures in legal fees for a result that doesn't dispose the case? Meaning that there's a significant chance you're going to have to spend it again when it gets refiled in state court. Also, leaving trustees in random locations exposes you to personal jurisdiction in states you don't necessarily want exposure. Finally, there's an element of uncertainty; we've speculated that Scientology could get hit for sanctions and fees, which even if it doesn't ultimately happen is at least plausible. So being this cute could cost you however much in fees on your side, some potential percent of fees the plaintiff has run up, and then more fees on your side when you litigate again in state court. For almost any other potential defendant I'd think these possibilities would be prohibitive. But for Scientology I'd hedge toward its likelihood, because they don't really care how much money they wind up spending if there's a good chance they can force you to spend more than you wanted.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. wolfbane Member

    Just out of curiosity - if they do get hit with sanctions and fees, is that something they can appeal and drag through the higher courts ad naseum until they actually have to pay up?
  14. tikk Member

    Yep.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. overhere Member

    This is infuriating. Because, fuck you $cientology. Ugh.

    I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around how the Garcia's attorneys missed this. I mean, really. Ugh.
  16. Anonymous Member

    This is WHY anonymous is the best cure for this cult. We've made the cult spend lots of money without having to spend a ton ourselves. There are some of us that the cult has spent money to dox 3-4 times because nuke nick, change costume, rinse repeat...
    Between that and killing off new recruits... cut income, make them spend... it's been a good formula.
    They clearly have too much money for lolsuits still... what can we do to dry some of that up?
    • Like Like x 4
  17. wolfbane Member

    Target the whales that refill the coffers. Especially the ones who bring in raw meat via their WISE businesses that force their employees to do scilon training programs. Those are the folks paying for their own bridge, their families bridge and their employees bridge as well as donating to the special programs for Ideal Orgs, Super Power, etc.

    If we can put a hurting on their income, they have less money to flow into the cult. But we need a recent WISE Membership List leaked by a disenchanted member on their way out the door to doitrite.
    • Like Like x 5
  18. muldrake Member

    Actually, I believe if they were sanctioned in this case, a big if, they'd be required in all likelihood to put up a supersedeas bond at least equal to the cost of the judgment, i.e. a bond put in the care of the court so if they fail to prevail on appeal, it is paid to the recipient without further fuss. Appealing a judgment does not, in and of itself, stay collection actions on the underlying judgment. Sometimes a bond of some multiple of the judgment is required to stay collection, especially if the judgment is the result of shenanigans like this.

    Not sure how the Eleventh Circuit handles it, but most circuits have a way of going about it and circumstances under which such a bond is generally required. This still doesn't mean the recipient collects immediately, but it ensures a "light at the end of the tunnel" if they win.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. DeathHamster Member

    http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/05/luis-garcia-responds-we-dont-trust-scientologys-trustee-ploy/
    • Like Like x 4
  20. wolfbane Member

    Babbitt's dox are fascinating: Garcia v. Scientology, Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion on Lack of Subject

    "Trust Instruments"

    From US Treasury: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/forms/savpdp0049.pdf

    Do WANT! On both CSRT and USIMT.

    And FFS, these murky, ghost-like entities should NOT be allowed to be so fking secretive when they are a registered 501(c)(3) organization. There should be a requirement that they file some sort of info disclosure form when they're tax exempt that makes their Trust Instruments public records.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. tikk Member

    • Like Like x 4
  22. DeathHamster Member

    I did think that the reason CoS didn't play this trap card until now wasn't just to run up the cost for the Garcias and Babbitt, that there must be a risk/cost to this.

    Having the smokescreen around their "trust" blown away seems to be a cost. Hopefully there's some risk hiding in there too.
    • Like Like x 7
  23. wolfbane Member

    I can partially buy into that reasoning, but imo it seems like there was more to it than just the ka-ching factor. I think their bigger motivators was attacking and discrediting Rathbun and Rinder, in order to inject (or reclaim) a certain level of fear into the disgruntled apostate crowd to discourage other people from filing further lawsuits.

    When Hubbard created Scientology he had the unbelievable factor on his side - nobody would believe it was as twisted under the surface as it really way. When he started to loose that advantage and the truth was first exposed, he went apeshit AND went offshore... creating Ethics, the Sea Org, KSW, the GO and everything else that turned the organization into a totalitarian regime that held themselves above the law. These were all mechanisms of control through fear, manipulation and spiritual extortion.

    Tom Cruise Crazy stunts on TV and Southpark was the spark that lit a fire that eventually began to erase that fear factor. Then Chanology came along with our DIAF approach to exposing them and burnt their public image to ground. Then the former members who were victimized arose from the ashes and commenced to eradicate their fear-based power base and shattered the silence they instilled in those who fled.

    Nowadays, the fear they once instilled in the people they hurt the most is mostly gone except for ex-members with immediate family members trapped in the mindfk. And I think they set out to use this case to bitchslap key players at the forefront of that changing tide and recapture the ground that has been lost in regards to the fear they once had. A fear so intense it caused people to just walk away - leaving boatloads of money on account plus allowing evidence of fraud and extortion to fall by the wayside.

    Surely, the cult lolyers advised them of this jurisdiction crapshoot weakness from the very start. Opting to wait in order to attack the vested parties so viciously had to be for far bigger strategic reasons other than just wasting time and money. Although I do think the time/money wasting was indeed a factor - but I see those aspects as more of "added bonus" in a packaged deal in a strategy where the war on MR2 finally graduated to a lawfare arena and they exploited that opportunity for all it was worth.
    • Like Like x 3
  24. Anonymous Member

    Yes, trusts being legal entities should be transparent as such. Especially when they are fronting
    tax-exempt organization.

    Seems common sense. IANAL.
  25. Anonymous Member

    Quoted for truth. And the taste of delicious caek.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. DeathHamster Member

    As a tactic to crush their enemy and discourage others from trying, this move seems to have failed on the basic crushing part.

    Barring any surprises found when uncovering the trusts, this case is going to be pushed out of federal court, but I doubt that's the end of it, especially if CoS picks up a few penalties on the way out, like being told to pick up the cheque.

    Their previous play was to try to make Mike & Marty deadly poison to any case, but that failed.

    Playing the Mystery Trust trap card was a defensive blocking play, a Get out of Federal Court, rather than an attack. For crushing, they would have to have done something like the Beach-Merryday-go-round ride that they gave to Ken Dandar. (They expended a Bent Judge card there. I doubt they can use Beach again for anything.)

    They've expended their Mystery Trust trap. If it also costs them the smokescreen around the trusts, the next round of this case, as well as others from disgruntled apostate crowd, are going to have much better aim at the corporate heart.
    • Like Like x 3
  27. DeathHamster Member

    Hmm. I wonder if there'd be any money in a Scientology card game?
    TheSickening.png
    • Like Like x 6
  28. DeathHamster Member

    *ahem* For a crushing win in this case, they'd need a way to block the trusts (with the money) from ever being successfully sued. Once the smokescreen is gone, they'll need something else. I don't know if they can do anything about Marty & Mike. On the one hand, CoS says that they're nobodies and their information is out of date. On the other, CoS says that they have access to privileged information and are almost-lawyers. That's been shot down twice.

    I don't think that they can play their Religious card (endless use) because that sort of fraud is a well-worn path in the courts. They did use it successfully to cock-block labor suits. (Although the judge suggested that a different case might work.)
    • Like Like x 1
  29. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 1
  30. Mike Rinder was involved in the lawsuit and consulted Babbitt. they should have known about the problems that CRST Trust would pose trying sue them in Florida. IMHO Rinder was really not the best person to consult on this I felt that maybe Rinder did this on purpose as I suspects that he might be still work for the Church. Mike Rinder’s “consultation” made Babbitt fuck up the case completely. Maybe Rinder made this possible huge win into a loss :/
    Rinderfucker
    This message by Rinderfucker has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  31. I really hope for the sake of this case, that Rinder is not giving more "advice" and "consultation".

    I wonder how much he got paid for his "help"
    Rinderfucker
    This message by Rinderfucker has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  32. Anonymous Member

    If it bothers you, then whatever it is, I support it. Hell, I don't even like the man but if it causes you enough displeasure that you feel compelled to come here, a place that it makes no impact whatsoever, and try to dead agent him, it is totally worth it.
    • Like Like x 4
  33. overhere Member

    Argh, I hate to be devils advocate.

    Perhaps changes were made after the Big Names jumped ship? I work at a relatively small business and when someone bounces we automatically change codes, passwords, cancel email accounts, and even the locks. I really wouldn't put it past the church to change a few trustees here and there after their departure. Actually, I would be more surprised if there weren't a mass reorganization after their departure.

    Outdated "consultation" and "advice" is outdated.
  34. jensting Member

    The intended audience is counting stats before Thursday 2pm...
  35. coelacanth Member

    More to the point: Mikey's still got a little bit of LRH inside him.

    Its Rinder's loyalty to Dianetics Science that compels him to join in efforts to attack and destroy this travesty of a Church that DM has turned it into. His grounded faith in Technology has made him an implacable enemy of Corporate Scientology, and is what guides him in his quest for justice- the LRH way.

    At the end of the day (14:00 hours) we're all working from the same page, anyway.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. anonamus Member

    I'm pretty sure Rinder still has a very large little bit of ElRon inside him.
    Isn't he still drinking the kool-aid?
  37. Yesterday I was riding public transport, and I happened to notice that we were driving by the church of scientology. So as we drove by, I gave a small, slight facial gesture of hatred. At that moment this random guy sitting next to me said " I know, those guys are assholes right?" I almost lost it. But to my point, if even simple, working people that probably only watch the news about 30 minutes a day hate this institution... why is it still around?
    • Like Like x 3
  38. muldrake Member

    Because of the people who don't do even that.
    • Like Like x 4
  39. Very true. But if those people are ignorant, then how could they support the institution?
  40. anonamus Member

    Well said.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins