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. Mike Rinder only has “Rinder in him” since day one or he would have spilled the beans already. He is just covering his ass. His lack of intelligence about this case makes it now more difficult for anyone to ever get money back from the cult.

    I don't know if he drinks the kool-aid, but definitely he is not Marty. A girl can only hope!
    mikeohmike
    This message by mikeohmike has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  2. I feel that Mike Rinder made it more dangerous than ever to sue the cult for money.

    inb4postB42PM
    christie
    This message by christie has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  3. Anonymous Member

    I do think there's something up with Rinderburn2 about this suit. Not one peep from the dude in months about it on his blog. And no matter what you might think of Rinder, he's not shy about saying what's on his mind.

    I wonder why on his deafening silence?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    Derp. Because he's a hired consultant and actively involved in the case. People in those positions seldom practically never open their mouth while the case is still ongoing. And if they do, it's nothing of any significance.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Anonymous Member

    That didn't stop Rinder from talking it up when Brian Culkin's affi was filed. He even at least said he couldn't say too much, but then did make some sort of statement.

    Also, both tikk and muldrake have stated that they don't believe Rinder has anything to do with the fuckup by Ted Babbitt on filing in the wrong jurisdiction.

    So it doesn't make sense that Rinder is not saying ANYTHING.
  6. Anonymous Member

    He's talking, all right. (apparently not to you) :3
  7. Anonymous Member

    Fair enough. Dox or GTFO.
  8. Anonymous Member

    "need-to-know" and "trying a little harder not to fuck up this case like so many others have gotten fucked up".

    but here's sum doxy fer yeh
    large_Fotolia_5280987_Subscription_L.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll take this gibberish to mean GTFO.
  10. muldrake Member

    I will note without naming all the bullshit DA trolls that think they're fooling anyone at all with this bullshit about Rinder.

    The idea that a consultant of any kind would be telling the lawyer in the case how to argue subject matter jurisdiction is laughable as to be beyond belief.

    And also, frankly, the cult is so compartmentalized that I don't see why Rinder, where he is on the org chart, would have known a damn thing about CSRT. Yes, and I know he was head of OSA.
    • Like Like x 7
  11. Really, McFly? Read Daniel Montalvo's declaration and it will show you how Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun talk to attorneys and what they tell them; what do do and how.

    Those are dox, what you said is bullshit spewed
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  12. Because he is losing, otherwise he would be gorilla-chesting boasting about it all lol
  13. DeathHamster Member

    Gee Malvolio, would this be Daniel Montalvo's declaration after he went back to CoS and cut a deal with them?

    Declarations aren't really dox, except as "This person said that". It's a sad fact that people say all manner of shit, even under oath, in declarations.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. tikk Member


    And you're countering "bullshit spewed" with a declaration Scientology's lawyers wrote and Daniel Montalvo signed. Regardless, I'll wait here while you tell me where to find the part where Rinder and Rathbun discuss subject matter jurisdiction. It's probably right after their lengthy discussion on forum non conveniens and the rule against perpetuities
    • Like Like x 5
  15. thetaburst
    This message by thetaburst has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  16. So tikk you saying that a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Moltalvo is a lie? How is it we always chose when people lie depending on what they say? lol

    my respect for you is going down, bro. u are smarter than that.

    Herro, please help! lol
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  17. tikk Member

    I can live without your respect, and the feeling is mutual, I'm sure. lol
    • Like Like x 7
  18. HAHAH you dont even know who I am. I guess one disagreement and you are all out, eh?

    sigh, weaksauce
    iloveidiots
    This message by iloveidiots has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 5
  19. It seems when Anonymous or Ex's say whatever on a declaration, it is true. If it is a scilon, it is a lie.
    Same with Leah ... in the cult you'all hated her, now she's the bestest evah. Double Standard much?
  20. ROFL!!!!!!
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  21. ^Appears mental. x 3
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Anonymous Member

    I [states my name] do herebt declare:

    I swear. The moon is made of green cheese. I saw it.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.

    Signed, me.

    /there's some dox for you.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Soon-to-be-extinct culties firing blanks.

    Get out while you still have a pot to piss in.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. overhere Member

    A thousand times this.

    "Seeing the Light" =/= New Personality/Past
  25. Anonymous Member


    If you haven't heard the phrase "DOX or STFU" here you clearly need to lurk more.
  26. Anonymous Member

    lol hey i'm still dissapoint that when y'all showed up in '08 to dismantle the cult that you didn't come with pry bars and nail pullers... :D
  27. muldrake Member

    Notice the identical features this cult troll has to all the others?

    Seriously, tards, update your tech. This didn't fool anyone in 1995, and it still isn't working. Good job doing an imitation of the wooden rabbit in greyhound races, though.
    • Like Like x 4
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    Luis Garcia Responds to Scientology’s Arbitration Scheme | The Underground Bunker

    By Tony Ortega

    If you’ve been following our coverage of Luis and Rocio Garcia’s federal fraud lawsuit against the Church of Scientology, you know that the lawsuit is facing a possibility of dismissal because of a question of jurisdiction. However, until that can be resolved, there’s another key issue the lawsuit must overcome if it’s going to continue — and that’s the matter of arbitration.

    The Garcias allege that they were induced to give donations to Scientology under fraudulent conditions. But the church contends that the Garcias signed contracts which require them to seek refunds or other redress through an internal arbitration system. Scientology has told Judge Whittemore that this is an internal religious dispute, and not something that should be in a civil court of law. Before he rules on that matter, Whittemore asked Scientology to submit a 5-page explanation of its arbitration procedures. Now, the Garcias are responding to what the church submitted.

    As they have in the past, the Garcias say Scientology’s arbitration system is a sham.

    In the new filing, the Garcias pounce on something that we had noted was unusual — in its 5-page description, Scientology talked about “committees of evidence” in their arbitration process.

    “Comm Evs” are very familiar to Scientologists, but they don’t really resemble what one thinks of when one thinks of “arbitration.”

    Scientologists are summoned to a comm ev, for example, to be judged whether they’ve committed a “crime” or “high crime” against the church.

    That’s very different than arbitration, which a person can request if they think they’ve been harmed.

    The Garcias note that they’ve never been summoned to a Comm Ev in regards to their donations.

    The Garcias also run down the discrepancies between what the church filed in its description of arbitration versus what was described in the agreements they signed over the years.

    Ultimately, the Garcias say, Scientology’s arbitration procedures are bunk — they were never intended to be used by anyone, ever.

    To bolster their argument, they attach several exhibits. The first is a declaration from former Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder.

    Scientology’s five-page description “constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation of non-existent ‘arbitration’ procedures,” Rinder writes.

    Continued with open comments here:
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/09/luis-garcia-responds-to-scientologys-arbitration-scheme/
    • Like Like x 5
  29. Thanks, Kha Khan!
  30. Anonymous Member

    Some additional fodder on this case for researchfags:

    The latest docket report as of the date of this post has been RECAP'd in the Internet Archive's collection of US Federal Court dox here:

    Case docket: Garcia Saz et al v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust et al

    Newest actions are listed at the bottom, with a two additional misc. documents made available (see the links to Document #'s 92 & 94 in the 2nd column) from prior actions we haven't seen before.

    Where that stuff fits in with the dox that was previously published by TO:
    Additionally, in the arbitration-related filings by both teams there is several mentions made to the so called "elusive" 1963 HCO PL(s) policies on Committee of Evidence stuff. TeamScilon cited it first, but then they failed to actually attach it as an Exhibit. TeamGarcia pointed that out, but from the dox we have so far it seems like they didn't attach it either.

    The policy/policies in question are seemingly from OEC Volume 1, and appears to most likely be one or more of these exact references:
    All ^^That stuff plus a snippet of the relevant section of the 1991 OEC1 Table of Contents that they come from can be gotten here for further background infos on WTF they are talking about:
    https://hotfile.com/dl/254270364/cc348bf/OEC1_Committee_of_Evidence_Excerpts.zip.html

    These same policies also get cited on Wikipedia's "Scientology Justice" article that does a fair job of explaining the basic gist of the cult's internal system of justice for peeps new to the subject:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Justice

    These latest filings on the arbitration angle show what a bunch of lulzcows the cult really is. They got a fkton of policies, agreements and written blather on Ethics, Justice, Refunds, etc. and they can't even keep the differences between a CommEv and Arbitration straight.

    Not sure what to do first - facepalm or LOL. :confused:
    • Like Like x 2
  31. RolandRB Member

    How can it be an internal religious dispute if the Garcias have left the Church?
  32. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  33. RightOn Member

    yikes. Like I said, hearing the words "motion filed" makes me cringe
    This is getting very interesting
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

  35. tikk Member

    I'll post the same comment I posted at Tony's site here:

    Scientology's gigantic balls are proudly displayed in that motion to strike. Because indeed, while Garcia's Nov. 4 declaration does is fact conflict with what he alleges in his complaint, the declaration was made to in direct response to what Scientology had alleged in its motion to dismiss regarding the slippery character of CSRT. Let me reduce this to a simpler example.
    - GARCIA (noticing that Scientology is holding up two fingers): Scientology is holding up two fingers.
    ... NINE LONG MONTHS PASS ...
    - SCIENTOLOGY: We were holding up THREE fingers, and this is a two-finger court. The court must dismiss.
    - GARCIA: I had no way of knowing Scientology was holding up three fingers because it was hiding its other hand behind its back.
    - SCIENTOLOGY: Garcia's acknowledgement that we are holding up three fingers conflicts with his earlier statements vis a vis two fingers. The court must certainly be appalled by Garcia changing his statement at this stage of the litigation and accordingly must strike this new statement.
    • Like Like x 7
  36. anonamus Member

    Very good analogy, thanks for making the case comprehensible for laymen.
    Scientology: I'm holding up one finger at you, my middle.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. RightOn Member

    :p
  38. every time I see Mike Rinder's name on a declaration I cringe. I don't want yet another monumental fuck up like on the CRST bit. scares the shit outta me.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Tikk, thanks for the explanation, as always. But this legal shit makes my head spin and I'm hoping you can help clarifly this as well.

    If jurisdiction is cut and dry the full responsibility of the plaintiff, then what does this have to do with anything? I just can't grasp how the cult could still be somehow responsible if Babbitt, on behalf of Garcia, is FULLY responsible. Is this just some maneuvering to try and show it really isn't his fuckup?
  40. Anonymous Member

    QFT.

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