THE JUDGE AND SCIENTOLOGY

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

THE JUDGE AND SCIENTOLOGY

Post by Tigger » Thu Apr 12, 2001 1:28 pm

THE JUDGE AND SCIENTOLOGY Could this California judge and Judge Boteler of Madisonville, Kentucky be kin under the robes? I think the similarities of judicial abuse in the Tom Padgett case are here.

Tigger

JUDGE TO THE STARS AND THE COURTROOM CAT BOX SYNDROME

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/judge/index.htm

Questions or comments?
We'd love to
hear from you!
Send e-mail to:
writeveritas@iname.com

Is Hollywood's favorite judge trying to cover something up in the $190-million libel suit she sits on? Or has blind Justice just become deaf and dumb, too?


She is truly Los Angeles Superior Court's Judge-to-the-Stars. Some of Hollywood's most glamorous and mighty have gulped before the gavel of Judge Frances Rothschild.


It was Judge Rothschild who sent Cyndy Garvey to jail in the breakup of America's postcard couple--Steve and Cyndy; it was Judge Rothschild who said "No" when Joanna Carson tried to get ex-hubby Johnny Carson to pay $6,000 more a month in support--so Joanna could maintain her lavish New York hotel suite; it was Judge Rothschild who confronted Roman Polanski when he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl; and it was Rothschild who was named to referee the squabble when Cary Grant filed a $10-million suit against Chevy Chase because the comedian had referred to Grant as a "homo."


Yes, Rothschild's courtroom has almost been a Parade of Stars: Clint Eastwood, McKenzie Phillips, Lesley-Anne Downs, William Friedkin, Anne Rooney, Joan Collins, Phil Specter, Randy Jackson (Michael's and Janet's brother), Michele Lee, James Farrentino, and more.


But now the Tinsel Town judge may have more than a soap opera to fret over in the $190-million libel suit that has been filed against Scientology's repository of power, the Church of Spiritual Technology.


And there are some aspects of the case that, for some reason, Judge Frances seems almost desperate to dance around. Or, is that "cover up?"


DID YOU SAY $190 M-I-L-L-I-O-N?

It's a high-stakes case that Judge Frances peers down upon when the players take their places in her downtown Los Angeles courtroom. It's also a classic David-vs.-Goliath story, with underdog plaintiffs Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey--on a frayed-shoestring budget--going it alone against one of the most wealthy, powerful and feared corporations anywhere in the world: Scientology's Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), and their phalanx of designer-suit attorneys.


And, yes, the plaintiffs really are asking to be awarded 190 million dollars for what they allege to be a vicious and false attack, with malice, on their characters and reputations.


For the full background on the case, see the home page of Veritas at:

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm


There are lots of links to follow, literally and figuratively.
The threads of the case weave a tale of intrigue, mysterious anonymous mailings, private investigators, shadowy connections to IRS, and allegations of fraud against CST and other arms of the Scientology corporate maze.


But another side of the story has attracted little attention up till now. The plaintiffs, from the beginning of the case, have raised important legal points of venue and jurisdiction.* They have cited copiously from the California constitution and California statutes to claim and substantiate the jurisdiction in which they are bringing their complaint, and the statutes that define authority for jurisdiction over the case.


And that's where Tinsel Town's Judge Frances Rothschild appears, at least, to be having some terribly selective attention-deficit problems.


QUESTION FOR JUDGE FRANCES: "WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR?"


It would seem to be a reasonable question. But it's only one of several pointed, penetrating questions the plaintiffs have posed, but that Tinsel-Town Judge Frances just flat-out won't answer.


Is she hearing the questions? Let's peek into the courtroom and find out.


4 November 1997:


MR. MITCHELL: For the record, is this courtroom
in
California, one of the states of the united States, as
opposed to, say, an undisclosed federal area?


ROTHSCHILD: I'm not really here to answer your questions,
sir, but what else do you have? Go ahead.


[Editor's note: Back in the old days, before we became civilized, her response would have been called "insufferable arrogance." But that was back when we all carried guns.]


MR. MITCHELL: I have identified myself; I'm now seeking to
identify the venue.


ROTHSCHILD: Okay. Continue. Anything else you have to say,
sir?


MR. MITCHELL: Your refusal to answer my question in the
affirmative is taken as evidence to the fact that
you
consider the courtroom to be somewhere other than California
and that Department 1 has obviously erred in assigning the
case. This court therefore is disqualified from hearing our
case, as the venue is clearly stated on the face of our
complaint. ...You do not wish to answer that
question?


ROTHSCHILD: No.


[Editor's note: Well, we in the peanut gallery are wondering why not, your Honor? It's a simple, straightforward question. Why scritch and scratch and dodge? Any reasonable person might come to the unfortunate conclusion that you're trying to cover something up. Let's see if it improves any. Let's move on to...]


12 November 1997:

MR. MITCHELL: The last time I was in this court...I asked
questions with regard to the nature of this courtroom, this
venue. My question specifically was: Is this courtroom in
California, one of the united States of America, as opposed
to, for example, an undisclosed federal area? This was my
attempt, having identified myself as one of the people of
California and a plaintiff in propria persona, to identify
the nature of this venue as a California court.

..[T]here
are a number of indications in this courtroom that...this
is, in fact, an extension of a federal venue as opposed to
a California court. ...[W]hat venue is this? Who
are you
working for? And why is the language of your oath
[of
office] different in substance from the language of an oath
required of a California judge?


[Editor's note: She heard that, right?]


ROTHSCHILD: (Completely ignoring the questions) Okay, I am
going to take the matter of the request for a peremptory--


[Editor's note: Apparently not. There are some questions on the floor, your judgeness! Is the woman deef?]


MR. MITCHELL: I would say this: That until the issue of your
qualification to sit in hearing on a California venue is
resolved, the plaintiffs could not accept any argument...given that your oath of office precludes you from
sitting on our case until a proper oath of office is signed
by you in front of a clerk and notarized.


[Editor's note: No judge can be so arrogant as to ignore that...]


ROTHSCHILD: Thank you. Did you wish to say anything in regard
to the demurrer--


[Editor's note: Goes to show just how wrong I can be. Moving right along, now to...]


25 November 1997:


ROTHSCHILD: (To Stephen Mitchell) You wanted to
say
something? Go ahead, sir.


MR. MITCHELL: I would like to remind you of what was on the
record on November 12, 1997. You have admitted, pursuant to
the doctrine of estoppel by silence, that you are not a
judge in California as one of the united States of America.
...You have also admitted, pursuant to the doctrine of
estoppel by silence, that you do not consider this to be a
court of record that is fully independent of the legislative
and executive departments of the state government under the
doctrine of separation of powers. The fact of the matter is
that this _is_ a court of record that is fully independent
of the legislative and executive departments of the state
government under the doctrine of separation of powers. I'm
here to declare and inform you that it is such a court,
because I am one of the people of California, and this court belongs to the people of California. In this state
court--where there is a judge present--said judge would be
a servant of the people under complete obligation to follow
the law of California, and to make proper rulings according
to California public statutes and the constitution of the
State of California of 1849.


The fact of the matter is that
there is not a lawful judge in this courtroom today.
Whatever it is that you consider this place to be is not
relevant. I hereby inform you that the transcript of the
record on November 12, 1997 and the transcript of any record
developed here today will become evidence in a criminal
investigation that will be pursued to resolve the presence
of an impostor sitting on the bench in this courtroom. ...


With all due respect, it might mitigate your circumstances,
and I would highly recommend that you simply get up and walk
away from the bench.


[Editor's note: Finally, we're going to get somewhere. I can't wait to hear her response to this... .]


ROTHSCHILD: Okay. The matter is set today for a motion to
quash service of summons with regard to David-- "Miscavige?"


[Editor's note: This is beginning to sound just a little bit like my cat in its litter box: Scritch. Scratch. Cover, cover, cover. Scritch. Sniff. Scritch-scritch-scritch, scratch, cover-cover.]


MR. MITCHELL: If I may, since you wish to remain in the
courtroom, I will take this opportunity for the record to
read...the language of your oath of office onto the record.
I have a copy here, certified copy, if you would like to see
it.


ROTHSCHILD: Excuse me!


[Editor's note: Hey, she can hear!]


MR. MITCHELL: No?


ROTHSCHILD: That is enough! You may not read my oath of
office into the record. We are going to proceed.


[Editor's note: Sniff. What is that smell? I hear something: Scritch, scratch.]


MR. MITCHELL: In that case, the plaintiffs have nothing more
to say to you here today other than to state for the record
that we reserve all rights and do not wish to abandon any
complaint, motion, or argument for which we will await the presence of a lawful judge. To the reporter, we are finished
here today, and I want to alert you that this transcript is
now evidence in a criminal investigation. Thank you very
much.

(At 9:24 a.m., the plaintiffs leave counsel
table.)


It should be noted that judge-to-the-stars Rothschild took that opportunity to grant the motion to quash service on David Miscavige, removing Miscavige from the case as a defendant while the plaintiffs were not in the courtroom.


[Editor's note: That's another story, entirely: the plaintiffs have alleged in court-filed records--bringing new evidence that became available only when the formerly secret Closing Agreement between Scientology organizations and IRS was leaked--that the motion to quash was granted based on intentionally misleading and/or perjured testimony by Closing Agreement attorney Monique Yingling and others. Look for the full story of these new allegations soon! And now back to your regularly scheduled program...]


Why won't this fine, upstanding representative of the judiciary answer a few simple questions about the venue? Why doesn't she want her oath of office read into the record? Is there something to hide here?


The answers aren't entirely clear yet. But given that the libel case centers around tax issues; given new evidence--from the Closing Agreement--of CST/IRS coziness; and especially given recently discovered ties to Judge Frances Rothschild herself, things only promise to get more interesting.


SO JUDGE ROTHSCHILD, WHO *ARE* YOU WORKING FOR?


We've recently learned that Rothschild served on the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, the results of which have quite an interesting relationship to the case in question--more in a moment.


One of the people who served with Rothschild on that Committee was Senator Bill Bradley. While in the senate, Bradley was on the Finance Committee, was a leader in passing the 1986 "Tax Reform" Act, and served for eight years on the Special Committee on Intelligence. [Stay tuned--Ed.] Last year, he was appointed as Vice Chairman of the International Council for the international banking firm J.P. Morgan. The plot thickens.


Also on the Commission with Judge Rothschild was U.S. Representative Barbara B. Kennelly. She served six years on the House Intelligence Committee [Don't touch that dial--Ed.], and is currently on the House Ways and Means Committee. If you don't know what that does, listen to Representative Bill Archer, its chairman: "The Ways and Means Committee is the starting point for every bill dealing with Federal revenues that is introduced in the Congress." Ah, that would be, ah, taxes. And, ah, Social Security. Coincidences abound.


Sniff. Sniff.


Who else was on that Commission? Well, how about Representative Marge Roukema. Marge is merely Charwoman of the House Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions. Roukema's subcommittee has direct authority over the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the nation's other banking regulators. That's all.


No--correction: that's not all. In fact, from her own bio:

"As a member of the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support [with our very own Judge Rothschild--Ed.], she developed the comprehensive child support legislation signed into law in 1996 as part of the welfare reform bill. The measure includes license revocations..., better cross-referencing of computer databases and easier procedures to enforce child support orders across state lines."


What that euphemistically refers to is a law which mandates that all employers must now report all newly hired personnel--with their Social Security numbers--to be entered into a giant federal database. In other words, Marge and Frances worked hand-in-glove to help convert the SSN into a national I.D. number.


Scritch. Scratch. Phew!


WOW! JUDGE ROTHSCHILD, WHO *DO* YOU WORK FOR?!


The issues of Social Security numbers and taxation are absolutely central to the libel case before Tinsel Town's government-connected Rothschild. The alleged libel centers around accusations made in a published document about the plaintiffs--"Public Warning"--regarding their tax status. The plaintiffs allege that defendant CST was heavily involved in the approval and publication of that document, and that the information in it is false, defamatory, libelous, and made with malice.


But the recently-leaked Closing Agreement forged between IRS and, among others, defendant CST, shows that, as a member of the formerly-clandestine "Church Tax Compliance Committee" (CTCC), defendant CST has direct access to IRS and Treasury officials--officials whose actions and connections are under oversight jurisdiction of the congressional committees and subcommittees listed above--with former committee associates of Frances Rothschild manning them.


Recently, IRS-connected CST demanded in a motion for "discovery" that the plaintiffs--Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey--turn over to CST all their federal tax returns back to 1992, all their records of personal income and expenses back to 1992, copies of all their state tax returns back to 1992--in fact, it reads more like an IRS audit than discovery in a libel case.


Plaintiffs contested the demand on the basis that CST's motion was brought pursuant to codes--not statutes--and that they, the plaintiffs, have established, without contest from either the defendant or the judge, that the codes have no jurisdiction.


What did Judge Frances do? Citing code, she granted CST's motion to compel production of the tax and income records, ordered that the plaintiffs produce them without objection, and fined the plaintiffs $250.00 each.


Stephen Mitchell asked in court: "I have one question for you, then. What is your lawful foundation for bringing the code to bear upon these plaintiffs?"


Guess what Judge-to-the-Stars Frances Rothschild said:


"Thank you for your comments."


Scratch. Scritch. Phew!


If that's not enough, there is yet another side-line story developing, one that is now being agressively investigated. Some researchers have been compiling and sending in information demonstrating a link between the U.S. intelligence community (see committees and subcommittees listed above) and Scientology, dating back at least to the late '60s and early '70s, and perhaps back to the very early '50s.


It was in the late '60s when former-NSA member Harold Puthoff took Scientology's upper-level courses (the copyrights of which are now owned by defendant CST), and left, going almost directly into the CIA-sponsored "remote viewing" project in the early '70s. "Remote Viewing" demonstrably relies on L. Ron Hubbard's "anchor-point" technology, also owned by defendant CST. [See our new story: "CST and the CIA."--Ed.]
With all her links to Social Security, taxation, banking, Treasury, and the ever-popular intelligence community, conflict-of-interest may soon begin to rise like a stink around Tinsel-Town's favorite judge, Frances Rothschild.

Some observers say it could produce a truly awful mess if she keeps studiously ignoring the plaintiffs' address to vital matters of law.


And one curious fact remains sticking out of the litter, no matter how much scratching goes on: Rothschild got put on the case when the original judge--Mary Ann Murphy--abruptly recused herself with no reason given. Just, "Bye-bye Mary Ann; Hello well-connected Frances." And there's a whole lot of scratchin' going on.
----------------------------------------------
*If you care to read and research the legal issues raised, read the full original Verified Complaint for Libel at:

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/ ... plaint.htm

Then read the new First Amended Verified Complaint for Libel at:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/ ... plaint.htm
End of article
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE." ~~~~~~Martin Luther King, Jr.~~~~~~~
COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

Judith Anderson

Post by Judith Anderson » Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:22 am

What's the next move, or time line for this appalling case? Is a judgement still pending?

hans
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:13 am
Location: LA, California, USA
Contact:

Post by hans » Fri Apr 13, 2001 7:38 am

Hey, how about a little cynical relief? Well, Americans, all of you reading here, are you paying attention?

I think this is what David Miscavige and the CTS want to impose on you: A Scientology State Religion, a Scientology State Judiciary, a Scientology State Science. The country that put a man on the moon, may see the image of a Ron Humbug or worse, a David Mischief, peering out malevolently from the heart of its most cherished freedoms.

Have we come so far, only to see a pack of grade school dropouts degrade our institutions with the power of, what? Lots of cash? Really good blackmail material? Hypnosis and control of people in power?

Of course I could be wrong. All this I wrote is just one person's opinion and conclusion, and maybe there is nothing to worry about. Maybe it's too complex for a mere "wog" to grasp.

I do not for a moment doubt that the Church of Scientology will self destruct. It is simply wrong to let them do so on our time.
-Hans Hansen lives-

hans
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:13 am
Location: LA, California, USA
Contact:

Post by hans » Fri Apr 13, 2001 8:54 am

Sorry about the previous post. If I seemed intransigent, I was just flaming. Scn is such a con.

I think tactics such as the Judge is using (ignoring the participants with whom she is angry) are common when a Court is aiming to dispense with a case using the definitions of a particular part of the law. In this case the Judge apparently wants to use the wording of the California Civil Code to deflect and nullify the complaint. The plaintiffs are specifically saying, the California Civil Code does not apply here. Some other law applies, and it controls what happens. Frances doesn't want to hear it.

Is someone familiar with the difference between the Common Law of England and the California Civil Code? How does the complaint get a different hearing if adjudicated under English Common Law, rather than the California Civil Code? Is it just the venue where the complaint is heard that is at stake? In other words, if plaintiffs win this skirmish, and get Judge Rothschild recused, does another judge hear the case without all the unsavory connections that this one may have?
-Hans Hansen lives-

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests