As everyone should know by now, the biggest Scientology Super Power is its legal firm. And in the wake of the crushing defeat of the Garcia case, one should begin to question some of the legal advice that Ex-Scientologists have been receiving which has resulted in so many losses.
A documentary from 2011 sheds light on this.
One of the cases in the excellent documentary “Hot Coffee” highlights the famous lawsuit brought by the woman who sued McDonalds because she bought coffee and spilled it on herself, winning millions of dollars. The documentary shows what that case was really all about, and it will shock you if you simply listened to what the media had to say.
But the other case this documentary highlights is way worse than just spilling coffee on yourself, and it shows the exact kind of oppressive corporate tactics that Scientology employs against its parishioners.
Lisa Goodman of Democracy Now spent an entire episode going over the documentary. If you watch this segment with the Garcia case in mind, you’ll see why David Miscavige won the case. You’ll also see why what Scientology’s legal firm did to win it was nothing unique to Scientology. Just like Scientology, all the most abusive corporations in the United States do it.
The result of the Garcia case also shows what Scientology’s true Super Power is – the law firm that David Miscavige has, and which Marty Rathbun & Mike Rinder worked with as the heads of the RTC and the Office of Special Affairs for decades.
This kind of case law is so embedded, so tested, and so strong in the US, one would have to wonder who gave the Garcia’s the advice that this particular legal bulwark was the one to attack to win against Scientology. Just like the advice that the Headley’s got to launch a human trafficking case – did their legal advice come from Mike Rinder himself?
Sun Tzu, OSA’s fundamental playbook, said to trick your enemies into attacking your strongest defenses, and distract your enemies from attacking your weakest.
Maybe another Scientology Super Power is Mike Rinder’s legal advice to Ex-Scientologists who are just trying to get justice from Scientology.
At this point, it’s certainly something to consider.
“Just like the advice that the Headley’s got to launch a human trafficking case – did their legal advice come from Mike Rinder himself?”
This is not a good habbit to have, launching unfounded insinuations at others like that. Please apply basic skepticism and provide positive evidence Mike Rinder advised the Headleys to launch a human trafficking suit against he CoS. Your sentence is also somewhat ambiguous. Are you trying to suggest that suing the CoS in itself was misguided course of action for the Headleys? Or are you suggesting that mistaken part was suing the CoS specifically for human trafficking? If it’s the former then, as previously said, you have not provided evidence for your insinuation. If it’s the latter then you should know that Marc Headley had gone on the record to say that it was not Rinder who suggested suing the CoS for human trafficking in lieu of other torts:
“I got the impression that because of the FBI investigation, our attorneys thought they really had something in the human trafficking, and they dropped the other things that the judge ultimately said we had a better shot at.” (Source: https://tonyortega.org/2013/01/13/did-the-headleys-and-their-lawsuit-torpedo-the-fbi-investigation-of-scientology/)
The part about “things that the judge ultimately said we had a better shot at” is a reference to the following quote from the judge who ruled on the Headleys’ appeal:
“we do not decide how the Headleys might have fared under a different statute or on other legal theories.
[…]
And although the Headleys marshaled evidence of potentially tortious conduct, they did not bring claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any of a number of other theories that might have better fit the evidence.” (Source: http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/07/appeal-court-rejects-headleys-lawsuits.html?utm_source=BP_recent)
I thought everyone knew that Mike Rinder used to consult with attorneys. He used to be the guy you’d contact if you wanted to sue Scientology.
I also thought that everyone knew that Marc Headley and Mike Rinder were friends, and that Mike was involved in the Headley case.
Here’s Mike Rinder under oath in the Headley case detailing his work with attorneys on Scientology lawsuits:
http://alanzosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/mr-depo-of-michael-rinder-20150106.pdf
By the way, the Headley case could not have turned out better for Scientology – even if the Headley’s attorneys were working for Scientology.
Think about the legal advice they got there. Astoundingly bad if you wanted to win. Astoundingly good if you wanted to lose and set a precedent that Scientology can’t be sued for anything they do which comes from “scripture”.
And the Garcia case is also a great way to affirm in court that you can’t sue Scientology in court for fraud if you signed one of their arbitration clause contracts.
Your post did not merely made a note of the fact that Rinder consulted with attorneys representing litigants suing the CoS. You wrote:
“This kind of case law is so embedded, so tested, and so strong in the US, one would have to wonder who gave the Garcia’s the advice that this particular legal bulwark was the one to attack to win against Scientology. Just like the advice that the Headley’s got to launch a human trafficking case – did their legal advice come from Mike Rinder himself?”
Unless I’m having a terrible case of the MUs, this quote goes beyond noting that Rinder provided advice to lawyers and litigants after they began legal proceedings against the CoS. The text quoted above suggests that Rinder is the one who prompted said litigants to sue prior to formal proceedings being initiated, and that without his prompting said suits would have not been launched in the first place. I also refer you to this sentence you wrote:
“Maybe another Scientology Super Power is Mike Rinder’s legal advice to Ex-Scientologists who are just trying to get justice from Scientology.”
I see no way for this sentence to make sense without assuming the premise that Garcie and the Headleys wouldn’t have sued the CoS in the absence of Rinder (allegedly) prompting them to do so. The aforementioned premise is not supported by the link you provided. It shows that Rinder advised lawyers representing litigants suing the CoS, but it only shows him doing so after the relevant suits had already started. The link does not show that Rinder encouraged said litigants to sue prior to them formally beginning with legal proceedings. It could have been the case that Rinder had done as such, but if so it’s not borne out from your link.
As for your claim that the Headleys case “set a precedent that Scientology can’t be sued for anything they do which comes from “scripture”.”… I recall reading that the end result of this case did not quite match the scenario you’re describing but I’m not totally sure on this matter so for now I’ll refraing from commenting on this issue.
Final comment regarding this post’s main thesis: I’m not quite sure if idea that in the court the CoS always comes out on top is actually supported by history. I gather that Paulette Cooper recieved a pretty decent settlement from the CoS. I don’t think it’s correct to say that Debbie Cook won her case but what happened was most definitely not a victory for DM. Based on the Bunker’s reporting (yes, not the most reliable source) the Lembergers’ suit against the CoS ended with a resolution favorable towards the litigants.
You last point first:
In those cases, Mike Rinder had nothing to do with the parties who won.
So are you saying that Mike Rinder was not used by the Headley and Garcia attorneys to find out what strategies to use against DM?
After all, as the head of OSA for 22 years, it was Mike Rinder who ran the attorneys who wrote those contracts. When Mike and Marty set up shop on the Internet in 2009, they set themselves up as the go-to guys for all legal action against the Church – both civil and criminal. Remember, they were the two guys who ran all the attorneys who ever worked for the Church. The Headleys and the Garcias would not have gone to any attorney without Mike Rinder on their team. Maybe you are not familiar with the history here, but I am.
Here’s Marty and Mike – not part of the Debbie Cook court proceedings – in a cheesy Scientology-like positioning of the Alamo with the Debbie Cook trial. It has been recorded that Debbie Cook did not know that Marty Rathbun or Mike Rinder had even raised money for her defense at their blog.
All the court failures have Mike Rinder attached to them. And they have been spectacular failures, too – from a guy who used to run the same Church lawyers who opposed the Headleys and the Garcias in court – Mike Rinder.
“In those cases, Mike Rinder had nothing to do with the parties who won.”
Whether or not this statement is correct (and for all I know it might very well be) is irrelevant to my argument. I did not bring up those cases to argue for the usefulness of Rinder’s legal advice. I brought those cases to counter the idea that suing the CoS is bound to end in failure, which per my understanding is your post’s main thesis.
“So are you saying that Mike Rinder was not used by the Headley and Garcia attorneys to find out what strategies to use against DM?”
The answer to your question is no. What I’m saying is that I have not seen any evidence for the premises that Rinder prompted the Headleys to sue and that without said prompting the suit wouldn’t have happened. As I said before, I understand your post as implicitly endorsing both premises.
“The Headleys and the Garcias would not have gone to any attorney without Mike Rinder on their team. Maybe you are not familiar with the history here, but I am.”
Maybe I am lacking in knowledge on this subject. If you’ll provide positive proof for your claims I’d be willing to listen.
“Here’s Marty and Mike – not part of the Debbie Cook court proceedings – in a cheesy Scientology-like positioning of the Alamo with the Debbie Cook trial. It has been recorded that Debbie Cook did not know that Marty Rathbun or Mike Rinder had even raised money for her defense at their blog.”
Two points:
1) It’s a redundancy to use the word “cheesy” to describe anything Rathbun has done.
2) As I said before, the extent (if any) of Rinder’s role in the Debbie Cook case is relevant to none of of the arguments I made in this thread.
“All the court failures have Mike Rinder attached to them. And they have been spectacular failures, too – from a guy who used to run the same Church lawyers who opposed the Headleys and the Garcias in court – Mike Rinder.”
Deducing from two cases that there’s a casual relationship between following advice from Rinder and failing to successfully sue the CoS in court is not statistically viable. In regards for the failure of the Headleys suit, per my understanding they shouldn’t have sued the CoS for human trafficking but rather should have claimed for other torts. It’s hinted as such in the ruling of the judge who heard their appeal regarding the ruling of their original trial. Since Marc Headley went on the record to say that it was their lawyer who decided to pursue human trafficking claims in lieu of other torts (see my first comment in this thread) we can’t blame Rinder for this failed legal strategy. I won’t comment on the Garcia case as I’m not quite sure as to whether or not any of the failed strategies used by the litigants were recommended by Rinder.
You could not be more wrong.
This is the stance of those such as Chris Shelton, an anti-Scn stooge for Mike Rinder, who recently made this exact point in this breathless and petulant video:
At around the 16 minute mark Chris says this:
This is not at all my thesis. This is the message that Mike Rinder’s minions are now beginning to put out. I am saying that Exes started losing when they started using Mike Rinder in their lawsuits. I have no idea why, just that they have.
And now, what you are accusing me of saying – that Exes should not try to sue Scientology, or get law enforcement to go after them – is the exact message that Anti-Scientologists are now promoting after Garcia.
Like I said – there could be no more favorable conclusion for Scientology than this.
So let me just put a cap on this and say what Alanzo’s position in this is:
Exes MUST sue to ensure they get justice from any wrongdoing Scientology did to them.
Exes MUST go DIRECTLY to law enforcement about any criminality that they know of from Scientology.
That is, and always has been, Alanzo’s position.
PERIOD.
And what I think we have learned from Headley and Garcis is – don’t have Mike Rinder anywhere near you when you do this. Don’t have ANYONE on your case who used to be connected with Scientology – except by subpoena.
Maybe I misread your post. I’m guessing that I thought you were arguing it’s futile to sue the CoS due to this sentence:
“The result of the Garcia case also shows what Scientology’s true Super Power is – the law firm that David Miscavige has”
I realize that the “super power” description is figurative. That being said, when a person describes something using such terms I’m provided with impression that the speaker percieves the object of his description (DM’s lawyers in this case) as unwinnable or at least coming close to being as such. If Scientology’s legal firm is to be percieved as invincible or nearing this state then the logical conclusion (at least as I see it) would be that suing the CoS is hopeless task. But then again maybe I’m reading too much into your words.
Now that I understand the intended thesis of your post I still find it disagreeable. One of your previous posts is titled “If Anti-Scientologists Love Science So Much, Why Don’t They Use It?” I find it ironic that despite your pretense of following science you display such gross unscientific reasoning in the course of this debate. You’re trying to suggest a causal relationship* between following Rinder’s advice while suing the CoS and failure in such suits based on exactly two cases. While by no means I’m a trained statistician, I do know enough about the subject to say that two instance in which two variables co-occur are not sufficient to establish a correlation between said variables, let alone a causal relationship.**
Furthermore, I think I’ve managed to establish in my previous comments that the failure of the Headleys suit by no means stemed from any advice provided by Rinder. Rather, the failure was due an incorrect course of an action decided by the Headleys lawyers – pursuing claimgs of human trafficking rather than different torts.
*I embarrisingly used the term casual relationship in my previous comment instead of causal relationship. Heh heh.
**A casual relationship might be established though.
“trick your enemies into attacking your strongest defenses, and distract your enemies from attacking your weakest.”
Exactly.