ISNOINews
Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Respectfully, you are wrong.Not exactly. It states the reason for denial is the court does not find any exigency - no reasonable threat of physical harm, etc.
Exigency (legal definition):
Exigent circumstances - "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
So COS can't just refile it, they have to show reasonable evidence of intent to physically harm or similar, such as a plot to destroy COS documents. A rumor that a person might possibly visit the US to speak just doesn't cut it.
Yes, the "COS can't just refile it" if by "it" you mean another ex parte application (which would be stupid).
However, the COS can file a properly noticed motion, and that motion can be granted, without a showing exigent circumstances
The court expressly states, "DENIED. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY EXIGENCY. PLAINTIFF MAY BRING A PROPERLY FILED NOTICED MOTION."
An ex parte application -- which is done on minimal (if any) notice, a greatly shortened timeline, and minimal (and often unilateral) briefing -- requires exigent circumstances to be granted. It is the exigent circumstances that excuse the minimal notice, greatly shortened timeline, and minimal briefing.
In this case, the lack of exigency was the reason that the ex parte was denied as an ex parte. It had nothing to do with the underlying merits. The Court didn't get to the underlying merits.
A properly filed noticed motion -- which is done on regular notice, a multi-week timeline, and full briefing (Motion, Opposition, Reply Brief) -- most certainly does not require exigent circumstances to be granted.
The above is basic California procedure.
Finally, the request has nothing to do, and need have nothing to do, with preventing future personal injury, destruction of property, destruction of evidence, etc. It is based on Gerry's alleged past violations of an injunction and the fact that an arrest warrant was issued in 2007 as a result.
Last edited:

But even if he hadn't, your legal jargon and automatically referencing Calif law certainly did, lol.
)