Jane Doe 1 appealing David Miscavige’s stunt that removed judge and ruling

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
From Tony's substack this morning:

"That morning at 10 am, a hearing was scheduled and Judge Broadbelt was likely to make final a tentative ruling he had posted on the court website the night before which declared Scientology arbitration to be “unconscionable.”

But before he could do that, Miscavige’s personal attorney, Jeffrey Riffer, showed up and informed the judge that Miscavige was making his first official appearance in the lawsuit, and his first act was to remove the judge with a peremptory challenge.

Our observer in the courtroom at the 10 am hearing told us that even Jane Doe’s attorneys seemed stunned by the audacity of it.

Well, now they’ve notified the court that they have filed with a state court of appeal petitioning for a writ of mandamus to overturn Miscavige’s stunt, calling it “procedural gamesmanship.” - Tony O.

Humm - "Gamesmanship, however, occupies a gray area between good sportsmanship and outright cheating. Gamesmanship utilizes legal tactics that are morally dubious and are designed to unsettle opponents—these tactics usually are not technically against the rules. The activity of trying to win a game by doing things that are not really breaking the rules but are intended to destroy the confidence of the other player."

Yep. If you think of wog law as being beneath your contempt - well then fuckem!

More from Tony's post:

"Procedural gamesmanship and impermissible judge shopping would thrive under the reading of §170.6 proposed by the Respondent court. A party could simply avoid participation in a case while delaying use of a peremptory strike under §170.6— just long enough to preview a tentative ruling—only to opt out of that ruling by employing the yet unused peremptory strike. Certainly, Defendant Miscavige would not have moved pursuant to Civ. Code §170.6 immediately prior to the hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration but for the tentative ruling against Defendants.

Defendant Miscavige’s actions, and the decision by Respondent court to permit his peremptory challenge, completely undermine and invalidate the purpose of the tentative ruling system. The courts of this state have not allowed parties to “make a mockery of the tentative ruling procedure” in other contexts…:"

What will the appeal result in?

:popcorn::popcorn:

Mimsey
 

Lee #28

Well-known member
All the definitions I looked at stated that “peremptory challenge” is used to excuse an undesirable juror. Nothing I’ve seen says it can be used to dismiss a Judge……
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
All the definitions I looked at stated that “peremptory challenge” is used to excuse an undesirable juror. Nothing I’ve seen says it can be used to dismiss a Judge……
Well they can, but only once as far as I know. The point Jane Doe #1's lawyers are making to the appellate court is that gaming the system by waiting for a preliminary ruling and if it's against you, get rid of the judge is dirty pool.

Miscavige has a long history of playing the system ( thousands of suits against the IRS, getting the medical examiner to change her findings on Lisa McPherson, paying off judges, shipping staff out of the country, on and on) He flat out doesn't play by the rules. The courts are just not aware of his behavior, nor are they prepared to deal with it. I have my doubts if he will ever be held accountable. He has the shield of Scientology between himself and personal liability. Any fines won't come out of his pockets, just SO reserves. I don't know how you would prove he is culpable for directing criminal activity short of evidence gathered in a FBI raid.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Lee #28

Well-known member
Well they can, but only once as far as I know. The point Jane Doe #1's lawyers are making to the appellate court is that gaming the system by waiting for a preliminary ruling and if it's against you, get rid of the judge is dirty pool.

SNIPPED
Mimsey
Well....I have to disagree with you on that. I see no information that this method can be used to "change Judges...."

Perhaps there is a way to change a Judge.....but don't think this is the way to do it...

For either a Defense or Prosecutor to get rid of a Juror they don't want.....all they have to do is say "you're excused." This is called a “peremptory challenge.” I do believe its use is quantified also... (limited in number of times used)

Certainly that method can't be used to get rid of a Judge.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Well....I have to disagree with you on that. I see no information that this method can be used to "change Judges...."

 

Lee #28

Well-known member
Well......looking again....it looks like a Judge can be gotten rid of is this fashion....in certain jurisdictions....

Screen Shot 2024-05-01 at 3.21.08 PM.png
 
Top