1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
rmangels@jmbm.com
MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
mhinks@jmbm.com
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-4308 Telephone: (310) 203-8080 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567 Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. 19STCV29458 [Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield, Dept. 57]
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SERVE BY PUBLICATION
Date: October 5, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 57
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/30/2020 02:02 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Coleman,Deputy Clerk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
Global Objection to the Declaration of Michael Rinder
As shown in Religious Technology Center
’
s (
“
RTC
”
) Opposition to the Motion to Serve by Publication,
Plaintiffs have never attempted by any means to serve Mr. Miscavige with the First Amended Complaint.
(Opposition, at 4-5.)
Plaintiffs also never attempted to serve the initial Complaint at the RTC offices in Hollywood, but instead submitted a fraudulent declaration of service, leading the Court to grant Mr. Miscavige
’s
motion to quash service.
(Opposition, at 3-4.) Thus the Declaration of Michael Rinder
—
which is largely devoted to describing supposed procedures for handling service of process at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard
—
is wholly irrelevant and inadmissible. It is nothing but unfounded speculation as to what would happen
if
Plaintiffs attempted any form of service at RTC
’
s offices and has nothing to do with the facts of this case, where the record unambiguously shows that Plaintiffs have never made any such attempts. Mr. Rinder even lacks the proper foundation to speculate as to what would happen if the Plaintiffs ever attempted service. He states that he is a
“
former Scientologist
”
who was with the Church until the age of 52. (Rinder Decl. ¶¶1-2.) He tellingly avoids saying
when
he left the Church. In a separate declaration filed with this Court, Michael Rinder admitted that he left the Church of Scientology 13 years ago
in 2007
. (March 6, 2020 Rinder Decl. ¶ 2.) Since then, Mr. Rinder has devoted his life to 1) attempting to establish a
“
competitor
”
church to the Church of Scientology and, when that failed for lack of parishioners, 2) publicly criticizing the Church and its leadership through false and malicious attacks. But as Mr. Rinder has not been a part of Scientology for over 13 years, there is no foundation for any statement that Mr. Rinder makes with regard to the current practices. procedures, or Board of Defendant RTC. Evid. Code § 403. Furthermore, Mr. Rinder never states that he was an employee, officer, director, or otherwise ever held any position with RTC, thus all of his statements regarding RTC
’
s supposed practices, procedures, and the constitution of its Board are without foundation. Evid. Code § 403. In the end, all of Mr. Rinder
’
s statements regarding the supposed RTC procedures at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard and how they are designed to prevent service of Mr. Miscavige are speculation without foundation and irrelevant. Mr. Rinder also offers his opinion that, while Mr. Miscavige hold the title of Chairman of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
the Board of the RTC, this is just a
“
sham.
”
(Rinder Decl., ¶ 9.) This absurd opinion is tantamount to answering
“
No
”
to the old line,
“
Is the Pope Catholic?
”
Anyone with any familiarity with Scientology knows that Mr. Miscavige is commonly known as the
“
Chairman of the Board RTC
”
and is the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion. It appears Mr. Rinder offers his opinion offered in support of Plaintiffs
’
argument that RTC does not have
“
standing
”
to object to their Motion. (Motion, at 1.) But
Plaintiffs know
the opinion is no more than a desperate fabrication. Plaintiffs stated without qualification in their First Amended Complaint at paragraph 10:
“
Mr. Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the RTC, and the de facto leader of all aspects of
RTC,….”
The admission of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission that binds Plaintiffs.
Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction,
103 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1271 (2002);
Addy v. Bliss & Glennon,
44 Cal. App. 4th 205, 218 (1996).
1
Mr. Rinder
’
s opinion about Mr. Miscavige
’
s role as Chairman is also irrelevant because the
“
standing
”
argument is a red herring. Plaintiffs were required to give notice of their Motion on all parties that have appeared (CCP § 1014), and they did so. As an appearing
party
in this action, RTC is not limited by any rule or statute in opposing a motion filed by any other party.
2
Finally, as Mr. Rinder has not been in the Church for 13 years and never held a position with RTC, he has no foundation to opine on how the Board of the RTC functions.
Specific Objections to the Declaration of Michael Rinder
OBJECTION 1:
Material objected to:
“
Between 1979 and until his death in 1986, L. Ron Hubbard was in
1
In addition, in their Motion, Plaintiffs submitted evidence relying on Church documents to show that Mr. Miscavige is the Chairman of the RTC. (Declaration of Robert W. Thompson in support of Plaintiffs
’
Motion to Serve Defendant David Miscavige by Publication, ¶ 16) (
“
According to the Religious Technology Center
’
s (
“
RTC
”
) website, Defendant Miscavige has been the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center since 1987.
”
)
2
Plaintiffs cited
Teal v. Superior
Court, 60 Cal. 4th 595 (2014) for its argument that RTC does not have standing to file an opposition. (Motion, at 1.) In
Teal
, the Court found that plaintiff had standing and was addressing
“
standing to invoke the judicial process.
”
Id
., at 599. Plaintiffs here invoked the judicial process by filing their complaint. They named RTC as a party to that complaint. Plaintiffs cannot invoke the judicial process to sue RTC and then at the same time assert that RTC has
“
no standing
”
to contest actions Plaintiffs take in this case. The statutory concept of standing in fact focuses on the
plaintiff
, requiring that an action
“
be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
”
Code of Civ. Proc., § 367.