Big Brother – Part IV in a series

July 18, 2009

F. Wallace Pope
Johnson, Pope, et al
PO Box 1368
Clearwater, Florida
33757-1368

re: McPherson Settlement Agreement, yours of July 13

Dear Wally,

Your letter mischaracterizes my letter as asking you “to explain why you are bound by the confidential settlement agreement.” I asked nothing of the sort.

In my letter of June 29 in response to your letter of June 22, I asked that you provide me with documentation that supports your contention that I served as an agent of your client at the time you all allegedly entered into a settlement agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson. I also asked that you identify your client.

You ignored both of my requests. During the two weeks it apparently took your client to convince you to send a non-responsive letter, it occurred to me just how specious your demand is.

Your client was put on notice of what I had told reporters about Lisa McPherson well in advance of the June 21, 2009 St Petersburg Times publication of which you complain. In that substantial time period leading up to publication you chose not to contact me to inform me of the alleged settlement terms Miscavige had chosen to keep secret from me for over five years.

Instead, Miscavige decided that rather than abide by whatever it is you are claiming precludes your client from speaking about the case he would have his paid agent Monique Yingling attempt to project his own acts onto me. The June 22 article stated in part, “Still she (Yingling) said that Rathbun botched the case from the start, and ‘possibly caused the whole thing.’”

It is just like Miscavige to insist on having it both ways.

Miscavige’s personal attorney is on record accusing me of causing the entire Lisa McPherson tragedy and botching the legal cases surrounding it. No right-minded citizen would consider it constitutional, lawful or even ethical to attempt to muzzle someone from defending such a damning public condemnation with specific facts.

Your client chose not to inform me of any alleged confidential settlement terms when he was informed of what I had to say about McPherson. Rather, he chose to respond with statements of his own that went to the very heart of the merits of the McPherson affair. That he apparently became disappointed with the consequences of that decision when statements concerning the McPherson case by both he and I were published, does not afford Miscavige the opportunity to suck the toothpaste he issued back into the tube and pretend nothing happened. I am afraid you must inform Miscavige that he doesn’t get unlimited Mulligans in the real world.

Had enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement been a valid concern, rather than merely an intimidation tactic, Miscavige would have had you put me on notice of a claimed breach the moment he was informed of the topics I discussed with reporters. According to the Times special report that date was no later than May 13, 2009. Instead, through his attorney, Miscavige did exactly what he accused me of doing (though unlike me, he claims knowledge of the terms of, and thus is presumably bound by, the alleged settlement agreement).

Perhaps you can appreciate the untenable position you are in and can prevail on your client to cease these baseless attempts to harass.

Sincerely,

Marty Rathbun
PO Box 269
Ingleside, TX 78362

10 responses to “Big Brother – Part IV in a series

  1. jiu-jitsu. looking forward to the response….
    awesome, marty.

  2. Is it possible that the ‘mis’ in Miscavige isn’t a mis-take?

  3. So marty,

    How do you like being on this side of the Scientology whacking stick? Sucks, don’t it?

    • David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology is a “whacking stick.”

      The applied religious philosophy of Scientology is a collection of tenets and practices for spiritual and/or secular betterment.

  4. While I have COMPLETE and utter empathy for you, as an attorney I can see why you are legally bound by the confidentiality terms. They were in place for nefarious reasons, yes, but usually if you are an employee/ member of the organization involved in said confidentiality agreement, you are bound by whatever your higher ups say. Thats what is so awful about the law- it isn’t necessarily about what is just and right, but whether or not it makes sense in it the line of reasoning… which never really makes sense at all.

    I am wondering if they can only bar you from talking as a member of the church, but not as a non-member, and thus, why there hasn’t really been legal action. Even though i believe you had no wrongful involvement with mcpherson, if you were a lower-ranking member of the church, involved in it, etc., then i think you have to be bound by the terms of the agreement even if it was made after you left.

    I am not sure however, but I suggest getting an attorney to talk to just in case they go any further with this. Knowing how litigious these guys are, I highly recommend it…

    Good luck. This is a great site, and I plan on visiting a lot more:) Let me know if i can help in anyway

    • Reagan,
      Thanks. Stay tuned. You may be surprised.
      Marty

    • There is a court case from Kentucky, referred to in Watson v Jones from 1872 or thereabouts (it’s now part of the US Supreme Court listings of cases) that covers what is a member and non-member of a church and such. It very well may be apropos as to what applies to those who are ‘non-members’ i.e., expelled from the church. That might be something to consider as well. Jim

  5. What’s your take on Gerry Armstrong?.

    He looks like a class A nutter and I can’t tell if he was born that way or if it comes from years of harassment. I don’t know whether to believe anything he says or not. I see he’s been writing long rants in the form of letters to you wanting an apology and/or a confession to vindicate him. You’ve probably got more insight into what the real story is with this guy that most people. Any insight?

    tsumm

    • tsumm,
      Thanks. If Gerry wrote a civil communication that was even understandable, I’d answer him. To date he hasn’t.
      Marty

  6. A write up by a Class XII on the Lisa affair can be found here:

    http://the-scientologist.com/lisamcpherson.shtml

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s