The following post was made by the lawyer for plaintiff, Barry Van Sickle, on the WhyWeProtest forums.  “RTC” means Religious Technology Center, the company that holds all of Scientology’s copyrights.

David Miscavige is the head of RTC. Unless he resigns or gets an unlikely protective order, he can be deposed in the Claire Headley case as long as RTC is a party. RTC has retained separate legal counsel and is not being jointly represented by Mr. Moxon as is CSI.

It is RTC that threatened the motion for sanctions against counsel for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Basically, RTC contended that the statute of limitations had run against it because Claire had been transferred back to CSI shortly before she left. RTC also contended that human trafficking did not become illegal until 2005.

RTC is in Claire’s case because she worked for RTC, but there are several alternative reasons to have RTC in the case. Most of these have been addressed in letters to opposing counsel, and in the latest versions of the complaints. So for you worriers out there , these are not secrets to defendants and their counsel. Also, one of the grounds for keeping RTC in Claire’s case , and naming RTC as a Doe defendant in existing and new cases, is RTC’s leadership role in the fraud and violations of law alleged in the complaints. Again, this is not a secret or matter of clever strategy on my part. Those are the cards we have been dealt, and they are on the table.

RTC’s statute of limitation defense should fail because it is using the wrong accrual date. They are contending that the last day of employment is the controlling date, that Claire worked for CSI on her last day, so the action may be timely as against CSI but not RTC.

In addition to there being various tolling provisions that should apply. a recent case cited in the complaints held that the 4 year sol for a B&P 17200 action would run from the date of discovery not date of occurrence. This case has been final and citable as authority, but there were pending applications befeore the California Supreme Court to depublish the case or have it be reviewed by the higher court.

Just last week, the California Supreme Court denied all of these applications. The case is more solid than ever, and would seem fatal to any sol defense of RTC in Claire’s case, AND ARGUABLY OTHER CASES LURKING ABOUT.

We will know more soon as the demurrers play out , but the odds are pretty high that RTC will stay in the case.

Will David Miscavige play a Hubbard and go “off lines” to avoid depositions? Will DM resign from RTC? If DM resigns from RTC, how will they justify paying for his extravagent lifestyle?
If DM does not attempt to counter plaintiffs evidence at trial , or in our possible motions for a finding of employment as a matter of law, who will? Alan Cartright? Warren McShane?

So, RTC will probably stay in the case and we have legitmate reasons to to take DM’s deposition, however, it is not a matter of urgency or high priorty. We will be able to prove our case with witnesses on our side of the fence.

BTW— It is my recollection that DM was deposed by Toby Plevin in the Corydon case. DM was present in the Los Angeles courthouse during the Corydon settlement conferences. It has been a few years, but it is my recollection that the deposition was not particulary useful. It was the party line.

The discussion of criminal versus civil lawsuits seems to assume that there are choices to be made. The government prosecutes criminal cases, the rest of us just do what we can. Graham has been trying to get the government to act for years. I applaud his eforts but he has that base covered.

The following was later added:

Re Human trafficking:

CSI filed a demurrer to the human trafficking claim, which featured the argument that the California Human Trafficking statute was not passed until several months after the Headleys had left in 2005. The demurrer was not worth fighting over. This was used as an opportunity to expand and clarify various claims. The complaints were amended to expressly plead federal human trafficking violations, common law torts, and involuntary servitude.

All three complaints now include express allegations of illegal forced labor under 18 USC section 1589, which was passed in 2000. The federal human trafficking statutes expressly provide for private causes of action. California Civil Code section 52.1 authorizes California courts to enforce certain types of federal rights.