Here’s David Miscavige’s opposition to Jane Doe 1’s appeal of his sneaky legal maneuver

[Dave in Paris]

We were shocked when Scientology leader David Miscavige pulled it off: On the morning of April 16, when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt was scheduled to make final a tentative ruling he had posted the night before that found Scientology’s “religious arbitration” to be so unfair to former church members it was “unconscionable,” Miscavige’s attorney Jeffrey Riffer showed up, announced that Miscavige — who had spent months evading service — was now making his first official appearance in Jane Doe 1’s forced-marriage lawsuit, and his first official act was to remove the judge.

We’ve called it sandbagging, and cynical, but Judge Broadbelt decided that Miscavige was in his rights and stepped aside, therefore erasing his tentative ruling.

We told you that Jane Doe’s team is not standing for it, and they’ve filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with a court of appeal, hoping to have the higher court rule that Miscavige’s motives were “improper.” In other words, that he’d gamed the system by taking advantage of the months he spent dodging process servers. Jane Doe has also removed Judge Michael Small, who replaced Judge Broadbelt, and she has also filed a “notice of related case,” asking that if a new judge is required, that the case go to Judge Upinder Kalra, who is handling the similar case Bixler v. Scientology, where Jane Doe 1 is also a plaintiff.

Now, Dave’s attorney Jeffrey Riffer has filed an opposition to her petition, and you can imagine that it portrays Miscavige’s move as not only legal but fully respectable, and it’s Jane Doe’s team that is acting unreasonable. This is always the way with Scientology, right? Anyway, we figured you’d be interested in the details. This is Riffer, after all, who has been cleaning up Miscavige’s messes for so many years.

Here’s some of the language from the 34-page document.

Mr. Miscavige’s peremptory challenge was timely because he filed it within 15 days of his first general appearance. Indeed, the filing was Mr. Miscavige’s first general appearance in the lawsuit. Mr. Miscavige, just like every other litigant in this state, has the right to exercise a peremptory challenge…

The tentative ruling — on a motion made by other defendants, not Mr. Miscavige — also does not prohibit the filing of the peremptory challenge. The Supreme Court has long held that a court may not inquire into the motivations of a litigant exercising its rights under Section 170.6. So long as the challenge is timely and in proper form, the court must accept it…

Finally, Petitioner identifies no prejudice. In fact, this petition is really about Petitioner’s attempted judge shopping because she does not like the judge to whom this case was transferred after Mr. Miscavige’s 170.6 filing (Hon. Michael C. Small). Indeed, though her writ petition asks this Court to return the case to Judge Broadbelt, Petitioner has already filed on April 18, 2024, a baseless, untimely notice of related case in the superior court urging it to assign the case not back to Judge Broadbelt, but to a third judge she presumably likes even better. But Petitioner’s game of judicial-selection chess does not end there. Although this petition was filed on April 25, 2024, on April 29, 2024, Petitioner filed her own peremptory challenge to Judge Small, removing him from the case. Given the timing of Petitioner’s flurry of judicial maneuvering, what Petitioner really wants is the one thing she can’t have: The ability to select the judge of her choice…

Petitioner’s repeated contention that Mr. Miscavige is “not the type of newly appearing litigant” who should be allowed to file a peremptory challenge because he was allegedly “heavily involved” in the case is neither true nor legally relevant.

Prior to his general appearance through the 170.6 filing, Mr. Miscavige’s participation in the case was limited to making a special appearance and filing a successful motion to quash Petitioner’s purported service, and then accepting service of the summons and complaint at the urging of Judge Broadbelt. As discussed below, neither a special appearance to challenge service nor accepting service prevents a later 170.6 challenge…

Petitioner claims she is prejudiced on account of “undue delay” and the purported “loss of knowledge” of Judge Broadbelt on the arbitration motion. Neither contention is well taken. If there was any delay in the trial court proceedings, it was caused by Petitioner who took seven months – on top of the thirty plus years after her claims accrued — before she served any defendant. She never properly served Mr. Miscavige. Instead, his counsel accepted service. There is no evidence that the arbitration motion hearing was delayed because of any defendant, much less Mr. Miscavige. Further, the case was promptly reassigned to Judge Small, who presumably would have re-set the hearing on the arbitration motion had the Petitioner not exercised her peremptory challenge to Judge Small after filing this petition. Indeed, it is Petitioner, not any defendant, who has continued to delay this case by recently seeking a stay of all proceedings (both from this Court and the superior court).

What’s more, any prejudice she perceives is of Petitioner’s own making because Mr. Miscavige should have never been named as a defendant. He is the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion; he has never even met Petitioner. Petitioner chose to sue Mr. Miscavige without a single allegation implicating him in the alleged events giving rise to her claims. Whatever vindictive intent led Petitioner to name him personally, Mr. Miscavige, just like any other party, had the personal right to exercise a peremptory strike of a judicial officer under Section 170.6

This petition is really about judge shopping by Petitioner. Only after the superior court transferred this case to Judge Small on April 16, 2024, following Mr. Miscavige’s 170.6 challenge, did Petitioner file on April 18, 2024, a notice of related case in the superior court contending this case should be moved to a different judge handling another lawsuit she filed arising out of different allegations. The notice of related case is obviously improper as it comes nearly a year-and-a-half after Petitioner filed this case (and many years after she filed her other case). Then, a week later, she filed this meritless petition asking that the case be transferred back to Judge Broadbelt and away from Judge Small.

Apparently impatient with her two pending attempts to avoid Judge Small by asking the superior court to send the case to Judge Kalra and this Court to send the case back to Judge Broadbelt, on April 29, 2024, Petitioner exercised her peremptory challenge under Section 170.6, removing Judge Small from the case.

While Petitioner has every right to challenge Judge Small under Section 170.6; this petition and her improper notice of related case demonstrate that Petitioner wants what is not allowed: To hand pick the judge of her choice.

But the law does not guarantee any litigant his or her preferred judge, or even their second or third choice judge.

And that, campers, is how David Miscavige sandbagging the court and cynically removing a judge about to make a historic ruling is turned into the most proper chain of events, according to his attorney, and how Jane Doe’s pursuit of justice is turned into “judge shopping.”

Once again, we will point out, US courts are not set up to deal with an organization that deals in nothing but bad faith.

Jane Doe has found success with this appellate court before. Will they see through Riffer’s topsy-turvy rhetoric this time?

---

Leah Remini and David Miscavige agree to wait for now

Yesterday, Leah Remini, Scientology, and David Miscavige entered a stipulation essentially freezing her lawsuit in place while they wait for Scientology’s appeal of Judge Hammock’s ruling to run its course.

If you remember, Judge Hammock had made a ruling in the case on Scientology’s motions to strike which removed some of Leah’s defamation claims, but kept eight of her nine causes of action in place. Scientology was unhappy with the ruling, and notified the court that it was submitting its appeal.

Miscavige, meanwhile, pulled his sneaky maneuver, similar to the one in the Jane Doe case we were discussing above, and removed Judge Hammock with a peremptory challenge.

Now, Miscavige has indicated that he is going to file his own motion to strike against Leah’s lawsuit, but both sides have agreed to hold off any further action until Scientology’s appeal is adjudicated, acknowledging that it will save both sides time and attorneys fees in the meantime.

Well, they agree on something for once. Mark it on your calendars.

---

Chris Shelton is going Straight Up and Vertical

---

Want to help?

Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com.

---

Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link for today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series…

Up the Bridge: A journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news