Is Hollywood's favorite
judge trying to cover something up in the $190-million libel suit she sits
on? Or has blind Justice just become deaf and dumb, too?
She is truly Los Angeles Superior
Court's Judge-to-the-Stars. Some of Hollywood's most glamorous and mighty
have gulped before the gavel of Judge Frances Rothschild.
It was Judge Rothschild who sent
Cyndy Garvey to jail in the breakup of America's postcard couple--Steve
and Cyndy; it was Judge Rothschild who said "No" when Joanna Carson tried
to get ex-hubby Johnny Carson to pay $6,000 more a month in support--so
Joanna could maintain her lavish New York hotel suite; it was Judge Rothschild
who confronted Roman Polanski when he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old
girl; and it was Rothschild who was named to referee the squabble when
Cary Grant filed a $10-million suit against Chevy Chase because the comedian
had referred to Grant as a "homo."
Yes, Rothschild's courtroom has almost
been a Parade of Stars: Clint Eastwood, McKenzie Phillips, Lesley-Anne
Downs, William Friedkin, Anne Rooney, Joan Collins, Phil Specter, Randy
Jackson (Michael's and Janet's brother), Michele Lee, James Farrentino,
But now the Tinsel Town judge may
have more than a soap opera to fret over in the $190-million libel suit
that has been filed against Scientology's repository of power, the Church
of Spiritual Technology. And there are some aspects of the case that, for
some reason, Judge Frances seems almost desperate to dance around. Or,
is that "cover up?"
DID YOU SAY $190 M-I-L-L-I-O-N?
It's a high-stakes case that Judge
Frances peers down upon when the players take their places in her downtown
Los Angeles courtroom. It's also a classic David-vs.-Goliath story, with
underdog plaintiffs Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey--on a frayed-shoestring
budget--going it alone against one of the most wealthy, powerful and feared
corporations anywhere in the world: Scientology's Church of Spiritual Technology
(CST), and their phalanx of designer-suit attorneys.
And, yes, the plaintiffs really are
asking to be awarded 190 million dollars for what they allege to be a vicious
and false attack, with malice, on their characters and reputations.
For the full background on the case,
see the home page of Veritas at:
There are lots of links to follow,
literally and figuratively.
The threads of the case weave a tale
of intrigue, mysterious anonymous mailings, private investigators, shadowy
connections to IRS, and allegations of fraud against CST and other arms
of the Scientology corporate maze.
But another side of the story has
attracted little attention up till now. The plaintiffs, from the beginning
of the case, have raised important legal points of venue and jurisdiction.*
They have cited copiously from the California constitution and California
statutes to claim and substantiate the jurisdiction in which they are bringing
their complaint, and the statutes that define authority for jurisdiction
over the case.
And that's where Tinsel Town's Judge
Frances Rothschild appears, at least, to be having some terribly selective
QUESTION FOR JUDGE FRANCES: "WHO
ARE YOU WORKING FOR?"
It would seem to be a reasonable
question. But it's only one of several pointed, penetrating questions the
plaintiffs have posed, but that Tinsel-Town Judge Frances just flat-out
Is she hearing the questions? Let's
peek into the courtroom and find out.
4 November 1997:
MR. MITCHELL: For the record, is this courtroom in
California, one of the states of the united States, as
opposed to, say, an undisclosed federal area?
ROTHSCHILD: I'm not really here to answer your questions,
sir, but what else do you have? Go ahead.
[Editor's note: Back in the old days,
before we became civilized, her response would have been called "insufferable
arrogance." But that was back when we all carried guns.]
MR. MITCHELL: I have identified myself; I'm now seeking to
identify the venue.
ROTHSCHILD: Okay. Continue. Anything else you have to say,
MR. MITCHELL: Your refusal to answer my question in the
affirmative is taken as evidence to the fact that you
consider the courtroom to be somewhere other than California
and that Department 1 has obviously erred in assigning the
case. This court therefore is disqualified from hearing our
case, as the venue is clearly stated on the face of our
complaint. ...You do not wish to answer that question?
[Editor's note: Well, we in the peanut
gallery are wondering why not, your Honor? It's a simple, straightforward
question. Why scritch and scratch and dodge? Any reasonable person might
come to the unfortunate conclusion that you're trying to cover something
up. Let's see if it improves any. Let's move on to...]
12 November 1997:
MR. MITCHELL: The last time I was in this court...I asked
questions with regard to the nature of this courtroom, this
venue. My question specifically was: Is this courtroom in
California, one of the united States of America, as opposed
to, for example, an undisclosed federal area? This was my
attempt, having identified myself as one of the people of
California and a plaintiff in propria persona, to identify
the nature of this venue as a California court. ...[T]here
are a number of indications in this courtroom that...this
is, in fact, an extension of a federal venue as opposed to
a California court. ...[W]hat venue is this? Who are you
working for? And why is the language of your oath [of
office] different in substance from the language of an oath
required of a California judge?
[Editor's note: She heard that, right?]
ROTHSCHILD: (Completely ignoring the questions) Okay, I am
going to take the matter of the request for a peremptory--
[Editor's note: Apparently not. There
are some questions on the floor, your judgeness! Is the woman deef?]
MR. MITCHELL: I would say this: That until the issue of your
qualification to sit in hearing on a California venue is
resolved, the plaintiffs could not accept any
argument...given that your oath of office precludes you from
sitting on our case until a proper oath of office is signed
by you in front of a clerk and notarized.
[Editor's note: No judge can be so
arrogant as to ignore that...]
ROTHSCHILD: Thank you. Did you wish to say anything in regard
to the demurrer--
[Editor's note: Goes to show just
how wrong I can be. Moving right along, now to...]
25 November 1997:
ROTHSCHILD: (To Stephen Mitchell) You wanted to say
something? Go ahead, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: I would like to remind you of what was on the
record on November 12, 1997. You have admitted, pursuant to
the doctrine of estoppel by silence, that you are not a
judge in California as one of the united States of America.
...You have also admitted, pursuant to the doctrine of
estoppel by silence, that you do not consider this to be a
court of record that is fully independent of the legislative
and executive departments of the state government under the
doctrine of separation of powers. The fact of the matter is
that this _is_ a court of record that is fully independent
of the legislative and executive departments of the state
government under the doctrine of separation of powers. I'm
here to declare and inform you that it is such a court,
because I am one of the people of California, and this court
belongs to the people of California. In this state
court--where there is a judge present--said judge would be
a servant of the people under complete obligation to follow
the law of California, and to make proper rulings according
to California public statutes and the constitution of the
State of California of 1849. The fact of the matter is that
there is not a lawful judge in this courtroom today.
Whatever it is that you consider this place to be is not
relevant. I hereby inform you that the transcript of the
record on November 12, 1997 and the transcript of any record
developed here today will become evidence in a criminal
investigation that will be pursued to resolve the presence
of an impostor sitting on the bench in this courtroom. ...
With all due respect, it might mitigate your circumstances,
and I would highly recommend that you simply get up and walk
away from the bench.
[Editor's note: Finally, we're going
to get somewhere. I can't wait to hear her response to this... .]
ROTHSCHILD: Okay. The matter is set today for a motion to
quash service of summons with regard to David-- "Miscavige?"
[Editor's note: This is beginning
to sound just a little bit like my cat in its litter box: Scritch. Scratch.
Cover, cover, cover. Scritch. Sniff. Scritch-scritch-scritch, scratch,
MR. MITCHELL: If I may, since you wish to remain in the
courtroom, I will take this opportunity for the record to
read...the language of your oath of office onto the record.
I have a copy here, certified copy, if you would like to see
ROTHSCHILD: Excuse me!
[Editor's note: Hey, she can
MR. MITCHELL: No?
ROTHSCHILD: That is enough! You may not read my oath of
office into the record. We are going to proceed.
[Editor's note: Sniff. What is that
smell? I hear something: Scritch, scratch.]
MR. MITCHELL: In that case, the plaintiffs have nothing more
to say to you here today other than to state for the record
that we reserve all rights and do not wish to abandon any
complaint, motion, or argument for which we will await the
presence of a lawful judge. To the reporter, we are finished
here today, and I want to alert you that this transcript is
now evidence in a criminal investigation. Thank you very
(At 9:24 a.m., the plaintiffs leave counsel table.)
It should be noted that judge-to-the-stars
Rothschild took that opportunity to grant the motion to quash service on
David Miscavige, removing Miscavige from the case as a defendant while
the plaintiffs were not in the courtroom.
[Editor's note: That's another story,
entirely: the plaintiffs have alleged in court-filed records--bringing
new evidence that became available only when the formerly secret Closing
Agreement between Scientology organizations and IRS was leaked--that the
motion to quash was granted based on intentionally misleading and/or perjured
testimony by Closing Agreement attorney Monique Yingling and others. Look
for the full story of these new allegations soon! And now back to your
regularly scheduled program...]
Why won't this fine, upstanding representative
of the judiciary answer a few simple questions about the venue? Why doesn't
she want her oath of office read into the record? Is there something to
The answers aren't entirely clear
yet. But given that the libel case centers around tax issues; given new
evidence--from the Closing Agreement--of CST/IRS coziness; and especially
given recently discovered ties to Judge Frances Rothschild herself, things
only promise to get more interesting.
JUDGE ROTHSCHILD, WHO *ARE* YOU WORKING FOR?
We've recently learned that Rothschild
served on the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, the results
of which have quite an interesting relationship to the case in question--more
in a moment.
One of the people who served with
Rothschild on that Committee was Senator Bill Bradley. While in the senate,
Bradley was on the Finance Committee, was a leader in passing the 1986
"Tax Reform" Act, and served for eight years on the Special Committee on
Intelligence. [Stay tuned--Ed.] Last year, he was appointed as Vice Chairman
of the International Council for the international banking firm J.P. Morgan.
The plot thickens.
Also on the Commission with Judge
Rothschild was U.S. Representative Barbara B. Kennelly. She served six
years on the House Intelligence Committee [Don't touch that dial--Ed.],
and is currently on the House Ways and Means Committee. If you don't know
what that does, listen to Representative Bill Archer, its chairman: "The
Ways and Means Committee is the starting point for every bill dealing with
Federal revenues that is introduced in the Congress." Ah, that would be,
ah, taxes. And, ah, Social Security. Coincidences abound.
Who else was on that Commission?
Well, how about Representative Marge Roukema. Marge is merely Charwoman
of the House Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.
Roukema's subcommittee has direct authority over the Federal Reserve, the
FDIC and the nation's other banking regulators. That's all.
No--correction: that's not all. In
fact, from her own bio: "As a member of the U.S. Commission on Interstate
Child Support [with our very own Judge Rothschild--Ed.], she developed
the comprehensive child support legislation signed into law in 1996 as
part of the welfare reform bill. The measure includes license revocations...,
better cross-referencing of computer databases and easier procedures to
enforce child support orders across state lines."
What that euphemistically refers
to is a law which mandates that all employers must now report all newly
hired personnel--with their Social Security numbers--to be entered into
a giant federal database. In other words, Marge and Frances worked hand-in-glove
to help convert the SSN into a national I.D. number.
Scritch. Scratch. Phew!
WOW! JUDGE ROTHSCHILD, WHO *DO*
YOU WORK FOR?!
The issues of Social Security numbers
and taxation are absolutely central to the libel case before Tinsel Town's
government-connected Rothschild. The alleged libel centers around accusations
made in a published document about the plaintiffs--"Public Warning"--regarding
their tax status. The plaintiffs allege that defendant CST was heavily
involved in the approval and publication of that document, and that the
information in it is false, defamatory, libelous, and made with malice.
But the recently-leaked Closing Agreement
forged between IRS and, among others, defendant CST, shows that, as a member
of the formerly-clandestine "Church Tax Compliance Committee" (CTCC), defendant
CST has direct access to IRS and Treasury officials--officials whose actions
and connections are under oversight jurisdiction of the congressional committees
and subcommittees listed above--with former committee associates of
Frances Rothschild manning them.
Recently, IRS-connected CST demanded
in a motion for "discovery" that the plaintiffs--Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen
Carey--turn over to CST all their federal tax returns back to 1992, all
their records of personal income and expenses back to 1992, copies of all
their state tax returns back to 1992--in fact, it reads more like an IRS
audit than discovery in a libel case.
Plaintiffs contested the demand on
the basis that CST's motion was brought pursuant to codes--not statutes--and
that they, the plaintiffs, have established, without contest from either
the defendant or the judge, that the codes have no jurisdiction.
What did Judge Frances do? Citing
code, she granted CST's motion to compel production of the tax and income
records, ordered that the plaintiffs produce them without objection,
and fined the plaintiffs $250.00 each.
Stephen Mitchell asked in court:
"I have one question for you, then. What is your lawful foundation for
bringing the code to bear upon these plaintiffs?"
Guess what Judge-to-the-Stars Frances
"Thank you for your comments."
Scratch. Scritch. Phew!
If that's not enough, there is yet
another side-line story developing, one that is now being agressively investigated.
Some researchers have been compiling and sending in information demonstrating
a link between the U.S. intelligence community (see committees and subcommittees
listed above) and Scientology, dating back at least to the late '60s and
early '70s, and perhaps back to the very early '50s. It was in the late
'60s when former-NSA member Harold Puthoff took Scientology's upper-level
courses (the copyrights of which are now owned by defendant CST), and left,
going almost directly into the CIA-sponsored "remote viewing" project in
the early '70s. "Remote Viewing" demonstrably relies on L. Ron Hubbard's
"anchor-point" technology, also owned by defendant CST. [See
our new story: "CST and the CIA."--Ed.]
With all her links to Social Security,
taxation, banking, Treasury, and the ever-popular intelligence community,
conflict-of-interest may soon begin to rise like a stink around Tinsel-Town's
favorite judge, Frances Rothschild. Some observers say it could produce
a truly awful mess if she keeps studiously ignoring the plaintiffs' address
to vital matters of law.
And one curious fact remains sticking
out of the litter, no matter how much scratching goes on: Rothschild got
put on the case when the original judge--Mary Ann Murphy--abruptly recused
herself with no reason given. Just, "Bye-bye Mary Ann; Hello well-connected
And there's a whole lot of scratchin'
*If you care to read and research
the legal issues raised, read the full original Verified Complaint for
Then read the new First Amended Verified
Complaint for Libel at: