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 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
2 rmangels@jmbm.com
MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
3 mhinks@jmbm.com
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Telephone: (310) 203-8080
5 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567

6 Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS

TECHNOLOGY CENTER
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC CASE NO. 19STCV29458

BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE
12 BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, [Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,
Dept. 57]
13 Plaintiffs,
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
14 v. MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO SERVE BY PUBLICATION
15 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS Date: October 5, 2020
16 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF Time: 8:30 a.m.
SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE Dept.: 57
17 INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE;
DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25,
18
Defendants.
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

1
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
2 Global Objection to the Declaration of Michael Rinder

3 As shown in Religious Technology Center’s (“RTC”) Opposition to the Motion to Serve by

4 Publication, Plaintiffs have never attempted by any means to serve Mr. Miscavige with the

5 First Amended Complaint. (Opposition, at 4-5.) Plaintiffs also never attempted to serve the

6 initial Complaint at the RTC offices in Hollywood, but instead submitted a fraudulent

7 declaration of service, leading the Court to grant Mr. Miscavige’s motion to quash service.

8 (Opposition, at 3-4.) Thus the Declaration of Michael Rinder—which is largely devoted to

9 describing supposed procedures for handling service of process at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard—is

10 wholly irrelevant and inadmissible. It is nothing but unfounded speculation as to what would happen

11 if Plaintiffs attempted any form of service at RTC’s offices and has nothing to do with the facts of

12 this case, where the record unambiguously shows that Plaintiffs have never made any such attempts.

13 Mr. Rinder even lacks the proper foundation to speculate as to what would happen if the

14 Plaintiffs ever attempted service. He states that he is a “former Scientologist” who was with the

15 Church until the age of 52. (Rinder Decl. ¶¶1-2.) He tellingly avoids saying when he left the Church.

16 In a separate declaration filed with this Court, Michael Rinder admitted that he left the Church of

17 Scientology 13 years ago in 2007. (March 6, 2020 Rinder Decl. ¶ 2.) Since then, Mr. Rinder has

18 devoted his life to 1) attempting to establish a “competitor” church to the Church of Scientology
19 and, when that failed for lack of parishioners, 2) publicly criticizing the Church and its leadership

20 through false and malicious attacks. But as Mr. Rinder has not been a part of Scientology for over

21 13 years, there is no foundation for any statement that Mr. Rinder makes with regard to the current

22 practices. procedures, or Board of Defendant RTC. Evid. Code § 403. Furthermore, Mr. Rinder

23 never states that he was an employee, officer, director, or otherwise ever held any position with

24 RTC, thus all of his statements regarding RTC’s supposed practices, procedures, and the constitution

25 of its Board are without foundation. Evid. Code § 403. In the end, all of Mr. Rinder’s statements

26 regarding the supposed RTC procedures at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard and how they are designed
27 to prevent service of Mr. Miscavige are speculation without foundation and irrelevant.

28 Mr. Rinder also offers his opinion that, while Mr. Miscavige hold the title of Chairman of

2
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 the Board of the RTC, this is just a “sham.” (Rinder Decl., ¶ 9.) This absurd opinion is tantamount

2 to answering “No” to the old line, “Is the Pope Catholic?” Anyone with any familiarity with

3 Scientology knows that Mr. Miscavige is commonly known as the “Chairman of the Board RTC”

4 and is the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion. It appears Mr. Rinder offers his opinion

5 offered in support of Plaintiffs’ argument that RTC does not have “standing” to object to their

6 Motion. (Motion, at 1.) But Plaintiffs know the opinion is no more than a desperate fabrication.

7 Plaintiffs stated without qualification in their First Amended Complaint at paragraph 10: “Mr.

8 Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the RTC, and the de facto leader of all aspects of

9 RTC,….” The admission of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission that binds Plaintiffs. Valerio

10 v. Andrew Youngquist Construction, 103 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1271 (2002); Addy v. Bliss & Glennon,

11 44 Cal. App. 4th 205, 218 (1996).1 Mr. Rinder’s opinion about Mr. Miscavige’s role as Chairman

12 is also irrelevant because the “standing” argument is a red herring. Plaintiffs were required to give

13 notice of their Motion on all parties that have appeared (CCP § 1014), and they did so. As an

14 appearing party in this action, RTC is not limited by any rule or statute in opposing a motion filed

15 by any other party.2 Finally, as Mr. Rinder has not been in the Church for 13 years and never held a

16 position with RTC, he has no foundation to opine on how the Board of the RTC functions.

17 Specific Objections to the Declaration of Michael Rinder

18 OBJECTION 1:
19 Material objected to: “Between 1979 and until his death in 1986, L. Ron Hubbard was in

20

21 1
In addition, in their Motion, Plaintiffs submitted evidence relying on Church documents to show
22 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
23 Religious Technology Center’s (“RTC”) website, Defendant Miscavige has been the Chairman of
the Board of Religious Technology Center since 1987.”)
24 2
Plaintiffs cited Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 595 (2014) for its argument that RTC does not
25 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
26 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
27 standing” to contest actions Plaintiffs take in this case. The statutory concept of standing in fact

28 focuses on the plaintiff, requiring that an action “be prosecuted in the name of the real party in
interest.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 367.
3
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 hiding to avoid service of process in civil cases.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 4.)

2 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Undue Prejudice (Evid. Code § 352;
3 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code §

4 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

5 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

6 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)).

7 OBJECTION 2:
8 Material objected to: “Miscavige caarefully [sic] avoids being in public or otherwise

9 available for service or process. He often travels in an armored vehicle, flies in a private plane, and

10 is surrounded by security personnel to avoid service of process.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 5.)

11 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
12 since 2007); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and

13 unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack

14 foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion,

15 hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352)

16 (no evidence of “official address” of Mr. Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (no service on

17 Mr. Miscavige has been attempted).

18 OBJECTION 3:
19 Material objected to: “While both addresses go to the same building and lead to the offices

20 of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) and official address of David Miscavige and RTC, the

21 Ivar address is a locked door with a mail slot.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 6.)

22 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
23 since 2007); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and

24 unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack

25 foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion,

26 hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352)
27 (no evidence of “official address” of Mr. Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (no service on

28 Mr. Miscavige has been attempted at either address).

4
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 OBJECTION 4:
2 Material objected to: “There are no personnel manning that door and there is not even a bell

3 or intercom at the door to ring for assistance. There is nobody stationed behind the door.” (Rinder

4 Decl. ¶ 6.)

5 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
6 since 2007); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and

7 unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack

8 foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion,

9 hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352)

10 (6331 Hollywood Boulevard is not the address of the RTC or Mr. Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid.

11 Code § 350) (no service on Mr. Miscavige has been attempted at address).

12 OBJECTION 5:
13 Material objected to: “This is purposely set up in this way to evade service of process.

14 Security personnel stationed at the entrance of the 6331 Hollywood Boulevard address are told to

15 tell process servers that Miscavige can not be found there and no agent for service of process is at

16 that address who can accept service on his behalf.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 6.)

17 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
18 since 2007; has not held any position with RTC so cannot testify as to any existence or “purpose”
19 of supposed RTC policies); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

20 Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

21 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

22 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence

23 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352) (6331 Hollywood Boulevard is not the address of the RTC or Mr.

24 Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (no service on Mr. Miscavige has been attempted at

25 address).

26 OBJECTION 6:
27 Material objected to: “There is an attempted service of process protocol that all personnel in

28 Religious Technology Center, Office of Special Affairs, security staff manning the front desk, and

5
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 ALL personnel working in that building are required to learn and follow in order to ensure that

2 David Miscavige is never served. Nobody is allowed to admit that David Miscavige is in the

3 building, or that he is ever in the building, or that he has been seen there at any time. All process

4 servers or even someone asking questions are to be directed to the security guards at the 6331

5 Hollywood Blvd entrance. Those security guards, though responsible for the security of the

6 Religious Technology Center offices are deliberately not employees of RTC to add a further layer

7 of deniability concerning service of process.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 7.)

8 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
9 since 2007; has not held any position with RTC so cannot testify as to any existence or “purpose”

10 of supposed RTC policies); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

11 Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

12 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

13 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence

14 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352) (6331 Hollywood Boulevard is not the address of the RTC or Mr.

15 Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (no service on Mr. Miscavige has been attempted at

16 address); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

17 OBJECTION 7:
18 Material objected to: “Nobody, even those working in the building but are not personal staff
19 of David Miscavige, is permitted to travel to the 11th Floor which is where David Miscavige’s office

20 is located. Only one of the 4 elevators in the building can even stop at the 11th floor and that requires

21 a special key to enter.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 8.)

22 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member
23 since 2007; has not held any position with RTC so cannot testify as to supposed RTC policies, the

24 functioning of elevators at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, or location of office of Mr. Miscavige);

25 Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported

26 by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or
27 personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or

28 conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352) (6331

6
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 Hollywood Boulevard is not the address of the RTC or Mr. Miscavige); Irrelevant (Evid. Code §

2 350) (no service on Mr. Miscavige has been attempted at address).

3 OBJECTION 8:
4 Material objected to: “Miscavige is ‘Chairman of the Board’ of RTC but this too is a sham.

5 To avoid being engaged in civil litigation through service of the corporation, he does not actually

6 sit on the Board of Religious Technology Center. He just uses the title.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 9.)

7 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27
8 (2007) (description of Mr. Miscavige’s service as Chairman of the Board of the RTC as a “sham”)

9 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

10 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc.

11 v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Contradicted by Lack of

12 foundation (Evid. Code § 403) (Rinder not Church member since 2007; has not held any position

13 with RTC so cannot testify as to the constitution and functioning of the RTC Board); Lack of

14 personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts

15 (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

16 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

17 are to be disregarded”)); Judicial Admission (First Amended Complaint at paragraph 10: “Mr.

18 Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the RTC, and the de facto leader of all aspects of
19 RTC,….” The admission of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission that binds Plaintiffs. Valerio

20 v. Andrew Youngquist Construction, 103 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1271 (2002); Addy v. Bliss & Glennon,

21 44 Cal. App. 4th 205, 218 (1996).); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (As an appearing party, RTC has

22 standing to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion regardless of Mr. Miscavige’s status).

23 DATED: September 30, 2020 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
24 MATTHEW D. HINKS
25

26 By:
MATTHEW D. HINKS
27 Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER
28

7
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International
LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1900 Avenue
of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308.
6
On September 30, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO SERVE BY PUBLICATION as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
11 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
12 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The
13 envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.

14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package

provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the
15 Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or
a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight service carrier or delivered such document(s) to a
16 courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents.

17 BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the

document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case
18 who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case
who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or by other means permitted by the
19 court rules.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
21
Executed on September 30, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
22

23

24 Sheila Jimenez
25

26
27

28

67509846v1
 1 SERVICE LIST
2 Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International
LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
3

4 SERVED VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND Attorneys for Plaintiff

COURT E-FILING SYSTEM Chrissie Carnell Bixler, Cedric Bixler-Zavala,
5 Jane Doe #1, Marie Bobette Riales, and Jane
Robert Thompson Doe #2
6 Kristen Vierhaus Phone: (650) 513-6111
Thompson Law Offices Fax: (650) 513-6071
7 700 Airport Boulevard bobby@tlopc.com
Suite 160 kris@tlopc.com
8 Burlingame, CA 94010

9 SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Defendant

Church of Scientology International
10 Peggy Dayton Phone: (213) 613-4680
William Forman Fax: (213) 613-4656
11 David Scheper pdayton@scheperkim.com
Jeffrey Steinfeld wforman@scheperkim.com
12 Scheper Kim & Harris LLP dscheper@scheperkim.com
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor jsteinfeld@scheperkim.com
13 Los Angeles, CA 90017
14 SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Defendant
David Miscavige
15 Jeff Riffer Phone: (310) 746-4400
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP Fax: (310) 746-4499
16 10345 W. Olympic Boulevard jriffer@elkinskalt.com
Los Angeles, CA 90064
17
SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Defendant
18 Daniel Masterson
Andrew Brettler Phone: (310) 556-3501
19 Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation Fax: (310) 556-3615
2049 Century Park E 2400 abrettler@lavelysinger.com
20 Los Angeles, CA 90067
21 SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brian D. Kent
22 Gaetano D'Andrea Phone: (215) 399-9255
M. Stewart Ryan Fax: (215) 241-8700
23 Helen L. Fitzpatrick
Lauren Stram
24 Laffey Bucci & Kent LLP
1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
25 Philadelphia, PA 19102
26
27

28

67509846v1
 1 SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL
Jeffrey P. Fritz
2 Soloff & Zervanos P C
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
3 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Phone: (215) 732-2260
Fax: (215) 732-2289

4 SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Marci Hamilton
5 University of Pennsylvania Phone: (215) 353-8984
Fox-Fels Building Fax: (215) 493-1094
6 3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
7
SERVED VIA REGULAR MAIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8 Graham E. Berry
Law Office of Graham E. Berry
9 3384 McLaughlin Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066-2005
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

67509846v1