Tag Archives: McPherson

Big Brother – Part IV in a series

July 18, 2009

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

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.


Marty Rathbun
PO Box 269
Ingleside, TX 78362

Big Brother – Part One in a Series

911 Chestnut St, Clearwater, Florida 33756

June 22, 2009

Marty Rathbun
P.O. Box 269
Ingleside, TX 78362

Re: McPherson Confidential Settlement Agreement

Dear Marty:

Following the article published in the St. Petersburg Times yesterday in which you were extensively quoted regarding the McPherson matter, the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (the “Church”, “Flag”) has asked me to write to you regarding the ongoing obligations of confidentiality imposed upon on all present and former officers, employees and agents of the Church regarding the McPherson confidential settlement agreement.

As you know, on May 26, 2004, the Church entered into a confidential settlement agreement.  The Agreement binds the “Scientology Parties,” which includes the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., Religious Technology Center, and the three individual defendants.  All officers, employees and agents of the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. and Religious Technology Center are bound by the settlement agreement to say nothing about the McPherson matter except

“The case has been settled, the terms are confidential.”  This language binds you as a former agent of both Flag and RTC.

The purpose of this letter is simply to remind you of your ongoing obligation of complete confidentiality with respect to the McPherson case and its settlement.

Very truly yours,

F. Wallace Pope, Jr.