The Truth for Kyle Brennan

Scientology & the Death of Kyle Brennan

Deposition of Mark C. Rathbun; The Church of Scientology, Clearwater & Corruption

Five years after Kyle’s death, an interesting story was reported by WTSP News in Tampa. On November 9, 2012, Mark C. Rathbun—Scientology’s former number-two man—gave sworn testimony accusing Clearwater-area judges and lawyers of criminal wrongdoing regarding another Scientology-related lawsuit.

Statement of Mark C.  Rathbun, a former senior executive of the Church of Scientology.

deposition-of-marty-rathbun

Declaration of Sue Rudd

Declaration of Sue Rudd #2

Excerpt from the deposition of Mark C. Rathbun 

Marty Rathbun, David Miscavige 001

Fugate Image

Attorney Lee Fugate

Re: Kyle Brennan caseLee Fugate-Bohling Exchange 001

Mark C. Rathbun, Clearwater Corruption, Lee Fuagte 001

Rathbun deposition, Robert Beach 001

Mark Rathbun, Judge Robert Beach 001

 

re: Kyle Brennan Case

Fugate Photo 2

Attorney Lee Fugate

Lee Fugate-Bohling Exchange 001

Excerpt from the deposition of Detective Stephen Bohling  

Lee Fugate Awareness of Perjury 001

Attorney Lee Fugate, Perjury 001

 

[10] Having offered material evidence in the belief that it was true, a lawyer may subsequently come to know that the evidence is false. Or, a lawyer may be surprised when the lawyer’s client, or another witness, offer testimony during that proceeding that the lawyer knows to be false. In such a situation or if the lawyer knows of the falsity of testimony elicited from the client during a deposition, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. In such situations, the advocate’s proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal and seek the client’s cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statements or evidence. If that fails, the advocate must take further remedial action. If withdrawal from the representation is not permitted or will not undo the effect of the false evidence, the advocate must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation, even if doing so requires the lawyer to reveal information that otherwise would be protected by Rule 1.6. It is for the tribunal then to determine what should be done.

Rinder, Rathbun comment, McPherson Case, 2011 001

 

%d bloggers like this: