Questions or comments?
We'd love to
hear from you!
Send e-mail to:


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, and more. 

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 attention-deficit problems. 


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 won't answer. 

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? 

        ROTHSCHILD: No. 

[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, cover-cover.] 

        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 hear!] 

        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 hide here? 

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. 


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. 

Sniff. Sniff. 

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! 


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 Rothschild said: 

"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 Frances." 

And there's a whole lot of scratchin' going on. 

*If you care to read and research the legal issues raised, read the full original Verified Complaint for Libel at: 

Then read the new First Amended Verified Complaint for Libel at: