__________________________________________________________________

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED September 24, 2014

__________________________________________________________________
No. 03-14-00199-CV
__________________________________________
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
______________________________________
STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, ED BRYAN, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, DAVID J. LUBOW AND MONTY DRAKE
Appellants,
v.
MONIQUE RATHBUN
Appellee.
______________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
ED BRYAN
______________________________________
On Appeal from the 207th Judicial District Court
of Comal County, Texas
Trial Court No. C-2013-1082B
Hon. Dib Waldrip of the 433rd Judicial District Court, Presiding
______________________________________

Jonathan H. Hull
State Bar No 10253350
Ashley B. Bowen
State Bar No. 24086926
Reagan Burrus, PLLC
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, Texas 78130
Telephone (830) 625-8026
Facsimile (830) 625-4433
jhull@reaganburrus.com
abowen@reaganburrus.com
Attorneys for Appellant Ed Bryan

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... ii
RECORD REFERENCES ........................................................................................ ii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1
I. The TCPA Applies to Monique Rathbun's Causes of Action ........................ 1
II. TCPA Exemptions do not Apply to Bryan ...................................................... 3
A. The Commercial Speech Exemption Does Not Apply ...................... 3
B. The Bodily Injury Exemption Does Not Apply .................................... 4
III. There is Simply no Evidence to Support any Claim Against Bryan .............. 4
A. No Evidence of Tortious Interference ................................................... 4
B. No Evidence of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............... 5
C. No Evidence of Publicly Disclosed Facts About Monique Rathbun .... 6
D. No Evidence for Intrusion on Seclusion .............................................. 6
E. No Evidence of Vicarious Liability ...................................................... 7
IV. There Should be No Award of Fees ............................................................... 7
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ............................................................................... 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 9-10


ii


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Tex. R. App. P. 9.7 ............................................................................................. 1, 3-7


RECORD REFERENCES

The reporters record will be cited as [Vol.]RR[page]
The clerks record will be cited as [Vol.]CR[page

1
INTRODUCTION
Ed Bryan (Bryan) adopts and incorporates by reference the Introduction in
the Reply Brief of Appellant Church of Scientology International (the Church).
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
Bryan took part in peaceful protests and helped create a documentary about
Mark Rathbuns activities against the Church. Both activities are entirely lawful,
and are the only activities of Bryan for which there is any support in the record.
Bryan is entitled to protection under the Texas Citizens Participation Act
(TCPA) to exercise his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association
rights that he exercised in the course of his only connection to the controversy
between his church and the Rathbuns.
The nominal evidence presented by Monique Rathbun utterly fails to meet the
required standard of clear and specific evidence against Bryan. Thus, he is entitled
to the protections of the TCPA and dismissal of Monique Rathbuns claims against
him.
ARGUMENT
I. The TCPA Applies to Monique Rathbun's Causes of Action
Bryan adopts and incorporates by reference Section I.A-D of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.

2
Bryan is entitled to the protection of the TCPA in his exercise of his
constitutional rights of freedom of speech and association both in his individual
capacity and as a Squirrel Buster. The nature of the public debate regarding religious
issues that Bryan was engaged, is shown in the video shot by Mark Rathbun and
posted on his website showing Monique Rathbuns confrontation with Bryan.
14RR Ex. 3.
It is notable and inexcusable that Monique Rathbun both in the trial court as
well as in her brief cites to a truncated version of an (unauthenticated) email
attributed to Bryan, deleting a key sentence. The full quote reflects the nature of
Bryans concerns leading to his participation in the Squirrel Busters project. The
next-to-last sentence, underlined, was deleted in Monique Rathbuns recitation along
with the last sentence of the email.
I saw the article in SA Express-News and I agree. This is in co-
ordination with OSA Int. They are calling the shots and quite frankly I
dont think it is very effective. The reporters came to our house the
other day and we didnt tell them very much. Our main guy went back
to discuss with them a different strategy. The rat is getting more brazen
and yesterday I actually had a 1 minute comm cycle with him while he
was on a walk. The guy is nuttier than a fruitcake. Hes gone off the
deep end. Taking him down will be no easy task. I just hope he self
destructs before he does more damage to our church. He has gotten
to some OTVIIIs [a class of Scientologists] and I just cant think with
how stupid they are to actually believe what he is saying. 12CR1522.

3
This is the only reference to Bryan in Monique Rathbuns brief. At best, it
proves that the church coordinated protest activities against Mark Rathbun and
Bryans concerns about harm to his church.
1

No effort has been made to argue how this email supports a single element of
any of the causes of action pleaded against Bryan.
II. TCPA Exemptions Do Not Apply to Bryan
Bryan adopts and incorporate by reference Section I.A-B of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
A. The Commercial Speech Exemption Does Not Apply
Bryan is entitled to protection under the TCPA in exercising his right to free
speech and right to association. Bryan has the right to exercise his freedom of speech
and right to association in joining together with other Church members to protest
what he perceives to be heretical actions of Mark Rathbun. Bryan was not in the
business of the sale of goods or services, and there is no allegation, much less
evidence, that he was. Rather he was exposing what he believed to be false religious
assertions by Mark Rathbun that he felt were damaging to his church and its
members. 38CR4462-63, 4504.


1 This email is neither admissible nor authenticated.
4
B. The Bodily Injury Exemption Does Not Apply
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section I.B of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7. Further, he adopts and incorporates the argument
of Section I.B of the Lubows Reply Brief. Id.
III. There is Simply no Evidence to Support any Claim Against Bryan
Bryan adopts and incorporates by reference Section III. of the Churchs Reply
Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
Monique Rathbun fails to assert clear and specific evidence to prove her
causes of action against Bryan. Indeed, as noted above, although these issues were
addressed in Bryans brief, Monique Rathbun completely ignores them. She does
not even mention Bryan in the section of her brief relating to the four causes of action
of the complaint. Bryan requests that this Court find these issues to be conceded by
Monique Rathbun.
However, Bryan offers the following observations about the lack of clear and
specific evidence against him in Monique Rathbuns brief.
A. No Evidence of Tortious Interference
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section III.C. of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P.9.7. Further, he adopts and incorporates the argument of
Section III.A. of Lubows Reply Brief. Id.
5
The evidence Monique Rathbun proffered to support her claim of tortious
interference with contract contains nothing concerning the conduct or
communications of Bryan impacting any contract employment or otherwise. There
is no evidence, nor even an allegation, of him speaking to anyone at her place of
business, sending anything, or harassing her at work.
Because Monique Rathbun fails to assert any evidence, much less clear and
specific evidence supporting any element of this claim, it should be dismissed.
B. No Evidence of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section III.D. of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7. Further, he adopts and incorporates the argument
of Section III.E. of Lubows Reply Brief. Id.
The only evidence relating to Bryan is limited to participation in the Squirrel
Buster protests, documentary production and the email about his concern that Mark
Rathbun was harming his church. This was not sent to Monique Rathbun, nor did it
concern her in any way.
None of Bryans conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous
behavior. Indeed, as addressed in several briefs by Appellants, such conduct is
entirely protected and privileged by First Amendment rights. Further, although
Monique Rathbun makes broad sweeping statements of alleged behavior by
appellants, she fails to directly connect any Appellants (including Bryan) to those
6
assertions. In her brief, she complains of being followed, having her family, ex-
husband, and friends visited, being threatened, and being attacked on web sites as
clear and specific evidence of this cause of action. (Appellees Br. at 52). Again, it
is unstated in Monique Rathbuns brief and in the record, as to who is allegedly
performing this conduct. For the instant purposes it certainly is not Bryan. In any
event, the alleged conduct is not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law and, as
such, Monique Rathbuns infliction of emotional distress claim against Bryan fails.
C. No Evidence of Publicly Disclosed Facts About Monique Rathbun
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section III.A. of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
No reference is made or evidence asserted by Monique Rathbun in support of
any claim that Bryan disclosed any information to anyone other than his email to a
fellow church member regarding Mark Rathbun which contains nothing
actionable.
D. No Evidence for Intrusion on Seclusion
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section III.B. of the Churchs
Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
Monique Rathbun fails to provide any evidence that Bryans activities are
sufficient for liability under intrusion on seclusion. She fails to prove that Bryan
visited her family and friends, videotaped her, followed her to work, or caused her
7
to leave her job, all of which she complains of in her brief. His name is never
mentioned in connection with this cause of action.
E. No Evidence of Vicarious Liability
Bryan adopts and incorporates the argument of Section III.A. of Monty
Drakes Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
IV. There Should be no Award of Fees
Bryan adopts and incorporates by reference the arguments in Section IV of
the Churchs Reply Brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.7.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Wherefore, Appellant Ed Bryan prays this Court reverse the trial courts
judgment, render judgment for him and dismiss all causes of action against him.
This Court should also remand for further proceedings concerning the amount of
Appellants attorneys fees and costs under the TCPA.

8
September 16, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonathan H. Hull
Jonathan H. Hull
State Bar No 10253350
Ashley B. Bowen
State Bar No. 24086926
Reagan Burrus, PLLC
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, Texas 78130
Telephone (830) 625-8026
Facsimile (830) 625-4433
jhull@reaganburrus.com
abowen@reaganburrus.com
Attorneys for Appellant Ed Bryan



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned hereby certifies that
this Brief of Appellant complies with the applicable word count limitation because
it contains 1442 words, excluding the parts exempted by TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4(i)(1). In making this certification, the undersigned has relied on the word-count
function in Microsoft Word 2010, which was used to prepare the Brief of
Appellant.

/s/ Jonathan H. Hull
Jonathan H. Hull



9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on September 16, 2014, the foregoing Reply
Brief of Appellant was served on the following attorneys in accordance with the
requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure via electronic filing or
email.
Thomas S. Leatherbury
Marc A. Fuller
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Dallas, Texas 75201

Ricardo G. Cedillo
Isaac J. Huron
Les J. Strieber III
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500
755 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212

George H. Spencer, Jr.
CLEMENS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Eric M. Lieberman
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN PC
45 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10006

Ray B. Jeffrey
A. Dannette Mitchell
JEFFREY & MITCHELL P C
2631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105
Bulverde, TX 78163

Elliott S. Cappuccio
PULMAN, CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON LLP
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400
10
San Antonio, TX 78213

J. Iris Gibson
HAYNES & BOONE LLP
600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
Austin, TX 78701

O. Paul Dunagan
SARLES & OUIMET
370 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, TX 75202

Bert H. Deixler
KENDALL BRILL KLIEGER
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Stephanie S. Bascon
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON PLLC
297 W. San Antonio Street
New Braunfels, TX 78130

Marc F. Wiegand
THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM PC
434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2201
San Antonio, TX 78232

Wallace B. Jefferson
Rachel Ekery
ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON & TOWNSEND LLP
515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350
Austin, TX 78701


/s/ Jonathan H. Hull
Jonathan H. Hull