The first 2 paragraphs were covered in the excellent documentary "Going Clear". Mike Rinder tells of how he was assigned the task of breaking up the marriage of Cruise/Kidman.
Maybe time for a rewatch.
1. Who conducted the investigation that occurred in response to the [missing person report]?Mirell’s letter also asks the department to reveal if Shelly was personally visited by detectives, or whether the LAPD relied on representations made by church attorneys. If detectives visited her, how was her identity established?
2. When did that investigation commence?
3. When did that investigation conclude?
4. What actions were undertaken in connection with that investigation, and by whom?
Douglas E. Mirell, Attorney at Law(lawyers sign off yours truly? )
132 S. Rodeo Drive, Fourth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2413
424.203.1600 www.HMAFIRM.com
Direct: 424.203.1603 Fax: 424.203.1671
Email: [email protected]
December 12, 2016
VIA E-MAIL [[email protected]] AND U.S. MAIL
Discovery Section
Los Angeles Police Department
100 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Public Records Act Request — Status of Missing Person Report Filed By Leah Remini Re Michele Diane (Shelly) Miscavige
To Whom It May Concern:
This law firm represents Ms. Leah Remini. This is a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Sections 6250-6276.48.
On or about August 5, 2013, Ms. Remini submitted a Missing Person Report (“MPR”) to the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) concerning Michele Diane (Shelly) Miscavage. A copy of that MPR is attached to this letter. Shortly thereafter, a number of news outlets published stories quoting unnamed LAPD sources “who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly,” stating that the case had been closed, that Ms. Remini’s MPR had been “ruled as unfounded,” and that “police were no longer investigating.” See, for example, THR Staff, The Hollywood Reporter, “LAPD Rules Shelly Miscavige Missing Persons Report ‘Unfounded,'” posted 8/8/2013 @ 7:00 PM; Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times, “Scientology leader’s wife located by LAPD after Leah Remini inquiry,” posted Aug 9, 2013.
Notwithstanding the LAPD’s apparently unauthorized communications with various media outlets about this matter, Ms. Remini herself has never received any official communications whatsoever from the LAPD concerning the disposition of her MPR. In particular, Ms. Remini wishes to know the following:
1. Who conducted the investigation that occurred in response to the MPR?
2. When did that investigation commence?
3. When did that investigation conclude?
4. What actions were undertaken in connection with that investigation, and by whom?
5. Prior to August 8, 2013, did any LAPD detectives or other personnel travel to San Bernardino County to meet Ms.Miscavige? If so, who and when?
6. Subsequent to August 8, 2013, did any LAPD detectives or other personnel travel to San Bernardino County to meet Ms. Miscavige.? If so, who and when?
7. Prior to August 8, 2013, did the LAPD’s investigation of the MPR rely solely upon the representations about Ms. Miscavige made to the LAPD by one or more Church of Scientology attorneys? If so, by whom, and to whom, were those representations made?
8. Was Ms. Miscavige physically seen by LAPD detectives or other personnel? If so, where, when and by whom? If so, how was her identity ascertained? If so, who else was present at the time she was seen by the LAPD?
9. Was Ms. Miscavige spoken to by LAPD detectives or other personnel? If so, where, when, by what means, and by whom? If so, how was her identity ascertained?
10. Was any attempt made to ascertain the health of Ms. Miscavige? If so, what was done?
11. Has the LAPD’s investigation in response to the MPR concluded?
12. Was the protocol followed in connection with the investigation of this MPR consistent with the LAPD’s standard operating procedures?
13. Is it consistent with the LAPD’s standard operating procedures to allow its personnel to anonymously convey the results of an MPR investigation to members of the media?
14. Is it consistent with the LAPD’s standard operating procedure to never directly inform the person filing an MPR of the results of the ensuing invesigation?
To the extent the answers to each of these questions can be found in LAPD reports, policies or other documents — including, without limitation, any and all follow-up and/or “3.14” reports prepared by LAPD detectives or other personnel — please provide the undersigned with copies of all such records. In addition, to the extent that the original MPR filed by Ms. Remini has subsequently been annotated in any way by the LAPD, please provide the undersigned with a complete copy of that annotated MPR. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(b), Ms. Remini is prepared to pay all appropriate “direct costs of duplication” attendant to provided copies of identifiable records.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), I look forward to your prompt response. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
DOUGLAS E. MIRELL Of
HARDER MIRELL & ABRAMS LLP
|