Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Herm. The Church of NAMBLA would be A-OK then? (Or is she just stretching the defense's argument to the ridiculous here?)

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Excellent...

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

I suppose in almost every case of statutory rape, the victim was "enjoying herself/himeself at the time" - that's the point of the "statutory" part. And you can't just call yourself a religion and do any crime. It'll be interesting to read the written opinion, or if the judge will just sign the motion as is and be done with it.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Hence the term "statutory"

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

It is so drepessing to know that there are judges of this nature in our judicial system. (yeah I know there are a lot of wicked judges out there)
Any judge that behaves in this mannor (which I thought her comments were very unprofessional and incorrect) are clearly in the wrong profession. IMO

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

yes we were...at least i was. Human trafficking was a bit far-fetched though. but the lawsuit concerning minimum wages for workers(anyway, both subjects are closely related) had a good chance to hit the spot...

but things apparently have turned to a way less neat hoped outcome. Although i think that Rathbun statement could have been really helpful...why isn't it taken into consideration?(or has it been taken, but didn't change shit?)

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

yup

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Do you imply that such a preliminary decision can only be appealed to the Supreme court or is that the final step ? (I know I should lurk moar, but any judiciary system is complex for a foreigner.)

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

U.S supreme court would be the final step. I believe the gist of the process from this point fwd would be a regular state appellate court next, then the state supreme court, then the US supreme court (assuming the ruling needed appealed several times, and if the first ruling is overturned in the Headley's favor, pretty safe bet the cult would appeal however high they could go)

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Ok, so is this judge a Republican or something? (no offense to Republicans) Did this heifer have anything to say about earning less than minimum wage, failure to give breaks, failure to create a safe work environment, failure to give rest time, failure to pay overtime, and failure to even set forth the conditions of employment? Is the DOL involved? They should be, it's an on-going violation.

FFS where is OSHA?! People are cleaning open cesspitts with no safety masks, eye masks, or skin protection. That is disgusting and degrading abuse. Too bad Ms. Meanypants Judge can't go out there and do some of that herself.
I've run into my share of crappy judges, but this one sounds like a heartless doozy.

For EVERYONE who testified, thanks. You rock.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

An appeal in this case would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; a denial there would be appealed to the Supreme Court. But an appeal to the Supreme Court is not a right--one must petition the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court can either accept (agree to hear) or deny (decline to hear). The Supreme Court only 'accepts cert' for a small percentage of cases.

I'll wait to read the actual decision and order before commenting at length, but given marklowell99's account (whose accuracy I have no reason to doubt, thanks mark), I'm struck by glibness of the judge's comments. This was, after all, a motion for summary judgment, and the judge's comments appear to indicate that she holds a categorical presumption as to the nature of consent; that it cannot be coerced under any circumstance. She may have overstepped her role, but I'll wait to read before commenting further.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Sounds like the labor claims still stand? The amended complaint makes four specific claims for relief and the "Human trafficking" one is the fourth (and they're typically ordered in priority of how likely you are to succeed with it)

Was this only a Partial Summary Judgement dismissing that particular claim? It sounds like it.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

I am embarrassed to be of the same species as this judge.
Srsly

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Good questions.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

The summary judgment motion, heard on 8/2/2010, from the defense in the Claire Headley case was for all remaining claims, not just a partial number of claims.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

It's victim blaming just like in rape cases. May the judge experience some of that personally, because obviously she needs to.

I am embarrassed to be of the same species as this judge.

This.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

So if I kidnap the judge, lock her in my basement, and sexually abuse her dsy-in day-out, then if God told me to fo it, that's OK?

Bitch needs to lern2xenophon

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

I think the judge had the same position as you on this matter and just wanted to illustrate the absurdness of the defence's argument with the sexual harassement example.
Here is a clue:

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

I was waiting for you to show up, to ask: Are the judge's comments beneficial to the appeal process? I mean, when a judge utters sound and convincing opinions on a case, it's a good, but she appeared to be incredibly dismissive (unreasonable?) given ml99's account. So I would think her opinion might be helpful on appeal. Yes, no?

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

They can be. I'll reserve my opinion until I actually read the documents though. But it's possible.

As a local parallel, when Bob Minton turned on Ken Dandar and testified on behalf of Scientology in the Lisa McPherson case, Judge Schaeffer was so livid with Minton that she lambasted him in her opinion, which then opened the door to Scientology, through Minton, to successfully force Schaeffer off the McPherson case. (This was especially ironic given that the basis for Minton's argument was that the McPherson estate couldn't be given a fair trial since the judge had reserved so much venom for him as co-plaintiff, even though he was attempting to kill the case on Scientology's behalf at that point.) So yeah, when judges overstep their roles, they can jeopardize their own decisions/orders.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

This is it in a nutshell. No guts.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Hmm, Couldn't pretty much the same be said for other instances of human trafficking?
I went over the list of items in the "How to Recognize Victims of Human Trafficking". I don't see that being aware that you are a victim as an indicator.
In fact, there are a number of questions recommended for querying potential victims to determine whether or not they are victims. "Are you a victim of human trafficking?" is not amoung the questions.
This leads me to believe that most, if not all victims of human trafficking are not aware of their status as victims of a crime.

HumanTrafficking.org | Help Lines: United States of America

Aside from that, the court isn't being asked to "accept the evidence as true". It is being asked to decide whether their is enough evidence to have a trial to determine if it is true.
Since the the plaintiffs and others at Scientology compounds actually do affirmatively match almost every one of the items listed in the "How to Recognize Victims of Human Trafficking" list, it seems there is more than enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Sorry for this 'stupid is as stupid does' question, but this means that Marc has a separate case re: labor laws?

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

My gripe is not necessarily with the decision itself. I haven't examined the case file in enough detail to know whether or not the plaintiffs brought enough to the table for a trial. However, the religious activity discussion in the original opinion was glib and analytically weak. It did the opposite of what a court deciding a motion for summary judgment should do, and simply assumed the moving party's facts were true without even looking into the issue.

While I hate to say this, since it's what I've heard Scientologists say time and again, it's probably good this case got thrown out at this point, because now it can be appealed, at least if it's a final order disposing of the entire case. Previously, only part of the case was thrown out, and that can't be appealed until after trial. That is, the case would have had to go all the way to the finish line, so that the original erroneous dismissal could be appealed, after the trial, and force the plaintiffs to go through a whole new trial on the revived claims.

Now (if this is a final order) it can be reviewed immediately, and if reversed on appeal, dealt with all in one case. And another, weak positive to this is that the case will be over sooner for everyone.

On the bad side, if OP is accurately describing the language of the judge, this is practically a setup for the defendants to file for costs (which they will get) and possibly fees (probably not), or claim the case was frivolous from the outset. I fully expect the cult to do that to punish these plaintiffs.

Despite this, I would take reviews from "judge review websites" with a grain of salt. Who goes and writes reviews on sites like this but disgruntled litigants who lost their case, or people who are happy that they won. Almost nobody loses a case and says "well I lost but I got a fair hearing" or wins a case and says "well I won but the judge's decision was analytically weak and she was completely unfair to the other side."

I still think the judge's categorical finding in the previous opinion is weak and hope that, because of that, it is reversible.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Well, presuming the ruling represents the judge's comments (and those are accurate), it does lead to an interesting loophole for future human trafficking, doesn't it? Make it a cult and no one will dare to look into it.

By all means, judgie, make trafficking a sacrament.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Source legal definition to that NGO "How to.." summary you linked to....
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Epic failsuit.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Will this have any impact on Laura DeCrescenzo's case in Florida?
There are a number of significant differences between hers and Claire Headley's. The one thing that springs to mind is Laura's RPF experience.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

A District Court decision is not "controlling authority." That is, no other court, not even in the same Circuit, is obligated to follow it, although District Courts tend to give at least a bit more weight to other District Courts in the same Circuit.

It is, however, what is called "persuasive authority." Another court which finds the reasoning in the prior case convincing can adopt it. I'm not terribly worried about that here, although the Florida court could come to the same conclusions on its own. The reason I'm not terribly concerned is that Judge Fischer's analysis is so glib and superficial that there isn't really anything to persuade in it. I find it well below the usual level of scholarly legal reasoning I expect from the Article III courts, which may indicate that Judge Fischer simply didn't take this case seriously.

However, in a sort of Bayes' Theorem sense, the fact that an Article III judge hasn't taken some argument seriously is a condition indicates, especially when you have incomplete knowledge about a legal issue, that the argument isn't worth taking seriously. I haven't thought hard about the "human trafficking" issues, since the minimum wage and other federal and state labor standards seemed to be a lot stronger. However, at least as to the labor standards laws, I am pretty sure that Judge Fischer's analysis is weak, since there is established law on that subject, and Judge Fischer's opinion is virtually devoid of any in-depth discussion of it.

On the "human trafficking" issue, I am more inclined to think that Judge Fischer's ruling is likely to make sense. I haven't seen it, though, and it could prove to be equally disappointing.

My guess, based on no expert analysis, is that the dismissal of the human trafficking counts is likely to be upheld. My guess, based on actually having read the opinion justifying dismissal of the labor law counts, and knowing something about that area of law, is that this reasoning is less likely to be upheld, since the reasoning is particularly slapdash; and moreover, is less likely to be viewed as persuasive authority by another court, for the same reason. Most Circuits already have case law of their own on the labor issues and are more likely to follow their own cases.

By comparison, there is virtually nothing on the human trafficking issue, though I am inclined to think there will be a high bar to establishing a claim with a heinous-sounding name like that, which seems directed to full-bore slavery operations. I also think Judge Fischer is more likely to take that issue seriously as a case of first impression and produce an opinion worthy of a federal judge. I remain prepared to be disappointed, however.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

There something very wrong with this Judge. What about Stockholm Syndrome? For example Patty Hearst identifying eventually with her captors in order to survive? I always thought it was absurd the way our legal system & media went after her. Basically, blaming her for being kidnapped & being born into a very wealthy family. This Judge needs to retire and I don't believe this is at all over or a win for the cult!
The cult is dieing a slow death.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Human Trafficking chart posted on the US Department of State web site:

Human Trafficking Defined

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Since someone asked me about progress, I logged into Pacer and checked Claire's docket. No ruling yet. Same with Marc's.

Full docket #s:

2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN -- Marc
2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN -- Claire

Interesting, I didn't know they were under a Magistrate. That may explain a lot.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Um.....is it just the human trafficking argument/cause of action that is possibly to be dismissed here?

From what I read of Headley's original complaint, there were about 5 different labor codes that were violated, including failure to pay minimum wage. Those are still in play, so I'm confused as to why some posts react as if the lawsuit is over.

Even if Headley wins back pay plus penalties and her other c/as are dismissed, this is still a HUGE win because this opens the door for all other ex-SeaOrgs to get back pay. This will land an incredible blow to the Cult's resources.

Why is everyone sounding like the suit is over? Did I miss something?

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

What happens in S.O/Gold Base fits trafficking per this chart.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Explain it then. Remember, most of us here got our e-lawyer degrees from the school of Perry Mason.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Not a full federal judge, generally someone who hears lesser cases, and only under the supervision of a full federal judge.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't try to get a full federal judge, actually, but maybe they did and I missed it on the docket.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Objection! I would like to produce a surprise witness who will testify that, these days, most e-lawyers went to Matlock School, with a little tutoring from Judge Judy.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

"All remaining claims" would imply that some or all of the other claims had already been dismissed (or subject to SJ). Is that so? I can't seem to find any mention of such a ruling, but given the general disorganization here, I could easily have missed it.

So the question still stands. Does anyone know what's left to go to trial if the Human Trafficking claim is struck down? (as we seem to know at least that much)

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Judge Fischer is a full Article III judge. Only the part of the case relating to discovery was referred to a Magistrate Judge, which is routine practice. It is Judge Fischer who apparently will issue the ruling partly or fully dismissing the case.

Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

CoS may have dodged a bullet in court, but it is never a good day for your Cult when you celebrate by declaring, "We beat the human trafficking charges."

Claire Headley won something by losing, for Cult attorney Marmaro seems to have tacitly conceded that while human trafficking is a part of the Scientology religion, no court has the right to put any religion on trial. Even the court commented upon Marmaro's remark in noting that Scientology wants to use its religious status as both a sword and a shield:

Eliot Abelson made a similar sort of open admission in 2008:

/////