Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

A judgment in Claire Headley's case this week involves a truck-load of WIN.

The judgment: Claire Headley - Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Strike Out

The summary: CSI and RTC each applied to dismiss Claire Headley's Claim and, alternatively, for an order requiring a more definite statement.

California Business and Professions Code 17200

First cause of action - Restitution of Wages
Second cause of action – Unfair Business Practices

CSI and RTC say – statute of limitations has expired
Claire says – Defendents equitably estopped from claiming statute of limitations because of the abuses

Court holds:

Given these allegations, the Court cannot conclude that Headley’s equitable estoppel claim must fail. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss the First and Second Causes of Action.

i.e. Scientology loses.

Human Trafficking / Forced Labor – California and Federal Laws

Third cause of action – human trafficking / forced labor:

California

Alternative a) CA Penal Code 236.1
Court holds the new provision is not retrospective. Claim dismissed.

Alternative b) CA common law tort of forced labor.
Court holds there is no such common law tort in CA. Claim dismissed.

Alternative c) CA Constitution
Court holds that this is a cognizable claim. The statute of limitations has expired. However, the Court refuses to dismiss the claim because Claire may succeed in her claim that Defendants should be equitably estopped from relying on limitations periods because of the abuses.

i.e. Scientology loses.

Federal

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. §1589

Defendants argue that Headley’s forced labor claims under federal law are largely time-barred. The Court disagrees...

...the limitations period on such claims have been extended from four years to ten years and these claims are not time-barred.

Headley alleges that CSI subjected her to a coercive work environment from 1996 to 2005. The Court finds that such alleged conduct constitutes a continuing violation of the TVPA, and is therefore actionable as a single unlawful practice subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. The Court preliminarily finds that it will consider the entire time period of the alleged forced labor to determine any potential liability. Headley timely filed her TVPA claim and therefore the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss as to this claim. The Court also rejects the equitable estoppel argument for the reasons discussed above.

i.e. Scientology loses.

Motions for More Definite Statement

The Court does not find the SAC to be so vague or ambiguous as to justify ordering a more definite statement. The Court denies these motions.

i.e. Scientology loses.

Motions to Strike Out

Defendants also move to strike allegedly improper prayers for relief. First, Defendants move to strike Headley’s prayer for attorneys fees...

Denied.

Second, Defendants move to strike Headley’s prayer for a permanent injunction

with respect to the § 17200 claim. Injunctive relief is available for violations of § 17200.

Denied.

Finally, Defendants move to strike Headley’s prayer for an “award of reasonable

attorney’s fees computed with an appropriate lodestar in consideration of the difficult and
litigious nature of Defendants” but fails to offer any argument in support.

Denied.

A recent judgment in Laura's case was not favourable. But it will have unintended benefits.

4Dlulz · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

TL/DR: Courts to Scilons, STFU, you are going to court.

fitch2000 · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

nice

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

(Long evil laugh. Much wringing of hands)

EyeOnSci · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Woot!

Nomnom, cult is crunchy on the outside. Can't wait for the middle.

amaX · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Love, love, love to hear this! Congratulations, Claire!

<3

YAHRLY · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

/happy dance

Ironhead · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

4Dlulz;1061958 said:

TL/DR: Courts to Scilons, STFU, you are going to court.

so the scilons basically tried to get the case dismissed before it ever hit the court room? is that right?

then they basically got swatted down by the judge.

good start.

4Dlulz · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Ironhead;1062002 said:

so the scilons basically tried to get the case dismissed before it ever hit the court room? is that right?

then they basically got swatted down by the judge.

good start.

pretty much, they moved to dismiss based on statue of limitations, judge said no dice. They tried to say it should be dismissed because the charge was vague, the judge said nope, its pretty straight forward. Then they tried to stop her from having the court foot her bills because she was flat broke (In short, she doesn't have to pay filing fees, copy fees and the like the courts make you pay for paperwork) then they tried to stop her from claiming they defrauded the public and finally, to stop her from making them pay her attorney fees due to their sue happy nature. Judge said No.

nightfire · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

We knew their defense was bogus, and now the law abiding courts have just added the dox to prove it. Yeay! Delicious DOX!

Am waiting to see how this affects the willingness of other ex's to sue.

moose · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

congrats!

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

A recent judgment in Laura's case was not favourable. But it will have unintended benefits.

I would like to know more about this if it is public record. It might help others who have the similar issues.

BigBeard · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Now they've been slapped down by 'da judge, I suspect 'lil Davie will be calling for the ubber serious "fair gaming" to begin.

BigBeard

4Dlulz · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

BigBeard;1062044 said:

Now they've been slapped down by 'da judge, I suspect 'lil Davie will be calling for the ubber serious "fair gaming" to begin.

BigBeard

and we will be watching and recording,

psychoutcults · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

BigBeard;1062044 said:

Now they've been slapped down by 'da judge, I suspect 'lil Davie will be calling for the ubber serious "fair gaming" to begin.

BigBeard

... and we know how happy that makes judges and juries.

RightOn · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

4Dlulz;1062007 said:

pretty much, they moved to dismiss based on statue of limitations, judge said no dice. They tried to say it should be dismissed because the charge was vague, the judge said nope, its pretty straight forward. Then they tried to stop her from having the court foot her bills because she was flat broke (In short, she doesn't have to pay filing fees, copy fees and the like the courts make you pay for paperwork) then they tried to stop her from claiming they defrauded the public and finally, to stop her from making them pay her attorney fees due to their sue happy nature. Judge said No.

thanks for splainin'!

Great news!!!! YAY!

Avery1 · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

SUPERGREAT!

HellRazor · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Moar wins!

tazor · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Great news! The cult loses again and again and again.

Hope davey's scotch inventory is fully stocked.

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

BigBeard;1062044 said:

Now they've been slapped down by 'da judge, I suspect 'lil Davie will be calling for the ubber serious "fair gaming" to begin.

You think he already found replacement for Rathbun and Rinder?

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Subpoena Davey
Hilarity Ensues

Moonbatshitfag · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

!!!

Great news!

OTBT · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Oh hell yes, this just made my day.

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Hecka Yeah!

Ogsonofgroo · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Me pretty sure this is <3 <3 <3-able

(Hey CoS, STFU and stop paying huge bucks to fight what you could have settled years ago for much less, dimwits imho)

Somethin' lieks that.

Other than Moxon, Kobrin, and a few other nasty-soul-less bought and payed for shills, I think cult is going to find it harder and harder to find easy-to-buy lawyers, soon they'll be scraping the bottom......Oh wait.......derrrrrrr

XP

Headley's have good case, let the law decide and moar power to 'em!

JohnnyRUClear · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

EyeOnSci;1061973 said:

Nomnom, cult is crunchy on the outside. Can't wait for the middle.

This, haha.

Placing advance orders for even MOAR popcorn for next winter....

xenubarb · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

tazor;1062116 said:

Great news! The cult loses again and again and again.

Hope davey's scotch inventory is fully stocked.

I gotta check my popcorn inventory!

dt2000 · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Herro;1062043 said:

I would like to know more about this if it is public record. It might help others who have the similar issues.

One of the major differences in my case contrary to the Headley's is that I left about 8 months before them. Which makes a big difference in terms of the 4 year SOL for Human Trafficking under federal law. That was the single "federal claim" and the judge ruled that was barred by the SOL.

The judge also sent mine back to State Court. Which is where we filed it in the first place. (In fact the CSI lawyers are the ones that had it transferred to federal...) There are numerous additional claims in my case which are State law anyway.

The wage loss, forced abortion and emotional distress damages are being sought under state law and are still very much in the case.

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Hi Laura,

I was interested to read that the judge in your decision didn't seem to even consider the "equitable estoppel because you are evil abusers" argument.

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

dt2000;1062589 said:

One of the major differences in my case contrary to the Headley's is that I left about 8 months before them. Which makes a big difference in terms of the 4 year SOL for Human Trafficking under federal law. That was the single "federal claim" and the judge ruled that was barred by the SOL.

The judge also sent mine back to State Court. Which is where we filed it in the first place. (In fact the CSI lawyers are the ones that had it transferred to federal...) There are numerous additional claims in my case which are State law anyway.

The wage loss, forced abortion and emotional distress damages are being sought under state law and are still very much in the case.

Thanks for explaining.

BigBeard · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

The WWP thread on the Catholic On-Line forced aborttion article

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/catholic-online-religious-order-called-sea-org-forced-abortions-members-56216/

contains a link to a Catholosism.org

The Even Darker World of Scientology — Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

follow up to the Catholic On-Line article. One of the comments there makes this point:

Whichever side of the abortion issue a person may be on, these actions involving pregnant females are a total violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in the United States.

This can be verified at The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Reassigning woman who decide not to end their pregnancy is also a violation. So why is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision not doing anything about this?

Two questions:

1 - Are violations of this part of the EEOA part of these law suits?

2 - Is anyone pushing the EEOC, or their Congress critters to push the EEOC, to investigate the on-going allegations that violations of this act continue to happen to this day?

BigBeard

Herro · Nov 11, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

The EEOA has a short staute of limitations and seems to require that a claim be first made to the EEOC. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act arguably has a provision that appears to exlude all nonprofit entities. A review of the complaints suggests that there is no claim for direct violation of these statutes.

AnonyMary · Nov 22, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss WIN

Herro;1061954 said:

A judgment in Claire Headley's case this week involves a truck-load of WIN.

The judgment: Claire Headley - Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Strike Out

The summary: CSI and RTC each applied to dismiss Claire Headley's Claim and, alternatively, for an order requiring a more definite statement.

California Business and Professions Code 17200

First cause of action - Restitution of Wages
Second cause of action – Unfair Business Practices

CSI and RTC say – statute of limitations has expired
Claire says – Defendents equitably estopped from claiming statute of limitations because of the abuses

Court holds: i.e. Scientology loses.

Human Trafficking / Forced Labor – California and Federal Laws

Third cause of action – human trafficking / forced labor:

California

Alternative a) CA Penal Code 236.1
Court holds the new provision is not retrospective. Claim dismissed.

Alternative b) CA common law tort of forced labor.
Court holds there is no such common law tort in CA. Claim dismissed.

Alternative c) CA Constitution
Court holds that this is a cognizable claim. The statute of limitations has expired. However, the Court refuses to dismiss the claim because Claire may succeed in her claim that Defendants should be equitably estopped from relying on limitations periods because of the abuses.

i.e. Scientology loses.

Federal

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. §1589

i.e. Scientology loses.

Motions for More Definite Statement

i.e. Scientology loses.

Motions to Strike Out

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

A recent judgment in Laura's case was not favourable. But it will have unintended benefits.

Somehow this big win announcement got lost in the pile of other wins this week.

DM must be pisssed big time! Congratulations to Claire and Barry Van Sickle!! Looking forward to the next round here and to Laura's next step being announced.

Mary McConnell

Hey Marty, 'The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.'

Moonbatshitfag · Nov 22, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss WIN

AnonyMary;1076014 said:

Somehow this big win announcement got lost in the pile of other wins this week.

dt2000;1062589 said:

The wage loss, forced abortion and emotional distress damages are being sought under state law and are still very much in the case.

bump

Major Boyle · Nov 22, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

The best part is that a win will open the floodgates for all the exes to sue the cult fully into bankruptcy. I wonder how much cash Davy will raise when he's forced to sell off the Failwinds and his car collection?

maggie · Nov 25, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

BigBeard;1062044 said:

Now they've been slapped down by 'da judge, I suspect 'lil Davie will be calling for the ubber serious "fair gaming" to begin.

BigBeard

Judge needs to keep an eye on his dog...

Sissy Lala · Nov 25, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Thanks for bumping. I'd missed the update. Congrats, Claire and Barry!

_You_ · Nov 25, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

maggie;1079832 said:

Judge needs to keep an eye on his dog...

Why? Everybody knows dogs only work against Anonymous...

(Inb4 Duke)

_You_ · Nov 25, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

maggie;1079832 said:

Judge needs to keep an eye on his dog...

Patty Baber belongs to the judge??

_You_ · Nov 29, 2009

Re: Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Did you have a crystal ball? Anyway, bumpity bump again.

Herro;1062143 said:

Subpoena Davey
Hilarity Ensues

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/david-miscavige-sued-summons-issued-11-25-09-a-57318/

Log in or Sign up

Claire Headley's Case - Motions to Dismiss

Herro Member

4Dlulz Member

fitch2000 Member

Herro Member

EyeOnSci Member

amaX Member

YAHRLY Member

Ironhead Member

4Dlulz Member

nightfire Member

moose Member

Herro Member

BigBeard Member

4Dlulz Member

psychoutcults Member

RightOn Member

Avery1 Member

HellRazor Member

tazor Member

Herro Member

Herro Member

Moonbatshitfag Member

OTBT Member

Herro Member

Ogsonofgroo Member

JohnnyRUClear Member

xenubarb Member

dt2000 Member

Herro Member

Herro Member

BigBeard Member

Herro Member

AnonyMary Member

Moonbatshitfag Member

Major Boyle Member

maggie Member

Sissy Lala Member

_You_ Member

_You_ Member

_You_ Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins