July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood · Jul 9, 2009

July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

As some of you may or may not know, the ongoing labor lawsuit against CSI was removed to Federal Court by CSI and their attorneys. It is assumed that they did this to buy themselves some more time to wiggle their way out of this mess. It also appeared to be because the judge hearing my case in the State Supreme Court was the same one that handed them their asses in the Diskeeper case. So they hand to make a quick move. Of course, this all happened the same week they got sent the SP Times story weeks in advance of its publishing.

As it turns out, moving the case to federal court has slightly sped up the process and we will likely move much quicker through the back and forth now due to their actions.

Upon being assigned to Federal Court, the Judge that the case was to be heard by just happened to be an attorney that by used to be a partner in a firm that used to represent CSI. Shortly after the case was assigned to her, she reclused herself and the case is now assigned to a different Federal judge.

Yesterday, we filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication that I was an employee for the 15 years that I was employed by CSI. If this is ruled on in our favor, we can move on to establishing which laws were broken and adjudicate the proper remedies.

If anything else comes up, I will let you know.

Dox below.

Until next time...

BFG

Three more documents in the case are now filed and can be seen here:

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Declaration - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Memorandum - Fullscreen

AnotherMrPink · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Thank you for update.

Glad to see Federal Judge realised she should not judge the case. Respect there.

LilDebbie · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

any info on the new judge?

ElenaP · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Thank you BFG!!! Keep it coming!

Skeptic1337 · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood;930102 said:

Dox below.

Until next time...

BFG

Three more documents in the case are now filed and can be seen here:

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Declaration - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Memorandum - Fullscreen

Doing it right.

Anon1720 · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

AnotherMrPink;930117 said:

Thank you for update.

Glad to see Federal Judge realised she should not judge the case. Respect there.

^^this.

muldrake · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood;930102 said:

Upon being assigned to Federal Court, the Judge that the case was to be heard by just happened to be an attorney that by used to be a partner in a firm that used to represent CSI. Shortly after the case was assigned to her, she reclused herself and the case is now assigned to a different Federal judge.

Judge Margaret M. Morrow was also Reed Slatkin's sentencing judge.

slatkinfraud.com said:

slatkinfraud.com
It’s a small world after all? 2002-10-09
A correspondent pointed out to slatkinfraud.com that this is not the first brush with Scientology-related litigation for Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who will be presiding over Reed Slatkin’s sentencing hearing later next month. During her days as a lawyer, Judge Morrow was a partner at Quinn, Kully and Morrow.

One of her co-partners in that venture was none other than John "Jack" Quinn, a past president of the LA County Bar Association who also represented the Church of Scientology in the 1991 Fishman suit, as well as on a number of other occasions, according to our sources.

In 1996, Quinn, Kully and Morrow merged with Arnold Porter, a major Washington, DC law firm. Although she initially moved to Arnold Porter along with Quinn and other former partners, she was also tapped by then President Bill Clinton to fill a vacancy on California’s Central District. Judge Morrow’s appointment to the bench was confirmed in February, 1998, after being delayed for two years by some Republicans, including John Ashcroft, the current Attorney General, who saw her as a liberal activist.

A number of controversial federal cases have found their way to her courtroom judge, including a proposed suit by independent record owners against MP3.com, the FreeRepublic copyright infringement case and a restraining order related to the Rampart police corruption scandal in Los Angeles.

I suppose one of the parties actually being Scientology makes a better case for recusal than in the Slatkin case, where she did not recuse herself (and threw the book at Slatkin).

Anonymous · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

That's a sign that scilons will be having a hard time.

nightfire · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Yeay for faster trial! Yeay for honest judges!

q_p · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

I had always thought they moved the trial so they could get it under a scilon friendly judge. The fact that this happened reinforces that belief but I'm thankful she thought about the consequences of her scilon connection down the road and acted accordingly.

It makes me wonder if Miscavige is angry that she wouldn't take the case? Was she their ace up their sleeve? Did she throw a wrench in his plans? And then she thought better of it and ducked the case? I hope that's what happened. Ooooo puuuullllleeeeezzzzzz let that be the case.

exOT8Michael · Jul 9, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Excellent update, thanks BFG.
Has there been any further harassment or fair game?
M

moarxenu · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Marc's declaration is amazing in its detailing of his work to produce propaganda for Hubbard's non-religious sci fi stuff. That is so damning, as is the detailing of CSI keeping track on working hours and pay. Very odd behavior for a religious order.

Memorandum is put together nicely: lol "The law of the land trumps the musings of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, on the treatment of employees."

Masterfully done. I am wondering if anyone turned up a copy of "Declaration of Religious Commitment and Membership in the Sea Organization, a Scientology Religious Order" as asked for in this thread.

This is is interesting and seems relevant. Did Marc sign one of these?

The "Declaration of Religious Commitment and Membership in the Sea Organization, a Scientology Religious Order" includes a "Pledge of Religious Commitment" which states, in part, "each Sea Organization member considers himself/herself a volunteer to create a better world, and understands that he/she is not an employee, i.e., is not entitled to receive secular benefits such as minimum wage or overtime compensation." The assertion that a Sea Org member "is not an employee" appears to conflict with the "Contract of Employment," which refers to "employment" both in its title and in the body of its text. As noted above, the essay "The Sea Organization" states that members "must . . . meet any employment laws of the land," which is another reference to "employment." The Church of Scientology is, therefore, inconsistent regarding whether or not Sea Org members are "employed" by that organization.

chrisanon · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood;930102 said:

As some of you may or may not know, the ongoing labor lawsuit against CSI was removed to Federal Court by CSI and their attorneys. It is assumed that they did this to buy themselves some more time to wiggle their way out of this mess. It also appeared to be because the judge hearing my case in the State Supreme Court was the same one that handed them their asses in the Diskeeper case. So they hand to make a quick move. Of course, this all happened the same week they got sent the SP Times story weeks in advance of its publishing.

As it turns out, moving the case to federal court has slightly sped up the process and we will likely move much quicker through the back and forth now due to their actions.
<SNIP>

Thanks for the update! Seems like lately, everything the Scilons do to help themselves backfires ... I'd like to think Anon has something to do with that.

OTBT · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

moarxenu;931036 said:

I am wondering if anyone turned up a copy of
"Declaration of Religious Commitment and Membership in the Sea Organization, a Scientology Religious Order"
as asked for in this thread.

Not yet. It certainly seems relevant to Marc's lawsuit.

Avery1 · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Wunderbar! Thanks for the update Marc.

fitch2000 · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

God Speed or Xenu w/e

anonhuff · Jul 10, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

OTBT;931046 said:

Not yet. It certainly seems relevant to Marc's lawsuit.

FOIA it based off of this:

http://www.exposescientology.com/visadox/051110_NOV102005_02C1101.pdf

In fact here let me make it even easier for anyone interested:

instructions on how to file a FOIA request (must be in writing):
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

here is even the form and instructions for the form, that you can fill out along with/as your request to make things more bureaucratic (government lol):
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

I may or may not have already done this, never assume anyone else has, do it yourself if you want to be sure!

Anonymous · Jul 15, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood;930102 said:

Dox below.

Until next time...

BFG

Three more documents in the case are now filed and can be seen here:

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Declaration - Fullscreen

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Memorandum - Fullscreen

!!!

bump for totally fucking awesome dox

BFG and BVS, I am in awe.

Ann O'Nymous · Jul 15, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Thanks and good luck !

Lorelei · Jul 15, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

I particularly liked the nice turns of phrase on page 10 of the Memo., and Marc's Declaration (in full).

Well done!!

Lorelei · Jul 15, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Crapcakes! Server cloned my post again.

>.<

Anonymous · Jul 15, 2009

re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

moarxenu;931036 said:

Marc's declaration is amazing in its detailing of his work to produce propaganda for Hubbard's non-religious sci fi stuff. That is so damning, as is the detailing of CSI keeping track on working hours and pay. Very odd behavior for a religious order.

Memorandum is put together nicely: lol "The law of the land trumps the musings of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, on the treatment of employees."

Is there a scilon volunteer time card / punch card for religious tax-free religious-order purposes? Or are rice and beans considered tax-free wages nowadays?

Anonymous · Jul 19, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Anonymous;936418 said:

Is there a scilon volunteer time card / punch card for religious tax-free religious-order purposes?

I think scilons call this a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement.

Anonymous · Sep 24, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

So what happened with blownforgood's motion? Do the scifags have to give him his back wages yet?

Anonymous · Sep 24, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Anonymous;1008480 said:

So what happened with blownforgood's motion? Do the scifags have to give him his back wages yet?

I found this:

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication

JohnnyRUClear · Sep 24, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Yep; no insta-win for Marc, so it's headed for trial.

Kha Khan · Sep 25, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Anonymous;1008636 said:

I found this:

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication

The Court Order (need PACER account to access link) is below:

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Adjudication of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 14)

The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for September 28, 2009 is removed from the Court’s calendar. The stipulation to continue the hearing is denied as moot.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In about 1989, Headley, who was still in high school, applied to join the Sea Org. (Defs.’ Statement of Genuine Issues at ¶ 74.) The Sea Org is a religious order of the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) that requires its members to commit themselves to one billion years of service to the CSI. (Id. at ¶ 30.) On May 31, 1990, Headley signed the Sea Org’s covenant of religious commitment and started to work at Golden Era, a division of CSI that produces films, music, tapes, cassettes and CDs about the CSI. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 51) Headley worked at Golden Era from 1990 until January 3, 2005 in a variety of different capacities. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 86-105.) He alleges that he worked an average of 100 hours per week, and that CSI paid him an average of $0.39 per hour. (Id. at ¶19.) He also alleges that Golden Era was run with the intent to maximize profits. (Headley Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 9-18.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment shall be granted where “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). Because the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, he must establish “beyond controversy every essential element” of his claim. So. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (adopting the district court’s opinion).

III. DISCUSSION

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) provides a variety of labor protections to covered “employees,” including minimum wage and overtime protections. See, generally, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The FLSA “reaches only the ‘ordinary commercial activities’ of religious organizations, 29 CFR § 779.214 (1984), and only those who engage in those activities in expectation of compensation.” Tony and Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec’y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985) (“Alamo”). A church-run business that “serve the general public in competition with ordinary commercial enterprises” is covered by the FLSA; otherwise church-run businesses would have an unfair competitive edge over their non-religious affiliated competitors. Id. at 299. Whether a church-run business is engaged in “ordinary commercial activities” is a factual issue. Id. at 298-99. The Parties agree the scope of the FLSA’s coverage for similarly situated workers is the same as California labor law.1 (Pl.’s Mot. at 14-16); (Defs.’ Opp. at 10-11.)

Plaintiff’s Motion fails because he has not established beyond controversy that Golden Era’s business activities constitute “ordinary commercial activities.” Although Plaintiff has put forward evidence that Golden Era had the intent to maximize profits, Plaintiff did not allege that any other business enterprise competes with Golden Era in the marketplace. Moreover, there is no evidence that Golden Era competes with other entities in disseminating multimedia products about the CSI. Cf. Alamo, 471 U.S. at 292 (finding FLSA covers employees who work at the service stations, retail clothing and grocery outlets, farms, construction companies, a record keeping company, a motel, and candy companies of a religious non-profit foundation). Without such evidence, Alamo’s rationale cannot be applied here. Plaintiff’s Motion fails.2

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

*********************************
1 Plaintiff appears to backtrack from this agreement in his Reply, but -- as in his Motion – he relies on Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal. 1996), to define the scope of California’s labor laws. (Pl.’s Reply at 4); see also Bureerong, 922 F. Supp. at 1470 (“the Court finds that the California courts would likely adopt the federal FLSA’s broad definition of ‘employment.’”). Moreover, Plaintiff does not cite to any authority suggesting that the scope of California’s labor laws is greater than federal labor law for people who are similarly situated. (Pl.’s Reply at 3-5.); Bldg. Material and Constr. Teamsters’ Union, Local 216 v. Farrell, 41 Cal. 3d 651, 658-59 (1986) (“Federal decisions have frequently guided our interpretation of state labor provisions” unless California’s state labor protections are more extensive in a particular area than federal law). Regardless, the Court “need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007).

2 Because the Court finds that, on this record, there are genuine issues of fact as to whether Golden Era’s work constitutes “ordinary commercial activities,” it need not assess the other issues raised by the parties in their briefing. Defendants’ motion to strike Headley’s declaration is denied as moot.

This does NOT mean that BFG lost his case. What it means is that his attempt to have a specific issue determined in his favor prior to trial was denied. As a result, as of now that issue and all other issues will be decided at a trial before a jury.

lulu belle · Sep 25, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Scientology always loses jury trials.

They avoid them like the plague.

avideogameplayer · Sep 26, 2009

Re: July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

So in other words, BFG won't be getting back wages, but everyone else will? Sweet...

Log in or Sign up

July 09 update - Motion for Summary Adjudication

blownforgood Member

AnotherMrPink Member

LilDebbie Member

ElenaP Member

Skeptic1337 Member

Anon1720 Member

muldrake Member

Anonymous Member

nightfire Member

q_p Member

exOT8Michael Member

moarxenu Member

chrisanon Member

OTBT Member

Avery1 Member

fitch2000 Member

anonhuff Member

Anonymous Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

Lorelei Member

Lorelei Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

JohnnyRUClear Member

Kha Khan Member

lulu belle Member

avideogameplayer Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins