Laura DeCrescenzo forced-abortion lawsuit updates

Discussion in 'Media' started by The Wrong Guy, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. It looks like the Clam attorneys responded to Laura's attorney's comments. The comments were requested from the Supreme Court and the opposing side has the opportunity to respond.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. wolfbane Member

    Scientology had to have the last word bawl. I for one can't hardly wait to find out what they had to say about their footbullet funderberg exploding in their faces.

    • Like Like x 5
  3. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  4. wolfbane Member

    This came up in Scientology's informal reply to the petition answer that TonyO posted today:

    From pg8
    On the last bolded bit above, Laura's declaration seemingly addressed that burden where she states that many of the names on the list were unknown to her and she never considered them to be her ministers:
    • Like Like x 1
  5. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 7
  6. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 3
  7. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  8. The Wrong Guy Member

    I posted this 20 minutes ago, but in the wrong thread. (It's getting hard to keep track of all these lawsuits!)

    Tony Ortega just posted this on Facebook:

    BREAKING: California's supreme court has denied Scientology's petition in Laura DeCrescenzo's forced-abortion lawsuit. Without even a written order, the supremes decided not to take up Scientology's argument that the state's priest-penitent law was unconstitutional. Tomorrow, a big day in state court as the church is running out of options and must turn over key evidence.

    • Like Like x 4
  9. RightOn Member

    did someone say upstat? (well for Anonymous and Laura)

    • Like Like x 3
  10. wolfbane Member

    S'ok TWG. You're still awesome. Even when you need moar coffee ;)

    <3 <3 <3
    • Like Like x 3
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 7
  12. wolfbane Member

    ^^Purrrfect likeness!
    • Like Like x 3
  13. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  14. Horseradish Member

    Does every scientologist have named ministers?

    We should be told.
  15. Random guy Member

    Isn't it today the cult has to cough up the files? Anyone think they'll actually cough up the real files? I think it's a 50/50 chance they'll find some way to postpone or come up with doctored files. It wouldn't be the first time they tries the latter, in France they were caught red handed when a document showed a payment in Euros, dated to beck when France still used Franc! Needless to say, falsifying documents didn't sit well with the French court.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. wolfbane Member

    According to The Underground Bunker, today is/was the day for a status meeting in a lower court. But I'm not sure if it's Superior, Appellate or Trial court. I'm guessing the determination of when/if the files get coughed up will come out that meeting.
  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  18. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 5
  19. Random guy Member

    Muhahaha-hahahaaaa, no really: Muhahuahahuahhaa!
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. moarxenu Member

    "Judge Sohigian, who accused them of lying to the state Supreme Court in the church’s petition."

    • Like Like x 3
  22. Anonymous Member

    And yet, there are no sanctions as a result of the lying and they will continue to do it and get away with it....
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Anonymous Member

    It is their holy duty to lie.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. moarxenu Member

    Actually, I am optimistic seeing what has happened since the rise of Anonymous five years ago.

    In David Miscavige's current "holy war of litigation" there has been nothing like the warfare on the IRS and Time Magazine.

    Now that they are under surveillance by Anonymous for five years they can't get away with that sort of thing. All they can do is bully the impoverished exes and Sea Org members they have defrauded and abused.

    Thanks to Anon there has been a flood of books and media coverage, and no one has been sued. They can't get away with that anymore either.

    Thanks to Anon, David Love, Colin Henderson, and our exes and critics allies the cult is being sued as Narconon for wrongful-death, personal, and insurance fraud, and are bereft of the "ministerial exception" defense.

    Lawyers are increasingly becoming educated and knowledgeable about Scientology's bad faith litigation strategy and tactics and are unafraid of intimidation as are judges.

    It isn't clear yet if Laura's case provides a way forward and around ministerial exception defense in future Sea Org abuse cases. Nor is it clear that legal precedent on bogus claims of clergy-penitent privilege will be firmly established.

    In the best case scenario such precedents will be established, and the flood gates will open. Lawyers will smell that David Miscavige has a billion dollars to fork over in settlements.

    And perhaps one day an exe will refuse to settle and a case will actually go to trial, preferably in California with its great population of Scientologists and exes and concentration of Scientology Inc.'s corporate offices and international headquarters.

    "I think I'll order the tears. I hear they are delicious."

    /b/ started something momentous and historic on January 15, 2008. and Anonymous is succeeding in dismantling the Church of Scientology in its present form thanks to David Miscavige - "Your methods, hypocrisy, and the general artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell."
    • Like Like x 9
  25. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  26. Anonymous Member

  27. Anonymous Member

    a tl;dr of the history of Laura's case, well in legalese land at least, can be found here:

    • Like Like x 3
  28. moarxenu Member

    "The Court of Appeal summarily denied the church’s writ petition challenging Sohigian’s order, and the high court yesterday denied review by a vote of 5-2, with Justices Ming Chin and Marvin Baxter voting to hear the church’s case."

    Hmm, I wonder why they wanted to hear the cult waste moar time with their desperate sophistry.
  29. Anonymous Member

    stack o' cash 2.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    "In January, the California Supreme Court affirmed the broad Wollersheim reading in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity , 99 C.D.O.S. 554. Only a dissent by Justice Marvin Baxter suggested that a drastic pretrial remedy was being made too widely available. "

    Religious schools may use tax-free bonds
    "Because the government merely provides access to favorable tax treatment and does not itself finance the projects, this form of financing is commonly referred to as 'pass through' or 'conduit' financing," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the majority. She was joined by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Marvin R. Baxter, and Carol A. Corrigan."

    "In a long dissent, Justice Ming W. Chin noted that religion was mandatory at the schools and integral to every aspect of students' life, that students were admitted and faculty hired on the basis of religion and that religion was integrated into classroom instruction.

    The state Constitution "simply does not permit a public entity to act as a fundraiser for schools of this nature," wrote Chin, joined by Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno"

    "Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan. . . . "

    Don't know if any of this would have anything to do with Scientology, I didn't take the time to look into these quotes/stories.
    Baxter's wife was a teacher BTW.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1

  32. just a thought

    I recall seeing a few posts, at different times and from different orgs and various countries, of call outs for volunteer PUBLICS to come and sort case files, pics showing PUBLICS working with the case files and boasts from some publics about how many hours they had volunteered CLEANING up case files (and how rewarding even if boring such work was) .
    Many years, many orgs and globally.

    These articles were meant to guilt trip and gee up those useless (especially the broke ones) public scilons into working more for Co$ but may now be coming back to bite them on the bum!

    Even if such actions were not "officially" directly authorised by Co$, surely these would prove that such activities were officially sanctioned by Co$ reporting them in Freedumb mag (and other places?)?
    They also prove that they routinely and consistently broke this privilege as a matter of operating policy - even had they regarded it as something that actually applied to them (keeping a confidence).

    Since this evidence is coming directly from Co$ via FREEDUMB it also rules out their favourite tactics of dismissing it as the work of bitter defrocked apostates or an isolated action of an overzealous, misguided org or member.
    Nor could they claim it merely meant moving the files but not looking into them - check the hours and numbers of bodies needed/wanted.

    Maybe they would be helpful in proving that Co$ has consistently over a long period of time routinely broken this (non existent) Priest/Penitent confidentiality and do not and never have considered themselves bound by it!

    When reading these articles it used to bug me that the files could be in such a mess to warrant it (yes I can be a tad ocd on such things) - let alone the disregard for confidentiality. Now I wish I had logged them.

    I don't have the ability right now to search for this stuff but maybe some anons do.
  33. Anonymous Member

    I recall this as well. Pictures of publics in rooms with boxes of files stacked and people sorting. They were before orgs were moving to new digs.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. blownforgood Member

    • Like Like x 11
  35. wolfbane Member

    I went sniffing around to see if the US Supreme Court petition had been filed yet. Nope. The appellate dockets are now showing a closed status and these are the latest updates on the original trial court case:

    • Like Like x 4
  36. jensting Member

    I assume Laura's lawyers are in touch with people who can fill them in on previous occassions where the "confidential" folders were not so confidential.

    For example, the "rebuttal" to the SP Times articles in 2009. We have from

    • Like Like x 2
  37. I remember several photos of public members with boxes and boxes of files, from a couple different orgs. But I'm having trouble remember the context. I'm fairly certain I saw one of these images on Tony's Sunday Funnies series. I think it was part of an obnoxious mailing from an org, begging everyone to "come on in and help with central files!" Does that sound familiar to anyone?

    The other place I may have seen such photos is in the WWP Failbook threads. Probably in Black Rob's thread? Although I did revisit Battletoad's older Failbook thread recently (holy shit that thread is hilarious), so I may have conflated them. I think some dorkus posted some photos on this wall of public members working in a basement, "cleaning out" files and being all excited about it.

    I don't have time to actually search for the images until this evening, but I will.

    And yeah, this is my first post ever. I've been lurking a long time (5 years, maybe?) but haven't had anything to contribute until now. I'm not even sure this falls under the rubric of "contribution" but whatever. I'm willing to risk a possible LURK MOAR :)
    • Like Like x 6
  38. jensting Member

    The Co$ hoolds more files than the "confidential" files for each victim (ehrm, "PC"). Only the "confidential" files are in question in the Laura DeCrescenzo case.

    The files we saw being moved around were likely to be all kind of other files. Even if they do also have a "confidential" files in them, that's not the important thing. (The main thing about "central files" is that they contain paper copies of the details of every single person who has ever been contacted, so that they can phone them again, 10 years later, to hear if they've changed their mind..)

    What I'm getting at is that the "public" members handling some file folders are by no means a sure indication that "confidentiality" of "ethics" and ot6her "PC" files is nothing of the kind.
    There must be other mentions in the various rebuttals published through the years. The one I posted above was literally the second in the Google search I made. A slightly wider search could very well turn up others. That would be a good project, but doing your own thing is what counts :)
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Oh I see. I was mostly thinking about BingoBongo's post above (#112) when I wrote mine, I wasn't really referring to the rebuttal. So for the purposes of this lawsuit, one would need a photo of a public holding a folder clearly labeled CONFIDENTIAL. Or a photo of a public going through a file cabinet drawer clearly labeled CONFIDENTIAL. Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to find a photo like that.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Rings a bell. Was it Orange County?
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins