Customize

Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Discussion in 'Marc Headley v. Church of Scientology Internationa' started by Anonymous, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. OTBT Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    tikk, thanks for the info from PACER, and the link.

    This court decision just made me very sad :(
    Are American judges all idiots?

    < long sigh >
  2. tikk Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Ironically, Joel Phillips and whichever church staffers Scientology has recruited to post over at RFW are enjoying this thread and the court's decision do so against their own interest, should any of them decide to leave the church ... which is a statistical likelihood given that the number of ex-Scientologists far outweigh the number of self-identifying Scientologists. Happy that your church is exempt from treating you like a human Joel?
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Well, that sucks. But Scientology will die a natural death sooner or later anyway.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    The second document indicates an agreement that the trial date be pushed back to January 18, 2011. And in light of that, the plaintiffs' application for a shortened time in which to get orders for the deposition of David Miscavige (rawr) became unnecessary and was withdrawn.

    Also, they were scheduled to depose some law enforcement officers in Hemet a couple of weeks ago.
  5. AnonLover Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I agree with this but for completely different reason.

    imo - denying the summary judgement is a GOOD THING and i'm lmao the cult lackeys are trying to exploit it.

    if the summary judgement would of been accepted, the end result of this case would of been alot less dox & dirt becoming apart of the public record, alot less room for media shitstorms to unfold as the case plays out, and lot more opportunity for the case to be forgotten about in the short term.

    where as now we got full on lawfare exposing the worst of the worst coming 'round the bend that gonna lead to atleast one more massive trainwreck for the cult's public image, and most likely several.

    so its all good, game on -- evil cult is evil, and we need lawfare tactics to play out on multiple venues for multiple issues to reach the ultimate climax were looking for. circumventing this case with a Summary Judgement would of been a small dose of win. but letting the case play out so that all the dirt comes out in a extended fashion with all its rotten glory highlighted & showcase by the media feeding frenzy is gone be so much more WIN that we're all gonna run out of KY Jelly long before the fap-able shitstorms come to end.

    tl;dr - its all good faggots, let the cult the spin it however they want -- we'll be able to use all that false spin to throw salt in the wounds at a later date.
  6. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Was thinking same, and media exposure about any crimes leads back to IRS rulings and terms and what would nullify same.
  7. tikk Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    This isn't correct; it was Scientology's summary judgment motion to prevent the labor law claim from going to trial. Had the court ruled against their summary judgment motion, the issue would've gone to trial.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I wonder if they'll appeal.
  9. LocalSP Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    To me this was the only part of the case I thought they had a good shot at winning. I think that they are screwed at this point.
  10. tikk Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Marc Headley performed very different work than Claire, and his labor law claim will go to trial.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Church of Scientology International & Religious Technology Center Win in Court Against Former Member

  12. HellRazor Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Did Marc start doing that work as "staff" or did he join the Sea Org (ie. labor law exempt "religious organization") first?
  13. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    @ Tikk

    I understand how Marc’s case is different from Claire’s, and how Marc’s work being similar to those of a commercial business means that the ‘economic reality’ of that work avoids the ministerial exception as per Alamo. What arguments would be needed to avoid this same ministerial exception in Clair’s case? Or does the ministerial exception hold absolutely?

    This all begs the question of what specifically Claire’s work was. Brb checking dox.

    Edited to add:
    ^ Why does the above reasoning and case law not apply here? Not being contrary, just appreciated the free schooling being given around here in the relevant law.
  14. timthephoto Member

  15. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    So what is the headline here?

    "Scientology officials admit they pay their staff squat"

    "Scientologists celebrate religious loophole allows slave labor condition of financial destitution. More slave conditions to be examined in lawsuits"
  16. tikk Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I believe Marc's employer was CSI, not the Sea Org.
  17. themadhair Member

  18. tikk Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Everything is subject to the ministerial exception; the complaint presumes that the ministerial exception would not apply. As I understand things, Claire did a lot of secretarial work and work that couldn't be categorized as religious in any sense, but the court made things easy on itself by finding that since she had done work that could only be categorized as religious, Scientology was protected by the ministerial exception. There are many problems with this reasoning, the most obvious being that Tony Alamo could've nullified future labor law claims by arranging in advance for his gas station attendants to perform some nominal degree of "religious" work.

    I'm also disturbed by the fact that the court referenced the billion year contract as evidence of Claire's religious work. Whereas a contract may evince the type of work to be performed, the SO contract is an unenforceable fantasy. I don't think the court relied on it to any great degree in finding as it did, but it shouldn't have referenced it all as evidence for religious intent, since it's facially invalid.
  19. AnonLover Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    oh my bad - i lost site of that while wrapping my brain around the gist of the document. i should know better to leave the lawfare analyzing up to the lawfags. thanks so much for the clarify.
  20. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I somewhat expected this in Claire's case, but Marc's has some possibilities. Tikk, you bring up some interesting oddities, and AnonLover's point about media still holds. My above thread about the Headline still holds, but I'm thinking the important aspect is exposure to new recruits.

    Sci lies to all recruits, always. While internal security measures may have made it impossible to record it, it still exposes the truth to any new recruitment.
  21. sci and tell Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I want to start a religion and pay slave wages to my employees.

    <sulk>
  22. ScudMuffin Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    TBH, I think that when Claire and Marc are ready they should do a media blitz with those two headlines.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Why do organizations have the right to treat their employees like dirt, just because they spread ideologies that are based on fairy-tales and pseudoscience, which makes them "religious", while all other organizations don't have this right?
  24. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Based on some fucked up interpretation of the first amendment. Apparently having to pay reasonable wages to ministers, having to ensure proper working conditions to ministers and having to adhere to any and all labour law regulations would constitute interference with the free exercise of religion. That is, such labour laws as established by congress constitute an interference on the free exercise of religion, and no law enacted by congress can interfere with the free exercise of religion. Hence such laws a exempt from applying to religions, this exemption being known as the ‘ministerial exception’.

    Personally I think this is utter horseshit for two reasons.
    Firstly, it is granting extra rights to religious groups.
    Secondly, it is conflating personal belief with the actions and rights of organisations. Organisations having to follow the law does not interfere with freedom of religion in any sense, and this conflation is bullshit imo.
  25. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Because this is America, where stupid is protected. I live in a "right to work" U.S. State, which means employers can do whatever the hell they want.

    However, Senator Xenuphon stated what is universally true: Crimes are crimes, period. It is a simplistic statement but one that is resounding world wide. We are fed up with the crimes that continue whether under religious cloaks or international corporate Wall Street capes, all wrapped up in political and legal piracy.

    Scientology is now embodied and positioned in the swindling whirl of all of the above. Corrupt, loathed and rejected.
  26. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    The more I think about this ministerial exception the more I rage.

    Religious groups are not exempt from child molestation laws.
    Religious groups are not exempt from murder laws.
    Religious groups are not exempt from slave labour laws.

    Actually, it seems they are exempted from that last one since that is what the labour laws essentially govern.

    So why are they exempted from some laws but not others? I don’t get it.
  27. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    read my post above. No one and no group is exempt from crimes. Period.
  28. Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    crime = breaking the law

    You can't break a law if you are exempt from it.
  29. Major Boyle Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Forgive my ignorance, but where exactly in Scientology dogma does it say that it's OK to pay slave wages? Seriously, unless their teachings say this is the case, they cannot claim 1 first amendment exemption because it does not infringe upon their religion.
  30. EyeOnSci Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    I agree, a good reason to protest in and of itself.

    If persons that live independently of an organization would like to donate time and services on a limited basis, then that is a different matter.

    However, having individuals live within the organization obviously, for the sole purpose of cheap labor, is against the laws that are in place for good reason, to protect that individual from exploitation.
  31. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Actually, crimes that are on the books from whatever country ... there are no exemptions. However, there are such things as attorneys and lobbyists who can maneuver around them. The court of public opinion usually rules in any free thinking society.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    look the ministerial exemption is important for a few reasons.

    1. It allows for people to choose a life of poverty and service. (ie catholic priests, monks and the like) they work very hard, and some of them really long hours. If wage laws applied to them they could not do nearly as much good in the community as they do. (I am ofc referring to the charity work, and all the other good work that is done not the bad priests)

    2. It allows for people with plenty of money to take time off from their lives and do service. (ie missionaries who build wells, do yard work for old ladies, provide food and assistance to others, or do any kind of community service in the name of a church)

    See when used properly this exemption is good for society, and good for the individual, but yes it is clearly easy to misuse this, and it is sad when it is misused.

    Also, this ruling does not change the fact that Scientology claims to provide adequate food, housing, medical, ect, and doesn't do so. None of these claims has been denied... which is telling!
  33. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    This is why exemptions on the basis of charitable work, rather than religion, is what is needed. But, and this is the bit I do not get, how does this follow from the first amendment? It seems to be a misreading of it from what I can see.
  34. PodPeople Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Not telling, just hasn't been addressed yet. Sci can't possibly say it provides adequate any of the above. Not only do they not have dox, what dox there will be likely to prove otherwise.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Right, but how would you differentiate between the charitable work and the minister? would the time spent counseling people for free be ministerial, or charitable?
    would the religions have to pay the missionaries who are volunteering their time to teach? What good would come of those people being paid? How would you say how much of thier time is charity, and how much is ministerial...

    example, full time missionaries like the LDS ones.. who go around and teach the gospel, and also help people at the same time... would they have to keep records of how much time they spent doing what? cause that would be imposing legislative rules on them as ministers....(legislating religion is bad m'kay)

    what about the Catholic missionaries that run homeless shelters.. what would they be classified under? cause they minister, and they give charity...

    There is no good way to distinguish the two activities. However there is a great way to tell if a church is not providing their employee's and ministers with the benifits that they were promised, ie medical, dental, vacation, food, housing...
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    People have been saying the same thing about Christianity for decades.
  37. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Something similar to the public benefit test like the UK has.

    But, and this is the crux of the issue, this is utterly irrelevant. Why does the first amendment imply this exception given that it does not apply to any other laws?
  38. Holl Anon Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    The infamous John Carmicheal, the cult's New York prez ("I smell puthy"), posted an answer to your question today in the NY Daily News:

    NY Daily News - Discussions - Scientology Sea Org group little more ...
  39. new guy Member

  40. XinPDX Member

    Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

    Who exactly do you mean by "they" and "we"? Cuz you sound like the typical OSA troll trying to stir up shit.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins