Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

He didn't post an answer. Where in Hubbard's screed does it say it's OK to pay people below minimum wage? In order to claim exemption, shouldn't their "scripture" say that what they want to do is OK?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

If the counselling would be free of charge for the client, then it could be considered charitable.
But Scientology counselling isn't even free. They charge immense sums for the counselling.
They are exempt from minimum wage and taxes only on the basis that they call their services "religious", although they don't provide a charitable service for the community. This is why there should be a distinction made between religious services and charitable services. A service that is sold for huge sums is not charitable, although it might be religious.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

washingtonpost.com

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

A very good point.

Scientology is a non-charitable religion, in contrast to nearly every other religion on the planet.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I had no idea she was an auditor or tech person for the SO. All ministers are exempt. That was a known.

But Marc's case is completely different and should be able to stand the test.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

In the Sea Org, it is free.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Judge Dale Fischer has recently overseen some interesting cult-related trials, including the Pellicano matter.

An interesting account

Sex and Nerds Invade Pellicano Trial - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

No one, not even ministers, should work for less than minimum wage.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

So how do we get the ministerial exemption repealed?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

It's not a total loss for Marc's case as Claire was a Minister and auditor so delivered a lot of religious services so the church probably pushed that angle heavily. Also he didn't throw out the abuse charges which means he probably looked through the whole case and wants more.

But Marc strictly was administrative labor doing films and production so I don't think this will hurt his case.

But would like to hear from BFG or BVS on specifics.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

BFG muffled for the moment.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Change the statute. I know I'll be lobbying for the change.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

No, there WERE two chicks on the Supreme Court. O'Connor left to take care of her hubby w/ Alzheimer's. Extremely nasty disease. I wouldn't even wish that on David Miscavige.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

AP covers the dismissal

The Associated Press: Judge dimisses wage claims in Scientology lawsuit

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

which one of these is not a chick?

View attachment 250px-Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg%2C_SCOTUS_photo_portrait

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Old document from US Department of Labor - names and church identification were redacted by US DoL

U.S. Department of Labor — Employment Standards Administration (ESA) — Wage and Hour Division (WHD) — FLSA2005-12NA

More at the link.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I conveniently forgot Sotomayor because she's such a cunt. She's the Clarence Thomas of the left.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

When hell freezes over?
(u c wat I did thar?)

It's not that it should be repealed but that maybe it should be forced to be tested at trial to see if it even applied in practice in every single case. The judge here took a lot of things as material fact.
However, I don't think he was even asked to test the veracity of the "ministerial exemption" itself because I don't think the original complaint went that far, maybe. You'd have thought he'd put a little bit more self-testing in there.

If I felt like I was being treat like a mere work slave instead of like a monk in a high religious order, whatever gloriously vague job description is written on paper, then I'd have thought it would be up to a jury to decide whether or my claims can be wiped out with a ministerial exception based on the their interpetaton in this situation and after hearing all the evidence. What is advertised/promised and what is actually given can and usually are very different.
Then again, if the cult had lost this ruling then we'd all be cheering that ministerial bullshit didn't have to be tested in a court and the effort would be concentrated soley on the minimum wage violations, as it will be in Marc's case.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Agreed. Any hours over and above the usual should be voluntary. If they're required to work - they should be paid.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could argue that the ministerial exemption is unconstitutional, i.e. it violates the 1st Amendment. The fact that the US government gets to decide which groups are religions or not (by giving certain groups ministerial exemptions) seems to be a smack in the face to "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I wish I became a lawyer so I could fight this in court...I'm tired of this bullshit cult getting away with abusing its members!

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Symbolizes?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

No it isn't. They don't "collect" from you, but an "invoice" is written up anyway. That way, when you leave, they "charge" you.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

U.S.Slavemasters Celebrate Partially Surviving Court Scrutiny
Scientology Finally Gets a Break From the Central California U.S. District Court

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

To be literally honest, I could see minimum wage standards might not apply IF all the other conditions were met. Adequate room and board for instance. Never adequate, always deplorable and must have violated many numbers of laws. Medical and dental, a joke. Sci could easily have gotten insurance as a very large consumer, but never did. Medical was on taxpayer's dime and dental, if ever, was to pull teeth, and from what I've read, too many died or offloaded because of sci's deplorable negligence. Schedules, lack of sleep, mental and verbal abuse alone and all of the above, isn't that against some Geneva POW policies?

Even the sci lawyers must know they cannot win in this case. Then again, what do they care if they get paid either way. But the public will care.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Maybe. Whenever the cult is sued, the attorneys spend oodles of money fighting the suits and dragging them out for decades... just ask Julie Christofferson & Lawrence Wollersheim. One of the reasons for doing this is to force the plaintiffs to cough up massive amounts of time, effort & money in their pursuit of the lawsuit. If the plaintiffs have the stamina to see it through for decades, they will eventually receive a settlement with a gag order attached.

As for the public caring... doubt it. When Lisa McPherson's story was made public, it became the subject of alot of media scrutiny for a short period before the media moved onto other events, and the public concern diminished. It's human nature.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Two words – freeloader debt.

You do realise that the ministerial exemption comes directly from the first amendment? I think this reading of the first amendment is shit and outright wrong, but it is the first amendment that this exemption is stemming from. The argument goes that labour laws (which are laws enacted by congress) would interfere the free exercise of religion (which the first amendment says is a no-no). I don’t buy this argument and think it is full of shit, but this is the argument that you have to challenge. There is no statute here, this is coming directly from a fucked-up interpretation of the first amendment.

See above.

Lol irony. I agree with your reading of the first amendment, but the current precedent does not.

As one source put it – “ The ministerial exemption is a constitutional doctrine premised on the understanding that the Free Exercise Clause strictly protects the right of religious organizations to select their own religious representatives, including members of the clergy, free from government interference. ”

If a reading of the first amendment means that any labour laws enacted by congress cannot apply to ministers, they why doesn’t the same reasoning apply to other laws such as traffic laws? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Because where congress and the courts can claim jurisdiction over the hiring and firing decisions of churches, they would effectively rob those institutions of their right to make decisions based on religious criteria. The classic example is if the Catholic Church were beholden to the Civil Rights Act, they would be forced to hire woman priests, which would change the character of Catholicism. Probably for the better, in my opinion, but that's not a decision you want the government making. Eliminating the ministerial exception would also violate the establishment clause, in that it would coerce all religious entities toward a homogenized 'state religion' standard of belief. While I personally believe that religion is responsible for more harm than good, attempts to legislate it into the twenty-first century will result in an ugly backlash, because this country is unfortunately especially religious; religion is best left to become irrelevant on its own timetable, which will likely extend beyond our lifetimes.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

This is where I get confused. By religious institutions having this exemption they are superior to the laws of the land also violating the establishment clause. I do not see or understand how such a clause was intended to confer such superiority, or how it implies such. In trying not to violate this clause they have violated it.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

NEVERMIND THE PRESS RELEASE DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN THERE IS NO MAN

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Also, was the rate of pay of sea org members 50 bucks a week prior to the irs bullying that led to their tax exemption? That could be good evidence against religious exemption perhaps.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

The separation of church and state cuts both ways, by design. The Constitution implicitly expresses a preference that the institution of religion be allowed to thrive. And although the "separation wall" metaphor has come to be more closely identified with the fear that the government be protected from religious infiltration, the original fear was that government would infiltrate religion. Recall the EU model with which the framers were most familiar--they viewed the Church of England as having been poisoned by the state (since it was, in fact, the state). Thus, an honest reading of the First Amendment requires that the Church be protected from some legislative acts, if those acts were to burden it, affect the religion's character, or dictate or mandate orthodoxy. While this would seem to elevate religion "above the law," with respect to some things, it's more preferable where the alternative would destroy religion. The establishment clause seeks a perfect balance between these alternatives.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

The only reason I wouldn't wish it on David Miscavige is, he deserves to remember every shitty thing he ever did to anyone while he's lying on his deathbed. Given his reported alcoholism, substance induced idiocy could be in his future, but I have spoken to the loa and requested he end like Hubbard; crazed, stroked out, covered in BTs and screaming in terror.

Only time will tell if my request shall be answered.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

bump for new sig.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

At the expense of the law of the land? I read the constitution and I just do not get this implication anywhere in it.

I simply do not see how this follows. This appears to me to be entirely ad-hoc reasoning. That only some legislative acts are bypassed (such as labour laws) but not others (such as polygamous marriage) would seem to indicate the ad-hoc nature of this reasoning. What seems to be occurring here (at least to me) is that there is some imagined ideal scenario, such as ministers being able to work voluntarily for long hours and the like, but the actual text of the constitution doesn’t back up the reasoning used to try justifying this ideal.

Here is where I think a false equivocation is occurring. Personal belief is not affected in any way, shape or form via such things as labour laws. The operations of religious groups is. The constitution, as I read it, is referring to the former while the interpretation being taken by the current legal precedents is taking it to mean the latter. What makes me think this can be seen in how the same sentence draws a distinction between freedom of speech and the press, drawing a distinction between the thing and the group practicing the thing.

I utterly reject the idea that having labour laws as an alternative would destroy religion. To be honest I have never understood why the first amendment has been interpreted the way US courts do on these issues, and I probably never will.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

The first amendment's identification of an individual right to the free exercise of religion was unique for its time, and is reflective of the fact that framers held 'religion' in esteem. The establishment clause is reflective of the framers' recognition that no one religious group held a majority (some would've liked to become the de facto state religion but just didn't have the numbers; as well as some very progressive thinking on the parts of Madison and Jefferson. If religion wasn't held in esteem, why did they seek to protect it from the government? The existence of the religion clause in the Constitution is evidence itself of the esteem in which religion was held by the framers. Res ipsa loquitur.

You manage to distinguish between beliefs and exercise but ignore that the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. That's the basis of your misreading.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

But again - at the expense of the law of the land? Whether they respected religion is irrelevant, what is key is whether they respected it to the expense of the rule of law.

You just mischaracterised what I wrote.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

If religions were forced to pay minimum wage and overtime would it not radically change the catholic law of "Vow of poverty"?

By thus Forcing a religion to change how their priests exercise their religion, you ARE Legislating religion which is in direct opposition of the constitution.
Also, not accepting polygamy as a legitimate religious practice IS also violating the US constitution... but that is a discussion for another time.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Yes! The first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law ..."

Granted, times were simpler then, and none of the founders wouldn't have envisioned civil rights laws, much less labor laws; the need was only perceived later. But if you can't see the connection between those laws and how they affect certain religious groups, I doubt you're going to see it anytime soon.

I disagree, and I'll parse out what you wrote in greater detail to demonstrate:

You distinguished between "personal belief" and "operations," and then suggested that the Constitution protects the former and not the latter. I'm suggesting that "free exercise" is inclusive of "operations."

It's more than the current legal precedents; it's always been read that way, although the religion clauses didn't produce much case law until starting in the late 1940s early 50s.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I understand what you're saying, but I think I know what madhair's not-understanding is about... since I feel I have the same thing.

specifically...

We've seen and heard a lot of talk lately about religion not being above the law. To wit, the catholic priests and pedophilia. People say it's not their beliefs we're going after, it's their actions. Same thing Xenophon in Australia is saying about Scientology.

In the past in (I think) West Virginia there was (and still is, I think) a religion that believes in handling poisonous rattle snakes. Laws were made to make it illegal and some people were sanctioned legally for their "religious exercise" of handling deadly snakes.

So how does one reconcile in one's mind the difference between "illegal acts" done by religious people "in the name of religion" and "free exercise of religion" with the courts staying out of their hair?

It seems like a fine line. And we're trying to paint Scientology on the "illegal acts" side of this fence, while Scientology's defense is to use the latter argument.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I'll try to address more directly later, but a good starting place is the Smith case.