Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Correction: the individual "minister" can lose legal protections from rights violations by the organization "ordaining" them as a "minister".

so many quotation marks, because there is so much chicanery going on

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

AFAIU the person in question has to voluntarily accept those. I doubt many folks joining the SO were aware of what they would be subjected to.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

I'm gonna go kidnap a bunch of orphans and round them up in a cage somewhere, making them shovel shit for the rest of their lives. Gov'ment can't do shit, because Judge Fischer says things like that are protected under the First Amendment.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

I think she said if they sign up for it voluntarily it's fine. Philosophically I'm not sure I disagree with her. Realistically as seen by all the culties over the past couple of years she over estimates humanity. People are fucking retards and easily manipulated, she should have thought of that too.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Keyword being 'voluntarily'. For it to be voluntary they would need to be informed of the abuses, coercion, tapped communications, etc.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

For it to be "voluntary" they would have to have a choice.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

^Second!
In Ireland, Catholic priests were abusing kids for decades, the police were told but kids were ignored. Its likepolitely asking Sadame to leave your family alone or a Sea Org standing up for him/herself.

The Murphy Report outed all the priests who were still practicing priests. They were sent to the pope to get their wrists thoroughly slapped.

In England they were gonna change the name of Christmas, a national holiday, because it offended other religions, or the Muslims who were then getting their screentime thanks to the bombings.

In America they took down two South Park episodes because it offended Muslims because displaying the image of their religious leader was againstthe law in Islamic countries, and now is worldwide.

In America the WBC is allowed to picket the funerals of dead soldiers whose families have got it hard enough.

A religion is treated like a race, when its just a collection of thoughts and feelings in the man or womans mind.

I like Mysticism. Thats the closest to making sense any religion has ever done for me, its the stuff Eckart Tolle talks about in The Power of Now.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

So let me get this straight in my mind. A religion can take children at a young age who have nowhere else to go and make them wear naval uniforms and encourage them to sign a billion year contract. That makes them "ministers" of the church who have to do as they are told and work extremely long hours for no money. If they try to leave then you punish them. If they do manage to get out then you hunt them down and bring them back and punish them. You punish them so much for trying to leave that in the end they drop the idea and choose to stay. At some point the idea of escape does not enter their minds any longer so they can live off base if they prefer. This makes them "volunteers" because they do not choose to walk away at this stage. And when they finally come to their senses and realise they were exploited and never had a real choice and they want minimum wage for all the years they worked long hours for then they can't have it because they were volunteers.

Have I got that right?

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Pretty much, at least according to the judge.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

That is their free speech right and has nothing to do with any special rights granted to religions.
This situation has been beautifully solved by the patriot guard riders.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

how much of the media knows of this case?
Does Nathan Baca have any wind of it?
I would really love to see the headlines for this so-called victory...
where is the tasty poetic justice?

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

I've been trying to find any instances were human trafficking claims were dismissed under the ministerial exception clause, and so far I'm coming up empty. So far I have found only one case where both came up, but here the ministerial exception did not bar the human trafficking claims:
- Google Scholar

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/26-t...igious-order-dox-rebuttals-70490/#post1303752

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

That's the most en point ruling I've seen, frankly.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

For the record, they cannot do anything. However, things like abortions are a right, a choice someone is allowed, and by joining the church voluntarily, they are surrendering their rights (by the definition of what I glanced at a few pages back). So as for that sort of thing, no dice. :/
Freedom of Expression is stretched a bit, but still perfectly provable, at least in a court of law.
I'm not saying I agree; I'm obviously on the site but as much as I hate it, they're American's too. :|

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Sorry, OBTB, just saw you basically said the same thing.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Normally membership of a religious order is voluntary - it follows a
vocation or calling which originates with the individual. It is not
made under any kind of duress, or as a response to pressure or
salesmanship. There is generally a cooling-off period which may last
for several years, and always the possibility of leaving if the
vocation is lost.

These features distinguish membership of a religious order from
membership of a cult.

But those who become members of the Sea Org are already dedicated
Scientologists, often brought up in the cult from birth. Their minds
have been grossly affected by auditing and other techniques. Nothing
that they do is entirely voluntary. Therefore their behaviour as
members of the Sea Org is not comparable to the working conditions
accepted freely by members of Catholic or Buddhist religious orders.

Therefore it is not correct to apply the same legal tolerance to
members of the Sea Org. They should rather be protected by the law
from the abuses of the organisation.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Key word – ‘voluntary’. You cannot be said to have made a ‘voluntary’ choice if you lack relevant information and/or have been lied to.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Or are discouraged from leaving the way Claire Headley was.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Zinj posted this on ESMB

Headley case dismissals – blessings in disguise?

Link to document above

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Just wanted to clarify something, the judge didn't say that Scientology can engage in forced abortions or human trafficking because they're a religion. The judge ruled that the court essentially didn't have the authority to rule on the veracity of the claims brought in the suit. This ruling doesn't say that the laws don't apply, rather the ruling says that the conduct in question does not meat the legal definitions of the allegations brought in the suit and, furthermore, holds that the court does not have the authority to determine whether the practices in question were voluntary and thus not illegal.

Personally I'm a bit surprised. I did not expect this suit to go anywhere due to a lack of anything beyond hearsay. However I find the judge's ruling puzzling as I see no reason that this case should not be heard. It essentially seems to me as though the judge is saying, "yes those things are illegal, but the court isn't allowed to decide if the laws were broken here." Obviously I'm not a legal scholar so I might be missing something here. Still, this is definitely a bummer as appeals are rarely granted.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

This is precisely the effect of such a ruling. To quote from the decision: “Therefore, Plaintiff’s TVPA claim cannot be grounded on conduct shielded from judicial scrutiny by the ministerial exception. ” If the court refuses to look at whether such laws were violated then the court is rendering such laws inapplicable.

I appear unable to find any reference in the decision for the TVPA claim that implies anything like this. In fact the court refused to make any such determination on the issue from I can see. For example “Determining whether Scientology’s practices of routing out, censorship, or heavy manual labor as a form of discipline, for example, constitute involuntary servitude within the meaning of the TVPA is precisely the type of entanglement that the Religion Clauses prohibit”.

Can you quote the portions that substantiate you claim here?

Pretty much the ruling in a nutshell.

I’m much more optimistic on this since it is a question of law, and not facts, that the judge erred in. If the judge’s legal reasoning were correct then human trafficking is permissible by religious institutions. I refuse to believe that laws such as the TVPA are not the sort of ‘neutral laws of general applicability’ the US supreme court ruled beyond the protections of the free exercise clause.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

You have to remember that the Judge is ruling on the specific suit. The judge isn't setting a precedent saying that you can't investigate claims against a church due to ministerial exemption. The judge is saying that the claims in this specific suit cannot be evaluated by the court without the court overstepping its authority. Personally I disagree with the ruling as I think the courts could evaluate the claims, but I will defer to the judge as I am not a legal scholar.

As for the appeal, again I'm not a scholar, but from what I do know you have it backwards. Questions of fact are much more likely to be successful then questions of law due to the fact that courts are inclined to follow the lead of lower couts unless someone can make a very compelling argument as to why the logic of the lower court was flawed. This is far more difficult to do then to demonstrate that information was improperly evaluated by a lower court. There is a very high threshold for granting an appeal, and with good reason.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

The eLawyer in me notes that in this case, the court thought it fully appropriate to determine precisely whether and to which law the ministerial exception was excepting in this case.
I would be amazed to see a court to say that a particular Human Trafficking statute was exempted.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

This quote from the ruling is pretty self-explanatory: “Therefore, Plaintiff’s TVPA claim cannot be grounded on conduct shielded from judicial scrutiny by the ministerial exception. ”

The judge is explicitly saying that the conduct required to violate the TVPA cannot be examined. I don’t see what other way to interpret this.

This is pretty much the way it works AFAIU. The judge erred on a matter of aw by declaring human trafficking claims to be barred by the first amendment. This seems contrary to what the supreme court has said when it declared that the exercise clause should not bar the application of neutral laws of general applicability.

This is precisely what this judge has done.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

Wife-beating used to be a private matter in many places, especially if the wife kept returning to the husband. The police would just shrug and say they couldn't interfere with a marriage.

The abuse was ignored because "marriage is special" and "she should have left him," just like CoS abuse is ignored because "religion is special" and
"they should have quit Sea Org" (Ignoring that quitting means disconnection from family.

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

lol

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

the comments on the St. pets article are facepalm material

Re: Lawsuits against CoS dismissed because they're a "church"

I bumped into this during searching for something else and not seen this posted here. Seems it was uploaded to scribd.com 12 Nov 2010.
Marc Headley Labor Case - CSI Bill of Costs

$24,048 and 26 cents.

Any news on the appeal that was reportedly in process?

Isn't it on hold until they see how that teacher's case turns out?