Customize

Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

Discussion in 'Marc Headley v. Church of Scientology Internationa' started by blownforgood, Jan 20, 2009.

  1. Zak McKracken Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    wut.

    IANAL = me
    IANAL = you

    Muldrake just isn't into that kinky stuff.
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Sponge Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    What else did you expect? They will be unbearable in their gloating over the fact that they can force people to have abortions, do hard labour and slap them silly without fear of prosecution.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    So sign up, vote their spam down, post sanity, and vote up sanity. So far it is 100% scilon.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Get in here faggots.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Fine. maybe I will, asshole. ;)
  7. Sponge Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Additions:
    Direct PDF link to the judgement dox:
    http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/PDFs/scientology080510.pdf

    Response letter from Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis:
    source:
    Links for the Aug. 6 edition of the Times | Tampa Bay news topic forum: Let's Talk | tampabay.com & St. Petersburg Times | Let's Talk
  8. Triumph Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    I am just about to Shut the computer off ...and I check my mail ..and up pops the link

    so I go read the SP Time article and I see the clams jumping up and down..

    so I post my thoughts

    post it ..then I update it 10 seconds later and already its voted down..not surprised. they don't read anything.. that might make sense.

    used every letter do I get bonus points for that? I'll have my OxyContin on the rocks with a twist of lime.

    with a nod to Jeff Hawkins.

    slapped up a third comment just because they are so quick to slap them down
  9. RolandRB Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    I would be grateful if you could share with readers your view as to why the compound where these people work has razor wire on the INSIDE to stop people getting OUT. If all the people working there were volunteers and could leave any time they felt like it then why the razor wire to stop them getting out? Should it not be the duty of officials there to get these people out of there if such a set-up exists?

    As an Englishman, I already know that most Americans are not the mentally most agile people in the world but forgive my temporary lapse of judgment in thinking their judges were better.
  10. Triumph Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Tommy Davis
    because your credible as a turd in a punchbowl comes to mind.

    he had to throw out reference of Marty's arrest.... Tommy such a "Chatty Cathy"


    I felt like kicking the "Barn Door" one more time
    tired night.

    theres a sufficient amount of "entheta" the clams have left the beach..

    its not whether you win or loose its .. how you play the game
    The Headley's are winners they Have Left the cult. keep that in mind. game set match.
  11. BigBeard Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    I really hope the Headley's appeal this pile of crap decision. IANAL, but after reading this decision twice, it looks to me if the twisted logic it contains is left to stand, it essentially opens the door for any religion to abuse it's members in any way as long as it's part of that religions "doctrine".

    Is there any chance a higher court might review this on it's own and go, "Time out! There's a lot of opinion here, but where's the legal basis for turning the written law on it's head in favor of religious doctrine in this decision?"

    BigBeard
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    What i don't get and think is a crucial point is this:
    If people who are recruited for the Sea Org would indeed be fully informed about the "challenges" that such a membership entails, like sleep and food deprivation, working 100 hours per week, not being able to leave, physical violence, not being able to see family for years, etc. AND that this is all part of the religion itself and has a religious purpose, then i would say OK, it was a voluntary and fully informed decision. If people want to be masochists, let them. But it is clear that the cult is not honest at all about the true working conditions in the Sea Org but that it deceives its members and furthermore that this lifestyle has no religious purpose in Scientology.
    This is in contrast to real religious orders, like certain Buddhist monasteries, where hard work and an ascetic lifestyle is actually part of the way to enlightenment and serves a religious purpose. In Scientology this has no other purpose than cheap slave labour for the cult.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    She's acute or obtuse, 'cause she definitely ain't right!
  14. deirdre Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Well, I'm also pretty sure that she knew there would be challenges, but not how strenuous those challenges would truly be.

    Every single one of us learned to minimize (and I was only staff, not SO). Staff aren't permitted to talk about hardships, disagreement, case, etc., so I'm sure she was not truly informed.
  15. Triumph Member

  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    AFAIK, the court actually didn't label the claims as lies and Scientology admitted their abominable treatment afforded members of the Sea Org is a matter of their religious policy.
    The judge threw out the claims large based on "ministerial exemption" not because they weren't true.
    Tommy is gloating up the wrong tree.
  17. EyeOnSci Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    QFT^^^
  18. Triumph Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    I wouldn't expect otherwise from Tommy Davis.

    its a means to an end..Making an example of the Headleys..bully the critic..beat them anyway you can, and claim victory..


    is a tool/means to an end.. to leverage control over all those still inside..
    it serves as an example to anyone inside who questions anything.


    its why they fair game and attack their critics... to keep people still under their control chained to their ideology.

    its a classic totalitarian tactic
  19. Anonymous Member

  20. BigBeard Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Can Tommy Davis spell l-i-b-e-l??

    BigBeard
  21. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

  22. Triumph Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Tommy "Thug" Davis is using this to cower the flock of sheeple inside
    with the party line.

    they spin these webs inside.."their little gossip circles"..

    its vary cold calculated smear..to reinforce what they want their followers to believe..rather than the reality...
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Tobin & Childs of St Pete Times are the only media that have put up an article on this ruling.

    So, Tommy Davis, why not spread this "win" throughout medialand. Isn't that your job? Why not? bwahahahaha
  24. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Well, maybe there's one plus here. Moxon's stats just went through the roof this week, so I figure by the Thursday after next he should practising his "religion" on the court approved RPF. :)
  25. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    IANAL, but I'm fairly confident after going through it that anything following from this ruling could only apply to how a religion treats it's MINISTERS, not it's members. Still bad enough.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Ministers, really? Have they all taken the Scientology one week minister course?
  27. Sponge Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Apart from Tommy Davis' little gloat in response to the SP Times, there has been no other official noise on the subject. You'd think there'd be a huge release on religiousfreedomwatch or their new scientologynews website or the blogs or their usual shit loads of fake news PR website articles. There's been prettymuch zilch. Why? Are they worried about drawing their member's attention to the court entered abuses by their own church? Are they concerned the victory is not only hollow but the judgement is weak and that if they make a big mega-gloat now then they might have to eat mega-crow later if it gets overturned on appeal?
  28. themadhair Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    Could be a simpler explanation. PR releases take time, especially if they have to get the ok from Davie. It could be a simple case of them not having a press release prepared because they didn’t expect the judgement. Think about it – do you really think they expected to have been granted immunity from human trafficking laws?? Even they might have been surprised. Total and utter speculation that I don’t really believe myself.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    A very heavily edited mega gloat takes time.
    We will see it in the same places soon enough.
  30. subgenius Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:


    Wow. Nice.
    She (the judge) sure cherry picked a statement from Claire (about knowing what she was getting into....although she really didn't) to hang her hat on.
    Did she (the judge) "kick it upstairs"?
  31. Sponge Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    It's funny because I was thinking precisely those two explanations, the time to produce a polished release in conjuction with a certain "unexpected" element. However, the smaller blogs run by pro-scientology individuals aren't rejoicing en masse and they don't need days to prepare elaborate PR. I'm sure we'll hear something. I'm just surprised they didn't have something to release right away (that is more digestible for the masses than the TD repsonse to the SP Times). I mean, they got a pretty good warning of what was to come from the judges tentitive verbal ruling much earlier in the week.
  32. kissyfur Member

    Re: Claire Headley v. CSI & RTC - Lawsuit filed - JAN 20, 2009:

    i'm still just flabberghasted that every single point this judge gives as a reason to dismiss is exactly why it needs to be pursued.

    basically, they would have to review the doctrine and policies regarding discipline and abortions (ahem every anon can recite it word for word at this point with the reference details), and see what all this rpf tomfoolery is about, not to mention have the sheriff come and free ppl who aren't yet aware they are prisoners.

    DEAR [STRIKE]STUPID[/STRIKE] JUDGE:

    YES THAT IS ALL EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WHAT PART DO YOU NOT GET?
  33. tikk Member

    Two cases implicating the ministerial exception are to be heard by the Supreme Court, which could change the game somewhat as a split exists within the various Circuits, the Ninth unfortunately falling on the 'pro-religious autonomy' side of the ledger (to the Headleys' detriment). A poster on Volokh summarizes them briefly here, and links to the relevant docs.
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Anonymous Member

    On the good side, it is the Ninth Circuit. SCOTUS loves nothing more than overturning the Ninth Circuit, and in this case, their opinion on the issue flies in the face of Justice Scalia's opinions in Employment Division v. Smith and subsequent cases. I would make a wild guess that he might write the opinion if they decide against the Ninth's expansive view that freedom of religion means freedom to break the law.
    • Like Like x 2
  35. tikk Member

    The Supreme Court has accepted cert on one of the cases referenced above, specifically Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, out of the Sixth Circuit. The SCOTUSBlog entry for the case is here. The Sixth Circuit found for the EEOC, which is the result consistent with the Headley dismissal being hopefully reversed on appeal. So we're rooting that the Supreme Court affirms the Sixth Circuit in this case, which decision could possibly overturn the case that dismissed the Headley case (Alcazar). I posted about the Alcazar case with relation to the Headley dismissal here.

    In Hosanna-Tabor the Sixth Circuit questioned whether antidiscrimination laws permit the courts to review hiring-and-firing decisions involving "ministerial employees." The Sixth Circuit found that Lutheran-school teachers who teach secular subjects are not “ministerial employees”, and therefore covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not exactly the scenario in Headley and/or Alcazar, but SCOTUS could very well rule in a way that affects those decisions, in order to clear up the ongoing "circuit split." That is, there are many cases with similar factual scenarios which are being decided differently throughout the country depending on which Circuit the lower court is in.

    EDIT: Religion Clause blogger and heavy-duty constitutional scholar Howard Friedman explains what's at issue here. Most relevant portion is as follows:

    • Like Like x 2
  36. Anonymous Member

  37. Random guy Member

  38. Albion Member

    I've written a long-overdue update on the Headley cases,
    examining its dismissal last year and the possibility that
    the Hosanna- Tabor case could help theirs.
    Jonny Jacobsen
    Infinite Complacency
    • Like Like x 9
  39. That blog is a must read. WTF was the judge thinking?

    What kind of precedent does this set for other 'religious'
    organizations? It's a green light for cults to exploit people.
  40. tikk Member

    • Like Like x 5

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