Customize

Laura Decrescenzo's Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by blownforgood, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. tikk Member

    He is! And he actually did email Tony Ortega. It's a Sunday so I'd not expect to hear anything today. Thanks.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. tikk Member

    Well, the case would not necessarily be dead--Scientology is attempting to pry Dandar from the case; if it succeeds Kyle's estate is basically back to square one with a new attorney. But the case itself doesn't disappear by Dandar's removal. If Kyle's estate can find a new attorney it could pick up where Dandar left off, basically. But I understand that Kyle's estate already looked and had difficulty finding someone else in lieu of Dandar.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    I knew you would.
    Tony is very good about getting back to people and it is best that the person wanting to speak to him just does so directly.
  4. Anon PTS Member

    Excellent. Just thought it was worth the /r/. I shall now go back to SCOHB...
  5. xenubarb Member

    Too bad they can't get Mr. "DC" Key, who kicked butt for Sparrow.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. xenubarb Member

    I thought it was determined that Judge Beach or whoever was a statefag with no jurisdiction over federal court and Merryday.
  7. exOT8Michael Member

    Larry, what is ASAIAC?
    Urban Dico does not have it.
  8. Anonymous Member

    AFAIAC it's a typo.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. AnonLover Member

    All the readily gotten Laura dox in one place:

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/3108078/Scientology-Lawsuits-Laura-DeCrescenzo

    Includes her story summary, socal conference transcript, plus the earliest stuff LarryBren had posted & a mirror of Tikk's recent update dox, along with the stuff in between put up by the RFW Sock ("Documents Archive") user. I also grabbed copies of RFW sock stuff just in case they take it down now that the resurrected shitstorm is a coming.
    • Like Like x 4
  10. LarryBren Member

    I meant it to mean "As Far As I Am Concerned"

    The devil made me put that "S" in there.

    As he did with Geraldine, the devil some times makes me do things:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
    • Like Like x 1
  11. exOT8Michael Member

    Oh, cool thx.
    I always enjoy your posts, with typos or not...
    :)
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Interrobanger Member

    EDIT: No, I did not understand correctly, but Tikk gets it sorted in subsequent posts.

    Do I understand correctly that the California Appeals court ruling means:
    • Ms. D can pursue the state claims of "various violations of California labor law statues"
    • Ms. D can also pursue new allegations not precluded by federal judgement, including: Forced abortion in violation of article I, section I of the CA constitution; Forced abortion in violation of common law; Deprivation of liberty in violation of Article I, section 1 of the CA constitution; False imprisonment; and Intentional infliction of emotional stress
    • Ms. D cannot pursue the federal claims of "Forced abortion; Deprivation of liberty; False imprisonment; and Intentional infliction of emotional distress" because they remain time-barred
    Does the California appeal court ruling trigger any action with regard to the federal trial court's ruling?

    • Like Like x 3
  13. tikk Member

    Great question. The federal dismissal was effectively rendered moot by virtue of the fact that second amended complaint alleged facts not considered by the federal court because the second amended complaint was filed after the federal court's dismissal. All the claims are thus intact. The appeals court addresses this in the last 'collateral estoppel' section, where it rejected Scientology's argument that the federal court's dismissal controlled those claims. The appeals court decision merely preserves exactly those claims enumerated in the second amended complaint, it doesn't provide an opening to create new claims.
    • Like Like x 4
  14. xenubarb Member

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...er-Yet-(Scientology-vs-World)?via=blog_756311

    Smoron DailyKOS. I had to expand on Bad Month at Cult Rock, because this has potential to utterly shred Scientology's carefully crafted public image. Should this case, and that of Daniel Montalvo proceed through the court system without settling with a gag, details are going to come out that will expose Scientology's social betterment front groups as hypocritical tentacles of a monster more appropriate to Lovecraft rather than Hubbard.

    Youth For Human Rights, or whatever they wind up changing their name to, is going to be asked some hard questions. Such as, 'why is an organization that uses slave and child labor posing as a human rights champion?' This will destroy any chance they have of smooching around the periphery of the UN and valid, high profile human rights groups.

    And OMG, if Montalvo and Decrescenzo start getting press because of the similarity of their stories, people like Mark Ebner know where even more stories can be found online. And OMG, if the old stories, the not-so-old stories and the new stories are all lined up, you find the same details given by people who never met.

    Stories like this can capture the eye of the media. Peripheral to these shall come David Love's hard work brought to fruition. The message will then be, "Holy crap, it's in Canada as well!"

    Should these plaintiffs prevail in court, details of their treatment will be blasted all over the media. Tick tock, DM. You may prevail in places like India and Taiwan for a while. But as goes the First World, so goes the Third. So, your last bastions will be in South America, South Africa, and a bunch of little corrupt nations that don't have a lot of internet access. You better start learning how to cook ramen, little man.
    • Like Like x 8
  15. tikk Member

    Those aren't federal claims.The federal court only addressed the 18 U.S.C. § 1595 forced labor claim, and the 15 U.S.C. § 1589 human trafficking. The forced abortion and deprivation of liberty claims are state constitutional claims, and false imprisonment and IIED are common law torts.

    To clarify my previous post, neither of the above federal claims remain after the second amended complaint, though a CA analogue labor law claim effectively replaced the federal labor law claim. The human trafficking claim was dropped. I recall there not being a whole lot of law with regard to the human trafficking claim and since what Scientology does wouldn't classically be considered human trafficking (which most understand typically as sex slave trafficking), it was probably dropped, even though the CA definition reads broadly enough to encompass Scientology's practices.
  16. exOT8Michael Member

    It is awesome to see the Anonylolyers hit the scene with their insider insights. Thx guys.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. TinyDancer Member

    tikk, any update on the Lindstein case?
  18. tikk Member

    Nope. Sorry. I'll poke around.
  19. LarryBren Member

    • Like Like x 6
  20. Interrobanger Member

    Am I getting closer?

    Ms. D can pursue in state court the non-federal claims detailed in her 2nd amended complaint including:
    (1) Forced abortion in violation of her right to privacy under the California constitution;
    (2) Forced abortion in violation of her right to privacy under California common law;
    (3) Deprivation of liberty in violation of her rights under the California constitution;
    (4) False imprisonment;
    (5) Intentional infliction of emotional stress;
    (6) Wage and hour violations; and,
    (7) Unfair business practices.

    Ms. D cannot pursue in federal court her only federal claim, violations of human trafficking and forced labor (count four of the 1st amended complaint) because it remains time-banned.
    The "new allegations not precluded by federal judgement" include:
    (1) Facts concerning her continued involvement in Scientology from 2004 to July, 2008;
    (2) Purported threats and intimidation by Scientology during that time period; and,
    (3) Her continued vulterability to such threats and intimidation.

    In addition, Religious Technology Center (RTC) was added to the complaint.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. moarxenu Member

    ^^^ you really are an interrobanger. i liek.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. IANAL, Provided that many former scientologists and other victims of Scientology fraud, abuse, etc were to come together, is there any way that major class-action lawsuits can be brought against Scientology and their scamming front groups?

    Narconon, for instance has thousands of victims over the years who were defrauded by misrepresentations of the success rates and services offered which are dangerous LRH Quack-science remedies delivered by medically untrained personnel.
  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    needs moar grammar

    No, this is exactly what Hubbard created. It's a monster more insidious because of its (heretofore) well-crafted public image of respectability. If Hubbard's creation had been unleashed on the world sans "religious cloaking" it would have been hunted down and exterminated long ago.
    • Like Like x 3
  24. Anonymous Member

    It was "unleashed on the world sans "religious cloaking".
  25. jensting Member

    From reading "bare-faced messiah" I get the impression that Hubbard steadily turned the punishment level up, from applying "conditions" while in the UK before setting out to sea to finally arriving at the Sea Org where he could do whatever he wanted. It turned out that what he wanted included locking children in chain lockers and making old men push peanuts around a splintery wooden deck with their nose in view of all their "shipmates."

    So, while I don't think it was any fun being on Hubbard's wrong side during the early Dianetics/$cientology years, I only have solid information about punishments after the formation of the Sea Org. Perhaps the only people Hubbard beat in the early years were his wives?

    Best Regards

    Jens
  26. TinyDancer Member

    Good work.

    One tip for new players: even in British-spelling jurisdictions, where we all exercise good judgement, a legal set of reasons for decision is referred to as a judgment. One "e". Always.
  27. xenubarb Member

    Yet Lovecraft, who would have written a painfully accurate description (probably involving words like 'rugose' and 'amorphous') to describe it. Oh look. Rugose isn't even in my online dictionary. That's Lovecraft for you! He has transcended his era to become a pop culture icon. Hubbard, who would have loved that, never will.

    Hubbard's Bridge is falling down...
    • Like Like x 3
  28. Zhent Member

    Nice, had to look that one up.

    I am learning a lot about law today.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. JohnnyRUClear Member

    True, Captain Literal, and then what happened? The modern "science" of mental health was almost run out of Figurativetown on a rail before Hubbard created his "church" to protect it from the withering scorn of peer review.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. TinyDancer Member

    Come on, tikk. Germany and Pfizer are paying you good money to stay on top of these things!
    • Like Like x 6
  31. lostatsea Member

    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020110624032.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR


    DeCRESCENZO v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
    LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

    No. B224409. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. Filed June 24, 2011.
    Metzger Law Group, Raphael Metzger and Kathryn Darnell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

    Proskauer Rose, Bert H. Deixler, Harold M. Brody, G. Samuel Cleaver; Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Robert Mangels, Matthew D. Hinks; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, Eric M. Lieberman and David B. Goldstein for Defendants and Respondents.


    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    CROSKEY, J.
    Laura Ann DeCrescenzo appeals a judgment dismissing her complaint against Church of Scientology International (Scientology) and Religious Technology Center (collectively, defendants) after the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend based on the statutes of limitations. Plaintiff contends she has adequately pled a combination of delayed discovery of her causes of action and a basis for equitable estoppel precluding defendants from asserting a statute of limitations defense. Our review of this record compels the conclusion that plaintiff has adequately alleged that (1) she was unable to comprehend the wrongfulness of the defendants' conduct for a period of time and that her causes of action did not accrue until she did so and (2) even after her delayed discovery of her causes of action, the defendants' threats and intimidation caused her to delay filing her complaint. In addition, we reject defendants' contention that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from prosecuting her action by a federal court judgment that equitable estoppel was inapplicable because the facts alleged in plaintiff's prior complaint were insufficient to demonstrate reasonable reliance on defendants' representations. We hold that her allegations of additional facts in the present complaint establish a basis for reasonable reliance and such new allegations are not precluded by the federal judgment. We therefore will reverse the judgment with directions.

    The rest can be found here:
    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020110624032.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
    • Like Like x 3
  33. Anonymous Member

  34. Anonymous Member

  35. Sponge Member

    Also, the original judgment which subsequently lost against an appeal, despite scientology's best efforts, is what we professional e-lolyers call a "fudgment". Not to be confused with "fudgement" which is something Tom Cruise exercises when he's packing.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. tikk Member

    Not because they remain time-barred. There was apparently a strategic decision to drop the human trafficking claim, perhaps based on what the lawyers were hearing in court, and similar state labor law claims were chosen over the federal claims.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to being in state court over federal court and a lot goes into that calculus, both real world (e.g., how might those judges rule?) and legal (e.g., is the state definition of X broader or narrower than the federal analogue?). One important thing to realize is that state courts may generally exercise jurisdiction over a case with either state or federal claims (unless federal jurisdiction was explicitly bestowed by congress on a particular law) but federal courts may only hear federal questions and diversity cases (state claims where the parties are from different states).

    This case began in state court; Scientology "removed" it to federal court (which was their right and choice because of the presence of the federal claims), which dismissed based on Scientology's SOL argument; the second amended complaint was filed which dropped all the federal claims; the state court dismissed based on the same rationale as the federal court; the court of appeals reversed the state court decision.

    With regard to the above three questions, I just want to emphasize that you rightly label them allegations and not claims. These allegations merely go to the larger question of whether it was reasonable for Laura to delay filing (the appeals court didn't say she did or didn't, it merely said she had adequately pled it). I don't know how the lower court will handle this question in one or two trials because the SOL question is predicate to the claims; that is, if the SOL [statute of limitation] bars the claims there's no reason to try the claims. That said, the questions and claims overlap to some degree and it kind of makes no sense to conduct discovery to answer the SOL question, have it answered, and then conduct a second round of discovery for the trial claims. Scientology will argue for the choice that will delay the proceedings the longest (separate trials).

    An Anonymous poster upthread [here] hinted at a problem inherent in the trial court --> appeals court -> trial court route at times. Trial court judges naturally resent being reversed and upon remand will sometimes go out of their way to look for another way to reach the same result they reached before. Obviously the trial court was predisposed against Laura's argument for why she filed past the SOL (and really, only a year late), so ideally the case winds up before a different judge upon remand than the one who originally ruled against Laura.
    • Like Like x 4
  37. Sponge Member

  38. AnonLover Member


    I was wondering about ^^This, or rather - wondering if it will bounce right back to the same judge by default (or so i was assuming)

    Good to know there's a chance it would be a different judge.
    • Like Like x 2
  39. lostatsea Member

    Posted by Smurf on OCMB:

    Mr. Lindstein quietly settled his case with an obvious gag agreement attached as both parties have not said a word about the lawsuit since it was dismissed last December.

    This is typical Scientology. When DM's butt is against the wall, the cult will offer cash & a gag to end the case.

    Case Number: BC426872
    JOHN LINDSTEIN VS DAVID MISCAVIGE ET AL
    Filing Date: 11/25/2009
    Case Type: Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Dismissed - Other 12/10/2010

    12/06/2010 - Notice-Settlement -Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
    • Like Like x 3
  40. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1

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