Customize

Judge James D. Whittemore

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by KittyKatSpanker, Mar 13, 2015.

  1. KittyKatSpanker
    This message by KittyKatSpanker has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 5
  2. So Jerry Seinfeld got helped in his career by Scientology

    That explains A LOT
  3. RightOn Member

  4. I am confused right now

    A judge ruled
  5. You probably hate me all.

    What do you recommend ?
  6. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    A tall Sangria and a neck massage. Then a good nights sleep.
    After that advice ill actually read what you posted.
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    OK I see. IMHO the judge is not an enemy.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. right, like he is god
  9. I find the idea of 'going after' the judge repugnant in the extreme. You are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, presuming you posted in a moment of anger, for suggesting such a misguided, not to say barbaric, notion.

    I just finished reading the judgment. It is long and detailed, setting out a reasoned argument that accords with applicable law.

    If you disagree with the judgment and the arguments that explain the reasons for it, then you should put forward a better argument.
    • Like Like x 6
  10. Damn I understand all of that

    When....
  11. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  12. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    It sucks but it was not a rouge/biased decision
  13. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    But if he deletes it the thread vaporizes. Fun when using the spam cleaner button.
  14. Can you understand that this judge is tainted

    I will never tell a lie
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. Anonymous Member

    Then I'll archive the screen shot of the post. No. Wait. I already did that.
  16. DeathHamster Member

    If he'd wanted to trash the case, he could have done it almost two years ago.

    Category:Judge James Whittemore

    Under the current laws and precedents, Scientology's Religious card is hard to beat.
    • Like Like x 5
  17. Anonymous Member

    Is that like a rouge bee?

    Rouge_Bee.jpg
    • Like Like x 5
  18. Quentinanon Member

    • Like Like x 3
  19. Quentinanon Member

    That and an ingrained belief common in the U.S. that religion + criminal overtones = religion
    I don't think the judge is tainted, but he does think with a maladaptive set of beliefs.
    The system the Garcias availed themselves to did not function, so they went to court to make themselves whole.
    You don't have to review any doctrines or dogmas to see that.
    The can of worms was put on his bench. He had an opportunity to resolve the controversy in accordance with established law and rules of the court.
    Instead, Whittemore kicked the can down the road.
    Someday, the U.S. may get out of denial and grow up on the subject of religion.
    • Like Like x 4
  20. an hero
    rinderburn
    This message by rinderburn has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  21. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Now that's just mean spirited.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Uncle Bruce Member

    First of all, who appointed the man has nothing to do with any ruling he makes. The ruling either stands as correct interpretation of the law or it doesn't. I am not a lawyer but the ruling makes sense to me. The idea of "going after" a sitting judge because you don't like his decision is exactly the way the cult operates.
    In any case, the use of civil law against the cult won't work, Although a judgement might help individuals, the only cost to the cult is money, and they have plenty of that. The Garcia case is one more example on how powerful first amendment protection is.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. I would but it's like pissing in the wind. The judge found that Scientology required arbitration - it was a required feature of their IRS win years ago, but they never set up the procedure until the Garcia case forced them to adopt one willy-nilly. The judge required the Garcias to participate, knowing full well it had no evidentiary rules, no sworn testimony, did not allow the Garcias to present their side of any significant argument, and otherwise made a mockery of any fair proceeding, especially unfair even for arbitration proceedings, which always favor the one who makes you sign for arbitration. Also, the Garcia;'s complaint was a simple civil complaint of fraud, had nothing to do with religion, was purely secular, and since the were no longer Scientologists and had been out of Scientology both by their own volition and by the church's policy of kicking out whomever they want whenever they want for the slightest of reasons - such as 'liking' a Facebnok post, or asking for a refund. Declaring person Suppressive amounts to an order to never set foot on Scientology property ever again. The catch here is that if one wants a refund, they are automatically Suppressive, and Suppressives are not allowed to enter church property, but to claim a refund, one must enter church property and fill out certain forms, which can't be done because they would be locked out and police called on them for trespass, if they tried to enter a church building. The new arbitration policy, set up for the Garcia case only, allowed them to face a one-time panel of true believer Scientologists who looked to the International Justice Chief for directives, rather than ruling on any evidence. He presented them with a sheet with check boxes, and that was their only option; however, failing to follow the church directive to check the right boxes which denied the Garcias largest complaint would have resulted in the panel members being declared suppressive and kicked out of the church themselves. The judge should never have forced the Garcias to participate in Scientology arbitration, seeing it easily as a scam setup which had never been used before, and originally existed on paper only to assure they received tax exempt status from the IRS. It is church policy, set in stone, that even to ask for a refund is to become a Supressive Person, someone with no rights whatsoever within or without US law.

    Judge W. forced them to participate in arbitration which all parties knew the Garcias would not get a fair hearing; what the judge could have known had he tried was that in the eyes of the church the Garcia's not only had no legal rights, they were subject to church's ongoing Fair Game directive of Hubbard, which says any 'enemy ' of the church can be harmed in any manner possible, and should be so harmed. Then when the arbitration result was completely unfair and arbitrary, the Judge simple said to the Garcias 'what did you expect, you agreed to arbitration, knowing it would be judged by church fanatics...?'

    Find me the fairness in his ruling. He forced them into unfair arbitration as church members, despite both parties agreeing the Garcias were no longer church members, despite it being a civil fraud matter and not a religious disagreement, then when they took the course he forced them into and the result was the expected kangaroo court, he blames them for agreeing to the arbitration.

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