Customize

Laura DeCrescenzo forced-abortion lawsuit updates

Discussion in 'Media' started by The Wrong Guy, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. wolfbane Member

    Latest info that can be gleaned from the online docket (bold dates) and list of recent document images (other dates): http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx? (Case no. BC411018 / Burbank Courthouse)

    Future Hearings

    02/11/2015 at 08:30 am in department 41 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
    Final Status Conference

    02/23/2015 at 08:30 am in department 41 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
    Jury Trial(*TENTATIVE**UNIFIED*)

    ----------

    Documents Filed

    11/12/2013 Minute Order

    11/12/2013 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (IRENE KUBERT CSR# 10105 )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

    11/08/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (STATEMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT IN ADVANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE (14pgs)

    11/04/2013 Report-Status
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    PLAINTIFF'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT (84pgs)

    11/04/2013 Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice) (SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 ONLY. )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (3pgs)

    10/25/2013 Notice of Ruling
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (4pgs)
    • Like Like x 2
  2. wolfbane Member

    So prior to the recent status conference, TeamLaura dropped an 84pg statement and TeamScilon replied with a 14pg statement. That sounds like role reversal... normally it's the cult lolyers flooding the court with dox.

    Also worth noting in those recent docket actions is that TeamLaura dropped the last cause of action (request for partial dismissal) from the Second Amended Complaint.

    From that complaint:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/26348351/SAC-Revised

    Their current causes of action were stated as such:

    (1) FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION;

    (2) FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW;

    (3) DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I,SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION;

    (4) FALSE IMPRISONMENT;

    (5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

    (6) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§§ 970 AND 1194; AND

    (7) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS &PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200

    Cause of action no. 7 starts on page 45 of the amended complaint and reads like it is just a retread of labor-related allegations made under other causes of actions but applied under a different law.

    So it doesn't appear to be that big of a deal that TeamLaura withdrew that part of the complaint when you look at all the allegations still on the table under cause of action no. 6 starting on page 36.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. overhere Member

    Good lord. Is there any reason that trial date would be moved up at all?
  4. Anonymous Member

    lolcat-waiting.jpeg
  5. wolfbane Member

    A new hearing date has showed up on the docket:

    12/05/2013 at 08:30 am in department 41 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
    Further Proceedings(RE: RELEASE OF EXHIBIT TO MEDIA)

    But nothing else is new that explains what that means.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    They be fighting to keep some super nasty cult sekrit sekrit.
  7. overhere Member

    FIFY hee.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Making a last hour bid to keep Laura's folders from the press?
  9. Random guy Member

    Guess so.
  10. wolfbane Member

    It would seem that way based on what we know. However, there was a large dox dropping at the last status conference when the trial date was set that we don't know the details of...
    Also, prior to that there was this item on the docket:

    10/24/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (LETTER FROM LISA BARTLEY, SPECIAL PROJECTS PRODUCER, ABC 7; ) Filed by Court

    Under document images, that action is listed as LETTER TO JUDGE (4pgs)

    Lisa Bartley is from KABC TV in Los Angeles, and she's covered a variety of Scientology stories since 2011 including the Debbie Cook ordeal:

    http://lisabartley.com/debbie-cook-scientology-insider/

    http://lisabartley.com/inside-a-scientology-marriage/

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8958731
    • Like Like x 5
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

    Scientology asks for psychiatric examination of Laura DeCrescenzo in forced-abortion lawsuit

    By Tony Ortega

    The Church of Scientology has already demonstrated that it will go to extraordinary lengths to fight and derail the lawsuit filed in 2009 by former Sea Org member Laura DeCrescenzo.

    Just to contest an order to turn over evidence in the lawsuit, for example, Scientology filed multiple appeals — even petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court — but was ultimately forced to fork over the 18,000 pages of documentation which bolstered Laura’s case that she was manipulated as a child worker of the church, including being compelled to have an abortion at 17.

    With that evidence in hand, Laura won a huge victory in October when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian denied Scientology’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, after four years, Laura’s case was headed for trial. But now, Scientology, perhaps predictably, has attempted to throw up a new set of hurdles to prevent Laura’s evidence from being heard by a jury. And one of those hurdles is truly stunning.

    While Judge Sohigian ruled on October 3 that Laura had proved there were facts in contention that justified a trial, he didn’t actually rule on some key statute-of-limitation issues in the case that need to be resolved.

    So now both sides have each submitted proposed schedules for how they think things should go as the case moves toward a January 2015 trial date. Laura’s attorneys submitted a brief document in which they suggest all of the issues can be handled in a single, 30-day trial.

    But Scientology is asking for multiple hearings, some of which would prevent Laura’s case from going to a jury. The church says it should get a shot at a second motion for summary judgment, for example. But perhaps most surprisingly, the Church of Scientology has asked that Laura DeCrescenzo submit to a psychiatric examination.

    Yes, the organization that detests psychiatry with such fervor it has an entire front group, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, devoted solely to attacking the psychiatric profession, has asked for a psych exam.

    Such is the desperation Scientology will resort to in order to keep Laura’s disturbing evidence from getting to a jury.

    We asked a member of our legal team to break down the legal briefs submitted by each side.

    The article continues here:
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/12/09/sc...laura-decrescenzo-in-forced-abortion-lawsuit/
    • Like Like x 5
  12. RightOn Member

    WHAT?
    If that isn't a suppressive act, I don't know what is.
    How can they explain their interest in what a psyche would have to say? Given their fight against them and blame them for the holocaust. They are the ones in need of an eval.
    OMG!
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonymous Member

    They probably want her to see a psychiatrist so they can object to everything the psychiatrist says on religious grounds.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. RightOn Member

    Spread it far and wide. The COS wants the opinion of a psyche!
    • Like Like x 1
  15. RightOn Member

    we all know the reasons why they are doing this. My question was how can they justify it if asked.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. muldrake Member

    I think they want to discredit her by claiming she wasn't really subject to psychological coercion but was free to file suit at any time. Therefore, she blew the statute of limitations. That and, of course, put her to the expense of hiring her own psychiatrist or psychiatrists, both to examine her and give expert testimony, ka-ching, ka-ching.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Anonymous Member

  18. overhere Member

    I have to say, their lawfag bag of tricks have gotten more puzzling as all of these high profile cases move towards a jury.

    It would be funny if the psych deemed she was unfit to make such decisions while IN scio. I'm not sure this request was that well thought out....
    • Like Like x 1
  19. muldrake Member

    If I were opposing this, I would be arguing this is completely irrelevant. The issue is not whether DeCrescenzo had some particular mental state. The question is one of equity. What is relevant is what the cult did, and whether it would have induced a reasonable person to sit on her rights and miss the statute of limitations. If their actions objectively were inequitable, then there is no need to analyze it any further. The statute gets tolled.
    • Like Like x 7
  20. DeathHamster Member

    Scientology should make that psychologist's office one of their Hubbard shrines. "On this site, in April 1951, L. Ron Hubbard was declared sane!"
    • Like Like x 4
  21. wolfbane Member

    Not really.
    The foreplay delay-tactics stage of the case is over, now we're getting down to the srs bizness delay tactics. And imo, the number of delay tactics included in their pre-trial conference strategy memo shows just how worried they are about this case.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. Anonymous Member

    SCIENTOLOGY SEEKS PSYCHIATRIC HELP.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. Galactic Patrol at Tony's blog:

    View attachment motivatorc1217b0805c224c695e58d24818f3e9c274758e9.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. RightOn Member

    what would the sheeple think? Although they would dare not utter a word,
    I think they should be told.
  25. Okay, now Scientology is just trolling.
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Sh00pZ Member

    • Like Like x 4
  27. Anonymous Member

    DOX provided by Ortega in today's blog:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/190365162...t-s-Statement-in-Advance-of-Status-Conference
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/190365009/DeCrescenzo-v-Scientology-Plaintiff-Status-Conference


    Other NEW DOX, from past docket actions, that we haven't seen before:
    We do now, cheers!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/190512709...ctions-to-Robert-Levine-Declaration-18Oct2013
    https://mega.co.nz/#!AlFElYzJ!V8G3UzIw848tfMcfoJUVzn16auBRnbIvC-9qlaJJSyE

    November 27th Notice of hearing for media request to see Exhibit GG from Laura's October 2013 declaration, which was the VIDEO evidence the cult recorded of her signing Sea Org exit agreement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/190512708...logy-Notice-of-Media-Request-Hearing-5Dec2013

    December 5th Hearing Ruling - the media request will be satisfied by TeamLaura who will provide an additional copy of the video in response to media request, rather than making the court provided a copy of the one previously submitted to the docket: http://www.scribd.com/doc/190512711/DeCrescenzo-v-Scientology-Notice-of-Media-Request-Ruling

    Inb4 Lisa Bartley from ABC News in LA broadcasts said video and yet another media shitstorm ensues!
    • Like Like x 2
  28. DeathHamster Member

    They always troll and try to run up the clock on srs cases--price is no object so long as the other side has to spend some fraction of what they do.

    In the Ontario Snow White trial, their lawyer tried to appeal that the trial was unfair because only Canadian citizens were allowed to be on the jury. Umm, yeah?
    • Like Like x 4
  29. wolfbane Member

    From pg7 of ^^The Defandant pre-trial document, where the cult is nit picking issues related to what needs aired during the bench trial segment of the proceedings related to the issue of equitable estoppel / statute of limitations:
    • An expert deposition of plaintiffs expert, Robert Levine, together with a deposition of an expert selected by Defendants to rebut Mr. Levine's testimony; Depending on the Court's ruling on the motions discussed in Part III below,
    • additional expert depositions on comparative religions and the religious practices of the Church of Scientology and the Sea Org as compared to other religions and religious orders.
    Trotting out apologists for ^^This stuff will be interesting to see who takes the cash. For the second point, all of the usual suspects published in J. R. Lewis' anthology book, citing wikileaks materials and whatnot, and they seem to be more aligned with the Indie movement nowadays considering Lewis' recent gigs:

    Lewis, Melton, Bainbridge, Bromley, etc. etc. You could make the hardline us-vs-them argument that they are all tainted as playing both sides of the scilon kool-aid fence nowadays. See http://www.amazon.com/Scientology-James-R-Lewis/dp/0195331494

    Will the cult turn towards one of those squirrel-loving peeps to halp them out in this stage of proceedings on Laura's case? Or will they find a new apologist to be their kawk sucking lackey? I'm betting on the latter since all those faux academics read the wikileaks dox that the cult never pursued having taken down despite the hot air they blew when WL scoffed at them for bawling.

    Now regarding the first point above, we have an entirely different set of antagonistic experts who find fault with the anti-cult brainwashing debate to worry about. According to a journal article published by Professor Stephen Kent way back in 2001: http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/skent/Linkedfiles/brainwashing-contemporary uses_2008.pdf

    The relevant names to worry about on that front used to be Dick Anthony (key opponent that foiled the later Fishman cases) and James Richardson (of CESNUR & Elizabeth Smart fucktardary fame). But I suspect they are both getting pretty dang old to still be working the pro-cult lawfare circuit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Anthony
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Richardson

    I can't find a birth date/year for Anthony, but Richardson's WP bio says 1943 and their publication histories are comparable timeline-wise. Will the cult enlist one of these old geezers to wobble into court to dispute Levine? Or will they throw enough money at some new academic, who likewise has NO experience working with former cult members in a clinical setting who are suffering through PTSD and hellish recovery symptoms, to step forward and claim coercive tactics that instill fear doesn't exist?

    It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, to say the least.
    • Like Like x 4
  30. Anonymous Member

    Wait, what?!? Scientology Auditors don't qualify as psychological or psychiatric experts in court? Who'd a thunk!

    I shouldn't be so sarcastic. I'm sure that the Church of Scientology will qualify a Class VI or Class VIII Auditor as an expert in court to testify as to Laura's mental state, as well as her engrams, ser facs, and BTs.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. DeathHamster Member

    Sure, call all 300 or so of those "ministers" who rummaged through her files.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. wolfbane Member

    OMFG! If you think the cult's claim of wanting Laura to undergo a psych eval is bizarre, you need to read this document...
    And compare it to the Levine declaration,
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/175298406/DeCrescenzo-vs-Scientology-Robert-Levine-Declaration

    ...for each of the specific objections the cult listed starting on page 10. When you see how they parse Levine's words on the objections related to all the claims of "Lacks Foundation" at first you will be like....

    WTF_Is_This_Shit.png

    And then you will laugh at how ridiculous it is. They pull out one concluding or introductory sentence/remark, and totally ignore the explanation and backup given for that remark. It is truly no wonder the judge in Laura's case overruled it. But what we didn't realize at the time is that he overruled OVER 50 batshit crazy objections in a single filing. Un-fking-believable.

    It also becomes readily apparent fairly quick how desperate TeamScilon is to paint this case as being exactly the same as the previous Claire Headley litigation. And the attached exhibits starting on page 55 give us a look at some stuff from the Headley case we never seen before.

    Most alarming in those exhibits is Exhibit A, starting on page 58, which is a short excerpt from a transcript where Judge Fischer tossed out Levine's declaration in Claire Headley's case. But he didn't just toss it out, he ridiculed it with derisive glee and went so far as to say (with mockery) that if he were to believe it he would be calling the Sheriff's department to go down to Gold Base and get everybody out.

    Oy vey! Judge Fischer, someday I hope you eat shit and choke on those words when you find out the evil practices you defended, protected and enforced by ridiculing those claims in open court. What a fking joke that judge was. Thank goodness Laura has a different judge.
    • Like Like x 7
  33. RolandRB Member



    And if the psyche deemed she was unfit to make this decision then perhaps she dreamed the whole thing up. They are a religion, after all!
  34. eddieVroom Member

    Maybe they're hoping the evil psychs will lobotomize her on sight or something.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Anonymous Member

    Dang. I'd love to see the psyche speak up. But there's no telling what it might say. It's been silent so long, it may never shut up.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. JohnnyRUClear Member

    These people believe every word from a man who claimed to have almost been hit by a train on Venus and that you can wash radiation off with a garden hose. OF COURSE the cray-cray's going to eleven[ty].
    • Like Like x 3
  37. RightOn Member

    I thought it was the Van Allen Belt?
    cra cra? watching that Darth Vadar commercial?
    totes magotes!
  38. RightOn Member

    It seems all these cases are really starting to heat up. And I am seeing a slight sway that I like. The cult is not getting their way.
    Continued luck to the Garcias, Laura, and Mosey on knocking the bullies off the block
    • Like Like x 3
  39. muldrake Member

    I would actually except Bainbridge from this list. The rest, I am convinced, are deeply corrupt scholars or (in the case of Melton) barely scholars at all. Bainbridge, while somewhat idiosyncratic in his beliefs, seems to be honest. While he does have an abiding sympathy for groups generally considered to be cults, it appears to be sincere.
    • Like Like x 3
  40. wolfbane Member

    Agreed. And a very good point to make.

    Personally, I wish more NRM scholars were like Bainbridge and David Barrett (who recently appeared with Marc Headley on BBC newscast). They give groups a fair shake in terms of what institutional apologetics in public uni religous studies is *supposed* to be, and they lay out the good, the bad, and the neutral sides before stating their conclusions. Unlike media-whoring woo drinking apologists that give the practice it's well-earned dirty name and who singularly harp on the anti anti-cult angle as being all bad in all ways possibly.
    • Like Like x 2

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