Customize

Laura DeCrescenzo forced-abortion lawsuit updates

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

  1. wolfbane Member

    S'ok, about that US Supreme Court petition for review. Here's the start of more insights translated from legalsleeze to useful-faggotry info.

    DeCrescenzo: Scientology's Petition for Writ of Certiriori

    One general-purpose overall point spoon fed to me - the whole thing is complex. Lieberman did not KISS on the writ nor on the emergency application. So there are a few things worth noting in additional to this key point Tikk made on Ortega's article:
    a) This week is a historical week for the US Supreme Court. Big rulings making big waves are being rolled out (Affirmative action on voter registration laws in the south, DOMA and LGBT marriage, etc.) So they definitely got xtra full plates before the term ends. A KISS Emergency Stay filing would have probably gone over smoother with less room for indigestion. But as usual, Team Scilon went into overkill mode on both of the major documents.

    b) If the Emergency Stay is granted for reasons of sorting out the complexities, then Team Laura will also be likely to get asked to file a response due to the same complexity. Just like was done with the state supreme court petition. And that went down fairly well with Team Laura making mince meat of the overly complex writ within a minimal number of pages.

    Another more specific overall point related to peeps navigating their way thru Tony's latest massive dox drop is the appendices on the writ document include the final ruling on the Catholic Archbishop case from the the Court of Appeals. See Appendix37 starting on PDF pg 37. I found it helpful on my second read thru to skim thru that mess first BEFORE reading the actual petition.

    And a few BIG points to note when reading the background info on the Catholic Archbishop case is that they had a lot more legs to stand on. That case covered every form of privilege there is, and it was a criminal proceeding related to a Grand Jury subpeona for internal investigation files the victims of sex abuse wanted the church to cough up. The church side put a lot more meat into their arguments than the huffy puff puffs Team Scilon is offering up in Laura's case, and they ONLY took the case to one appellate level. (More on this point to come later on in my notes about the writ.)


    To be continued... I've only knocked out 2-3 pages (out of nearly 8) on the notes I jotted down when I got schooled on this latest action.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. wolfbane Member

    Bwahahahahhahahaha!!!!

    (happy dance)
    • Like Like x 8
  3. Anonymous Member

    Fabulous news!!!!!!!!Happy dance!

    Wait, Tony. Did the Supreme court really call you? Damn you is connected.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. amaX Member

    From the article:
    "As we posted yesterday, the church has filed for a writ of certiriori, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the California Supreme Court’s denial of its previous appeal. But that takes quite a bit of time, and won’t stop Sohigian’s order in the meantime, which compels the church to turn over DeCrescenzo’s files on Tuesday, July 2.
    However, the church can file another application for an emergency stay with another justice, and given Scientology's history, we wouldn't be surprised if it does just that."

    So this might not be over? THIS is the legal shit I can't believe they get away with.
  5. Even a lawyer in a long black frock is capable of understanding that the content of Laura's folders came from her, and should be in her possession... right?

    Then again, we're talking about US "justice", the laughing stock of the whole world.
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. wolfbane Member

    For those who lack the patience or attention span to wade thru the dox, here is the key bits of what this action is based on starting on PDF pg13 of the actual petition. Peanut gallery comments noted in red.

    STATEMENT

    In a precedential opinion of wide import, the California Court of Appeal in 2005 construed the State’s penitent-clergy privilege to protect confidential spiritual communications and counseling practices only when the communications are made to a single minister or clergy person; any further disclosure by that clergy person of any portion of the communication to other clergy (or any penitent communication in the presence of anyone other than a single clergy person), even when required by the beliefs, doctrine and practices of that denomination, completely destroys the privilege. Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A. v. Superior Court (“Catholic Archbishop”), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1071 (2006)

    No court outside California to petitioners’ knowledge has construed a state penitent-clergy privilege to be limited to a single penitent-single clergy communication, in which any further clergy-to-clergy disclosures pursuant to Church doctrine vitiate the privilege, and every court to address the question has held to the contrary. As these reported cases in numerous jurisdictions demonstrate, many denominations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Presbyterian Church and other Christian Churches, have religious doctrines and practices that are jeopardized by the rule of Catholic Archbishop, ...

    They go on, later in the document, to cite a goodly number of cases for other denominations. Some of which are noted as "unpublished" so if this petition gets excepted for review, it will be interesting to see a response from Team Laura (that may or may not be requested) that might point out more Funderberg style footbullets where they quote shit from unpublished opinions/rulings that is not supposed to be quoted. (Just like they did in one of the prior petitions.)

    Also, my lawfag didn't check those case citations due to time constraints. But I was told that they were worrisome at-a-glance because if they are all legit cases with relevant grounds covered (meaning no spin applied by Team Scilon), and the writ gets accepted, this damn thing could open up a platform for Amicus briefs to be filed by those other churches supporting Scientology's fking side of things.

    Amicus briefs explained here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amicus brief

    (picking back up at PDF pg15)
    The Superior Court expressed concern that its order requiring the Church to produce records of such communications created a denominational preference against those religions, such as Scientology, whose religious doctrines mandate that confidential penitent-clergy communications, including confessions, be heard by or reviewed by two or three ministers instead of the single clergy member typical of the Catholic confessional (12a-15a). ...

    California law creates a sharp denominational preference in violation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, raises a clear and important question of federal law, is contrary to decisions of the highest and intermediate appellate courts of sister states, and conflicts with a long line of settled decisions of this Court that prohibit denominational preferences.

    Scientology Scripture mandates that the written record of all auditing sessions must be compiled into an auditing folder (also called “PC” or auditing folder). ...

    Again we see them doing the same lump-n-dump all things together - PC Folders and Ethics Folders. The big difference between the two was hammered out in earlier proceedings by Team Laura. But lots of that info is covered in the full Saldana Exhibits 1-42 dox that have not been released in their entirety into the public domain.

    I was told that *IF* by some unlikely chance the writ is accepted and a ruling goes down in the favor of Team Scilon, the best they can probably hope for is a remand back to Superior Court to sort out which dox are confidential and which are not, exactly like was done in the Archbishop case.

    But as long as Team Scilon keeps making the same two mistakes of over-generalizing (lump-n-dump all folders together and NOT providing detailed descriptions of each document on the privilege log like the church did in the Archbishop case) then the chances are likely that they will get similar lump-n-dump NoU over-generalized rulings against them.


    To be continued... I'm almost done with translating my notes.
    • Like Like x 9
  8. wolfbane Member

    So coming bak around full circle, what exactly is it that Team Scilon is asking the US Supreme Court to review (from PDF pg2) - they basically got one gripe, and they are claiming that same gripe violates both of the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

    1. Whether California’s penitent-clergy privilege statute, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1030-34, as authoritatively construed by the California courts, effects a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it protects only confidential penitential communications made to a single clergy person who may never further disclose such communications to other clergy—a practice typical of only some denominations...

    2. Whether California’s penitent-clergy privilege statute, as authoritatively construed by the California courts, effects a denominational preference that impermissibly burdens the religious practices of only some religions, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, because it protects only confidential penitential communications made to a single clergy person...

    I was told the first variation of the question being put forth under the Establishment clause is a slippery slope to venture out on. And this is the only thing in this action that strays from the lawfare fight that went down on the Catholic Archbishop case.

    Useful reference: Establishment clause overview
    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establishment-clause

    This is where the gubmint can pass no laws that aids or prohibits one religion over another, amongst other things. And the slippery part of Team Scilon going after this was covered by this comment from Tikk on Ortega's article:
    In my lawfag's opinion, Team Scilon is specifically seeking "excessive entanglement" by trying to get the courts to sort out their over-generalizations, the mixing of different types of folders and trying to get a special Evidentiary Code privilege that the state legislature specifically ruled out. He pointed out that in the Catholic Archbishop case, both the DA and the church were extremely careful with making everything filed very specific and detailed so as to avoid forcing the court to venture into the big no-no of "excessive entanglement" in sorting things out. So lawfag thought this could be an exception to the norm where the cult's tendency to overly complicate things and drag it out as long as possible will NOT be in their best interest.

    He also pointed out (with a big lol) that you can tell they are grasping for straws in this vein and putting a spin on things with footnote no. 8 on PDF pg30:

    8 Notably, the Catholic Archbishop and the priests did not raise the denominational preference issue in the California Court of Appeal or in their petitions for writ of certiorari, and the California Court of Appeal did not consider the issue. The reason may be that it would have been difficult or awkward for the Catholic Church to argue that the State’s proffered construction of the statute created a denominational preference in favor of the traditional Catholic confessional and disfavored the sui generis investigatory procedures of the Archdiocese. That may be a preference, but it would not constitute a denominational preference.

    I was told ^^This WAG was laughable because when you read the Archbishop case ruling in the appendices, it is clear that the church threw everything they could muster into the first appeal. They challenged everything they possibly could every which there was. When those findings came back as "having no merit" and whatnot, they left it go and didn't appeal it any further with the far more likely reason being that to do so would of been "excessive entanglement" and in violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Now regarding the 2nd question put forth under the Free Exercise clause, this is where Team Scilon's strategy to lump-n-dump all folders (auditing and ethics) together becomes extremely relevant.

    Useful reference: Free Exercise clause overview
    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-exercise-clause

    The church in the Archbishop case tried to use this EXACT same argument, and failed, because the subpoenas was specifically for investigation files and not confessionals. Ethics folders and sec checks are specifically stated in Scientology scripture as being for the purposes of investigation and the opening statement "THIS IS NOT A SESSION" means it is not a confessional type action that would come under the norm expectation for clergy-penitent privilege.

    Team Scilon goes to great lengths here to over-generalize that everything in all the folders is "confidential communications." But the fact is, their farked on Ethics Folders because that is specifically in lockstep with the rulings on the Catholic Archbishop case precedent. The auditing folders, on the other hand, might very well be a different matter. However, the sticky point on the auditing folders of approx. 250 people seeing those folders, some of which Laura didn't know, was conveniently swept under the rug in the main body of the writ.

    Note the "...by two or three ministers..." wording quoted/indented in my last post - lying bastards lie! And they fking lie right up front!! Two or three ministers my ass! Fortunately, the actual number creeps into the filing in the transcript from Sohigan's Superior Court ruling in the appendices. (So their own dox prove they are lying once you dig deep enough - footbullet!)


    And that's all I got in my notes that I can easily make sense of. There were two other technicalities pointed out to me that made my head hurt. But they both had multiple *IF... IF... IF's prefacing them so I figure I'll save them and revisit later if the writ doesn't get shit canned and denied.
    • Like Like x 9
  9. amaX Member

    Thank you, wolfie and lawfag halper. <3
    • Like Like x 4
  10. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 8
  11. RightOn Member

    thanks for all you do Wolfie!
    HOOOOOOWWWWWLLLL!
    <3
  12. I am waiting for Rathbun to do some type of declaration to “help” the case and screw it all up.
  13. amaX Member

    no shit.
  14. The Wrong Guy Member

    Scientology Replies to DeCrescenzo in Motion for Protective Order

    On Monday, there will be a hearing in Laura DeCrescenzo’s four-year lawsuit against the Church of Scientology for abuse during her 13-year career in its “Sea Organization” — including, she says, a forced abortion when she was only 17.

    The church has been fighting a court order that it turn over thousands of pages of evidence in DeCrescenzo’s “pc files” — notes taken during confessionals which the church argues are religious in nature and should be protected under priest-penitent privilege. But Scientology admitted that 259 different church officials compiled and reviewed the notes in those pages, which is one of the reasons Los Angeles Superior Judge Ronald Sohigian decided that the files were not protected under California’s priest-penitent statute.

    Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2013/06/28/blogging-scientologys-bible-vance-weve-reached-the-finish-line/
    • Like Like x 3
  15. RightOn Member

    "Superior Judge Ronald Sohigian decided that the files were not protected under California’s priest-penitent statute."

    yes!
    that, and the fact they are not priests in a non church.
    • Like Like x 4
  16. amaX Member

    RO, did you ever think you would write something like "and the fact they are not priests in a non church"?
  17. wolfbane Member

    There is still a lag with the latest actions/documents showing up on the online version of the docket. But here is the latest updates that have appeared as of today:

    Interesting to note there was an action to allow media coverage at this late stage of the proceedings that has been denied.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. RolandRB Member

    Like, they are going to hand over the real stuff :p
  19. RightOn Member

    well I am not a religious person, so as far as priests or anything else about "churches" I just don't believe in al that hooey, no matter what the denomination, nor do I get anything out of it. I was raised/forced to be a catholic and never liked it and always felt there was something wrong with me being in a church. It just never felt right.
    Dropped it when I was 12 and never went back.
    so I guess yes.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. wolfbane Member

    Ruh roh.
    The latest updates to the Superior Court docket that have appeared as of today:
    Monday's hearing may be postponed :(
  21. RightOn Member

    crap! what did they do noa?
  22. wolfbane Member

    Hard to say, there is no corresponding document available for the Notice of Continuance action on the docket at this time. So there is no way of knowing if the Plaintiff requested it, the Defendants requested it or if the Judge/Court just rescheduled it.
  23. Marty Rathbun more likely decided to "help" the case .... we are fucked.

    Haven't you noticed how he always steps up right before a case is going to be won and it falls apart?
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

    On Monday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian was scheduled to hear arguments and rule on the church’s motion that thousands of pages of evidence it’s supposed to hand over on Tuesday be put under a protective order so those documents don’t get seen by the public. The church has appealed the order to fork over that evidence multiple times, even unsuccessfully asking the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay.

    On Friday, however, the clerk of the court filed a notice of continuance that didn’t appear to come from either side in the lawsuit, which suggests that Sohigian himself has decided to move the date of the hearing back. As soon as we get a new date, or hear some explanation for the reason for the change, we’ll let you know.

    http://tonyortega.org/2013/06/30/sunday-funnies-8/
    • Like Like x 4
  25. RightOn Member

    well I am glad that it wasn't the COS trying more ways to uphold this case
    I just hope it wasn't due to pressure by the COS. We all know they have their ways
  26. amaX Member

    Please don't let this be a case of the cult finding skeletons in Judge Sohigian's closet...
  27. All joking aside, I am really contemplating doing an op and exposing the many "Marty Rathbun Skeletons in the Closet (tm)" to make him back off from any possibility of doing some kind of damage to this lawsuit. I have been watching that in every possible major legal win he gets involved somehow and his "declarations" do nothing but harm. All those cases would have been better off without his shitty verbose bullshit in the case. Is there a way to stop this asshole to fuck up yet another case?
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    Tony Ortega just posted this on Facebook:

    BREAKING: After its motion for a protective order was mostly denied today, the Church of Scientology says it intends to turn over 18,000 pages of unredacted evidence to Laura DeCrescenzo tomorrow in her forced-abortion lawsuit. After losing multiple appeals trying to stop the court order that it turn over the evidence, now the church says it's going to fork it over.

    Scientology To Turn Over 18,000 Pages of Evidence to Laura DeCrescenzo on Tuesday

    Scientology’s motion for a protective order in Laura DeCrescenzo’s forced-abortion lawsuit was denied in part today, and as a result the church’s attorneys said in court that they will be turning over 18,000 pages of unredacted evidence to DeCrescenzo tomorrow.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian did agree with the church that third-party names in the files should be removed. So he ordered the church to produce another set of the evidence with third-party names redacted within 30 days.

    Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/01/8011/
    • Like Like x 6
  29. wolfbane Member

    Whew! So the Continuance that showed up on the docket over the weekend was NOT related to today's hearing, and either entered in error or in relation to the October hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgement.

    18,000 pages of dox... folks, we haz a fuckton of WIN! Congrats going out to Team Laura!! Well done and well played.
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Quentinanon Member

    I wonder if the cult will deliver the documents mixed in with scrap paper like they did in the Lisa McPherson trial.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. rickybobby Member

    I am convinced they will not turn over the docs, or they will turn them over in unreadable condition. Hope there isn't a mysterious "fire" overnight....
    • Like Like x 3
  32. RightOn Member

    I raised a glass and toasted tonight to Laura and her lawyer AND the judge.
    Here's to hoping that the COS turns over all the papers non doctored, and with nothing missing.
    Stranger things have happened
    • Like Like x 3
  33. It won't happen
  34. wolfbane Member

    What a beautiful day....

    fuckton-of-dox.png

    For a fuckton of dox!
    • Like Like x 9
  35. rickybobby Member

    Can you explain to me about the ruling of the redaction of the third party names? Has this already been done?
  36. wolfbane Member

    (EDIT) No - not done yet. The cult has to do that within a set timeframe and turnover the redacted versions later while giving up digital copies of the original (unchanged) versions today. (/EDIT)

    Imo, and IANAL, sanitizing the names of the people who wrote in Laura's folders was to be expected and no surprise. It's all the about the privacy aspect in regards to the stuff written therein eventually landing in the public domain. Not Laura's privacy, but that of the auditors, C/S'rs and reviewers who are deemed clergy. And since California is one of the six states that grants clergy-penitent privilege as a protection of privacy to both parties - the judge threw them a modicum of respect there.

    (EDIT) However, since it has been decided that Scientology sacrificed their right to the clergy end of that privilege by the sheer number of people of who seen Laura's files - it seems to me the "third party" aspect is directly related to the names of people Laura or her auditors may have mentioned during the course of her auditing session. IOW people who were apart of the things being discussed but were not the actual Auditor/PC performing the auditing session.

    That said, and FWIW - my expectation is that Scientology will fuck that up. Intentionally. And when they do turn over the redacted versions the bastards will black out ALL of the names and not just the third party people mentioned in passing. So inb4 Sohigian verbally bitch slaps them (or should I say "Slippety Slap - Don't Talk Back!" - LULZ!) AGAIN for not doing what he told them to do. (/EDIT)

    Now what was interesting though, is that Judge Sohigian seemingly realized that those names are vitally important to Team Laura as far as what is originally at issue here - them being barred to full discovery of infos critical to making their case in court for the charges of Forced Abortion (2 counts), Deprivation of Liberty, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Labor Code violations and Business Code violations.

    For a refresher on the alleged charges, see the Revised Second Amended Complaint (SAC):
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/26348351/SAC-Revised

    When Team Laura finally gets down to the real work of proving those allegations the names of the perpetrators, accomplices and witnesses will be crucial for deposition subpoenas and whatnot. Some, if not most, of those names should show up in Laura's files and that documentation will likely be the first major link in the chain of evidence that will nail Scientology's ass to the wall.

    Thus, the ruling to turn over dox now and provide redacted versions later essentially boils down to Team Laura getting what they need the most right away, which will be "protected" and not be widely available as public domain court records. And instead, the versions with the third party names redacted that the cult has to turn over later will likely be the dox that show up on the online docket and at the courthouse that the general public can get their hands on. Or at least that's my interpretation of things without seeing the actual hearing/meeting transcript document from yesterday's event.
    • Like Like x 4
  37. amaX Member

    A white light of protection around all involved with Team Laura.
    Please let the Good Guys win this one.
    • Like Like x 6
  38. rickybobby Member

    Again, I will be SHOCKED if they actually comply. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the attorneys have a little bit of sense and aren't going to risk sacrificing their career to whatever harebrained scheme DM is cooking up so he can keep his dirty mitts on those docs. The attorneys may be little more than paid whores, but I have no doubt that they care much more about protecting their own hide than they do about saving Davey's.

    It's a sinking ship, and stupid David Miscavige long ago made sure it was EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF.
    • Like Like x 4
  39. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 7

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