Customize

May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

Discussion in 'Marc Headley v. Church of Scientology Internationa' started by blownforgood, May 12, 2009.

  1. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Hey Davey-Boy, I hear you read this thread assiduously?

    Well then...for the kids who's lives you fucked up; the families you destroyed; the friends and SeaOrgers you so callously betrayed, and the lives and minds you left shattered..and for having the gaul to smile and smirk and joke about it all:

    YouTube - Archive - Fuck You
  2. TinyDancer Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    The principle as I learnt it, which is consistent with your points, is that you cannot enforce a contract with a minor.
  3. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Again, very very close.

    Some good advice is here:

    Minors and Contract Lawyers
  4. TinyDancer Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    From the site you linked to: "If contracting with a minor, the contract may not be legally enforceable."
  5. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    The key word there is "may" as in the meaning "used to express possibility or likelihood".
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. mrfyde Member

  8. muldrake Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Qui tam actions often existed for crimes, and the citizen got a part of the fine, but the crimes were often not the sort that it was useful to prosecute. So in a period when Roman Catholic priests had a bounty on their head, people would go around turning in priests who otherwise would have been left alone. These "common informers" were basically considered the scum of the earth, and the result of attaching a reward to these kinds of prosecutions wasn't useful. There were plenty of these "crimes" that should have gone unprosecuted, and creating a cottage industry in ratting people out for trifling offenses didn't benefit society.

    In the U.S., by contrast, it's mainly used to cut down on fraud by government contractors. This kind of thing often fails to be prosecuted, because the people in the government who pay the fraud artist contractors are either getting kickbacks themselves or just don't want to admit getting conned. So qui tam suits fill a vacuum, since there's no such thing as a good crooked contractor. The more of them caught the better.
  9. rummychick99 Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition


    WOW..I have never heard that song. Perfect song for someone to do a video about David Miscavige.


    I imagine his picture on the mirror of this video. I can't imagine the demons that the victims fight because of that man.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ72L3xjDUw&feature=related]YouTube - F*ck U (Based on Archive Song)[/ame]
  10. TinyDancer Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    In what circumstances do you say that a contact is legally enforceable against a minor?
  11. Ann O'Nymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Interesing, but different situation, IMHO. In the case quoted, the main problem is corrupt public officers. Thus the need for "whistleblowers".

    In the case we were discussing, it is public laziness. IMHO, the person who made the effort to fight for their rights just because authorities are too lazy to do it themselves should not be obliged to give a penny to said authorities.

    But, as I said upfront, I am only seeing this from abroad.
  12. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Damn, TD, your English comprehension is usually much better. At the link I gave, Minors and Contract Lawyers, it mentioned a few instances. Our little debate wasn't solely about scientology contracts, but about contracts with minors. Here's one from the webpage which indicates a "may":

    or this one:

    There's more. Just read the page. I found it fascinating to read.

    What it told me was that not all contracts by minors can be voided by minors at will. Also, the minor has to void the contract before reaching the age of majority.

    Now taking this back to scientology contracts. (And not the billion year pseudo-contract, for you other peeps!) Each person joining staff (sea org or regular staff) would sign a long legalese-filled "employment" contract. One example is this one:

    http://www.exposescientology.com/contracts/cos-staff-contract-1996.pdf

    More likely than not, the "minor" wouldn't try to quit Co$ before they came to the age of majority. In each of the three recent cases against the Church of Scientology, all three plaintiffs were recruited as minors (Marc Headley, Claire Headley, Laura DeCrescenzo) and all three did not leave until after they reached the age of majority. They cannot void their contracts "by reason of having been a minor at the time of signing".

    However, they can use the fact that they were minors at the time to illustrate Co$'s unconscionability in recruiting minors for what would still be labor violations with any adult. And Co$ is at peril for higher penalities and sanctions under Human Trafficking laws for committing trafficking against a minor (moreso than if committed against an adult).
  13. LRonAnon Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    prostitution.
  14. LilDebbie Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    patiently waiting for june 5th lulz

    big ups 2 BVS and the lawfag krew
  15. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    In many US juvenile court systems, ANY contract made with a minor that is done so under psychological or physical duress to said minor cannot be enforced. "Duress" can be defined a number of ways in these situations, including when it is an adult (authoritative figure) who is the one who initially suggests the contract. This can include the minor's parents if the contract is deemed unsafe, inappropriate, illegal, etc.
  16. ReaganYouth Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    hey guys- a couple things:

    Can you post a copy of the agreement that the plaintiffs signed when they went to work for the Church? I know a couple people who are pretty much experts in contract law and would like to get them to review it and see what holes may exist or whether it will hold up in court. I also wouldn't mind checking it out for myself.


    secondly- is there any case law that supports the argument that Scientology
    is considered is a religion and therefore is going to try and hide
    behind the first amendment that the Labor laws don't apply to a
    religious group? I am aware of the Alamo case, but are there any
    cases they will likely use to get around this? Better to know what
    your enemy will use to attack you with. that's the one trick to any legal argument- seeing the other side and trying to predict what will happen on their end.

    any input is appreciated!

    :)
  17. mrfyde Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    r/equest of splitting this into as many as three or more threads with topics of

    1) Marc's deposition
    2) Other civil cases in general
    3) contracts in Sea Org. for minors
  18. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Gawd, do you not read anything? The cases say they weren't given copies of their contracts at time of signing.

    Generally, the Church of Scientology doesn't give copies of contracts to people who sign them. These people don't have copies of the contracts they signed unless they were able to obtain them through legal process related to their case.
  19. anon555 Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    but i think, in order for a contract with a minor to be valid, a parent or lawyer representing the kid has to be present and might have to co-sign it as showing approval (not sure about the co-sign part, but i think its something like that)
  20. ReaganYouth Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    I thought it was a generic contract? if so, its not like it has to be the EXACT ONE they signed... but the one the church always uses
  21. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Co$ changes their contracts somewhat frequently. People hired in the 1990s didn't sign the same contracts as those in the 2000's.

    I haven't found a contract from the 1990s, though I'd seen one in person and I know the 2000 version isn't anything like the 1990s one.

    If anyone has any old staff contracts, please post them online. You can black out names and dates if appropriate for confidentiality purposes.
  22. exOT8Michael Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    From my own experience as a staff member (Paris Org) staff pay disregards wage and salary laws systemmatically because all disbursements fall under "FP" (financial planning) policies from Hubbard. If this has substantially been modified since the 80s let me know.

    What does this mean? Well. each week the org financial planning committee meets to see how much money the org received and banked that week. First disbursements (priority) go to Hubbard book sales, International Management and upper org fees. Then come things like rent, utilities and Divisional supplies. After all those are allocated and if there is something remaining then staff gets some pay and if not then they get no pay or extremely little.

    What I observed was the FP gave staff pay LOWEST priority.

    Is this still how orgs operate?
  23. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Of course it is.

    I challenge someone to take this scientology class v fbo allocation form , find the staff pay near the end and calculate what percentage of gross income the poor sods actually get. Co$ will tell potential staff (recruits, applicants) that they get 30% of gross income, but that's not true. I'll bet the percentage is more like 5%.
  24. mrfyde Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    I have seen some of the contracts on wiki leaks I don't know if they have the ones that you are looking for or if they are current.
  25. exOT8Michael Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Well, then this aspect could be crucial to this case?
    Barry V S??
  26. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Scientology Contracts
  27. muldrake Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Look at pretty much any contract they have. They are all packed to the brim with textbook "this is not an enforceable contract" type clauses.

    Here's a particularly bad one: The Lisa McPherson Clause

    Here's a staff contract: http://www.researchthetruth.com/cosdocs-staff.pdf

    None of these really require an expert to see many flaws, though it might be nice to have a detailed rundown on all of them. They pretty much just jump right off the page at you. Most of the flaws are pretty much fatal to any contract. I doubt the cult will ever try to argue seriously that these contracts are worth anything. The most I can see them getting away with is claiming that the language in them put people on notice of the conditions of employment, but they were otherwise purely "ecclesiastical."

    Who knows, though? They might actually be forced to try to argue the validity of these contracts, at least in establishing some kind of religious worker status that they can claim is exempt from labor laws. I wish them luck on that. (Well okay I don't, I wish they completely fail.)

    NOTE: I'm told they're doing exactly what I said they weren't, i.e. actually trying to argue these contracts are worth more than some combination of jack and shit. This should be fun.
  28. rummychick99 Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Chuck Beatty posted something..I believe it was something he signed when he left..and he never noticed that it mentioned employment until a poster here pointed it out to him.

    When you leave they consider your time there as employment according to what he signed.
  29. Anonynamefag Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    It would be so awesome if David Miscavige was subpoenaed in this case.
  30. exOT8Michael Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Yes it would. He does, however lie blatantly during legal depositions. If he does it this time someone needs to jump on him for perjury.
  31. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    You mean David Miscavige blatantly lies during legal depositions? If David Miscavige does this again someone needs to jump on David Miscavige for perjury.
  32. LRonAnon Member

  33. Sponge Member

  34. Anonymous Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    BFG and BVS should look for a reason to bring David Miscavige into court. If David Miscavige is subpoenaed, it is almost guaranteed that David Miscavige will lie, thus earning David Miscavige a nice big perjury charge if we can prove that David Miscavige is a compulsive liar.

    David Miscavige will end up being Bubba's bitch in due time. I hope his skin condition clears up by then, otherwise his asshole will be popped like a cherry.
  35. jensting Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    You mean, that would be a criminal charge? I'm pretty sure David Miscavige has so much respect for the legal system that he would never perjure himself, I am - NOT!!
  36. Smurf Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Google "david.miscavige+deposition."

    The dwarf hasn't been forced into a depo in over a decade and when attorneys seek to depose him, his loyal Scilon lawyers spends loads of $$$ to fight these efforts to do so.

    Scientology/ RTC is notorious for neglecting the needs of many in the cult to pad their litigation coffers with millions of dollars used in part to defend the psychotic dwarf from those that seek to undermine his authority & position.

    I hope Marc Headley & others are successful in getting DM into depo, but expect an all-out litigation war to occur first between attorneys on the case in the courts, to include months, if not years, of endless delays, motions, appeals to judiciary decisions, etc. etc.

    DM clearly does not like depositions and is so narcissistic to believe he is immune to them. And he is being protected & defended by minions that bow to him and greedy private attorneys drooling for the opportunity to make incredible amounts of cash working for the cult.
  37. exOT8Michael Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Fact is that Scientology and DM are opponents of the existing Justice systems, and want to (intend to) replace them with Hubbard's "Justice on a whim" tech.

    Moxon has far, far more loyalty (from what I have observed and experienced) to Hubbard and cult intentions than he has to being an ethical lawyer under the rules of the State Bar. My honest opinion is that he is actually in severe ideological conflict with the spirit and intentions of the Justice system of which he pretends to be a part.

    I hope he stops getting away with this huge and dishonest anomaly which is an injustice in itself.
  38. Lorelei Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Thank you, BVS, for your insightful posts. I'm looking forward to more from BFG (huzzah, new book!) and wish all those filing both civil and criminal suits goos fortune.

    The rest of my post is me opining, and can safely be skipped if you so choose.

    As for the insinuation that ex-Scis might be "smelling money" when they choose to litigate, I think that is untrue, for the most part. My suspicion is that reluctance to file suits is more due to ex-Sci's still having family members in, still being afraid (due to constant messages being drilled into them that Scientology will try to crush them into the dust if they do anything Scientology's leaders dislike), wanting to focus on recuperating and assimilating back into society outside of a dangerous cult (which can take a LOT of time), needing to worry about making a living and setting up a household of their own (which takes precedence over contacting lawyers, at least for a while), peeling the layers of the onion of lies and exaggerations they have been fed while "in" to get to the factual and non-emotional truth at the core of said onion, and so on.

    As for the money issue, our court system punishes primarily through incarceration or through monetary judgments. If you win a criminal case, the defendant often does some jail time, or has some freedoms taken away (is forced to go to therapy or counseling or do community service). If you win a civil case, the punishment meted out is measured in dollars.

    I suspect that if there was another option besides monetary, such as, if Ex-Sci Guy A proves in court that Sci B or CoS did do X Bad Action, that person would be shamed publicly from coast to coast on billboards and in local newspapers, that MIGHT be worth more than money to them. It's just not going to happen.

    If you don't like the idea of ex-Scis who have put time, energy, and, yes, their own money INTO the cult profiting from legal actions, that is YOUR problem, not theirs, and it sounds like an attempt to shame other ex-Scis with legitimate complaints into not pursuing THEIR legal options. As a shaming tactic, it MIGHT have an effect on the particularly vulnerable who worry about what random strangers on the Internet think about them, but I, for one, hope that they can shrug off the uninformed opinion of uninvolved parties and discuss their options with real lawyers and not Internet LAWLyers, and that they will file appropriate legal complaints if it is determined (as it probably will be) that they have grounds to file.

    Some non-ex-Sci / non-OG Anons are quick to judge ex-Scis harshly (both for being in the cult in the first place, which 2nd- or 3rd-gen Scis had no say in, and for not immediately doing everything the Hivemind suggests), and often this judgment is based on their (the Anons') own personal experience, which, if they were lucky enough not to be raised in a destructive cult or personally taken in by and hurt by one, they really can't comprehend beyond an abstract, intellectualized, several-steps-removed POV.

    Urging ex-Scis to contact lawyers to see if they have any legal options is a good idea. Being impatient with those that are slow to do so, or implying that those that do are "just in it for the money" doesn't benefit anyone EXCEPT the cult.

    /opinion

    Also, am quoting the below stuff not because I have any comment to make about it specifically, but because I hope it will boost the Google ranking of the linked site, and thus make DM get hives.

  39. TinyDancer Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Great comment, Lorelei.
  40. muldrake Member

    re: May 12th Case Update - Marc Headley Deposition

    Whether or not it was over a decade ago, he was deposed by Keith Henson and Grady Ward, who were pro se litigants with no legal experience whatsoever. Needless to say he doesn't like it much and Henson and Ward were heavily targeted afterward, but he can't stop it, certainly not when his testimony is obviously relevant.

    It's not so much that it's impossible to depose DM as that he is pretty unlikely to say anything useful once you do.

    I think the last deposition prior to Ward and Henson's deposition was taken by the late Toby Plevin in 1990 in the Bent Corydon case, but I'm not sure. Maybe Mayo got one.

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