Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Someone posted last weekend....

It's nearly the end of the week - Waiting but don't see.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

[Snip Clarence Thomas is st00pid.]

I pretty much agree with this in its entirety. I will note that I thought Thomas was stupid at first, too. Having actually read a lot of his opinions and dissents at this point, though, I no longer agree with that. I do not think he should be on the Supreme Court, but not because he is not qualified. He is. It is because he is an extremist. He would have made a good Justice in the first half of the 18th Century. At the moment, though, he merely tilts the Court in a weird, retrograde direction.

Nevertheless, he is quite principled, and I have even agreed with a few points he has made in dissents. Rather as I think of Scalia. I like his dissents, and wish he had to write more of them.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

You probably should have kept reading it until you got to the point, or read a brief summary of it that just got right to the point. Since that's exactly what the Smith decision means.

Smith did NOT get unemployment. Smith did not pass Go or collect $200. The point of Smith is that committing illegal acts because of your religious beliefs is completely unprotected. If your sincere religious beliefs are that it's okay to shoplift, and you go ahead and do it, you have no defense. If you drop peyote, and get fired, and try to collect unemployment, you do not get unemployment, because you got fired for willful misconduct.

The central holding, as we are told by Professor Wikipedia (who is correct this time) is: "Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."

That means that if the law applies to Christians, Jews, and Scientologists alike, if you break it, you pay the same penalty, no matter what your religious excuse. This isn't a radical anti-religious liberal idea, either. This is from Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion. It's a good opinion, too, IMO, even though three of my favorite Justices dissented from it.

I don't agree with the "result," as such. I think people should be able to drop peyote in a religious ritual if they feel like it. But I also think they should be able to drop peyote just because they feel like it. I don't think there should be one class, "the rest of us," who are subject to criminal laws, and some other class, "the chosen people who believe in some deity," who get special exemptions to commit crimes, solely as a privilege awarded to them for having delusional religious beliefs.

The "ministerial exception" is not really consistent with the holding in Smith.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Pretty sure not. Since there are other parts of the case still alive, it's not a final judgment. It doesn't resolve all the disputes between the parties. Since it is still at least theoretically possible she will get complete relief on the other counts, it isn't yet appealable as of right. It's possible to get a trial court to certify an issue for separate appeal, or even to appeal it against the will of the trial court, as an "interlocutory appeal," but such appeals are rarely granted.

Appeals courts don't want to muck around in a case that isn't over unless they have to. One major issue that can arise is that the trial court is still trying the remaining counts, and finding facts. The appeals court could, conceivably, overturn factual findings in what got appealed, and make new findings that contradict what the trial court found. This just embarrasses everyone and wastes even more time sorting it out. Appeals courts generally don't want to be bothered. They don't want to embarrass the trial court judge, who is a colleague. They don't want to get egg on their face if discovery material in the lower court case shows that they were wrong either.

Courts generally don't want to do things that result in them making contradictory findings that then have to be sorted out at great expense. That's why appeals courts don't want to touch a case until it's over.

Claire's case isn't over.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I'm sorry to snip your astute analysis and just goof out on one or two sentences, but I think some of your readers may have missed something in your post. I'll point it out.

What Tikk just pointed out here is what is called a "circuit split." While I'm generally not big on the rah-rah parade that often follows these cases, and as close as I generally get to "thrilled" is what most people call "cautious optimism," I am cautiously meh that a circuit split, on this particular issue, is the sort of thing that attracts the interest of the Supreme Court. Yes, it's a lottery ticket.

I don't think it will happen, partly because there's about a 95% chance that even if a cert petition ever gets filed in this case, years from now, they won't even grant it and look at the case, but mostly because I think the likely result of an eventual appeal, perhaps also a couple years out, is that the appeals court remands for more fact-finding. Because of. . .

This is my major gripe with the trial court finding, too. Not that they ruled against Claire Headley, but that the analysis was glib, superficial, and utterly failed to address a number of factual issues that will certainly come out in the rest of the case. However much deference is given to the factual findings of trial courts, ipse dixit by itself won't do it.

Okay, to explain the Latin: ipse dixit = cause he said so!

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I'm sorry to snip your astute analysis and just goof out on one or two sentences, but I couldn't help but notice something I'm sure you didn't intend to say, but may have equivalent merits. I'll point it out.

oopsie dipshit : what's true for David Miscavige is true for you.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

(snipped some)

I was going to point out that this results in a circuit split as well--but the fact that the split implicates so few people makes it an unlikely candidate to get to the Supreme Court. The group which is excluded by the 4th Circuit test but which otherwise satisfies the 9th/5th Circuit test is somewhat tiny and marginalized, and includes, well, Sea Org members and other employees of cults. Most major religions don't so actively game the system like Scientology. That said, a similar labor law cause of action filed in a Fourth Circuit state (WV, NC, SC, DC, DE, VA, MD) might have a chance, if the Sea Org member [strike]mostly performed manual labor[/strike] primarily performed non-religious work.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Thanks for so much legal weighing in, you guys.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Tom Leonard, New York correspondent for The Daily Telegraph
(wonder if he caught Aaron Saxton's New York interview, Village Voice?)

Scientologists sue organisation for $1 million for slave wages - Telegraph

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

^^^ THIS.

It has been very educational and helpful.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

An exceptional article. Easy to read for the uneducated masses, a clear and concise summary for noobs. I hope more articles like this get written up in mass media.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

the freethinker
Ex-Scientologist claims Tom Cruise had him speaking to ashtrays and bottles

A member of the anti-Scientology movement, Anonymous, sums up the cult in three words

Ex-Scientologist claims Tom Cruise had him speaking to ashtrays and bottles

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Well, it was "next week" last week and where is this "win"?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

I know there was some win in my pants, last week.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Great legal analysis, guys.
Insightful. Thanks!!

Did Claire, BFG or Barry V S weigh in on this anywhere?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

When Sea Org recruiters spoke with me over the years, they asked primarily three questions: 1) was I interested in being in the Sea Org, 2) did I have debts, 3) had I done drugs that would make me ineligible. Belief was never a part of the conversation.

Cramming is simply being a human encyclopedia, finding the right reference and making the person understand it. It's not even teaching (nor were her course sup duties). Frankly, I'd only consider auditing "religious." Furthermore, auditing can be delivered by students who aren't ministers at all, much less employees.

I'd also disagree that being a course sup is a religious worker thing: it's not someone who gives religious instruction per se, but rather someone who coordinates finding twins for people, counts student points, gives checkouts. But not teaching per se.

I agree.

Most Sea Org members are the equivalent of lay employees in most other faiths as most are not performing religious duties. Some of those include regging of funds, for example, yet when I was at OC, two of the chief registrars, Dave Worthen and Patti Maier, were both ministers who had parsonage allowances as a part of their pay. (In practice, this meant that a portion of their pay was tax-exempt.) However, I wouldn't have considered their roles as religious per se.

I found this part interesting in the Alcazar decision:

Also:

I saw no examination of subterfuge in Fischer's ruling, though.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Does that mean that just because both cult and Headley agree Headley was a 'minister', that's not sufficient to achieve the 'ministerial exception'. Would that be additional grounds for appeal? certainly doesn't seem to have been considered in this case?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Marty, the leader of the New Church of Scientology, has piped in about the potential for appeals:

Headley case dismissals – blessings in disguise? « Moving On Up a Little Higher

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Correct and I think so, respectively.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Whenever you link to martymartymary cut/paste whatever you're talking about into a quote here, so that those that do not wish to give him pagehits, or proxy up, or whatever reasons, can still see what you're talking about without creating any more legitimacy for him. thanks

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Bite me.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case



/////

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

The next new OMG breaking news/release, maybe?

"All Staff and Public now eligible for RPF!"

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Well done!

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Hurr durr!

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Question: so how would judge Fischer's ruling apply in her jurisdiction if a Muslim woman was found guilty of adultery under charia law and sentenced to stoning?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Emails to Judge Fischer for being a complete imbecile:

dsf_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

"Only 428 slots, so sign up today! Advance registration, $60,000. Save big, sign up now!"

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Judge Fischer's ruling wouldn't really apply. The ruling didn't say that scientology can engage in illegal actions because they're a religion. The ruling essentially said that the court could not rule on whether or not the behavior alleged in the lawsuit fit the definition of one or more criminal acts because to do so would require the court to overstep its authority.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Does anyone know what happened to John Lindstein's and Laura Decrescenzo's lawsuits?
Lawsuits « Who Is David Miscavige?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Emailing judges to try to influence their decisions is generally considered a bad idea. A) it doesn't work; B) you look stupid.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

That's not true. Judges are the recipients of loads of mail & emails all the time on issues they are dealing with.. and many judges read their mail.. to get an idea of what people outside the courts are thinking...

Numerous judges in the past have commented how they weighed cases based on incidences of sound input and reasoning offered by lay people in the community that have written them.

Plus judges don't like to have their decisions overturned on appeal.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Yes, judges are the recipients of gigantic piles of fucking bullshit which they IGNORE and which cause them to view whatever party the GARBAGE is coming from as ASSHOLES. Christ, put down the crack pipe. Attempting to interfere with courts by spamming them with bullshit is not only improper but borders on criminal. One wonders why you're attempting to encourage people to do something completely counter-productive that will actually prejudice judges against the retarded screwballs who take your idiot "advice."

Do NOT attempt to influence judges by spamming them with bullshit. Period. It's moronic. It fails.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

No U. You're clueless & talking out of your ass. There's a difference between "spamming" a judge versus sending a reasoned argument on an issue.

Obviously, you don't know the difference.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Ex parte contact with judges is improper. Period. Judges may only consider matter which is actually in the record, and would violate numerous canons of judicial ethics if they did otherwise. Recently, infomercial douchebag Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in jail for encouraging people to do just this in his case. It was thrown out on appeal because the judge didn't give a hearing before doing it, but not because what Trudeau did was legal.

The last time morons did this in a Scientology case was when some dingbat wrote letters to Judge Schaeffer in the Lisa McPherson case. She was very pissed off.

In short, don't do this. The judge not only can't take it into account, but would be breaking the law by doing it. So, at best, it will have zero effect. At worst, it makes your side look like clowns.

The only proper communication by nonparties to judges, attempting to influence the proceedings, is the filing of an amicus curiae brief, which should only consist of legal argument not already briefed by either party.

On top of that, the trial court doesn't even have jurisdiction of the case at this point. The case was CLOSED 8/5/2010. So exactly what the hell point is there contacting her?

When you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're babbling about, quit digging.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Does the fact that the case is closed render your statements in the first four paragraphs inapplicable?

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

If the case is appealed and the appeals court remands, the district court, likely the same judge, will once again have jurisdiction. Regardless, those first four paragraphs are good general guidance. Sending mail to judges regarding the case rarely if ever does any favors for the party you're supporting, and can easily complicate things to their detriment.

Scientology often seizes upon opportunities to enlarge the scope of the litigation or pursue tangents because it enables them to drive up the fees/costs, which almost always works to their advantage. There are few litigants they cant outlast monetarily, and Scientology is not a "rational" litigant--they won't hesitate to spend $100 to get your $1, so handing them an opportunity to enlarge a case is always a bad idea.

If I were representing Scientology, I'd be elated if critics were sending mail to the judge on a case--I'd look into the sender's background and attempt to tie him/her to the party, and ascribe whatever ugliness I found to the party. I'd ask for discovery as to the issue of any connection between the party and the sender, alleging that the sender was acting as the agent of the party, who used the sender to influence the case. Etc.

And as the anon poster correctly points out, judges can't consider such communications as a resource, and would jeopardize the case on appeal if they did.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

After thousands of e-lawyering posts, I have now completed the level of
"OT 8 e-lawyer" and now know that I am Not a lawyer and look forward to finding out who is.

Re: Scientologists request dismissal in Headley case

Thx for the measured and rational response, Tikk.
Anon poster may have been correct but the shrill tone subtended the message.