Customize

Scientology sued for Fraud! It's going DOWN like bird sh**! (The Garcia Suit)

Discussion in 'Media' started by BlackRob, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. BlackRob Member

    • Like Like x 8
  3. This is fraud in any language.

    Wake up US law enforcement!

    Anonymous is here!
  4. Random guy Member

    This keeps getting better and better!
    • Like Like x 5
  5. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 5
  6. fishypants Moderator

    • Like Like x 3
  7. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 4
  8. fishypants Moderator

    I think the difference lies in the "donor"'s expectation that they will receive services ('training' - however ultimately worthless) in return for their 'donation'. Which makes it not so much a donation as a transaction.

    If I buy a postcard from St Paul's Cathedral, and the person behind the counter pockets the change, St Paul's is not entitled to claim religious exemption from the laws governing commercial transactions.

    The idea of getting a specific spiritual benefit in return for your 'donation' is - to my eyes - more like a medieval pardoner's avaricious sale of indulgences.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses
    • Like Like x 6
  9. Random guy Member

    Isn't there also the doctrine of fair exchange, or would that mean straying too close to the religious matters which the lawyers seek to avoid?
  10. Quentinanon Member

    The U.S. law style of religious cloaking does allow for exemptions from contract law under certain circumstances. Note that NarCONon is not a religion, so the contract exemptions do not apply to that front group.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. fishypants Moderator

    Yeah, ministerial exemption and so on.

    But it seems to me they're calling these funds 'donations' when then in truth they're advance payments on account for services (the services being the 'training').

    And they're doing that in order to try to get the religious cloaking that comes with the term 'donations'.

    But where a church is selling goods or services - in the USA - is it exempt from contract law? I would have thought not (I'm no expert though).

    For example, if a church sells me a can of beans for $1 and I give it a $20 note expecting change, can the church keep the change and say "no donations returned"? Surely not.

    Surely a true donation cannot made be in return for goods or services. Otherwise it's a 'purchase', not a donation at all.

    in4b "Scientology not really a church": yes, I know. :)
    • Like Like x 6
  12. Anonymous Member

    In the past, I've bought a book from a religious group at an inflated price, understanding that it was a donation. My charitable receipt said I donated $25, less the fair market value of the book, $10, net donation $15. The tax write-off is for $15.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    GO GO GO GARCIAS!
    • Like Like x 4
  14. fishypants Moderator

    Exactly. The money you paid for goods you received was not a donation, it was a purchase.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    From Tony Ortega on Facebook:

    Monday night the Garcias filed a powerful collection of declarations by former church members to support their fraud lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. Now, the church has asked to file their own collection of declarations in response, but then also wants the judge to butt out of the case. Ballsy! The Garcias cried foul, and we have both filings.

    SCIENTOLOGY TO FED COURT: Let Us Refute Garcia Declarations | The Underground Bunker

    Monday evening, the Garcia federal fraud lawsuit against the Church of Scientology heated up when the Garcias filed several declarations from former church members who said Scientology’s refund process is designed to be a sham.

    Now, the church has fired back, asking federal Judge James Whittemore to allow Scientology to file a 10-page memorandum and a set of their own declarations in support of its previous argument and — and here’s the really ballsy part — the judge should then butt out, because the church’s position is a religious one and not something an American court can get involved in.

    Tonight, the attorneys for the Garcias answered back, saying that the church’s request is unfair (the church has already filed its allotted 25-page response to the Garcias’ original complaint) and, once again, argued that the Garcias are suing over fraud, not religious beliefs.

    We have both documents.

    Continued at
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/04/24/sc...clarations-and-then-butt-out-of-our-religion/
    • Like Like x 5
  17. wolfbane Member

    • Like Like x 4
  18. eddieVroom Member

    • Like Like x 1
  19. eddieVroom Member

    The sole purpose of that doctrine is the implicit message that "The Tech" actually has value equivalent to cash.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. eddieVroom Member

    Uhh...
  22. Anonymous Member

    Such a claim would actually be essentially true. However, they probably are not prepared to say so in court.
  23. DeathHamster Member

    Probably, but after they argued in court that Fair Game was a religious practice, you never know when the crazy talk might come flooding out.
    • Like Like x 4
  24. BlackRob Member

    Woohoo!

    FED COURT DENIES SCIENTOLOGY REQUEST: Decision on Religious Arbitration Coming Soon?


    ederal Judge James Whittemore today denied the Church of Scientology’s request to bolster its response to Luis and Rocio Garcia’s fraud lawsuit.
    On Monday night, the Garcias had filed numerous damning declarations by former church members and officials who say that the church has created a situation that makes it impossible for excommunicated members to obtain refunds. (Scientology courses are extremely expensive and it’s not unusual for members to put tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on account for future services which may never be undertaken.)
    The church — which had already used up its 25-page limit to respond to the lawsuit — asked for an exception to local rules to file an additional 10-page memo and a set of its own declarations that it said would prove its arbitration policies are fair.
    Today, Judge Whittemore denied Scientology’s request to file more pages, which may indicate that he’s close to a decision about Scientology’s motion that the case be moved to internal church arbitration and dismissed from the federal court.
    “That was a world land speed record for a decision,” says Ted Babbitt, attorney for the Garcias. “But that could be good or it could be bad,” he said with a laugh in a telephone call today.

    More:
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/04/25/fe...ecision-on-religious-arbitration-coming-soon/
    • Like Like x 12
  25. Random guy Member

    Wow, this is moving fast! The judge appear to think he knows what he's doing. Just hope he really does!
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Anonymous Member

    Tony O and tikk say the judge likes to move fast.
    • Like Like x 2
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    On Facebook, Tony Ortega posted this:

    BREAKING: Scientology has filed to disqualify the attorneys for Luis and Rocio Garcia in their federal fraud lawsuit, saying that they improperly relied on a former church attorney and former church officials Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. We have the documents, including a supporting declaration by ex-church member Brian Culkin.

    SCIENTOLOGY FILES TO REMOVE GARCIA ATTORNEYS FROM FRAUD LAWSUIT | The Underground Bunker

    http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/10/scientology-files-to-remove-garcia-attorneys-from-fraud-lawsuit/
    • Like Like x 7
  28. Anonymous Member

    If you can't win based on facts, try to win based on procedural technicalities.

    -Hubbard
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Quentinanon Member

    Or on ad hominem attacks.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Quentinanon Member

    I see possible disintegration of religious cloaking.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    IMO Brian Culkin needs to be easily googled by the yoga community. I wouldn't want to take classes from an ex-clam who screwed others over in an unethical money grab.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. wolfbane Member

    Loving this from the Motion to Disqualify:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/140679845/Garcia-Case-Motion-to-Disqualify
    So nice of them to point out that lots of people do indeed seek REAL justice for refunds, and that they pay big bucks to the attorneys that handle those cases and claims. (Funderberg!)

    Also, woohoo - another Allan Derpity-Derp Cartwright Declaration! Ahh, good times.
    • Like Like x 5
  33. Especially based on details from your PC folder.
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Gottabrain Member

    Desperate. Cult is desperate. No arguments against the fraud? Can't handle a competent attorney on the Garcias side with a reputation for getting refunds back? Back to the same ol same ol religious cloaking over the Scn fraud?

    lulz. Judge sounds more intelligent than that. Go Garcias!

    desperation-demotivational-poster-1200170702.jpg
    • Like Like x 6
  35. Boris Korczak Member

    The church made certain promises to the government in order to escape a $1 billion tax bill. Among those promises, the church vowed to give members refunds when they requested them.

    Yeah, but they did not mean it. They were just kidding and the feds were stupid enough to belive it.
    Besides Lord Xenu took their money and does not want to give it back.

    Stay safe and sane.
    BK
    • Like Like x 13
  36. wolfbane Member

    Lulz! Petey bawls about amaX awesome signage:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/140683533/Peter-Mansell-Declaration

    EDIT: and the attachment is shooped right off of the original WWP post!
    • Like Like x 18
  37. Anonymous Member

    The highest rated comment from none other than BFG:
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/10/sc...ttorneys-from-fraud-lawsuit#comment-892610695

    QFT.
    • Like Like x 5
  38. moarxenu Member

    • Like Like x 11
  39. AnyOldName Member

    It's such a great photo of 2 great signs how could OSA resist? Maybe they should blow it up and wrap Sea Org bus with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Anonymous Member

    I hope no Anons trusted Brian Culkin with confidential information. I'm not saying he has been compromised, or is a "traitor," but that serious questions are being asked.

    I can't even begin to cross-post all of the information coming in from different sources. The shit is hitting the fan. Much drama. For example:

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805079&viewfull=1#post805079
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805039&viewfull=1#post805039
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805049&viewfull=1#post805049
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805073&viewfull=1#post805073
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805089&viewfull=1#post805089
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-Brian-Culkin&p=805089&viewfull=1#post805089
    • Like Like x 5

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