A June 3, 2011 Scientology press release announces that the "Spiritual Association of the Church of Scientology - Celebrity Centre" is suing the Government of France for one million euros in damages. The association was convicted of organized fraud in October 2009 (the press release omits this), but an appeal will be heard in Novermber 2011. During the summing up at the end of the trial in June 2009, prosecutor Maud Coujard requested that the association be dissolved. The press release says that this was a very grave error because dissolution was not permitted under French law at the time, and that this entails "legal consequences" because the prosecutor's remarks were reported around the world. Since prosecutors cannot be held individually responsible for errors committed while exercising their functions, Scientology is suing the State. The press release quotes the association's spokesperson: "As for the legal amendment that made such a sentence illegal [dissolution], it has been amply shown that Scientologists had as much to do with it as Christians did with the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64." Background: A cut-and-paste error in the text of a revised law deleted the provision that would have allowed the court to order the dissolution of Scientology in France. The revision became law on May 13, 2009, but it went unnoticed by prosecutors and cult watchers until September 2009. The provision was later restored, but cannot be applied retroactively. Press release: Communiqué : l’Eglise de Scientologie poursuit l’état français pour 1 million d’euros http://www<dot>ericroux<dot>com/Communique-l-Eglise-de-Scientologie-poursuit-l-etat-francais-pour-1-million-d-euros_a145<dot>html Also reported in French media, for example Le Figaro, June 3, 2011: La Scientologie assigne l'Etat
oh lawdy, now this is a priceless quote! 2011 is shaping up to be yet another stellar year for global footbullets! thks mnql1!
As some French official wisely noted, if they disband the cult without provisions to prevent it reforming under a new name, that's exactly what Scientology will do, run to the fridge with all the magnetic letters and come up with new, important sounding organizations and titles. "The devil you know" is Scientology. And you know they'll be sued again, they can't help it. Their doctrine pretty much guarantees some new victims will come forward at some point demanding compensation for what the cult stole from them; money, youth, virginity. Next time, they may not have an easy time of it in French court. They probably don't even realize how lightly they got off.
So, what is the point, from a legal professional point of view, of launching a civil suit against the state when you are months away from a criminal appeal against a judgement by the state (especially when that the civil suit is related to aspects of the orginal criminal trial)? Or is there no point and this is just "always attack, never defend" policy gone mad?
Here is a news report (subtitles added) that was broadcast in France on October 22, 2009, five days before the guilty verdict in Scientology's organized fraud trial was rendered on October 27. The subject is the May 2009 legislative change that deleted the provision which enabled France to dissolve a legal entity after two fraud convictions. The provision was subsequently reinstated, but could not be applied retroactively. Modified French law saved Scientology from dissolution in 2009
Thank you, criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology for raising the question of the change in that law. I believed that the "cut+paste error" made the text more complicated (and therefore an unlikely "cut+paste error"). Was there a summary or a simple before/after published? In English? Thanks a bunch for passing this on, I'm so happy Best regards Jens
AFAIR, you are right, but keep in mind that this legal change was: - part of a bundle of small changes in multiple laws intended to simplify administration, - beneficial to a lot of entities (all companies). It remains that a scientology had noticed that beforehand while everybody hadn't. My guess is that others noticed too, but decided to keep it quiet. The administration that prepared the bundle said it could not track back who made this specific proposal, due to the size of the bundle and the multiple versions of it. It was quickly put back in the books, but cannot be applied to scientology in this specific case. So, at best, they gained some extra time, nothing more. The issue of reopening under a new name already happened in the past.
The Paris region clam shop shut down and opened under a new name after they failed to pay (a lot of) back taxes. Last half of the 1990s. Same people running it, no officiel attempt to recover the taxes from the new organisation that I know of. But, it has to be said, that organisation had not been legally banned. Best Regards Jens
I wish Nobo the clown had the resources to sue the cult for negligence and/or hate; those mentally unstable scilons who broke his nose & hospitalised him, in broad fucking daylight. -- Big shout out to la Milivudes, working tirelessly to bring these criminals to justice. (if only the UK had an equivalent)
It would seem that they are trying to cow the state into acting against them. This is akin to going after the prosecutor in the Canadian case back in the 90s. The prosecutor then won a massive 6 figure judgment against them for defamation. It is not clear what their theory of the case here is, but a prosecutor simply saying that they should be dissolved is hardly actionable. Even if the prosecutor were wrong, unless the prosecutor knowingly/maliciously set out false facts against them, I'm not sure what the point here is (apart from the harassment. I like the fact that this suit makes more public the issue of the law, as Jens noted. Further, since we know that this is likely to rise its head again, who says that this can't be pursued in the future? I think they are very ill advised to anger the French state. But then again, ill advised aactions are their middle name.
The French don't want L Ron Hubbard's Cult of Child Abuse. Let the clams sue, 30,000 dumb culties versus one of the planet's most powerful states is never going to end well for the can-clutchers. I say bring it on. Even if the Hubbtard-lovers win, they'll not like the effects of a humiliated French government fair gaming THEM for a change....
The scilons are forgetting that they are not in the US. In France, judges have more invstigative powers and are not limited to solely what the parties contend in the courtroom [as in the US]. A judge in France would receive an entire legal file and in fact is entitled to request further investigation into the matter. There is no bulshit with the French judges. To sum up - Scientology is barking up the wrong tree here.
Well, I'm sure they have fooled the French to some degree, but still - continental justice system is very different from the common law system. And out of all of common law sytems, American is the easiest to manipulate [sorry Tikk]. Hence, at least in my view, in France Scientology would have never gotten away with all the shit they've been getting away with in front of the American judges. There is no "objection" in France - everything goes inside the trial record. Nothing is "prejudicial" or "leading the witness". Even hearsay is admitted and plea bargaining is not accepted. In the content the system wants to find the "truth". In common law it's all about the equality between the parties to trial.
From Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker, Friday, January 24, 2014: Jonny Jacobsen reports on the outcome of the litigation mentioned in the OP. More in the article : http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/24/sc...but-its-not-the-victory-they-were-hoping-for/
I've posted a more detailed version of the Paris case write-up at Infinite Complacency: http://infinitecomplacency.blo... I have another ruling from the same day where things didn't go quite so well for Scientology and hope to find time to write that up over the weekend. This is really just a sideshow now compared to the US lawsuits but I like to keep track of these rulings, in part as a corrective to Scientology's presentation of their wins. My thanks, by the way, to Mnql1 for having tipped me off to this case, which I would otherwise have missed.
