Scientology has managed to persuade courts that people who signed Enrollment Agreements as a condition of starting a scientology service, are bound by a paragraph of the agreement where they agree to resolve disputes through a scientology “religious arbitration.”
Here is the language from those agreements.
This is the paragraph concerning religious arbitration:
Set aside whether an agreement to participate in services can encompass claims that have nothing to do with the service that is the subject of the agreement; there is another more significant problem with this “religious arbitration.”
Before this agreement was drafted, there was no such thing as “scientology religious arbitration.” It did not exist anywhere in the policies or writings of L. Ron Hubbard, and it still does not. In fact, all the way until the Garcia’s filed a lawsuit and scientology sought to enforce this agreement, nobody had any idea what a scientology religious arbitration was and such a thing had NEVER been held.
When the court in the Garcia case asked scientology to provide the details of how the arbitration would be conducted, scientology responded: “The Church of Scientology International Justice Chief (“IJC”) has ruled that the procedures and rules governing a Committee of Evidence apply in arbitration proceedings.”
Of course, they did not want courts looking too closely into what those procedures and rules are and how a Comm Ev is conducted in scientology, as that would make it clear it is not in any way similar to “arbitration” that courts love to use to lessen the case load they all face. There is a standard for arbitration set by the American Arbitration Association and typically these proceedings are overseen by retired judges. They are a substitute for a trial. And they are supposed to be neutral and fair. Like going to court.
Here, scientology demands to have their cake and eat it too. Every last crumb. They want the courts to enforce their “Committee of Evidence” ritual through a “legally enforceable” contract, but they claim the same court they want to enforce their agreement canmot involve themselves in making judgments about their “ecclesiastical jurisprudence” and thus running afoul of the First Amendment.
As with everything else in scientology, the procedures of a Committee of Evidence are described exactly by L. Ron Hubbard. While as I noted above, a thorough search of all his writings finds no mention of a religious arbitration.
Scientology has hoodwinked courts into accepting that a Committee of Evidence is a valid “arbitration” but it is nothing of the sort.
Hubbard described a Committee of Evidence this way: “A committee of evidence is convened on the subject of a known crime or high crime and it has come to be looked on (and is) a trial by jury there being a charge.”
Of course, the presupposes a crime or high crime has been committed — NOT what a “neutral” arbitration does — and is charged with determining what the punishment is to be for that crime.
Anyone who has ever been called before a Committee of Evidence will tell you, you are assumed guilty of the charges you are accused of. Only those lying to protect scientology would say otherwise. It is a committee that is supposed to figure out how light or heavy the penalty imposed on you will be. Filing a lawsuit against scientology is a High Crime. Reporting to the police is a High Crime. A Committee of Evidence is a classic Star Camber (The term star chamber refers pejoratively to any secret or closed meeting held by a judicial or executive body, or to a court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or that is used to persecute an individual).
Here are just some of the other things that distinguish a Comm Ev from an arbitration:
A Committee of Evidence functions as a fact-finding jury not an arbitration panel. “[It is] a fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a Convening Authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its Convening Authority for his or her action.” The highest “Convening Authority” in Scientology is the International Justice Chief.
A Committee of Evidence consists of appointed members, rather than party-selected arbitrators. “The Chairman is appointed at the discretion of the Convening Authority appointing the Committee.” “The Secretary is appointed specifically by the Convening Authority.” “Members of the Committee are specifically named by the Convening Authority. In addition to the Chairman and Secretary they may not number less than two or more than five.” Unlike the procedure established for naming arbitrators which contemplates 3 arbiters (in good standing with scientology), the Committee of Evidence is “composed of Chairman, Secretary, and two to five Committee members appointed by the Convening Authority.” Clearly, the ONLY detail about how such a religious arbitration is to be conducted, the selection of the arbiters does NOT comport with the procedure of a Comm Ev.
The Committee of Evidence findings can be altered or nullified by the convening authority, who “approves, mitigates or disproves the Findings and Recommendations of the Committee of Evidence he or she appoints” and he “…may disband a Committee of Evidence he or she convenes if it fails to be active in the prosecution of its business, and may convene another Committee in its place.” This also is not the procedure of an arbitration.
Hubbard also states: “Suppressive Persons or Groups relinquish their rights as Scientologists by their very actions and may not receive the benefits of the Codes of the Church.” It is without question that anyone who has filed a lawsuit against scientology is designated a Suppressive Person. They cannot be granted any relief by scientologists in good standing. In fact, they are not supposed to even communicate with them.
When the sham “arbitration” in the Garcia case was held, the Garcia’s were not allowed to have their attorney present, though the attorney for scientology was there. The evidence they presented was mostly rejected by the arbiters, claiming it was “entheta” (i.e. was negative towards scientology). They claim they had no obligation to accept any evidence from the Garcia’s the arbiters didnt like. There was no record made of the proceeding, though the Garcia’s had requested this. Yet the Comm Ev policies call for the meetings of the Committee to be recorded.
I have written previous articles about scientology arbitration and what a travesty of injustice it is. It is equivalent to sending a lapsed Catholic to the Inquisition to determine whether their claims of abuse at the hands of the church are valid.
Scientology wails about the rights to freedom of religion under the First Amendment for THEMSELVES and rejects the notion that individuals are protected by the same Amendment and cannot be forced by courts to undergo religious rituals that are part of an organization to which they no longer subscribe.
Concerning Scientology Religious Arbitration
Scientology “Religious Arbitration” – Giving Kangaroo Courts a Bad Name
More on Scientology “Religious Arbitration”
Shameful Scientology “Religious Arbitration” Destroying Justice
Below is the full text of main policy letter describing a Committee of Evidence:
A religious organization does not have absolute or general immunity.
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/44_4/07_FMS.htm#:~:text=Abstract%3A%20Although%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution,for%20their%20contracts%20and%20torts.&text=A%20general%20assertion%20of%20the,a%20claim%20against%20the%20institution.
DM is in for a ride awakening when Judges do their due diligence & hold him and all the others accountable for their actions.
I pray that the US Supreme Court takes Haney v Scientology. I have read the request for certiorari, the letter from legal professors, and response from scientology. Their response was repetitive and poorly written, in my opinion.
So in fact, you can not be part of a arbitration because of these two things
1- When you fill a lawsuit you are welcome inmediately to become a Supressive Person, so theres no any chance to win even if you dismiss the lawsuit who was the only way to declare a crime to be accepted in that arbritation but let you out.
2- Demands a Scientologist labeled as in good standing.
You are in a cycle that will never can be a cycle because you are not in.
What a paradox!!
According to what the cult told the Garcia judge, SPs are “expressly permitted to communicate with the IJC and convened Committee’s of Evidence.”
Mike wrote, “Set aside whether an agreement to participate in services can encompass claims that have nothing to do with the service that is the subject of the agreement; there is another more significant problem with this ‘religious’ arbitration.”
The easiest way to refuse to compel arb in the Haney and Bixler cases is to argue that the controversies did not arise from the contracts. The most difficult argument to win, would be anything that requires the court to question a religious organization’s policies.
In Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, 977 F. 3d 713 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit September 30, 2020 affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. A concurring judge wrote that he agreed with the affirmation but that he would have affirmed on different grounds. He would have affirmed on the ground that the controversy did not “aris[e] out of” the contract. He wrote, “Significantly, the controversy that is to be settled by arbitration must be one ‘arising out of’ the contract or transaction. By negative implication, the FAA does not require the enforcement of an arbitration clause to settle a controversy that does not arise out of the contract or transaction.”
Garcia’s claims did arise out of his contracts with the cult, so this argument would not work for him. He could have used any one of numerous other grounds and I do believe his appeal will be successful.
On this topic, I am not as expert as some. I offer that I do agree, a better approximation of an “arbitration” is a Chaplain’s Court. The chaplain listens to and studies both sides to render a judgment.
My only indirect exposure to a Committee of Evidence was one time, a person with whom I was good friends was asked to serve on one. It may have been because he had admin training and had previously completed an org staff contract. To see the transformation of this otherwise mild-mannered person into an individual working toward a pre-ordained hanging was not something I could forget. The vitriol he expressed for the person who was the subject (target) of the Comm Ev was entirely out of character. Definitely a “We’ll get him” and “I can’t wait” attitude. So sad.
Thank you, Mike
My own personal history and experience specifically with Comm Evs is as you say.
And, as all Comm Evs are to be tape recorded, somewhere, there’s a helluva lot of hard copy back up evidence mouldering.
I was outraged/flabbergasted/destroyed when I saw the courts shred the concept of “due diligence” in duty.
It wouldn’t even have been hard to do. Just ask Scn to show their procedure for arbitration before you adjudicate it’s the correct avenue.
It’s so basic.
your Inquisition comparison is spot on.
A FIVE MINUTE LOOK at the materials immediately on hand makes it evident.
You’re helping crumble this bastard of a wall of lies that is scn “justice”
Thank you, Mike
Ron said man can’t be trusted with justice, and in his case, I’d say that’s an accurate statement.
“Rebates” policy has a line where LRH says that Scientology has the right not to help anyone Scientology chooses not to help, and the context is with people asking for rebates and refunds.
And “Rebates” policy is a footnote policy among the other refund policies.
I know, I revised the 1984 CVB, Refund Repayment routing form.
LRH left for authorities who oversee Refund Repayments, this option, which explains why some refund repayments would stretch out for years, and some people never got responses to their requests in some years. “Rebates” policy allows not helping some people.
I spent an hour listening to a Catholic priest talk about St. Paul’s talk to some ancients, admonishing faithful ancient Catholics from submitting their inter Catholic disputes to secular courts.
So there is a whole long religious tradition, only the surface has been looked into, of other religions pushing on their members to submit to the religious members’ dispute resolution, not relying on secular “pagan” legal system.
But historically, country by country worldwide, many countries likely have allowed secular law resolve matters between even members of the same religion.
Signing away one’s rights to a religious court system is what Scientology is attempting.
The exceptions to a religion ever doing what Scientology is doing, needs legal research for what the laws are in the US.
This needs legal input, and research, by someone.
We need some smart inspired ex member do the legal research into this, and basically argue the case.
Same for the IRS tax exemption for Scientology. Someone needs to do the legal research into this, into the IRS’ tax laws, and see in detail what the IRS ought to do, but which the IRS isn’t doing. Just go ahead and do their work for them, and present it publicly. Get some ex IRS relevant agents to peer review the work, and ensure it is complete and the type of work the IRS would do. (I recently read the 1984 doc online and it lays out why the IRS in 1984 rejected the Scientology tax exemption request, just redo the work currently, for the IRS.)
In effect, someone needs to do the legal research and tax laws research, for the courts and for the IRS, and write a simple book laying out the case, basically do all their work for them, in advance, and present it publicly.
Some smart ex member who just does it, seems like something that is doable, so long as the person is smart enough.
Chuck – Did you listen to the Mike & Leah “Fair Game” podcast with law student and legal scholar, Taylor Holley? Her work is very complete. Here is a link to her paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3786391.
Excellent Peridot. Now I have to hibernate for a week, reading this paper, and all of the cited footnote articles to it.
I wish there were more time, as to patiently read all this, isn’t a one day process for me. It’ll be a week’s worth of reading.
But endless thanks. Here goes into it all.
Thankyou!
Peridot,
First major sub reading assignment I now have to get into.
On page 8 of Taylor C. Holley’s excellent paper, paragraph 3, she writes:
“….Congress extended tax exemption to organizations meeting certain charitable criteria…” (footnote 63 Harding Hosp., Inc. v. United States, 505 F.2nd 1068, 1071 (6th Cir. 1974)
This, Peridot, is what I was hinting at, which is one needs to go much deeper into the whole IRS tax criteria history, which are extended by Congress.
The whole US Congress granting exemption history, that is a whole series I believe of law study courses to get up to really expert tax law expertise.
I’m thinking of all US legal cases all relevant, and on Congressional history on IRS tax exemption, in complete history detail.
That to me would be the knowledge study I was thinking one needs to do.
I’ll be on this now, for a few hours or days, my first detour to understand this, we’ll see how far I get before giving it up.
page 8 further:
“….The rationale behind this legislative decision is that because the organizations inherently confer public benefit, no justification exists for the government to tax them and spend those funds on pubic projects, when the organizations are already providing and funding public benefits on their own accord…” (footnote 64 Church of Scientology of California v. Comm’r (Scientology II), 823 F.2nd 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1987).
ditto, I’d need to fully study that decision footnoted, and all related similar legal decisions bearing on this point, and understand if present Scientology does fit these criteria.
Ms. Taylor Holley has done an amazing amount of research, analysis, and outstanding writing. Definitely worth a study, as you are doing.
I’m already lost in two earlier court Scientology v. United States cases, trying to see the enduring points of her paper.
If life were only longer to do more study of things.
When told she was being comm-eved for out-2d. https://images.app.goo.gl/km3rh32F9BweBCik8
I believe Scientology Comm-Evs were based on military courts-martial, except omitting all of the safeguards that would ensure justice is done. The person who calls the Comm Ev (who usually has a vested interest in finding the person guilty) is the one who approves the findings and recommendations, so of course the person is found guilty. If they aren’t found guilty, the Convening Authority can reject the findings, censure the members, and even convene a new Comm Ev. So what chance does the accused have? None.
That’s my experience, as well. The accused is GUILTY! Off with their heads.
I was in the Sea Org for 25 years and was Comm Eved 11 times. I know how that works.
Yep, nothing but fun, fun, fun.
Did they at least have the decency to give you a Goldenrod after you blew? You earned it! Lol
A Goldenrod “With Honors” would be appropriate.
Yes I still have a copy on file.
This summary and analysis is excellent and can be a reference tool going into the future.
An important point is the convening authority can be on a vendetta for the accused.
Nothing less than a GUILTY verdict with harsh penalties is acceptable, so whatever findings submitted can be cancelled and COMM EV members disbanded and another Committee called.
I had 3 Comm Evs in a row on same issue because convening authority tossed the findings.
The punishment to send me to the RPF (Prison camp) was pre-ordained and til the Kangaroo Courts sentenced me to the RPF.
I explain Kangaroo Court “Committees of Evidence” here ~~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW-w0oCAKaY
Yes, getting the preordained “guilty” staff to the penalty box, the RPF for Sea Org members, was paramount.
Then, once on the RPF, and once you showed pliability and wllingness to play dedicated Sea Org member again, you could petition or request a Review Comm Ev, or a Board of Review.
I advised seveal PAC Sea Org members on that course.
Some persons just took the demeaning punishment, I did, and I knew it was all bogus in comparison to outside world understanding of all things Hubbard and Scientology.
The outside world has always smelled a rat in Hubbard’s operation, so to me, doing the RPF was more a retreat from the Hubbard crap mess in total, I’d “suffer” and then eventually get the hell out of the whole Scientology mess. I reasoned that if future lives are real, then us immortal souls have a long long ways to go, and just being in the RPF “this lifetime” for a short time, is nothing compared to the long distant future lives we all inevitably will live, LOL. I had my doubts anyways, as what in the end of the RPF for me, when it came time to really quit, and “route out” was my realization all our past lives confessions were just our imaginations. I felt great realizing it was all past lives imagination, and not real, just bogus self fantasy.
Scientology has so many problematic parts there’s nothing that much good, other than what people bring to it. You bring to Scientology any good found in it.
Hubbard’s false promises and his end of life dismal state of mind show the falseness of his own subject to even himself, let alone all those betrayed by Hubbard’s false promises.
————————
Midway in my Sea Org career, when I was in the Senior HCO Int branch, i learned either there, or a few years earlier, remember Lynn Visk, Karen?
Lynn was Chairman on a Comm Ev, and I was Secretary, and Lynn walked me through some key Hubbard loopholes that our Comm Ev applied in the favor of the person our Comm Ev was nailing.
Older Apollo outspoken Sea Org member vets like Lynn, knew the loophole ropes, since Lynn was in the old Apollo era SO 1 Unit answering letters to LRH, including those petition question letters to LRH< where Lynn, used to answer for LRH, and tell these requesting Scientologists to try the various LRH loophole policies.
So from Hubbard's policy loopholes, to old hands like Lynn, I picked up first these loopholes.
Hubbard wrote the loopholes, and SO 1 Unit letter answerers told the woe begotten Scientologists what options they had to rectify injustices that always befall Scientologists.
Ah, the number of history details of the long Hubbard debris trail of false hopes the members were given by Hubbard to wend their ways up the Hubbard stepladder of paid for enlightenment, is just sick.
Glad to have quit, and quitting faster once in the Scientology mess, is always the best course.
It's disheartening, every moment.
Yea, got to put an end to this or one day they’ll have com-ev’s for all those 2.0 or lower.
And of course those found guilty will be disposed of quietly, without sorrow.
Mein kampf meets Lord of the flies.
Arbitration is supposed to resolve disputes. A Committee of Evidence (Comm Ev) is supposed to punish a guilty party. How are these two purposes in any way similar? What do they even have to do with each other?
We need to kneed the dough so we mash it with a cash register. Hoist the flag with a howitzer. Pave the driveway with pulverized dreams.
I can imagine the panic that swept through the Scientology top brass the first time someone actually requested arbitration.
“Did you set up an arbitration procedure? No didn’t you? Must be Mike Rinder’s fault! Who put that language in the agreements! Nobody was ever supposed to read those things!”
“Must be something written by Hubbard that covers this – I know! The Comm Ev! Doesn’t make any sense, destroys lives, has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve but it was written by Hubbard and it does involve a panel of people appointed to do something. Perfect!”
Another good reference is the “Ethics Gradients” or some such, where Hubbard explains what happens if you screw up. First a warning, writing a report to Ethics etc. If the perp won’t quit stealing cash from the till, assign a lower condition. On through the list, I think the last ones are Comm Ev, Suppressive Person Declare. Obviously Hubbard thought of the Committee of Evidence as a harsh punishment, almost the ultimate punishment. The last thing you try before throwing the bum out.
Last time I was under Comm Ev I ended up with a $39,500 penalty. Imagine assigning that to someone who makes $50 a week once in a while? There was no way to talk them out of it, even though the committee was made up of old friends and people who respected me – they just shook their heads sadly to let me know that the higher-ups running the show would accept nothing less.
The Comm Ev has nothing to do with resolving disputes or reconciliation. Scientology can be trusted to do anything it does in the most destructive way possible. She needs a massage – get the jack-hammer!
Bruce, The LRH irate orders of your time period demanded that the “sabotaging” Gold staff be held accountable for the supposed money losing sabotage.
I mean in the end, it’s LRH’s quackery pseudo-therapy and faux exorcism of Xenu’s earth dump of body-thetans that is the underlining fraudulent nature of Scientology, and all of that fraud is on LRH.
How can anyone be held accountable for failing in the dissemination of the Scientology quackery pseudo-therapy and nutty exorcism of Xenu’s body-thetans?
No one owes nutty Hubbard’s Scientology a dime! Xenu’s body-thetans shower on earth is bogus quackery theory.
Lots of time and money has been spent on ghostbusting. (Do I have an MU here?)
Ghostbusting, exorcism, pretty close subjects. Getting rid of ghosts/bodiless souls out and about, or exorcism of ghosts-surplus-souls infesting in and around a person’s human body.
The concept of the soul, being the conscious “thing” that we are, as a sort of soul astronaut that can pop out of our human shell body, and navigate out and about in the universe, is what Scientology believes is reality of our human predicament.
Scientology believes we as souls have this soul flying capability which Scientology’s L Rundown pseudo-therapy claims will result in soul flying. It doesn’t, and May Sue’s failure to ever soul fly even after she complained to Hubbard she’d never had that soul flying experience, was why Hubbard had Otto Roos give Mary Sue the best quackery Hubbard ever developed to pop someone out of their body and soul fly successfully.
It’s hallucination, and some person’s are more capable of having that hallucination, is all.
It’s not real, but it’s a free speech issue to claim this soul flying is real.
“reality is agreement” per Hubbard.
It’s just such a looping racket of words misuse that Hubbard/Scientology loop around within.
“MU” indeed. Allowed free speech MU that isn’t illegal to claim. That’s Hubbard/Scientology.
It means now the Scientology internal working came under the preview of Courts.
What if the out come of Arbitration got challanged ,then the Scientology has to justify it in court of law.
That’s the part which shall make Court proceedings and judgement part of public record.
Mike the closest you will find is in Div 6 policies about Chaplain’s court for settling disputes. Funny how the IJC was too untrained to know about that Hubtard policy. I remember one time trying to get a Chaplain’s court against soomeone who hadn’t paid me money but IJC said I had to use some WISE guys instead (which wasn’t against church policy) so I just sued in court.
I had to go the WISE route when a scino landlord didn’t want to return my rental deposit upon moving out for no good reason. I had lived there 5 1/2 years. Luckily for me, I had documented all of his bad landlord behavior. A folder almost two inches thick. I had a check for the full amount in my hand from the WISE rep in two days. I wouldn’t have hesitated to take him to court if it had not a positive outcome.
Does the IJC, currently Mike Ellis, actually have a job, with a salary and benefits like Wog jobs, or is he another Sea Org or Staff volunteer? He must have an income – or a key to the candy machine, because he looks like he never missed a meal, or lacked for calories in any form. I can’t see him living on the meager SO food. The few photos of him do not show him to be sleep deprived or overworked.
What gives with the position and the person of the International Justice Chief?
Based on his size, he might be related to a whale.
He’s in the Sea Org but like Karin Pouw and others the position is just a placeholder for the will of David Miscavige behind the scenes. Nothing he does in public is done without clearance from the high-priced lawyers and Miscavige.
In private he mostly tries to extort “freeloader debt” payments from the thousands of former Sea Orgres he can contact and tries to get them back in the fold. Imagine a job where all you do all day is write fake letters to folks who hate your guts and never answer.
Obesity is not incompatible with sleeplessness and the availability of lots of cheap carbohydrates in the typical Sea Org diet. Or he could be one of those with an independent source of income. There are always lots of empty calories available in the “Canteen” (internal Sea Org convenience store). Snacking through the night to stay awake for example.
When I was at Flag for the Golden Age of Tech training in 1996 SO staff who were considered obese were not allowed to eat with the crew but were forced on a low calorie diet if they wanted to or not. I seem to recall one guy getting into repeated trouble for breaking diet, it was considered an “ethics” offense.
Not for the person’s health, but because being obese was considered “Out PR”, meaning the SO felt that their obesity reflected poorly on the church.
Sassmastersupreme wins the internet for the line, “the hammer come down so hard on their heads they’d be breathing through their assholes.” One of the many things I love about the Bunker and here is the level of sass and joking that come into play.
Whittemore punted on first down in the Garcia case. The procedures as written demanded 3 arbitrators, one chose by the Clams, one chosen by the Garcias and a third chosen by divining the entrails of a goat (or something like that). Because the Garcias could not find an arbitrator willing to be selected by them, the judge intervened and chose 3 by a non-conforming process. That selection broke the $cieno process and should have ended any claim to Arbitration.
If the Supreme Court picks up on the petition and rules, anything can happen. I do hope the Garcia example is used in any argument, but I have no hopes that the Supremes will do anything but restrict voting and make the 2nd Amendment Holy Writ.
Lawsuit Details Alleged Surveillance of Leah Remini for Scientology by TV Polygraph Operator Daniel Ribacoff’s International Investigative Group.
********
AntiPolygraph.org — NY Lawsuit Details Alleged Fraud by TV Polygraph Operator Daniel Ribacoff’s International Investigative Group, Surveillance of Actress Leah Remini for Church of Scientology
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2021/06/15/ny-lawsuit-details-alleged-fraud-by-tv-polygraph-operator-daniel-ribacoffs-international-investigative-group-surveillance-of-actress-leah-remini-for-church-of-scientology/
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
In a 29-page “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (12 MB PDF) filed on 7 June 2021 in the case of David M. Smith v. International Investigative Group Ltd., et al., attorney Steven Cohn of Carle Place, New York presented overwhelming evidence that the private investigation company run by TV polygraph operator Daniel D. “Dan” Ribacoff engaged in fraudulent billing practices
[SNIP]
Also of note, text messages submitted in evidence (23 MB PDF) document IIG’s surveillance of actress Leah Remini on behalf of the Church of Scientology—a cult founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard that uses a simple lie detector called an E-meter to “audit” (interrogate) its members.
Remini was indoctrinated into Scientology as a child and incurred the cult’s wrath by publicly leaving Scientology and, among other things, producing a documentary series, Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath, exposing physical and mental abuse inflicted upon members.
IIG spied on Leah Remini for the Church of Scientology while she was in New York for filming of the 2018 romantic comedy Second Act. The memorandum filed in support of the motion for summary judgment alleges that IIG directed investigator Yanti Greene, a retired New York Police Department officer, to double bill for work on the case.
Among other things, the text messages include discussion of a March 2018 article by Tony Ortega titled “Leah Remini is still being stalked, and now Scientology has turned to an ex-NYPD detective” that reveals Greene’s surveillance of Remini without mentioning him by name.
After these documents were filed in court, the Ribacoffs’ attorney filed a motion to seal all of the filings. Neither the memorandum nor the numerous exhibits are presently available for download from the New York state court system. Counsel for David M. Smith is contesting the request to seal, and the ultimate disposition of the matter is yet to be determined.
AntiPolygraph.org downloaded the three case documents mentioned and mirrored in this article before the court removed public access to them.
For prior reporting on this litigation and the related case of Susanne Gold-Smith v. Daniel Ribacoff et al., see TV Polygraph Operator Dan Ribacoff’s International Investigative Group Allegedly Bilked Client.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
The phrase “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” links to:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/iig/607393_2019_DAVID_M_SMITH_v_DAVID_M_SMITH_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_392.pdf
The phrase “text messages submitted in evidence” links to:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/iig/607393_2019_DAVID_M_SMITH_v_DAVID_M_SMITH_EXHIBIT_S__427.pdf
The phrase “Leah Remini is still being stalked, and now Scientology has turned to an ex-NYPD detective” links to:
https://tonyortega.org/2018/03/26/leah-remini-is-still-being-stalked-and-now-scientology-has-turned-to-an-ex-nypd-detective/
The phrase “TV Polygraph Operator Dan Ribacoff’s International Investigative Group Allegedly Bilked Client” links to:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/12/22/tv-polygraph-operator-dan-ribacoffs-international-investigative-group-allegedly-bilked-client/
/
Thanks!
Great reporting as usual.
I wonder what it will actually take for some sort of Supreme Court ruling on the practices. They are at worst illegal and unconstitutional and at best highly unethical. If any other organization was trying to pull similar shenanigans, they’d have the hammer come down so hard on their heads they’d be breathing through their assholes.
I also find it annoying that autocorrect programs keep trying to force me to capitalize the word “scientology”
No SassMAster, they aren’t unconstitutional (there is no clause covering this) but the Judge who allows them is probably violating the law (in CA at least) regarding it being a conforming arbitration in that it isn’t conducted by a neutral 3rd party.
Birds fly, fich swim and clams shut up.
The only prison we live in is a planets atmosphere.
Flying kids = successful parents.
Words written on a paper = wing clipped kids
…..and Xenu’s earth dump of body-thetans swarm humans (not, it’s clearly bogus quackery theory this whole fraud subject).
A Hawaii and a Canary island didn’t exist when Xenu made his move. Islands blowing up their size turns safe. (No killer monster on Hawaiii or Canary islands)
I was called before a committee of evidence. I am a grown adult man. I was crying my eyes out. I never have to do that again, thanks to finding out the truth.
The scientologist is the last person to know the truth about scientology.
in my (limited) experience of these things, [scn “jurisprudence”], the accused is deemed guilty and there is nothing that they can do or say during the proceedings to change the foreordained findings. In fact, should the committee find anything but “guilty on all counts”, the committee is subject to the same penalties they didn’t enforce upon the accused. After all, the committee wouldn’t have been called if there wasn’t evidence (no matter how slim) of a crime by the accused. “Chop off their heads!”
You know Jere, I would have thought that you knew more than you claim to know about this. But everything you say is correct. In my 23 years in the S.O. I served on 8 to 10 Comm-Evs, usually as Secretary.
In my first one in 1979, the Comittee recommended that the I/P be released from the RPF. The Convening Authority disbanded the Committee and called a new one adding the original Committee Members to the list of Interested Parties.
In the PL I seem to recall, LRH said ” Most are innocent, some are Guilty”.
In all of the Committees I was on and those I heard about, I never saw anyone found Not-Guilty.
In the end the findings of the Committee only determined, not the fate of the accused, but only if the Committee itself would join the accused on the gallows.
In the end I would have been OK with joining them on the gallows, but by then I was already as good as dead.
By the by, regarding that very convoluted policy letter above … Remember when LRH proclaimed that complexity was proportional to the amount of non confront? … Uhm … Well, Oooooooooookay ….
It’s totally true. Thank you very much
Crimes and High Crimes in Scientology are not really crimes (like rape or murder) but mental abuse in the form of policy Hubbard concocted to assert his authoritarian control and keep his minions in fear.
Re: Comm Evs … As we say in Scientology … You’re guilty until proven guilty …
Ron was big on guilt.
Allah help the Poor Dumb bastard that tells the Convening Authority that you are innocent.
The only Mitigating Factors in a Comm-Ev is not if you are sorry, but if if you, like me, are already dead.
For some reason they do not kill people already dead but it seems that they still declare Supressive dead people. But since I have never seen my declare I am only 99.9% certain of that.
. The judge in the Garcia Case was obviously looking for an easy way out. When the lawyers suggested arbitration, he knew he was free of the burden. No Judge or Court should need to review one minute of Scientology policy. As long as what they consider is very minor cases are brought forth, they will love arbitration. It’s just the nature of the system that we deal with.
Mike, the absolute first thing taught in Infantry Basic Training (in 1982) was “the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero.” There clearly is no excuse for what Scientology is doing.