Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

Phil Lord

Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management

Volume 86, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 211 – 222

May 2020


Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization - Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management


* * * * * BEGIN ABSTRACT * * * * *

Abstract

This piece analyses the decision rendered by Judge James D. Whittemore of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the case of Garcia v Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. It goes beyond the face of the decision, which upholds an arbitration award, to argue that the decision has significant implications for freedom of religion in the United States. More specifically, it argues that the decision narrows the grounds upon which a religious arbitration award can be vacated by a court. The decision allows religious legal systems to, in some circumstances, exist with no oversight from the court system. It exemplifies and supports the thesis that the protections afforded to religious freedom in the United States create room for religious legal systems that are inconsistent with the mainstream legal system to exist. Finally, this piece considers, in light of the obvious issues raised by Judge Whittemore’s decision, whether it might be time to rethink judicial review of religious arbitration awards.

.* * * * * END ABSTRACT * * * * *


AMDM.jpg
 

The Oracle

Not the same Oracle from a decade ago
Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

Phil Lord

Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management

Volume 86, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 211 – 222

May 2020


Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization - Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management


* * * * * BEGIN ABSTRACT * * * * *

Abstract

This piece analyses the decision rendered by Judge James D. Whittemore of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the case of Garcia v Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. It goes beyond the face of the decision, which upholds an arbitration award, to argue that the decision has significant implications for freedom of religion in the United States. More specifically, it argues that the decision narrows the grounds upon which a religious arbitration award can be vacated by a court. The decision allows religious legal systems to, in some circumstances, exist with no oversight from the court system. It exemplifies and supports the thesis that the protections afforded to religious freedom in the United States create room for religious legal systems that are inconsistent with the mainstream legal system to exist. Finally, this piece considers, in light of the obvious issues raised by Judge Whittemore’s decision, whether it might be time to rethink judicial review of religious arbitration awards.

.* * * * * END ABSTRACT * * * * *


View attachment 8033
Thanks - so in other words....

Judge Whittemore is a CERTIFIED LAZY COWARD

1606744909066.png
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back

freethinker

Controversial
Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

Phil Lord

Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management

Volume 86, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 211 – 222

May 2020


Case Comment: Garcia V. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization - Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management


* * * * * BEGIN ABSTRACT * * * * *

Abstract

This piece analyses the decision rendered by Judge James D. Whittemore of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the case of Garcia v Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. It goes beyond the face of the decision, which upholds an arbitration award, to argue that the decision has significant implications for freedom of religion in the United States. More specifically, it argues that the decision narrows the grounds upon which a religious arbitration award can be vacated by a court. The decision allows religious legal systems to, in some circumstances, exist with no oversight from the court system. It exemplifies and supports the thesis that the protections afforded to religious freedom in the United States create room for religious legal systems that are inconsistent with the mainstream legal system to exist. Finally, this piece considers, in light of the obvious issues raised by Judge Whittemore’s decision, whether it might be time to rethink judicial review of religious arbitration awards.

.* * * * * END ABSTRACT * * * * *


View attachment 8033
That decision actually goes against the purpose of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not empower religion, it empowers people to follow whatever religion they want without interference from Congress. It wasn't written to protect religion, but people's freedom.

That decision just restricted peoples freedom. The First Amendment is not stand alone. It works in conjunction with all other rights, like all the other 9 rights of the Bill of Rights.

They should appeal it to the Supreme Court.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
That decision actually goes against the purpose of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not empower religion, it empowers people to follow whatever religion they want without interference from Congress. It wasn't written to protect religion, but people's freedom.

That decision just restricted peoples freedom. The First Amendment is not stand alone. It works in conjunction with all other rights, like all the other 9 rights of the Bill of Rights.

They should appeal it to the Supreme Court.
There were many times when we had very different opinions. This is not one of them. You are entirely correct, I couldn't agree more.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
That decision actually goes against the purpose of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not empower religion, it empowers people to follow whatever religion they want without interference from Congress. It wasn't written to protect religion, but people's freedom.
I'm totally with you on this one, sir.

I will add this: if somebody is no longer a member of a church and had been deemed a "heretic", "apostate", "anathema", "suppressive person" or "witch to be burned", how the fuck can that group's ecclesiastical laws possibly take precedence over the U.S. Constitution?

Example: some woman flees a Sharia Islam faction because her psycho husband is going to cut off her nose and pour acid on her face. Because she fled and publicly protested all this, she is now a blasphemer and they want to Stone Her To Death.

So a U.S. Judge agrees that she must submit to punishment by a group she has disavowed? WTF ? :mad:

Also, IMO, the Garcias' lawyers fucked up by not pointing out that the Federal Arbitration statute applies only to interstate commerce.
 
Last edited:

TheSneakster

Well-known member
By the way, there follows the statute (
9 U.S. Code § 2.Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate
) C of $ used in court to force the Garcias into their sham "arbitration":

Please note the commerce requirement:

United States Code said:
A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
By the way, there follows the statute (
9 U.S. Code § 2.Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate
) C of $ used in court to force the Garcias into their sham "arbitration":

Please note the commerce requirement:
As Tony Ortega reported, California Superior Court Judge Steven Kleinfiele picked up on the commerce requirement. See:

Judge in Danny Masterson lawsuit doubts Scientology ‘arbitration,’ sets hearing


Judge in Danny Masterson lawsuit doubts Scientology ‘arbitration,’ sets hearing | The Underground Bunker


* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

But Judge Kleifield is bothered by something entirely different, and something that neither side has previously brought up (“not previously briefed,” he says). In his ruling, he points to the language of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), under which the church claims that it has authority to hold Carnell Bixler and the three other former members to the language of contracts they had signed as Scientologists, promising to bring any grievance not to a court of law but to internal arbitration. See:

Kleifield notes that the federal act relies on the idea that arbitration is appropriate in cases of commerce, not complaints of harassment or stalking or libel.

“Defendants argue that the arbitration agreements are broad enough to cover any claim whatsoever. The question arises whether the FAA is available to Defendants to enforce the arbitration agreements at issue in this case.”

* * * * * ENR EXCERPT * * * * *
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
As Tony Ortega reported, California Superior Court Judge Steven Kleinfiele picked up on the commerce requirement.
Yes, he did and that is how I learned of it. I'm merely pointing out that attorneys in the Garcia case (which this thread is about) evidently failed to review the statute, because look how easy it was for I-am-not-a-lawyer me to find it (link now included to my source above)!
 
Top