If Danny Masterson’s accusers take lawsuit to Calif. supreme court, they will have issues

Karen#1

Well-known member
Excerpt:

[Is Chrissie Carnell-Bixler headed for the state supreme court?]


Yesterday, we reported the stunning news that an appeals court denied the petition filed by Danny Masterson’s accusers. The court, like in Valerie Haney’s case, found that these plaintiffs suing Scientology can appeal their cases — but only after they go through Scientology’s “religious arbitration,” not before.

After Valerie’s petition was denied, she asked the California state supreme court for a review, but the court refused.

Should Danny Masterson’s accusers take the same step?

We think they will be tempted to. But if they’re going to succeed where Valerie failed, we figure they’re going to have to deal with some real problems in their case.

That became clear when we got a look at Scientology’s opposition to their petition, a copy of which we received yesterday at the same time we learned about the court’s denial.~~~READ MORE

 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Read the comment section copied and pasted below - it is absolutely amazing. Many thanks to Tony for his tireless persistence to bringing Scientology news and commentary to light. There is much more at the link. Mimsey

If Danny Masterson’s accusers take lawsuit to Calif. supreme court, they will have issues | The Underground Bunker (tonyortega.org)

X Lawyer3 days ago • edited
I would just like to take a moment to repeat a legal argument I've been making that I think is quite valid and likely to result in litigants staying out of Scientology's religious arbitration trap. In short, the argument is that Congress and the states cannot delegate judicial authority to any religious body or entity without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I really hope some enterprising attorney finds this argument and runs with it.

Before Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act back in the 1920s, the courts pretty much universally held that they had the exclusive judicial power, and that private parties could not agree to take that judicial power away from the courts by agreeing to binding arbitration to resolve their disputes. Businesses hated that rule, because they saw litigation in the courts as slow and inefficient, and they wanted arbitration as a faster and smarter way of getting disputes resolved. So they went to Congress, which passed the FAA. With it, Congress effectively delegated the courts' judicial power to private arbitrators, so long as the matter was within the scope of the FAA and the parties had agreed to arbitrate. State legislatures followed suit with their own versions of the FAA.

However, reading the FAA (or its state legislative equivalents) to allow delegation of judicial power to a religious entity is pretty obviously a violation of the Establishment Clause, because it gives that governmental judicial authority over to religious control. Congress can't put the Catholic Church in charge of the Department of Education. The City of Dallas can't delegate law enforcement authority to First Baptist Church. And the California state courts can't hand over their judicial authority to the Church of Scientology.

ETA: This argument is very much a quirk of how arbitration law developed in the United States. If the courts back in the day had simply decided that private agreements to arbitrate were enforceable on their own terms, it would not present an Establishment Clause violation to enforce a private agreement for religious arbitration. It's only because the courts decided that arbitration itself was a violation of their own judicial authority that Congress had to step in and delegate that judicial authority to private arbitrators via the FAA. But since it's established that the judicial power belongs to the courts unless Congress/the states have validly delegated it, you can't read that delegation to include private religious arbitration without it being a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Avatar
Tony Ortega
Mod TX Lawyer3 days ago
Didn't it seem like Judge Kleifield was edging toward this seeming problem when he asked the two sides to submit answers about the FAA and "commerce," and whether a church contract really fit that description?
At that point it really seemed like the judge understood how ridiculous this situation is, which made his ultimate decision that much more bewildering.

Avatar
TX Lawyer
Tony Ortega3 days ago • edited
Judge Kleifield seemed to be questioning whether the dispute was something that was within the scope of the FAA. Per section 2 of the FAA, the agreement to arbitrate has to be "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce," with "commerce" defined in section 1 to be (basically) any kind of transaction that touches on interstate commercial activity. Judge Kleifeld rightfully questioned whether Scientology's "religious" operations qualified as commerce, a proposition the Church readily agreed with.
My argument doesn't depend on whether the dispute is within the scope of the FAA or California's state law equivalent. Just assume that it is within the scope. The point is that Congress and Judge Kleifield still cannot delegate any of his judicial authority to the Church of Scientology, or to the Dalai Lama, or any other religious entity because it would be an establishment of religion under the First Amendment. It's no different than if the judge chose to stop ruling on all of his cases and handed off the gavel to the LDS Church's council of apostles.

Avatar
J. Swift
TX Lawyer3 days ago • edited
TX Lawyer, I agree with your argument and think it will wind up at the US Supreme Court. There has to come a day of reckoning for the ways in which religions in America can rape, steal, lie, and defraud their parishioners and hide behind arbitration and the First Amendment.
The Catholic Church paid off billions of dollars in settlements only after two decades of fighting, lying, concealing evidence, moving pedophile priests around, and generally engaging in obstruction. It takes time and the willingness to fight.
*****
Scientology is a corrupt and malicious Cult which is defending an alleged serial rapist named Danny Masterson.
Did Bob Duggan donate ~$400 million to Scientology so that alleged rapist Danny Masterson
can destroy Scientology in the media? Masterson's rape case is destroying Scientology and yet the Cult is stuck with him because David Miscavige refused to turn Masterson over to the LAPD.Scientologists still in the Church have to ask the question: Is Danny Masterson really worth defending? Did L. Ron Hubbard create Scientology just to see it all destroyed by Danny Masterson? Seriously? If all of Scientology all comes down to defending Danny Masterson, then Scientology was a complete and total waste of time.*****
L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology's technology of confronting and shattering suppression and yet what it really comes down to is contracts of adhesion. Hubbard wrote in 1964 that getting people to sign waivers had proved successful in stopping attacks (lawsuits) against Scientology. Hubbard therefore made waivers a necessary precursor to getting any services or auditing because he knew lawsuits would come.I have called The Church of Scientology the "Corvair of Religions" due to its deadly design. The Church of Scientology can and does harm and kill people and the Cult knows this. Instead of redesigning and reforming, Scientology defends its inherently flawed and deadly design and hides behind dirty contracts and religious protections. Only criminals and liars do this.
*****
Once you strip away “Xenu and the celebrities” what is the Church of Scientology in actuality?
The answer is simple: A dishonest and greedy RTC-operated franchise system that hides behind malicious contracts and 501(c)3 status. Once the 501(c)3 status is revoked, the franchise system will fall apart under civil and criminal actions.

TX Lawyer J. Swift3 days ago
Thanks. The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit may have already waived the Establishment Clause argument because they did not present it before being compelled to go to arbitration. In almost all instances, the lawyers have to present the issue to the trial court before the judge makes his ruling. If the lawyers don't make the argument to the trial court, you don't get to complain about the issue in any appeal.
Avatar
chuckbeattyx75to03
TX Lawyer2 days ago • edited
Bingo.
So the next case that comes up in the future, where this fits, the lawyers have to bring up that argument, correct?

The Scientology run arbitration panel that Scientology rules over, the membership of the arbiters has to not a stacked deck against the ex Scientology party(s).

Where are the outside experts in the rules of Scientology who ought to do an expert paper to inform US judges that Scientology's arbitration panels will necessarily be biased and unfair to "SP" ex members who go before such an arbitration panel.

Scientology's arbitration panels are necessarily religiously entangled and will be unfair to "SP" apostate ex members of Scientology. So any judge ordering execution of Scientology arbitrations controlled entirely by Scientology rules and Scientology panel members will be unfair, and ordering religious biased and religious rules entangled arbitrations.

TX Lawyer chuckbeattyx75to03 • 2 days ago
Yes, I am thinking much more about future cases. I expect that the Establishment Clause ship has sailed for the current litigation. And the argument doesn't depend at all on the unfairness of Scientology's "arbitration" system. It could be the fairest system in the universe, and it still can't be compelled under the FAA without improperly delegating judicial authority to a religious entity.
 

freethinker

Controversial
Excerpt:

[Is Chrissie Carnell-Bixler headed for the state supreme court?]


Yesterday, we reported the stunning news that an appeals court denied the petition filed by Danny Masterson’s accusers. The court, like in Valerie Haney’s case, found that these plaintiffs suing Scientology can appeal their cases — but only after they go through Scientology’s “religious arbitration,” not before.

After Valerie’s petition was denied, she asked the California state supreme court for a review, but the court refused.

Should Danny Masterson’s accusers take the same step?

We think they will be tempted to. But if they’re going to succeed where Valerie failed, we figure they’re going to have to deal with some real problems in their case.

That became clear when we got a look at Scientology’s opposition to their petition, a copy of which we received yesterday at the same time we learned about the court’s denial.~~~READ MORE

I'll give you my opinion on the matter.

What the California Supreme Court did and the Court of appeals is to violate the First Amendment by compelling association with Scientology, establishing religious arbitration.

They should petition a writ of mandamus to the US Supreme Court. Scientology can't claim religious protections, which they don't have and then deny them by denying due process where you get a meaningful trial by jury from your peers, not your enemy. As Scientology religious doctrine does not allow a Scientologist to sue another Scientologist and they vigorously punish any behavior opposing Scientology or Scientologists no matter what, The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. The California courts erred in judgement and basically showed partiality to a religion which is really a business.

Every Judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not Scientology arbitration. They have essentially violated their oath.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Read the comment section copied and pasted below - it is absolutely amazing. Many thanks to Tony for his tireless persistence to bringing Scientology news and commentary to light. There is much more at the link. Mimsey

If Danny Masterson’s accusers take lawsuit to Calif. supreme court, they will have issues | The Underground Bunker (tonyortega.org)

X Lawyer3 days ago • edited
I would just like to take a moment to repeat a legal argument I've been making that I think is quite valid and likely to result in litigants staying out of Scientology's religious arbitration trap. In short, the argument is that Congress and the states cannot delegate judicial authority to any religious body or entity without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I really hope some enterprising attorney finds this argument and runs with it.

Before Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act back in the 1920s, the courts pretty much universally held that they had the exclusive judicial power, and that private parties could not agree to take that judicial power away from the courts by agreeing to binding arbitration to resolve their disputes. Businesses hated that rule, because they saw litigation in the courts as slow and inefficient, and they wanted arbitration as a faster and smarter way of getting disputes resolved. So they went to Congress, which passed the FAA. With it, Congress effectively delegated the courts' judicial power to private arbitrators, so long as the matter was within the scope of the FAA and the parties had agreed to arbitrate. State legislatures followed suit with their own versions of the FAA.

However, reading the FAA (or its state legislative equivalents) to allow delegation of judicial power to a religious entity is pretty obviously a violation of the Establishment Clause, because it gives that governmental judicial authority over to religious control. Congress can't put the Catholic Church in charge of the Department of Education. The City of Dallas can't delegate law enforcement authority to First Baptist Church. And the California state courts can't hand over their judicial authority to the Church of Scientology.

ETA: This argument is very much a quirk of how arbitration law developed in the United States. If the courts back in the day had simply decided that private agreements to arbitrate were enforceable on their own terms, it would not present an Establishment Clause violation to enforce a private agreement for religious arbitration. It's only because the courts decided that arbitration itself was a violation of their own judicial authority that Congress had to step in and delegate that judicial authority to private arbitrators via the FAA. But since it's established that the judicial power belongs to the courts unless Congress/the states have validly delegated it, you can't read that delegation to include private religious arbitration without it being a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Avatar
Tony Ortega
Mod TX Lawyer3 days ago
Didn't it seem like Judge Kleifield was edging toward this seeming problem when he asked the two sides to submit answers about the FAA and "commerce," and whether a church contract really fit that description?
At that point it really seemed like the judge understood how ridiculous this situation is, which made his ultimate decision that much more bewildering.

Avatar
TX Lawyer
Tony Ortega3 days ago • edited
Judge Kleifield seemed to be questioning whether the dispute was something that was within the scope of the FAA. Per section 2 of the FAA, the agreement to arbitrate has to be "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce," with "commerce" defined in section 1 to be (basically) any kind of transaction that touches on interstate commercial activity. Judge Kleifeld rightfully questioned whether Scientology's "religious" operations qualified as commerce, a proposition the Church readily agreed with.
My argument doesn't depend on whether the dispute is within the scope of the FAA or California's state law equivalent. Just assume that it is within the scope. The point is that Congress and Judge Kleifield still cannot delegate any of his judicial authority to the Church of Scientology, or to the Dalai Lama, or any other religious entity because it would be an establishment of religion under the First Amendment. It's no different than if the judge chose to stop ruling on all of his cases and handed off the gavel to the LDS Church's council of apostles.

Avatar
J. Swift
TX Lawyer3 days ago • edited
TX Lawyer, I agree with your argument and think it will wind up at the US Supreme Court. There has to come a day of reckoning for the ways in which religions in America can rape, steal, lie, and defraud their parishioners and hide behind arbitration and the First Amendment.
The Catholic Church paid off billions of dollars in settlements only after two decades of fighting, lying, concealing evidence, moving pedophile priests around, and generally engaging in obstruction. It takes time and the willingness to fight.
*****
Scientology is a corrupt and malicious Cult which is defending an alleged serial rapist named Danny Masterson.
Did Bob Duggan donate ~$400 million to Scientology so that alleged rapist Danny Masterson
can destroy Scientology in the media? Masterson's rape case is destroying Scientology and yet the Cult is stuck with him because David Miscavige refused to turn Masterson over to the LAPD.Scientologists still in the Church have to ask the question: Is Danny Masterson really worth defending? Did L. Ron Hubbard create Scientology just to see it all destroyed by Danny Masterson? Seriously? If all of Scientology all comes down to defending Danny Masterson, then Scientology was a complete and total waste of time.*****
L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology's technology of confronting and shattering suppression and yet what it really comes down to is contracts of adhesion. Hubbard wrote in 1964 that getting people to sign waivers had proved successful in stopping attacks (lawsuits) against Scientology. Hubbard therefore made waivers a necessary precursor to getting any services or auditing because he knew lawsuits would come.I have called The Church of Scientology the "Corvair of Religions" due to its deadly design. The Church of Scientology can and does harm and kill people and the Cult knows this. Instead of redesigning and reforming, Scientology defends its inherently flawed and deadly design and hides behind dirty contracts and religious protections. Only criminals and liars do this.
*****
Once you strip away “Xenu and the celebrities” what is the Church of Scientology in actuality?
The answer is simple: A dishonest and greedy RTC-operated franchise system that hides behind malicious contracts and 501(c)3 status. Once the 501(c)3 status is revoked, the franchise system will fall apart under civil and criminal actions.

TX Lawyer J. Swift3 days ago
Thanks. The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit may have already waived the Establishment Clause argument because they did not present it before being compelled to go to arbitration. In almost all instances, the lawyers have to present the issue to the trial court before the judge makes his ruling. If the lawyers don't make the argument to the trial court, you don't get to complain about the issue in any appeal.
Avatar
chuckbeattyx75to03
TX Lawyer2 days ago • edited
Bingo.
So the next case that comes up in the future, where this fits, the lawyers have to bring up that argument, correct?

The Scientology run arbitration panel that Scientology rules over, the membership of the arbiters has to not a stacked deck against the ex Scientology party(s).

Where are the outside experts in the rules of Scientology who ought to do an expert paper to inform US judges that Scientology's arbitration panels will necessarily be biased and unfair to "SP" ex members who go before such an arbitration panel.

Scientology's arbitration panels are necessarily religiously entangled and will be unfair to "SP" apostate ex members of Scientology. So any judge ordering execution of Scientology arbitrations controlled entirely by Scientology rules and Scientology panel members will be unfair, and ordering religious biased and religious rules entangled arbitrations.

TX Lawyer chuckbeattyx75to03 • 2 days ago
Yes, I am thinking much more about future cases. I expect that the Establishment Clause ship has sailed for the current litigation. And the argument doesn't depend at all on the unfairness of Scientology's "arbitration" system. It could be the fairest system in the universe, and it still can't be compelled under the FAA without improperly delegating judicial authority to a religious entity.

Thanks for posting those outstanding comments.

It had some very bright arguments that might well test the legal theory behind allowing a church to conduct arbitrations.

I think it will eventually pit the considerable the skills of opposing constitutional scholars to determine many nuanced issues, one of which might be whether a private organization, corporation or entity (whether commercial, non-profit, religious or otherwise) has the RIGHT to enter into an agreement with their participants of whatever designation (e.g. customers, employees, stockholders, officers, directors, vendors, suppliers, parishioners, et al) and if such right is not afforded to an organization or entity simply because they are religious.

Naturally, in a perfect world, the religious racket of Scientology would explode into view on any casual inspection within the court system. Yes, that would be an IDEAL justice system well deserved by IDEAL orgs.

.
 
Last edited:
Top