Babbitt’s Gambit: Recasting Garcia Federal Fraud Lawsuit Against Scientology

Leland

Crusader
I just read it quickly and could be off base and wrong..... Plus it's complicated . So what I got is that defendant is saying diversity does not apply, so plantiff cannot sue in federal court. ( diversity refers to a federal lawsuit where action occurred in multiple states, therefore diverse.). So Defendant says suit should have been brought in State of Calif. legal system and not Federal.. So they are asking the judge to throw the whole suit out. ????
 
Yes, I think cherch is saying.. "you have to throw whole case out, not just allow Garcia's to separate the cases and go after Flag here in Florida. Garcias already made it clear that the trusts are involved, and they can't go back on that now, and just pursue remedies for the portion of responsibility attributed to Flag."

This is the part I don't understand. How does this make grounds for dismissal? Instead of saying the Flag entities can't stand alone, doesn't Scientology need to be making some claim about how the Flag entities also don't belong in the Federal case, either?

I think the Garcias were originally saying that all the entities worked together to do the business alleged as fraud..and cherch does not seem to be disputing that, rather reinforcing it.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
IANAL,

I prolly have this all bolluxed up, but I think the Garcia's picked which shells to sue, based on a combination of
who they interacted with (where the trail leads of evidence)
where they interacted, where the fraud occurred-part of doing business, and the super power building is (Florida, which was where Flag is),
where the actors "do business" (where trust is registered.. but then cherch claims it got registered by mistake in the wrong place once, but really belongs in California)

cherch says, where trusts do business is some how separate from the above Florida activity and registration trail, due to the majority of trust employees being physically in California, and most business being done in California even though the Garcia's actual fundraising was done in Florida with the Garcias, but that doesn't matter to subject matter jurisdiction anyway, since for 'trusts' instead should be residences of "trustees" in California, nondiverse like Garcias, so therefore,

to sue the trusts, no diversity, doesn't belong in federal court, and needs to go to California. this could make it sound like cherch wants to spare Flag, separate Flag from the trusts, make two separate cases. But I think Garcias are saying Flag was intimately involved. I don't hear cherch saying Flag was not involved. I hear cherch not denying trusts were involved. so that's my confusion. it sounds like cherch is admitting they are all in it together...

And the Church's footbullet on this one is that when all is said and done they will be essentially notifying the world who to sue and who not to bother suing and how to go about with a suit.

What a bunch of maroons.

When all is said and done they would have been better off just paying the Garcias their hard earned cash back

Rd00
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology takes aim at the latest move by the Garcias in their federal fraud suit

Tony Ortega: Scientology takes aim at the latest move by the Garcias in their federal fraud suit
http://tonyortega.org/2014/04/16/sc...e-by-the-garcias-in-their-federal-fraud-suit/

Excerpt:
After months of discovery, the Garcias decided to drop those three entities and press on with their lawsuit against the remaining two: Scientology’s Flag Service Organization (FSO) and Flag Ship Service Organization (FSSO).

Now, Scientology has answered back, saying that Judge James Whittemore should throw out the entire lawsuit altogether…
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Tell me if I have this right.

The Garcias are standing in front of a table. There are shells on the table.

One shell is labeled CST

Another shell is labeled RTC

Another shell is labeled FSO

etc

etc

The table itself is labeled COS

Now the Garcias can sue shells for their money back but the question is which shell or shells is the money under.

They have to be careful because maybe they will successfully sue a shell but that shell might not have the money under it.

Hell maybe they can sue all the shells and win but the money is not under any of the shells.

Maybe the money is hidden in a crevice somewhere, a deep dark crevice that reeks a vile stench.

Godspeed to the Garcias

Rd00

So sue the table!
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
The latest from the Bunker:

The Garcias take one more shot at Scientology before their fraud suit will live or die

Now, in one last salvo, the Garcias attack that notion, saying that the church held a full arbitration panel, and filed multiple motions to dismiss, before suddenly raising the issue that its own trustees were in California.

We now await the judge. If he does dismiss the suit, the Garcia may decide to refile it in another venue.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/04/22/th...ogy-before-their-fraud-suit-will-live-or-die/
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
ahh Yep... the cult keeps saying it is not in this corner it is that corner so you(Garcia and Roxio) can't corner us in and throw a knock out punch.

I say they have lost their ability to lie their way out of the ring without at the same time revealing the truth. They are going down for the count. It is just a question of in which round it will happen. Meanwhile the crowd watching is hissing and booing and sees how dirty they are and will shun them more and more and completely avoid their already Idle morgues.

IANAL,

I prolly have this all bolluxed up, but I think the Garcia's picked which shells to sue, based on a combination of
who they interacted with (where the trail leads of evidence)
where they interacted, where the fraud occurred-part of doing business, and the super power building is (Florida, which was where Flag is),
where the actors "do business" (where trust is registered.. but then cherch claims it got registered by mistake in the wrong place once, but really belongs in California)

cherch says, where trusts do business is some how separate from the above Florida activity and registration trail, due to the majority of trust employees being physically in California, and most business being done in California even though the Garcia's actual fundraising was done in Florida with the Garcias, but that doesn't matter to subject matter jurisdiction anyway, since for 'trusts' instead should be residences of "trustees" in California, nondiverse like Garcias, so therefore,

to sue the trusts, no diversity, doesn't belong in federal court, and needs to go to California. this could make it sound like cherch wants to spare Flag, separate Flag from the trusts, make two separate cases. But I think Garcias are saying Flag was intimately involved. I don't hear cherch saying Flag was not involved. I hear cherch not denying trusts were involved. so that's my confusion. it sounds like cherch is admitting they are all in it together...

Yes, I think cherch is saying.. "you have to throw whole case out, not just allow Garcia's to separate the cases and go after Flag here in Florida. Garcias already made it clear that the trusts are involved, and they can't go back on that now, and just pursue remedies for the portion of responsibility attributed to Flag."

This is the part I don't understand. How does this make grounds for dismissal? Instead of saying the Flag entities can't stand alone, doesn't Scientology need to be making some claim about how the Flag entities also don't belong in the Federal case, either?

I think the Garcias were originally saying that all the entities worked together to do the business alleged as fraud..and cherch does not seem to be disputing that, rather reinforcing it.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Today's The Underground Bunker has an update about what's going on in this lawsuit.
Here's the link: http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/18/sc...at-the-garcias-and-vance-woodward-fires-back/

Excerpt:

<snip>...Scientology has answered that amended complaint with a new motion to dismiss the lawsuit, again over the question of diversity jurisdiction. The church is saying that the Garcias cut some corners in order to avoid the jurisdiction problem, and Judge James A. Whittemore should not have allowed it.

The filing indicates that Scientology plans to appeal Whittemore’s ruling on the jurisdiction question. Well, of course they are. Scientology also filed a two-page renewal to its motion to compel arbitration — essentially a document which says, come on, judge, hurry up and make your decision.

Is it unreasonable to speculate that TeamCSI has probably accumulated a bill for legal fees in this case that's larger than the amount the Garcias requested be returned to them? :confused2:

JB
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Is it unreasonable to speculate that TeamCSI has probably accumulated a bill for legal fees in this case that's larger than the amount the Garcias requested be returned to them? :confused2:

That may be true but if TeamCSI had just written a check to the Garcia's for the requested amount that would not end this situation for them.

It would be just the beginning.

A long line of other people who have also donated to the SuperFraud Building would suddenly appear wanting a check as well. :)
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologylegal/ideman.htm

Excerpt: A rare Declaration by A Judge regarding $cientology's conduct:

Excerpt:

"They have utilized every device that we on the District Court have ever
heard of to avoid such compliance, and some that are new to us.


4. This noncompliance has consisted of evasions, misrepresentations,
broken promises and lies, but ultimately with refusal. As part of this
scheme to not comply, the plaintiffs have undertaken a massive campaign of
filing every conceivable motion (and some inconceivable) to disguise the
true issue in these pretrial proceedings.
Apparently viewing litigation as
war, plaintiffs by this tactic have had the effect of massively increasing
the costs to the other parties, and, for a while, to the Court....

5. Yet, it is almost all puffery -- motions without merit or substance. "
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
BREAKING: Garcia federal fraud lawsuit survives another challenge by Scientology

BREAKING: Garcia federal fraud lawsuit survives another challenge by Scientology

Tony Ortega: Garcia federal fraud lawsuit survives another challenge by Scientology
http://tonyortega.org/2014/07/25/ga...it-survives-another-challenge-by-scientology/

Excerpt:
But now Judge Whittemore has ruled for the Garcias, saying that the couple’s amended complaint can proceed against two Scientology entities, and that they have met the minimum amount of damages to qualify for federal court. Whittemore also denied Scientology the chance to make an interlocutory appeal to a higher court. It’s a complete victory for the Garcias on this motion.

We’re still waiting for Whittemore to rule on the other big question in the preliminary phase of this lawsuit, and that’s Scientology’s motion to have the Garcias forced into arbitration and dismiss the case from federal court. Scientology argues that the dispute is a religious and internal matter which shouldn’t be the subject of a civil court. The Garcias say the case has nothing to do with religion, and that Scientology should not be able to force them into internal arbitration, which would be inherently unfair to them.

We’re still waiting for Whittemore to rule on that. But in the meantime, here’s his decision on the jurisdictional matter…

Garcias v. Scientology: Order Motion to Dismiss Denied 2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235103376/Garcias-v-Scientology-Order-Motion-to-Dismiss-Denied-2
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Live commentary on this case:

http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/04/li...-freedom-defense-in-fraud-lawsuit/#more-16665

“The judge’s view seemed to be the same as Ted’s: Anyone who has any dispute with Scientology is bound by this arbitration clause, and it’s a one-way street? You have no rights? That’s what he’s looking at, that it’s so overreaching. And Scientology always pushes it to such a degree, they end up looking so silly.”

So we’ll see what Whittemore says in a month, but it doesn’t really look good for Scientology.

t1kk • 5 hours ago

I enjoyed Pope's analogizing religion to a "contract of adhesion," because besides being inappropriate, it's inadvertently telling. A contract of adhesion is one whose terms are wholly one-sided and dictated by the drafting party, one where the opposite party has no bargaining power or input. Adhesion contracts aren't per se invalid, but can be invalidated to the extent they're found to be unconscionable, unfair, etc. What Pope is suggesting by his analogy is that contracts between religious institutions and parishioners are not only off-limits with respect to judicial scrutiny, but can be as facially unfair and one-sided as as the institution deems. He may not be conceding that the arbitration process he's talking around is necessarily *unfair*, but he is suggesting that the it doesn't matter if it is, without directly saying so.
http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/04/li...-defense-in-fraud-lawsuit/#comment-1574595930


TheHoleDoesNotExist t1kk • 5 hours ago

Thanks. I had thought contracts of adhesion were illegal which is why I was astonished to hear that phrase used today in court. So the current new employment contract for scientology staff, or slave or volunteer, or whatever they're calling it now, would be a perfect example of one. This is the crux of the problem of organizations like scientology that use the religious cloak to deny basic human rights, constitutions be damned.

This appears to be the Last Stand theme, as in the Rathbun "harassing and stalking is our sacramental right" case. No matter what it's legally labeled or how the screw is turned, it all comes down to: Scientology is above the law - unless you have the time and funds to have a judge deem otherwise. In light of mounting evidence that this religious cloaking device has left a riptide of casualties in its wake since its inception, perhaps the will to disrobe is close at hand. I still cling tenuously to that hope.
 
Top