France's supreme court reviewing Scientology's appeal

mnql1

Patron Meritorious
Translation of a French article posted on September 4, 2013 on the website of the daily newspaper Libération:
Sectes: la condamnation de la scientologie examinée en cassation
Appeal of Scientology's conviction before the Court of Cassation

The supreme Court of Cassation is today reviewing the appeal filed by the Church of Scientology, whose the two main entities in France were convicted of organized fraud in 2012 by the Paris Court of Appeal.

On February 2, 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld fines of 400,000 euros for the Celebrity Centre and of 200,000 euros for SEL, the Scientology bookstore. The Court of Appeal also confirmed or increased the sentences given to five Scientologists in 2009 by the Paris Correctional Court.

Alain Rosenberg, the "de facto leader" of Scientology in Paris, and Sabine Jacquart, a former president of the Celebrity Centre, were handed a two-year suspended sentence and fined 30,000 euros for organized fraud.

The prosecution had accused the defendants of exploiting the vulnerability of former recruits to extract large sums of money from them.

The Celebrity Centre called the decision "totally biased and unfair," saying it was "the result of a kind of phantom trial with multiple irregularities and violations of the Scientologists' human rights."

In the statement he wrote before today's hearing, the prosecuting attorney argued for the dismissal of the appeal, except for a very small part of the procedure.

"Name me one church that does not ask its parishioners for money," said Louis Boré, the attorney representing Scientology before the Court of Cassation, responding to France Presse. The lawyer cited Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion.

As one of his colleagues had already stated, Louis Boré also said that, if the appeal is rejected, Scientology would take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.

Scientology, which is classified as a cult in several French parliamentary reports, was founded in 1954 by American science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and is considered a religion in the United States and in some European countries. It claims to have more than 10 million followers worldwide and 45,000 in France.
 

mnql1

Patron Meritorious
Posted by The Hollywood Reporter on September 4, 2013:
French High Court Set to Rule on Scientology Case

The organization, which promotes its strong Hollywood and celebrity ties abroad, is appealing a conviction on charges of "organized fraud."

PARIS – Scientology is again on trial in France, with the high court here set to hand down a final decision on charges of "organized fraud" and fines of $790,500 (€600,000) against the church stemming from a 2009 case.

This is the last stop for the case in France. If the appeal is rejected, the church says it will bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights.

More in the article on The Hollywood Reporter's website:
French High Court Set to Rule on Scientology Case
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Name me one church that does not ask its parishioners for money," said Louis Boré, the attorney representing Scientology before the Court of Cassation, responding to France Presse. The lawyer cited Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Show me another church that encourages people to mortgage their homes, empty out their retirement accoutns, get future will money upfront, max out credit cards, borrow money from Aunt Zelda.

Rd00
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Name me one church that does not ask its parishioners for money," said Louis Boré, the attorney representing Scientology before the Court of Cassation, responding to France Presse. The lawyer cited Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Show me another church that encourages people to mortgage their homes, empty out their retirement accoutns, get future will money upfront, max out credit cards, borrow money from Aunt Zelda.

Rd00

There is a difference between ask and demand, between donation and extortion...
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
There is a difference between ask and demand, between donation and extortion...


Yep, one gets you more $. Just ask the Catholic Church. That's where El Ron learned the "give us money or face a destroyed eternity" meme from.

The % of people who are unaware of any history that happened before their own birth is staggeringly high these days.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
"Name me one church that does not ask its parishioners for money," said Louis Boré, the attorney representing Scientology before the Court of Cassation, responding to France Presse. The lawyer cited Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion.

There is a difference between ask and demand, between donation and extortion...

Clearly the answer to Mr. Boré's question is: Scientology. LFBD F/N

Wikipedia said:
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The freedoms belong to the individual, not to the religion.

For exiting Scientologists, who do have these rights and freedoms, the way to start handling their Scientology problems is to stop applying Scientology, and to refuse the "help" that comes their way from "friendly" outward-facing Scientologists. (Ref. The Deadly Quartet) Scientology is not solved with more Scientology, which of course includes their disgusting blow drills, recovery programs, repair sessions, etc.

I believe Rathbun, Rinder, et al.'s apostate program serves the purpose of preventing or delaying Scientologists' exercise of their freedom of religion, which is their freedom to leave Scientology. They do this in a number of ways, which include denying the correct source of the Scientologists' difficulties and abuses, i.e., L. Ron Hubbard.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Degraded Being, you don't know the history of the Catholic church?

World to Scientology: "That thing you're doing right there - really sucks!"
Scientology: "Oh, the Catholics, the Catholics! Look over there! Let's talk about them! Let's hate them!"
World: "Fuck off and die, cult, and the sooner the better."
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
World to Scientology: "That thing you're doing right there - really sucks!"
Scientology: "Oh, the Catholics, the Catholics! Look over there! Let's talk about them! Let's hate them!"
World: "Fuck off and die, cult, and the sooner the better."

Umm, what ARE you going on about now?
 

Albion

Patron with Honors
After a nearly three-hour hearing the court announced it would hand down its ruling on October 16.
 

Albion

Patron with Honors
How do you think it is likely to go, Albion?
Very difficult to say: some of the arguments were familiar from the appeal court hearings, but there were some new lines of attack.

As I reported last year, the defendants and lawyers walked out half-way through the trial on appeal: now they are arguing that the appeal court should have halted proceedings and taken the time to ensure that the defendants got replacement lawyers.

The lawyer for the counter-cult group UNADFI argued that this was a bit rich considering that not just the lawyers but the defendants had chose to walk out of proceedings.

All three of the defence lawyers presented well-argued cases, but remember that in this court we are arguing points of law, not the facts of the case.

Impossible for me to say which way it will go as I can't say if any of the legal points raised -- and which they insist are fatal to the case -- are as valid as they say they are.

Suffice to say I wasn't myself convinced. Wrote a few lines for Tony Ortega at The Underground Bunker, but they are not up yet. If I have some time later tonight/tomorrow, I'll try to write something a bit more substantial at Infinite Complacency.

Best, Jonny
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
Trolls who go on about how we should look at the Catholics every time somebody criticises Scientology.

Now you are just babbling. Just because you are WHOLLY ignorant of religion & history is no reason to to show your ignorance online.

<DELETED M2>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Purple Rain

Crusader
Very difficult to say: some of the arguments were familiar from the appeal court hearings, but there were some new lines of attack.

As I reported last year, the defendants and lawyers walked out half-way through the trial on appeal: now they are arguing that the appeal court should have halted proceedings and taken the time to ensure that the defendants got replacement lawyers.

The lawyer for the counter-cult group UNADFI argued that this was a bit rich considering that not just the lawyers but the defendants had chose to walk out of proceedings.

All three of the defence lawyers presented well-argued cases, but remember that in this court we are arguing points of law, not the facts of the case.

Impossible for me to say which way it will go as I can't say if any of the legal points raised -- and which they insist are fatal to the case -- are as valid as they say they are.

Suffice to say I wasn't myself convinced. Wrote a few lines for Tony Ortega at The Underground Bunker, but they are not up yet. If I have some time later tonight/tomorrow, I'll try to write something a bit more substantial at Infinite Complacency.

Best, Jonny

Thanks, Jonny. I have a bit of a nervous feeling about this one. And an even worse feeling about the European court actually. I'll look out for the Bunker piece and anything further you might post.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Now you are just babbling. Just because you are WHOLLY ignorant of religion & history is no reason to to show your ignorance online.

Auto plonk for sub-20 IQ posting.

Before I reply are you an Anon or an Ex Scientologist so I can modify my reply to you on this.
 

mnql1

Patron Meritorious
Translation of a French article posted on September 4, 2013 on the website of the daily newspaper Libération:
En cassation, la scientologie attaque tous azimuts sa condamnation
Scientology launches all-out attack against its conviction during its appeal before the Court of Cassation

September 4, 2013
AFP

Today at the Court of Cassation, lawyers for the Church of Scientology launched an all-out attack against the procedures that led to the conviction of its two main French entities for organized fraud.

The court's Criminal Chamber will render its decision on October 16.

The defendants' attorneys invoked religious freedom and raised many arguments challenging the February 2, 2012 decision that upheld the conviction of Scientology's two Parisian entities, the Scientology Celebrity Centre and its SEL bookshop, and their respective fines of 200,000 and 400,000 euros.

Among the five Scientologists sanctioned by the court, Alain Rosenberg, the "de facto leader" of Scientology in Paris, and Sabine Jacquart, a former president of the Celebrity Centre, were handed a two-year suspended sentence and fined 30,000 euros for organized fraud.

Their lawyer, Louis Boré, said that the Court of Appeal's decision "chooses between good and bad religions" and that it is inappropriate for the court to "turn itself into an inquisition tribunal" and start differentiating "true believers" from "false believers."

However, "The issue before the Court of Cassation is not to decide whether Scientology is or is not a religion," objected Claire Waquet, an attorney representing the UNADFI [National Union of Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals], a counter-cult organization that is contesting Scientology's appeal of the decision to include the UNADFI as a civil party.

The defendants' lawyers also attacked several rulings that denied the annulment of documents during the investigation, and they contested certain points concerning the conduct of the trial.

The trial and the conviction were based "solely on violations of criminal law," insisted the prosecutor, who argued for the dismissal of the appeal, except for a minor point, the allocation of damages to a civil party who withdrew from the case.
 
Top