Garcia v Scientology - Federal Fraud Lawsuit - Pre-Trial Hearing - October 2013

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Luis Garcia Responds to Scientology’s Arbitration Scheme

This is from Tony O, posted earlier this morning. On his blog he links to Mike Rinder's Declaration as well as the Garcia's response to Scientology's Arbitration Scheme.
http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/09/luis-garcia-responds-to-scientologys-arbitration-scheme/#more-11503

If you’ve been following our coverage of Luis and Rocio Garcia’s federal fraud lawsuit against the Church of Scientology, you know that the lawsuit is facing a possibility of dismissal because of a question of jurisdiction. However, until that can be resolved, there’s another key issue the lawsuit must overcome if it’s going to continue — and that’s the matter of arbitration.

The Garcias allege that they were induced to give donations to Scientology under fraudulent conditions. But the church contends that the Garcias signed contracts which require them to seek refunds or other redress through an internal arbitration system. Scientology has told Judge Whittemore that this is an internal religious dispute, and not something that should be in a civil court of law. Before he rules on that matter, Whittemore asked Scientology to submit a 5-page explanation of its arbitration procedures. Now, the Garcias are responding to what the church submitted.

As they have in the past, the Garcias say Scientology’s arbitration system is a sham.

In the new filing, the Garcias pounce on something that we had noted was unusual — in its 5-page description, Scientology talked about “committees of evidence” in their arbitration process.

“Comm Evs” are very familiar to Scientologists, but they don’t really resemble what one thinks of when one thinks of “arbitration.”

Scientologists are summoned to a comm ev, for example, to be judged whether they’ve committed a “crime” or “high crime” against the church.

That’s very different than arbitration, which a person can request if they think they’ve been harmed.

The Garcias note that they’ve never been summoned to a Comm Ev in regards to their donations.


The Garcias also run down the discrepancies between what the church filed in its description of arbitration versus what was described in the agreements they signed over the years.

Ultimately, the Garcias say, Scientology’s arbitration procedures are bunk — they were never intended to be used by anyone, ever.

To bolster their argument, they attach several exhibits. The first is a declaration from former Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder.

Scientology’s five-page description “constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation of non-existent ‘arbitration’ procedures,” Rinder writes.

For more than 20 years, as Rinder oversaw Scientology’s legal matters, he was made aware of every attempt to get money back from the church.

He was also involved in writing the arbitration rules, and says they were never actually more than a policy on paper.

“Since the inclusion of the ‘arbitration’ clause in the Enrollment Agreement, I am not aware of a single instance where anyone has participated in ‘arbitration’ in connection with a return of their money,” he writes.


Well, now Judge Whittemore has what he needs to make a decision on this matter. We hope he rules soon, because he then needs to deal with Scientology’s more troubling motion to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

For now, however, here’s the Garcia team’s response to Scientology’s arbitration procedures.

See Full Post: http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/09/luis-garcia-responds-to-scientologys-arbitration-scheme/#more-11503
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Arbitration vs Comm Ev? One would think that from experience Scientology knew the difference lol :
From wikipedia:The Signpost 2009-06-01

Scientology arbitration
End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
By AGK and Ragesoss

The Arbitration Committee this week closed the Scientology case. The closure of the case formed two milestones: with the closure falling close to six months after the case opened on 11 December 2008, the
arbitration is the lengthiest on the English Wikipedia; and, as part of the final decision, the Committee blocked all IP addresses controlled by the Church of Scientology (the first time the Committee, or indeed Wikipedia, has blocked an entire organisation from editing)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-01/Scientology_arbitration
 
It is interesting how much the focus of refunds has changed. In the 70's it was a point of pride and promotion that you could get your money back. It was part of the auditors code. Then, in the 80's ( not sure of the exact date) it became: Refunds are given if claims were made within 3 months. The auditors code was changed accordingly. Now refunds are as illusory as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Mimsey
 

phenomanon

Canyon
It is interesting how much the focus of refunds has changed. In the 70's it was a point of pride and promotion that you could get your money back. It was part of the auditors code. Then, in the 80's ( not sure of the exact date) it became: Refunds are given if claims were made within 3 months. The auditors code was changed accordingly. Now refunds are as illusory as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Mimsey

Very soon after the Mission holders' massacre, there were protests started.
The first one was sometime, '83/'84, and protesters were carrying signs that read " Give Us Our Money Back". Protesting in front of Big Blue was a new thing. I was just newly disenchanted ( by the Delarations of my friends, including Alan Walter) and at the first protest I sat in the front window of New York George's restaurant and cried for the lost dreams. My thought was OMG, look what Scn has come to.
Were you there in PAC Mimsey? If so, what did you think? What were you told?
 
Very soon after the Mission holders' massacre, there were protests started.
The first one was sometime, '83/'84, and protesters were carrying signs that read " Give Us Our Money Back". Protesting in front of Big Blue was a new thing. I was just newly disenchanted ( by the Delarations of my friends, including Alan Walter) and at the first protest I sat in the front window of New York George's restaurant and cried for the lost dreams. My thought was OMG, look what Scn has come to.
Were you there in PAC Mimsey? If so, what did you think? What were you told?

I never saw the protests. Around that time I wasn't really moving on the bridge. I had an extra grand or so that I scraped together and I think it was xmas or new years when the prices started climbing - I was at this midnight reg event at AOLA reception. Maybe you recall that night - Michael Lewis gave a talk about how he had stopped dreaming after being on OT7. Then he said, he started dreaming about being attacked and chased and he was very afraid - it was like a nightmare, and he suddenly woke up - his dog, sleeping at the foot of his bed, was twitching, growling etc in his sleep. It was that "OT" win - that made me plunk down the money for some service at AOLA - maybe my OT 5 package?

After the event ended at midnight and the prices had spiked, I was walking out with my wife to our car and I told her: We aren't the public they are after any more. She looked at me shocked and said What? Are you kidding? No, I said, They want people with money. She has reminded me of that many times - she still says - I thought you were crazy when you said that.

I have been in pac since the mid 70's. I was true blue till I got declared. Even then I tried to get back on lines. Then I started reading stuff on the inter web. Slowly I realized - I'd been had. I had lots of gains and wins, so I am not sure you can say it's all bad. My wife, when she realized Ron lied (about what I can't recall), said "if I can't trust him on that, how can I trust him on the rest of it?" She tossed the baby out with the bath water.

Me, I haven't been that extreme, but it is really hard for me to read his stuff any more. And I am (or was) a class 6 and did a few years on 7. You would think I could. But, no. Weird, huh?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
From Tony O's blog this morning:

Scientology Attacks Garcia Filing

Last week, Luis and Rocio Garcia responded to Scientology’s most serious attack on their federal fraud lawsuit with a harshly-worded court brief which also included a declaration from Luis Garcia himself.

On Friday, Scientology filed a new motion which is asking for Garcia’s declaration to be rejected. Why? Because Garcia is now alleging facts which contradict the lawsuit’s original complaint, the church says.

In January, the Garcias sued five of Scientology’s corporate entities, accusing them of defrauding the Garcias as they were asked for donations. In particular, the Garcias say they gave one entity — the Church of Scientology Religious Trust (CSRT) — more than $300,000 for donations toward construction of Scientology’s “Super Power Building.”

Ten months after the lawsuit was filed, Scientology said it had just discovered that some of CSRT’s trustees actually reside in California, where the Garcias are (they live in Irvine). That’s a problem for the lawsuit, Scientology says, which should not have been filed in a federal court in Florida.

The Garcias answered angrily, with a response that not only questioned the factual assertions about CSRT’s trustees, but Luis Garcia also pointed out that although his Super Power donations went to CSRT, he never actually met any CSRT representatives. His interactions were with employees of the Flag Service Organization (FSO), which operates Scientology’s “mecca” complex in Clearwater, Florida.

Now, Scientology has asked Judge James Whittemore to strike Garcia’s declaration. “The sworn factual statements of plaintiff’s declaration wholly contradict the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint,” the church says.

The Garcias can’t sue CSRT in their original complaint and then later declare that they never actually dealt with anyone from CSRT, the church complains.

But the Garcia response last week also asked Judge Whittemore for the ability to amend their complaint. We asked a member of our legal team for their thoughts about the church’s newest assault on the Garcia team.

<snip>

Read Full Post: http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/10/sc...headley-schools-clearwaters-mayor/#more-11482
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Amending a complaint is no big deal, tis routine, when new information discovered from the first filing, -or- simply new opportunities become apparent to the lawyers.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Garcia v Scientology - Federal Fraud Lawsuit - Pre-Trial Info - November 2013

Judge Whittemore has 'stayed' the Garcia federal fraud lawsuit until such time as he rules about whether or not this case was filed in the correct venue. He might permit very limited discovery on the issue of where the CSRT trustees live, but today's order did not directly address that question.
So we wait.
Again.

Here's the link to The Underground Bunker which has a copy of Judge Whittemore's actual order available: http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/15/judge-james-whittemore-reins-in-the-garcia-v-scientology-case/

Ten months after the Garcias filed the lawsuit in January, Scientology said it suddenly discovered that some of the trustees for the entities in the lawsuit are in California, where the Garcias live. Because of that, the church argues, the fraud lawsuit should not have been filed in a federal court in Tampa. The Garcias complained about the lack of information in the church’s motion and asked for the ability to do discovery on the church’s entities and trustees.

Judge Whittemore didn’t indicate whether he’s going to allow that discovery, but in the meantime he wants the two sides to stop filing motions and responses, and he’s stricken from the record some of the things that have been entered.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Garcia v Scientology - Federal Fraud Lawsuit - Pre-Trial Info - March 2014

Judge Whittemore has 'stayed' the Garcia federal fraud lawsuit until such time as he rules about whether or not this case was filed in the correct venue. He might permit very limited discovery on the issue of where the CSRT trustees live, but today's order did not directly address that question.
So we wait.
Again.

Here's the link to The Underground Bunker which has a copy of Judge Whittemore's actual order available: http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/15/judge-james-whittemore-reins-in-the-garcia-v-scientology-case/



JB

When we last heard about this federal lawsuit, Judge Whittemore issued an Order dated December 5, 2013, which gave TeamGarcia 90 days to obtain limited discovery about one issue: authenticate identification and place of residence for each of the trustees of the CSRT.
(The residency of the CSRT trustees is very important because depending on where the trustees are found to reside, the entire case may have to be thrown out and re-filed in another state/venue.)

A glance at the desk calendar shows that Order should have ended on/about March 5, 2014.

Does anyone have additional information about the current status of this case? :confused2:

JB
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
It is interesting how much the focus of refunds has changed. In the 70's it was a point of pride and promotion that you could get your money back. It was part of the auditors code. Then, in the 80's ( not sure of the exact date) it became: Refunds are given if claims were made within 3 months. The auditors code was changed accordingly. Now refunds are as illusory as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Mimsey

Actually, REFUNDS are a mortal sin in Scientology...the word has lots and lots of CHARGE to management and one can get thrown out and shunned if one even whispers it in an Idle Morgue!

I was fairly new and refunds were a dirty word! It was strange.

IN fact, one of the Super Power Rundowns have this process everyone has to do.

Here is an excerpt from this amazing Rundown:

REFUNDS:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:REFUNDS:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:REFUNDS:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:REFUNDS:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:REFUNDS:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:
 
Top