Shiny & Free
(That's all the wading I can deal with.)
http://tonyortega.org/2015/02/19/hb...coveted-spot-sunday-night/#comment-1865098832Michael Leonard Tilse t1kk • 2 hours ago
My read is this: At issue is a contract which requires arbitration. No evidence that any such arbitration has ever occurred pursuant to the contract under question or similar contracts with the church of scientology signed by others. No evidence has been presented that there is even a mechanism, procedure or personnel designated for arbitrations. Therefore, the contract is fraudulent on it's face because there is simply no way an arbitration can occur, regardless of it's fairness.
This completely sidesteps the first amendment issues, and can be simply ruled on, on the basis of a benefit that was part of the represented contractual obligation was a fiction.
ETA: Part of the benefit of the contract is the promise of recourse if there is breach of the contract or other issues. When the Garcia's paid their money and signed these contracts, in exchange they got the benefit of the Chult using their money to make a part of the Chult building, I.E., the cross, and they were sold on the basis that they were the only ones who were paying for it and were paying for the whole thing. If other people were similarly sold on the idea that they were paying for the same cross, also exclusively, then the Chult was selling the same apple twice. That is a fraudulent representation to the Garcia's. If part of the contracts the Garcia's have signed specify that they must go to arbitration over any disagreements or refunds, yet arbitration does not in fact exist, the Chult has defrauded the of the one of the benefits of the contracts. That also makes it fraud.
http://tonyortega.org/2015/02/19/hb...coveted-spot-sunday-night/#comment-18642275661subgenius • 12 hours ago
"Cartwright then spoke up: Actually, it was five days, not six days.
That made Whittemore very curious — how did he know?"
Judge is paying attention.
And leave it to a Scientologist to think there's a tinker's dam difference between 5 and 6 days regarding evidence fabricated after the fact.
http://tonyortega.org/2015/02/19/hb...coveted-spot-sunday-night/#comment-1865009899Lurkness Once_Born • 4 hours ago
Babbitt decided not to call Rinder. Perhaps a wise choice given how the court received the testimony Pope offered that was designed to counter Rinder--on the non-issue of who actually wrote the enrollment agreement's arbitration provision.
I don't know all the facts, but I still have an uneasy feeling that Babbitt didn't fully exploit all that Rinder may have known about the intent in creating the putative arbitration process , i.e. it was a sham and never intended to actually be used. Maybe he didn't have more to offer (we only have the defendant's deposition of Rinder to read). If all Babbitt was going to use Rinder for was to further comment about how SPs could not receive a fair arbitration process, he was wise not to call him.
I would have thought he would call Rinder to bolster his previous declaration. His sworn declaration here: http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/...
Given how Scientology changes the enrollment agreement in response to litigation losses and other problems, I have always presumed there was more there (e.g., internal discussions/orders to fix the refund problem).
The court has been pretty clear in his orders since 2013 that he had concerns that there was actually an arbitration procedure, not issues of the fairness of a purported process.
While Scientology moved to strike Rinder's declaration and that was denied, it is presumably in evidence and useable by the Court. However, the court could not make a credibility finding (harder to reverse) and credit Rinder's possible testimony that there was not an actual arbitration process, just a written provision, and it was always intended to be a sham to avoid making refunds and repayments.
Still also not clear to me how the court is parsing the overall fraud allegations relative to Scientology's motion to compel arbitration. Personally think the fraud allegations should trump the unconscionable enrollment agreement (contract) and its fictional arbitration process.
(That's all the wading I can deal with.)