Michael Fairman Lawsuit Against Chiropractor

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
I can't stop reading abou this case

http://markrathbun.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fairman_complaint_20111204125357.pdf

I just read the entire complaint and every possible angle is covered.
The violation of privacy, the HIPAA law violation, emotional stress etc, breech of contract, discrimination, Dr. Benest is also mentioned in paragraph 16.

It seems that Benest may have terminated him too (read it yourself to be sure) so I wonder if she is getting sued?

I just hope this is not settled out of court.

I actually think it is likely that the chiropractor will be declared an SP becasue she pulled this in and it is a blemish on the reputation of the church.

Maybe when she is writing her list of OW's she will realize that a group that discriminates like that is evil.

If this doesn't wake her up nothing will.

Did I mention? I love this case!!
 

Karen#1

Gold Meritorious Patron
The "Church" knows how to dish out the Hatred and ATTACK.

Notwithstanding the fact that they are THE most "HATED" religion in the world ~~ Gallup Poll found them to be rated below Atheism and Radical Muslim, in popularity ~~ they continue their
ATTACKS ~~ Mad dog ATTACKS almost like they are unable to do anything else.

Michael and Joy Fairman received

1) 3 visits from Squirrel Busters
2) Malicious tabloid Hate websites on Church site created to attack them with certain pc folder data taken out and posted (in incredible violation of confidentiality.) on the Church hate web sites.

As I received the exact same maliciousness, I will happily testify in the Courts on their behalf .....

and these above malicious acts occurred just prior to Doctor termination !

Just another occurrence in the "CHURCH" of Scientology.:eyeroll:
 
Does that then erase any of her goodness which I have seen and experienced for the previous 12 years ?
Karen, I agree with you, she was put in an untenable position and she made the wrong decision. The logic, if you can call it that, that all your years of good contributions are overlooked by a moment's digression, is exactly how I got hung when I was declared. One goof up and: Eternity? Denied!!!

Mimsey
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I doubt he wants to go back there. It is like if you get fired unlawfully, you get financial restitution but you don't want your job back.

Also in the case of doctors giving private health information to the church (just the fact that letting them know who is a client is private information) the doctor needs to be accountable.

That is a very good point.

HIPAA is becoming more and more draconian as regards privacy (I have to take a refresher course every year on this) - could be an interesting achilles heel. Thsi Chiro-prat is heading into turbulent waters
 

Caliwog

Patron Meritorious
I don't think this lawsuit is going to prove any broad conspiracy involving the Co$ and the chiropractor. The fact that the Fairmans were declared is broad public knowledge. It's all over the news and even on Wikipedia. Proving a violation of doctor-client privilege will be difficult, if not impossible.

But the reason this could be an EPIC win is that it attacks the religious discrimination that is inherent in Scientology -- LRH's order to disconnect from anyone who is antagonistic towards the Church. If the Fairmans are successful, we will have case law saying that Scientologists, at least in a professional or business situation, *may not* practice LRH's doctrine of completely cutting ties with anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs.

And that, in turn, could raise questions about Scientology's legitimacy as a religion.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that drags LRH policies out into the light for public scrutiny is a good thing. Try as they might, that's the one thing neither the Church nor Marty can talk their way around: LRH's own words.

This is, potentially, a significant chip in the edifice. Go, Michael Fairman, go!

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
Reasonable ~~

I have 12 years of friendship and time track with Lisa and know her performance as a a human being.

Just because she has been used and twisted for Church purposes this time, does not mean that I cannot evaluate how I see her character overall.

I will not nail someone for a one time screw up no matter how bad.
I think few of us on this board have in our lifetime NEVER EVER screwed up royally.

Does that then erase any of her goodness which I have seen and experienced for the previous 12 years ?

Karen,

People are multi faceted we do good things and we do bad things. But religous discrinination is really bad and you call her “wonderful”. I am just saying she is not “wonderful”. I didn't say she is evil.

If you re-read my post I did not call her a monster. I called her average, tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster”

So I don’t think that is “nailing her to the cross.” Do you?

I did not say that there is no goodness in her at all.

She may used to be wonderful or may be wonderful in the future (maybe she has other wonderful qualities—maybe she rescues stray dogs) but as long as she discriminates she is not overall wonderful now.

Right now she has a major character flaw that she needs to overcome (and I believe she can. However for now she needs to do some work to earn that label "wonderful".

Excuse me for using a Scientology term on this board but it is like she is in a lower condition. She needs to make things right to again attain the condition of "Wonderful". People in lower conditions are not evil but they may be being evil now.

I would like to add that I do not believe this is a one time thing. Read the Fairman case paragraph 16. He mentions her in that she did a similar thing to his wife.
 

dianaclass8

Silver Meritorious Patron
I agree with this one, a long time ago; I stopped thinking that these are "wonderful" people, if they are in and are comitting overts, they are not good, they are simply people with weak moral character who care not for others. I don't like those.

Karen,

People are multi faceted we do good things and we do bad things. But religous discrinination is really bad and you call her “wonderful”. I am just saying she is not “wonderful”. I didn't say she is evil.

If you re-read my post I did not call her a monster. I called her average, tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster”

So I don’t think that is “nailing her to the cross.” Do you?

I did not say that there is no goodness in her at all.

She may used to be wonderful or may be wonderful in the future (maybe she has other wonderful qualities—maybe she rescues stray dogs) but as long as she discriminates she is not overall wonderful now.

Right now she has a major character flaw that she needs to overcome (and I believe she can. However for now she needs to do some work to earn that label "wonderful".

Excuse me for using a Scientology term on this board but it is like she is in a lower condition. She needs to make things right to again attain the condition of "Wonderful". People in lower conditions are not evil but they may be being evil now.

I would like to add that I do not believe this is a one time thing. Read the Fairman case paragraph 16. He mentions her in that she did a similar thing to his wife.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.
 

dianaclass8

Silver Meritorious Patron
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.

Yes, we reported the insurance agent, but the accountant we did not, we were so worried looking for another one because the dead line was only one or two days close.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.


GOOD! That is what Robert Minton's LMT would do, inform them of the above and help them make the reports...
 
I stopped thinking that these are "wonderful" people, if they are in and are committing overts, they are not good, they are simply people with weak moral character who care not for others.
I don't agree. When I was in, I felt what I was doing was for the greatest good. That was largely how I lead my life, based on the Scientology tenants I believed.

In hind sight, there were actions I did that were not for the greatest good. In fact, I really don't know why I even agreed with them, they were stupid and hurtful and - unnecessary - but I went along with it.

Perhaps I had weak moral fiber - I really have no logical defense for my actions, other than I did what I was told to be on 7. However the case may be, I am reminded of the Christian line "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

Yes, it was stupid to discriminate, all she had to say was "don't talk Scientology when you are here" and treat them like any of her non-scio patients. Does that make her (which her BTW? there are two, Lisa and Charlene, involved in this mess)
an evil person? Not caring? No. Mislead? Yes.

Many who practice Scientology believe disconnection is an ethics gradient that will bring the person to their senses and recant. A wacky way to care for someone, but, C'est la vi.

Mimsey
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Posted by Mimsey

snipped

Many who practice Scientology believe disconnection is an ethics gradient that will bring the person to their senses and recant. A wacky way to care for someone, but, C'est la vi.

Many who practice scientology dont think but just believe everything they are told.

They have no need to think, its all being done for them.



:yes:

 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Respect to Fairman. I'd dismissed him as a molly-coddled Scilon celeb who had become outraged at (I think it was) his dermatologist doing the same thing. It seemed to me at the time he was wallowing in grievance at what, in comparison to that which others have endured, is nothing unusual, just another mundane example of KSW in action. Now, with this action, I wish him success in bringing more scrutiny to the workings of the cult.

Still, it annoys the hell out of me that this latest action shifts attention away from the fact that Scientology has been designated a religion on fraudulent grounds. Scientology has been an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud since the day L Ron Hubbard said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries. Now, 60 years later, the con has become so embedded here we are talking "religious discrimination" . . . crazy.

6470570839_377bdbed35.jpg
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Tony Ortega at the Village Voice put up a good article on this lawsuit yesterday including commentary on the merits of the lawsuit by attorney Scott Pilutik.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runni...sues_chiropractor_independent_scientology.php

A lot of info in Tony's post, not just about the lawsuit but also about the purpose of the suit. (The title itself provides a clue):

I linked above to the article but now putting the text here below as I know some people won't click on a link unless being subjected to water boarding, and there is some important info in this article as concerns the case itself as well as Fairman.

I'm highly recommending though that you go to the Village Voice site and read it from there as the formatting is better, there are links to click on that didn't get carried over, plus there are comments - now 79 of them, some of them good. :yes:

The post at the Village Voice is here:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runni...sues_chiropractor_independent_scientology.php

Michael Fairman Sues his Chiropractor -- in Part to Legitimize the Independent Scientology Movement?
By Tony Ortega Tue., Dec. 6 2011 at 8:00 AM

​We've said it before: Michael Fairman is one of our favorite former members of the Church of Scientology, and someone we've talked to quite a few times in recent months.
We were caught by surprise Sunday, however, when TMZ reported that Fairman, a familiar character actor and soap star, is suing his former chiropractor, claiming religious discrimination.

Earlier this year, Fairman announced that he had been excommunicated from the Church of Scientology. His chiropractor, an active Scientologist, then sent out a notice to Fairman and his wife that they were no longer welcome as patients. Fairman's lawsuit points to California law, which says that chiropractors are among the businesses that cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

Fairman didn't return my phone call yesterday, which was a first -- but I've been told that on the advice of his attorney, he can't talk about the lawsuit.

I know enough about Fairman's back story, however, and about the former Scientology executive he mentions in the lawsuit -- Marty Rathbun -- to know that this lawsuit is about more than the pain and suffering of being rejected by a neighborhood spine twister.

It also appears to be about legitimizing the independent Scientology movement.

First, as to the merits of his lawsuit. I asked Scott Pilutik to look over Fairman's complaint and give me his thoughts. Pilutik is a Manhattan attorney who has watched Scientology closely for more than a decade, and who is often called upon to explain and interpret complex church legal cases for the Scientology-watching community at large.

He looked over the particulars of the complaint, which allege that since 2003, Fairman has been a patient of Charlene Thorburn and her business, Thorburn Chiropractic and Wellness Center in Burbank. Thorburn, the court document says, is an active Scientologist. Fairman himself has been a Scientologist since at least the early 1980s, and for a time was even the "face" of the religion, appearing on Scientology's promotional films and television commercials.

In April, Fairman revealed publicly that he'd been declared a "suppressive person" by the church -- excommunicated, in other words -- because he had been spending time with former top Scientology executive Marty Rathbun. He reveals in the complaint that it was in January that he "became concerned about the manner in which the doctrines of the Church of Scientology were being applied" when he sought out Rathbun.

Fairman was subsequently declared an SP even though he, his wife Joy Graysen Fairman, and his daughter Sky Fairman, were still continuing "to use many of the teachings" of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

With Fairman and his wife leaving the church, "family, friends, and business associates who are Scientologists disconnected from them."

Here at the Voice, we've written extensively about the way Scientologists who change their minds about the church are declared "suppressive," and then all church members of good standing are required to cut off all ties from them in what is called "disconnection" -- even if it means a mother turning her back on a son or daughter.

On October 1, Michael and Joy received a letter from Thorburn which said, "I will no longer be your treating Chiropractor effective 10 days from the date of this letter." (I called Thorburn's office yesterday and reached "Jobee," the receptionist mentioned in the complaint. She took my number, saying she'd have Thorburn call me back.)

The Fairmans had heard earlier from another Scientologist, their dermatologist, Lisa Benest, that she was dropping them as patients, and they believe Benest advised Thorburn to do the same. (I have not received confirmation but suspect that a similar lawsuit will be filed against Benest.)

Fairman had not seen Thorburn for an appointment since 2008, but according to the complaint Joy saw the chiropractor regularly. And after receiving the letter, she called the Thorburn clinic to ask why they were being dropped but got no reply from Thorburn. The Fairmans then requested that their medical records be sent to them, but have heard no response.

The Fairmans are suing for unspecified damages, saying that Thorburn clearly dropped them as clients for religious reasons, which is a violation of California Civil Code sections 51 and 52 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act).

I asked Scott to assess the merits:

I think it's a real good discrimination complaint, and I'm glad to see it's been filed, as this sort of conduct has gone on for years without any penalty to the Scientologist discriminators. The California Civil Rights Act unambiguously makes all California "businesses" common carriers and prohibits them from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/religion/etc. Since Thorburn is a business and since the Fairmans allege discrimination as the basis for Thorburn's refusal to treat, I think it should survive a motion to dismiss. It's not a common discrimination complaint (for factual precedents I might look to lawsuits between warring Hasidic factions) but it appears to fulfill the criteria.
The most obvious legal question I can see is going to what basis Thorburn terminated its relationship with the Fairmans, as there's only circumstantial evidence offered up at this stage, but I imagine it's going to be very difficult for Thorburn to come up with a basis that doesn't reek of a post-hoc pretext to avoid the real reason, about which I have little difficultly assuming the Fairmans are right (is there really any doubt though? Again, this sort of discrimination has been going on for decades without reprisal).

Thorburn will be hard pressed to allege that the termination was due to some other basis because other Thorburn employees can be interviewed and it'll be near-impossible for them to get their pretext stories all straight. It also doesn't help Thorburn that the termination letter was sent to both Michael and Joy, meaning that the basis -- whatever they come up with -- would have to explain why she can't treat them both; it might be easier to come up with an explanation that Thorburn had, say, a personal falling out with one or the other.

The other way Thorburn's defense might go is to say, "Yeah, I discriminated but only because the First Amendment grants me the religious freedom to discriminate. Disconnection is an important Scientology doctrine and the law cannot force me to be exposed to suppressive persons because it would harm my case and threaten my eternity." Which isn't that unlike the argument relied upon by Christian pharmacists who refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill. The problem for Thorburn, if she chooses to go this route, is that the Fairmans aren't just SPs but also members of a protected religious class as Independent Scientologists. A judge will be wary of the case coming down to picking a winner between two religious groups; and especially if it means picking the one clearly violating the law.

For a long time I've promoted the idea of an Independent Scientologist suit against the IRS for disparately favoring Church of Scientology auditing deductions over Independent Scientologist auditing deductions (assuming the IRS rejected the latter), so I'm pleased to see the Fairmans take a similar route in alleging discrimination by a Church of Scientology member. Perhaps this will open the minds of other Independent Scientologists and prompt creative ways to legally redress the legal benefits uniquely and unfairly bestowed upon the Church of Scientology and its members only.

Well, that's a densely packed final paragraph from Scott, but we have, indeed, discussed this before -- the fact that members of the Church of Scientology enjoy special status with the federal government which allows them to deduct the cost of their auditing.

This was challenged by a Jewish couple who felt that they should be able to deduct the cost of religious schooling for their children under the same principle. Their case lasted 15 years, until the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2009, preserving the special deduction only for Scientologists.

But if Scientologists enjoy special status, then why shouldn't that status also be enjoyed by independent Scientologists, who also ascribe to L. Ron Hubbard's ideas, do similar auditing, and would probably also like to deduct the cost of that auditing from their taxes? If a court agreed to that, it would give independent Scientologists a boost -- and nothing, seriously nothing, would irritate church leader David Miscavige more, we figure.

Now, Fairman has found a similar test in a simpler setting. Taking nothing away from his discrimination claim, which is pretty basic -- either Thorburn cut Fairman off because he was declared an SP or she didn't -- it's no accident, it seems to me, that Rathbun is mentioned in the lawsuit, as well as this line from page 9...

Defendants Thorburn Chiropractic and Dr. Thorburn unambiguously discriminated against Plaintiffs for the express reason that Plantiffs are members of a class of persons who practice their religion, including Scientology, but not Scientology as applied by the Church of Scientology -- and for that reason they are protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
And there's another reason why I think the "independent" angle is, for the Fairmans, an important part of this case: just days before this lawsuit became public, Fairman made a very public (and oddly timed, I thought then) declaration that he was now definitely back with Rathbun in the "indie" scene after previously walking away from it.

Fairman had seemed like a pretty typical case: after coming out of the church, he was outraged at the way it is currently being run by leader David Miscavige, as you can see from an interview we did with him in April. Like others who have been leaving the church in droves in the last few years, he walked away from the organization but not the ideas in it. Such "independents" -- many of them rallying around Rathbun -- continue to audit and otherwise practice Scientology outside the official confines of Miscavige's organization.

And, like some others who come out as indies, Fairman then also gradually dropped Hubbard's ideas and put away Scientology itself.

Then, on Friday, at Rathbun's blog, Fairman published a statement, saying that he was back in the indie fold.

"I never wanted to look an e-meter in the face again because of what a drudge it had become," he writes, explaining that after initially enjoying his time with Rathbun last year, he had gradually put away Hubbard's technology. But then, recently, he decided to give it another shot, and planned another trip to see Rathbun.

"I decided on one more go-around with 'the Tech' and made plans for a trip to Texas," he writes. And now, he's back to the Hubbard way of thinking: "Those who disparage Hubbard's technology, for whatever reason, no longer have any significance for me."

Now that the lawsuit has been made public, the timing of Friday's statement makes a lot more sense.

Having declared that he's still an independent Scientologist, Fairman will ask a court to decide that David Miscavige's church cannot discriminate -- using its notorious disconnection policy -- against Scientologists who have left the official church.

And this could get very interesting.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

And now, he's back to the Hubbard way of thinking: "Those who disparage Hubbard's technology, for whatever reason, no longer have any significance for me."

-snip-

"No longer have any significance for me," as in "don't exist for me" ?

Disconnection?

Oh vey. :melodramatic:

Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."
 
Top