What's new

Vance Woodward sues the C0$

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Ex-Scientologist Says Church Duped Him Out Of $600,000

Design & Trend: Ex-Scientologist Says Church Duped Him Out Of $600,000
http://www.designntrend.com/article...ologist-says-church-duped-him-out-600-000.htm

Excerpt:
A new lawsuit filed by Ex-Scientologist Vance Woodward reveals that the church swindled him out of more than $600,000.

The impressionable Vance Woodward joined Scientology in 1997. According to court documents obtained by Radar, "Scientology staff repeatedly told [Woodward] that only Scientology could help the world," and without Woodward's hefty donations the "entire Earth was at risk of destroying itself."

Woodward said that the Scientologists savagely harassed him for money, often berating him in windowless room for countless hours until he submitted (a sort of twisted good cop/bad cop routine).

"For instance," the documents read, "on multiple occasions [Woodward] was physically and psychologically manipulated into remaining in a small room with Scientology fundraisers, including representatives of Defendants SF Church, who hounded him for hundreds of thousands of dollars for more than six hours at a stretch... each time on a tandem and tag-team basis, each time until after 4 a.m."
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Vance Woodward sues the C0$ -- Docket Number Info

Well, now we know why he took his memoir off the market and shut up.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/25/la...in-the-church-heres-the-complaint/#more-14015



Complaint is over at the Bunker. :clap:

Just wanted to put the docket number here so it's easier for all to follow future developments with this case. :)

Docket Number: BC540097
Court: Burbank
Link to search the "case summary" section of the docket here: https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/?CT=CI

The online info available at present states that
(1) the Complaint was filed on March 21, 2014; and,
(2) Proof of Service has not yet been provided to the Court Clerk, so there's a hearing date of June 4, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m. in Department 52.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Vance Woodward sues the C0$ -- Docket Number Info

Just wanted to put the docket number here so it's easier for all to follow future developments with this case. :)

Docket Number: BC540097
Court: Burbank
Link to search the "case summary" section of the docket here: https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/?CT=CI

The online info available at present states that
(1) the Complaint was filed on March 21, 2014; and,
(2) Proof of Service has not yet been provided to the Court Clerk, so there's a hearing date of June 4, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m. in Department 52.

JB

Update: Initial Status Conference is now scheduled for May 30, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m.
(The June 4 hearing has been removed, so Proof of Service appears to have been accomplished.)

It doesn't appear as if the named defendants have yet filed Responses.

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Woodward v Scientology -- Update June 3, 2014

It looks like the next court date for this case is scheduled for June 24, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m.


Snipped this from the online court docket:

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

05/29/2014 Motion to Compel ((JOINT) RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION DATE: 6/24/14, 8:30AM,52 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


05/29/2014 Declaration (OF JEFFREY G. QUIROS IN SPPT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


05/29/2014 Declaration (OF GARY S. SOTER IN SPPT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


05/29/2014 Declaration (OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT IN SPPT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


05/29/2014 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


05/29/2014 Motion to Strike (DEFT'S JOINT SPECIAL MTN DATE: 6/24/14, 8:30AM,52 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent


It appears the defendants have been busy.

JB
 
Tony Ortega has the latest church response to Vance's suit and this comment is interesting:

There were two things in the filing that jumped out at me. The first was that apparently, "unnamed Scientologists" who told him he could get his money back were merely exercising free speech rights. That's a pretty ludicrous concept, since the courts have held that "free speech" rights and religious freedom do not extend to the right to commit fraud. There are abundant cases, including several tried by Judge Whittemore (the judge in the Garcia case) where religious figures are moldering in jail due to ripping off their parishioners.

The second one is the reference to Mosaic law to claim that Judaism requires use of a Rabbinical court when Jews sue Jews. Only certain orthodox groups adhere strictly to that claim; it's virtually certain that only a small percentage of Jews actually follow that particular rule. That leaves the cult open to Woodward pointing out that there is plenty of room for competing interpretation of religious principles within a particular religion, thus undermining Scientology's insistence that there is exactly one way to practice its "religious beliefs."

Lastly, it is indeed striking that Miscavige would use Ken Moxon and Gary Soter, the cult's "C team" and "D team" respectively (those rankings are on a good day). I doubt highly that this is a matter of economics, even though I'm sure that these two legal eagles are billing far less than the Jefferson brothers in the Rathbun case in Texas.

Remember that refund lawsuits pose a far greater existential threat to the cult's finances than the Rathbun case (which is merely a matter of personal vengeance for Miscavige and an embarrassment to the cult). I have talked to many ex members who would join a class-action lawsuit in a heartbeat to recover the monies they have on deposit, and many have what seems like valid claims for fraudulent behavior. However, nobody wants to litigate individually because of the potential for retribution if singled out as an individual plaintiff.

Thus, any successful litigation for returns of money on account would lead to unraveling of a substantial portion of reserves; I estimate total reserve cash at between $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion. And at the point that the cult begins to burn cash to fund operations (which could happen in the next couple of years), if reserves are butchered through litigation, then the end of the cult will be in sight.

I suspect that Miscavige hired these two geniuses for this case because he doesn't trust "wog" lawyers who have over-promised victory in the past. Miscavige doesn't have any leverage over "wog" lawyers who promise victory but can't deliver the way he does over cult members. So since he wants to win this case, he called the Moron Patrol into his office, demanded to know if they can win the case, and of course they said "yes" so they could avoid being thrown into the Hole immediately. Yes, I know that the Hole normally is for Int Base executives only, but it seems possible that DM would make an exception in their case.

I think the end result of putting his attorneys in the situation of having to guarantee victory caused them to exude an ill-placed sense of confidence.
I think he hired them because he considers Vance small potatoes. Vance is going to have to up his game if he expects to see any money. Aren't the arguments that Hubbard said this and that about who sues who moot? It's not like he's around to consult with. Scientology is now what Miscavage says it is. If he has the audacity to say nobody's getting a penny back, then that's his GAK2 you're looking down the barrel of and what you're gonna have to push aside. Good luck Vance and I'd suggest subpoenaing his personal orders on the subject... if they haven't been shredded ages ago.

Mimsey
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I'm not sure if this is a different article than the one referred to above. This one has a copy of scientology's motion.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/04/oy...to-answer-lawsuit-by-attorney-vance-woodward/

For that reason, the motion filed by the church really lays on thick the notion that Scientology is among the world’s great religions. Attorneys Gary Soter and Kendrick Moxon even invoke Jewish Law to help explain why Woodward’s suit isn’t properly the stuff of civil court…

The Scientology doctrine that any dispute arising from participation in the church or any dispute between Scientologists or between Scientologists and their churches will be submitted to and resolved by the Scientology internal arbitration system and not the civil courts, is hardly unique. Similar provisions apply in many religions….See also Karo, J. Code of Jewish Law: Laws of the Judges…Prevailing view of Jewish Law, codified in the “Code of Jewish Law,” is that Jews must seek resolution of disputes before rabbinical courts applying Jewish law, not a secular court;

The motion then quotes from the New Testament: “1 Corinthians 6:1-7 ‘If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?’”

‘Before the saints.’ Yeah, that’s a good one.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
The comparison to Orthodox Judaism, another cult imo, is an epic footbullet.

The Orthodox Jews don't actually view themselves as being untouchable by secular law, but there are strong social norms against resolving a dispute among Orthodox Jews in secular court. The consequence of using secular law rather resembles disconnection. NYC has a rather large problem with this, as illustrated by the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/n...eir-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html

Edit to add this link too:

http://m.vice.com/read/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Updated information about the pre-trial developments in this lawsuit provided @ today's The Underground Bunker.
Here's the link: http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/18/sc...at-the-garcias-and-vance-woodward-fires-back/

Excerpt:

Vance Woodward’s lawsuit in Los Angeles heats up. Two interesting developments in Vance’s suit to tell you about today. Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon has filed an objection to Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, saying that she is prejudiced to his client. This may be only a pro forma objection, like the ones we’ve seen recently in Laura DeCrescenzo’s lawsuit, also in L.A.

In a more entertaining vein, Vance has answered Scientology’s reply to his lawsuit, and he’s done it with style.

JB
 
Updated information about the pre-trial developments in this lawsuit provided @ today's The Underground Bunker.
Here's the link: http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/18/sc...at-the-garcias-and-vance-woodward-fires-back/

Excerpt:



JB

Why? Is it just a delaying tactic?

Edit - the bulk of Vance's brief was about the docs he signed aren't contracts, aren't enforceable, and there is no arbitration system in the church, and he quotes Marty as a ref. That brings to mind the state of mind of Miscavage when he had the docs written up - he must have been expecting a lot of refunds for him to have it crafted the way it is. ( or did it as a response to some biggies he'd already paid out?) So, is it safe to assume he knows it (Scientiology) doesn't really work? Why else to have instituted the rigged / bogus arbitration system? Why else would he have designed it so it's impossible to get a refund?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
From the LA Superior Court's online docket....

Future Hearings

07/31/2014 at 08:30 am in department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Case Management(**)

10/06/2014 at 08:32 am in department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel( RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION2) ANTI-SLAPP MOTION (TRNS D55))

It's pretty easy to guess which side filed the Motion to Compel - Religious Arbitration, but which side filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss? :confused2:

JB
 
Vance lost. What I don't get is they get to keep his money on unpaid services because they didn't like what he said. Doesn't seem fair somehow. Mimsey


Woodward declined to comment on the judge’s order.Said one of our legal experts, “Woodward didn’t seem to litigate this case for a refund. The over-the-top number of pages in his filings, and the personal attacks on Scientology doctrine seemed more therapeutic than anything else. He filed hundreds and hundreds of pages of Scientology writings and asked the court to take judicial notice of the documents. It is a shame because Scientology leader David Miscavige will see this as a victory.”
http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/10/va...ts-scientologys-anti-slapp-motion/#more-17319
 

Gib

Crusader
Vance lost. What I don't get is they get to keep his money on unpaid services because they didn't like what he said. Doesn't seem fair somehow. Mimsey



http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/10/va...ts-scientologys-anti-slapp-motion/#more-17319

yah, I agree.

The law is weird for us no lawyers and do not know the rules of that game.

But I do give Vance kudos for trying on his lonesome.

Maybe he will combine forces. :confused2:

afterall, it takes a group of[STRIKE] OTs[/STRIKE] wogs to handle an area.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Vance Woodward sues the C0$ -- Docket Number Info

Just wanted to put the docket number here so it's easier for all to follow future developments with this case. :)

Docket Number: BC540097
Court: Burbank
Link to search the "case summary" section of the docket here: http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/

FYI...

Mr. Woodward's Motion for Reconsideration is scheduled to be heard today in the Burbank, California court.

It's possible the judge might issue a ruling at the conclusion of today's hearing, but a ruling is more likely to come in the days/weeks ahead.


JB
 
Last edited:

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Re: Vance Woodward sues the C0$ -- Docket Number Info

FYI... Mr. Woodward's Motion for Reconsideration is scheduled to be heard today in the Burbank, California court. It's possible the judge might issue a ruling at the conclusion of today's hearing, but a ruling is more likely to come in the days/weeks ahead.

It won't happen, IMHO. Judge Michael Johnson has ruled on many SLAPP & anti-SLAPP cases & his opinions have, generally, been affirmed by the appellate.

Case in point: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/chang090913.htm

I think it was a huge error on Vance's part to represent himself in the case & going up against the ultra-slezebag's Gary Soter & Rick Moxon.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Re: Vance Woodward sues the C0$ -- Docket Number Info

It won't happen, IMHO. Judge Michael Johnson has ruled on many SLAPP & anti-SLAPP cases & his opinions have, generally, been affirmed by the appellate.

Case in point: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/chang090913.htm

I think it was a huge error on Vance's part to represent himself in the case & going up against the ultra-slezebag's Gary Soter & Rick Moxon.

I think they will have to hear it since defendent responses have been filed.

01/02/2015 Objection Document (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATIONS OF PLAINTIF F VANCE WOODWARD )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

12/23/2014 Opposition Points & Authorities (TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN A MENDED COMPLAINT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

12/23/2014 Declaration (OF GARY S. SOTER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TION AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

Let's see what happens today
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Unfortunately, Judge Michael Johnson denied Mr. Woodward's Motion for Reconsideration @ the Hearing held on January 7, 2015.

Additionally, the judge's Order states that Mr. Woodward must pay Defendants' Attorney Fees: $87,675.00 + Costs: $2,832.50 = $90,507.50*.


*Originally, TeamScioDefendants attorneys demanded $125,250.00** in attorney fees but the judge reduced the attorney fees total by 30%.
** $125,250.00 = Gary Sotor 118.4 hrs @ $750.00 per billable hr and Ken Moxon 72.9 hrs @ $500.00 per billable hour.


Note '

I did not find the above info on the California online court docket.

Instead, a copy of this California judge's Order, along with a transcript of the January 7th Hearing, was submitted to the Texas 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on February 6, 2015, by TeamScioAttorneys with (another!) legal brief in furtherance of their efforts to have Rathbun v Miscavige/CSI/RTC/Etc. dismissed via Anti-SLAPP motion.

Link to TAMES site here: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-14-00199-CV&coa=coa03
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Excerpt from the LA Courts Online docket...

02/25/2015 Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt
Filed by Clerk
02/17/2015 Notice of Designation of Record
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/06/2015 Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal
Filed by Clerk


01/28/2015 Notice of Entry of Judgment
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

01/16/2015 Judgment (AWARDING COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS ON ANTI- SLAPP MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

The three February entries above are a challenge to interpret, but I think Mr. Woodward is appealing the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit and/or the award of attorney fees & costs.

Link to LA Courts Online docket search page: http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/
ETA: Docket number to use @ above link: BC540097
JB
 
Last edited:
Top