Marc & Claire Headley's appeal, starting Feb 9th 2012

[Free to shine]

A new thread for the appeal.

From OCMB: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=53285


Jonny Jacobsen has some news on the Headley's appeal...
Albion, posting on WWP wrote:
So far as the Headleys are concerned, the ministerial exception
issue is very much on the agenda. Who says so? The appeal
court judges hearing their cases.

Their lawyers have been told that at oral argument they should
be prepared to discuss the Hosanna-Tabor ruling and its applicability
-- or otherwise -- to these cases.

As I mentioned earlier at Infinite Complacency, the Headleys
and their lawyers have been summoned to the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, to present oral arguments on their
appeal against the dismissal of their cases. Here's their court listing
here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2011/12/08/npa02_12.pdf): as you can see the hearing starts on Thursday, February 9,
at 9:00 am.

For my original write-up of Marc's case see here (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2009/01/marc-headleys-lawsuit.html).

For my write-up of Claire's case see here (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2009/03/11-claire-headleys-lawsuit-abortion.html).

For my speculation on how Hosanna Tabor might be relevant
see here (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2011/08/legal-update-ii-headleys_02.html) (written before the Supreme Court judgment).

And for my write-up of the Supreme Court ruling see http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/01/supreme-court-confirms-ministerial.html.

Best,

Jonny Jacobsen

Some relevant threads:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10157-March-5th-Update-on-Headley-Labor-Cases

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?14328-Claire-Headley-vs-RTC-CSI-Update-10.09&highlight=marc+headley

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?19603-Judge-dismisses-two-lawsuits-aimed-at-Scientology

[jenni with an eye]

Thanks FTS,

I really hope it works out right for them. :yes:

[Free to shine]

As news comes to hand we can post it here.

Good luck Marc and Claire!

[FoTi]

I hope the Hedleys get real justice this time.....and an axe to the cult. CoS deserves a real good kick in the butt. :buttkick:

[Purple Rain]

Ministerial exception my fat aunt! Sick 'em, Headleys!!

:boxing:

[Albion]

A quick preview of Thursday's appeal court hearing
up now at Infinite Complacency, trying to sum up
what appear to be the key issues:

The Headleys go to Appeal (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/02/headleys-go-to-appeal.html).

Jonny Jacobsen

[Auditor's Toad]

May Mark & Claire get justice this time !

Do that damn cult in !

[SweetnessandLight]

I would so like to see Justice done in this case.

[Commander Birdsong]

naaaa....

wrong lane of assault

the ministerial exception is good law. i do not like the way CoS operates but it's not my shop. i accepted it's bonafides as a religious organization from first examination.
i studied as a public in san francisco and did a turn as staff staff auditor at fcdc and treated it as such

religious institutions are welcome to their lawful privileges, it is good law, it has my personal support and defense

there are other ways

[Sharone Stainforth]

Marc and Claire deserve justice, ministerial exceptions don't wash.

Good Luck Marc and Claire!

[sallydannce]

Good luck Marc and Claire.

You have support from all over the world.

Love to you and the family.

[Mimsey Borogrove]

naaaa.... wrong lane of assault. The ministerial exception is good law. i do not like the way CoS operates but it's not my shop. i accepted it's bonafides as a religious organization from first examination.
i studied as a public in san francisco and did a turn as staff staff auditor at fcdc and treated it as such

religious institutions are welcome to their lawful privileges, it is good law, it has my personal support and defense

there are other ways

While I agree that religious institutions should be unfettered in their belief, as per the constitution, I do not feel that right trumps all other laws. Otherwise, for instance, you could argue that a religion that has sex with minors as it's sacrament is held harmless.

Mimsey

[Truth&Honesty]

.
The law regarding ministerial exceptions, should never be misconstrued to allow a church to hide its crimes.

If anyone, including a church, commits a crime, then they should be tried in a criminal court.


Claire and Marc, I believe you will win. Good luck in your appeal!

[Commander Birdsong]

While I agree that religious institutions should be unfettered in their belief, as per the constitution, I do not feel that right trumps all other laws. Otherwise, for instance, you could argue that a religion that has sex with minors as it's sacrament is held harmless.

Mimsey

sex with minors obviously is not covered by ministerial exception. minimum wage law is. so too are some child labor laws. and other things with which i am not familiar

the CoSuckers are egregious and abusive with their exploitation of those laws.

but they are within the letter of the law

marc and claire have support from antiscientology persons and also antichurch persons who want to excise all clerical privelege thus CoS not only has the letter of the law but even many people uncomfortable with CoS conduct are, thank god, ardent in support of the law.

marc and claire are going after minimum wage back pay and the failure of the suit is a no-brainer. ok, maybe they can get some go away $. maybe but not likely

no. the law extensively protects CoS. when they actually go over the line a suit can have a chance but all it's going to do is cost CoS a few bucks

nope.

the only potentially effective assault must involve a spearhead of persons who accede to the creed of the church and the auditor's code. an intelligent plan of action in conjunction with some merry pranksters could do something. i don't see anyone expressing any interest in an intelligent plan of action

[Commander Birdsong]

.
The law regarding ministerial exceptions, should never be misconstrued to allow a church to hide its crimes.

If anyone, including a church, commits a crime, then they should be tried in a criminal court.


Claire and Marc, I believe you will win. Good luck in your appeal!

but what is the crime?

[SpecialFrog]

sex with minors obviously is not covered by ministerial exception. minimum wage law is. so too are some child labor laws. and other things with which i am not familiar

the CoSuckers are egregious and abusive with their exploitation of those laws.

but they are within the letter of the law

I agree that the ministerial exemption is sometimes valid.

However, there are some issues here that you are not addressing.

First of all, there is the issue of to whom the ministerial exception should apply. If someone is in the Sea Org but has received no "religious" training and works solely doing unskilled or semi-skilled labor, are they really a religious official in any meaningful sense?

Secondly, Sea Org members are typically recruited as teens and as far as I can tell, what they are told about the actual employment conditions and the reality are significantly different. I don't think ministerial exemption means they can lie to recruits and then just say, "Too bad. You're a religious official so we can do what we want."

Finally, while the IRS caved, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the Church of Scientology is not a bona fide religious organization but a commercial enterprise that uses religion as a flag of convenience*. Its attempts to designate employees as ministers, volunteers or whatever status they feel they can get away with in a particular jurisdiction are merely examples of how it exploits this as it does any other legal loophole it can find.

Part of this approach could also bring in Miscavige's compensation (he's a Sea Org member too, right?), work done for Tom Cruise, etc.

* Note: this is entirely separate to the question of whether Scientology is a "religion".

[Commander Birdsong]

I agree that the ministerial exemption is sometimes valid.

However, there are some issues here that you are not addressing.

First of all, there is the issue of to whom the ministerial exception should apply. If someone is in the Sea Org but has received no "religious" training and works solely doing unskilled or semi-skilled labor, are they really a religious official in any meaningful sense?

Secondly, Sea Org members are typically recruited as teens and as far as I can tell, what they are told about the actual employment conditions and the reality are significantly different. I don't think ministerial exemption means they can lie to recruits and then just say, "Too bad. You're a religious official so we can do what we want."

Finally, while the IRS caved, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the Church of Scientology is not a bona fide religious organization but a commercial enterprise that uses religion as a flag of convenience*. Its attempts to designate employees as ministers, volunteers or whatever status they feel they can get away with in a particular jurisdiction are merely examples of how it exploits this as it does any other legal loophole it can find.

Part of this approach could also bring in Miscavige's compensation (he's a Sea Org member too, right?), work done for Tom Cruise, etc.

* Note: this is entirely separate to the question of whether Scientology is a "religion".

i would love to address such things

other religious organizations pay their hired help. marc did work which is always paid at least minimum wage and usually at or near market value by responsible churches synagogues etc. but CoS is structured differently. and the structure is within the letter of the law

it can only be addressed internally which means by people who stand up, dig their heels in and say NO

i am an auditor. i say NO

i can't do much alone

i don't see anyone presenting or willing to listen to intelligent plans of action

[La La Lou Lou]

The church of unusual solutions cannot afford to pay it's staff a living wage and management organisations as well.

It should do neither, just hand in the towel.:yes:

[Commander Birdsong]

The church of unusual solutions cannot afford to pay it's staff a living wage and management organisations as well.

It should do neither, just hand in the towel.:yes:

actually it could.

both training and auditing are marketable products capable of being produced by a nonprofit organization which pays it's auditors a very good living wage and all necessary personnel at least minimum

this would of course necessitate the dismissal of the dir dev-t who appears to currently be considered the mastermind of the operation

[SpecialFrog]

other religious organizations pay their hired help. marc did work which is always paid at least minimum wage and usually at or near market value by responsible churches synagogues etc. but CoS is structured differently. and the structure is within the letter of the law


This aspect of law is unclear. The Supreme Court's recent ruling acknowledged this, while deciding it did not need to clarify it in order to rule on that particular case.

There is still a reasonable argument that Sea Org are not covered by ministerial exemption, or at least are not inherently covered.

[Commander Birdsong]

This aspect of law is unclear. The Supreme Court's recent ruling acknowledged this, while deciding it did not need to clarify it in order to rule on that particular case.

There is still a reasonable argument that Sea Org are not covered by ministerial exemption, or at least are not inherently covered.

interesting...

very touchy. very touchy.

i think CoS will win. possibly some leverage can be gained toward getting some work done under private rules. slim chance of retroactive bennies i should say

[SpecialFrog]

interesting...

very touchy. very touchy.

i think CoS will win. possibly some leverage can be gained toward getting some work done under private rules. slim chance of retroactive bennies i should say

I still don't think it is particularly touchy.

While I think Scientology is a religion and you could have a Church of Scientology that was a bona fide religious organization, there is ample evidence that the current organization always saw religious status as an angle that would give them benefits such as reduced tax burdens and lack of oversight.

Disney could decide that turning into a religious organization was a good business move and might get the IRS and some tame academics to endorse it. That doesn't mean the guy in the Goofy suit doesn't have a valid case for claiming that he isn't a minister.

[freethinker]

Thanks FTS for posting this as I have been wondering for a long time what has been going on with this.

I found some very interesting links regarding the First Amendment.

I know this case will only be argued on the one case but i found this site that shows the Courts have been going back and forth on the issue of religion fro the begining and it is clearly not settled with them. This link covers many important cases. (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm)


This site covers why the courts are unsettled and what the real meaning of the First Amendment is. It's quite comprehensive.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html




Moreover, the Framers intended the powers and limitations contained in the U.S. Constitution to apply only to the federal government and not to the States. For example, in the famous case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Plaintiff sued to apply the Fifth Amendment to the City of Baltimore. In its holding, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. * * * If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.22 (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html#ref)

[Mimsey Borogrove]

sex with minors obviously is not covered by ministerial exception. minimum wage law is. so too are some child labor laws. and other things with which i am not familiar I think if you read the law it says no such thing. It doesn't prohibit anything. A revisionist Mormon could argue that the Mormon church illegally was coerced by the feds from following the founders plural marriage beliefs, and while he was at it, he could argue the laws defining the age of minors as violating the laws of god, in that the female body is physically able to reproduce at the onset of the menses, and based on the constitution he could marry and impregnate any number of minors legally.

It is a sticky area but it needs to be defined. What can that amendment trump? Child labor? Importing illegal labor? Ignoring the ADA regulations? On and on. But it is easily done - if a religion wishes to get tax exemption it has to follow certain laws. In other words it accepts limits in exchange for tax exemption. Interestingly, and correct me if I am wrong, the CofS has tax exemption, but the SO does not, so it, the SO only, is a complete adherent to the amendment, and is unfettered in what it can do.

Mimsey

[Commander Birdsong]

I still don't think it is particularly touchy.

While I think Scientology is a religion and you could have a Church of Scientology that was a bona fide religious organization, there is ample evidence that the current organization always saw religious status as an angle that would give them benefits such as reduced tax burdens and lack of oversight.

Disney could decide that turning into a religious organization was a good business move and might get the IRS and some tame academics to endorse it. That doesn't mean the guy in the Goofy suit doesn't have a valid case for claiming that he isn't a minister.

there is ample evidence of individuals including the founder within the organization viewing the legal status as "religious cloaking". there is ample evidence of individuals treating it's ideals and practices in the true spirit of religion. i am one of the latter. there are now and never have been any religious organizations within this mortal frame absent of entirely venal and frequently malign individuals

in our own time the separation of church and state (basically since the ascendence of madalyn murray o'hare) is cited to keep church out of state. those well familiar with our nation's history understand our founding father's intent, stemming from roger williams was to keep state out of church

while i have no doubt "a reasonable argument" can be made against extending ministerial exception to the sea org not only is the defense argument massive and impeccable and inevitable those craven jackanape CoSuckers must be rolling on the floor doubled up with laughter about the term "reasonable argument"

[SpecialFrog]

there is ample evidence of individuals including the founder within the organization viewing the legal status as "religious cloaking". there is ample evidence of individuals treating it's ideals and practices in the true spirit of religion.


I agree with both statements. However, when it comes to determining whether the Church of Scientology is a bona fide religious organization, the second statement is necessary but not sufficient.

Christianity is a religion. If I found the Church of the Christian Sneaker and persuade illegal immigrants to sign something declaring that they are monks in order to work in my sweatshop, am I entitled to violate labor laws because of ministerial exemption?

[Commander Birdsong]

I agree with both statements. However, when it comes to determining whether the Church of Scientology is a bona fide religious organization, the second statement is necessary but not sufficient.

Christianity is a religion. If I found the Church of the Christian Sneaker and persuade illegal immigrants to sign something declaring that they are monks in order to work in my sweatshop, am I entitled to violate labor laws because of ministerial exemption?

no

[Free to shine]

Listen to recording for case: Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Internat, et al., No. 10-56266
Listen:
* Requires Windows Media Player
Download:
10-56266.wma (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/02/09/10-56266.wma)

Case Name:
Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Internat, et al.
Case Number:
10-56266

Case Panel:
NELSON, O'SCANNLAIN, SMITH
Hearing Location:
Pasadena, CA
Hearing Date:
02/09/2012
Supplement(s):
N/A

The download is 4.5Mb

Fascinating! I hope Tikk is around...

EDIT: This is a must listen to if you are interested in the law here... wow!

[freethinker]

The Founding fathers had no such intention of "Separation of Church and State" and never mentioned it in forming the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the phrase in a letter 14 years after the signing of the Constitution.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html




The primary occasion of the phrase "separation of church and state" dates back to a letter written in 1802 from then President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. It is important to note that the letter was written fourteen years after the passage of the First Amendment; that Jefferson was in France at the time the Constitutional amendments (the Bill of Rights) were passed by Congress; and that he had no part in drafting or approving the First Amendment. In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists set forth their position that:
Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: . . .and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. . . .




< snip >
in our own time the separation of church and state (basically since the ascendence of madalyn murray o'hare) is cited to keep church out of state. those well familiar with our nation's history understand our founding father's intent, stemming from roger williams was to keep state out of church

[freethinker]

Although on the overall it didn't sound good for the Headley's, I got the sense that the male judge was trying to find a way to make it work while at the same time making it sound like it wouldn't.

I think they will make it work. Personally, I don't see any way you can create the Ministeral Exception from the Constitution to overide basic human rights.
Listen to recording for case: Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Internat, et al., No. 10-56266
Listen:
* Requires Windows Media Player
Download:
10-56266.wma (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/02/09/10-56266.wma)

Case Name:
Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Internat, et al.
Case Number:
10-56266

Case Panel:
NELSON, O'SCANNLAIN, SMITH
Hearing Location:
Pasadena, CA
Hearing Date:
02/09/2012
Supplement(s):
N/A

The download is 4.5Mb

Fascinating! I hope Tikk is around...

EDIT: This is a must listen to if you are interested in the law here... wow!

[Albion]

Just posted the first part of a summary of the
oral arguments at Infinite Complacency (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/02/headleys-arguments-on-appeal-i.html).

A bit dry, but it's for the record.

Jonny Jacobsen

[GreyWolf]

but what is the crime?

Maybe they should have charged the church with false imprisonment?

[Free to shine]

Here's a Youtube version of the proceedings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtd75VPBsQ

[Free to shine]

Just posted the first part of a summary of the
oral arguments at Infinite Complacency (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/02/headleys-arguments-on-appeal-i.html).

A bit dry, but it's for the record.

Jonny Jacobsen

Not too dry mate, excellent! I would copy it over but prefer you to have the click love.
http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/headleys-arguments-on-appeal-i.html

[degraded being]

What happens next? And...can Deb Cook's case be referrred to, to support
Headleys' case?

[Type4_PTS]

"Just posted the first part of a summary of the
oral arguments......"

Good summary. Thank-you! :thumbsup:

[ChurchOfCylontology]

Very good summary, thanks. I've been trying to find this information since yesterday and WWP is getting low on providing decent content ever since they got high-and-mighty with the banhammer.

So it seems that the appellate judges are stuck on the circular argument about not being able to look at abuse without making judgment on religious doctrine. This is absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe they kept going back to that point.

No one is supposed to be above the law, including religious organizations and if they don't allow abuses as a civil c/a then they are creating a completely separate class of citizens. They will create a superior class of citizens in religious organizations that are above the law. Being so afraid of coming close to making judgment on doctrine rips the blinders off of lady justice.

Even the Catholic Church did not use ministerial protections with the priest abuse scandals because they KNOW that it is not in church doctrine to diddle little boys. I hope the appellate court is compelled by the monsters they will create if they don't remand this case back to trial court. It sounds like the Headley's attorney used sufficient and appropriate case law to prove their point.

I'd like to see a summary of the opposing counsel. They may be almost admitting to abuse if they say that church doctrine leads to coerced abortions so you cannot separate this discussion from one on church doctrine.

I pray that the court does the right thing here. The third judge at least hinted towards compassion and doing the moral thing. Discussing original intent probably wasn't needed here because there's plenty of case law that puts human rights ahead of religious rights. I'm surprised that the Hosana-Tabor case wasn't discussed.

[Albion]

Very good summary, thanks. I've been trying to find this information since yesterday and WWP is getting low on providing decent content ever since they got high-and-mighty with the banhammer.

So it seems that the appellate judges are stuck on the circular argument about not being able to look at abuse without making judgment on religious doctrine. This is absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe they kept going back to that point.

No one is supposed to be above the law, including religious organizations and if they don't allow abuses as a civil c/a then they are creating a completely separate class of citizens. They will create a superior class of citizens in religious organizations that are above the law. Being so afraid of coming close to making judgment on doctrine rips the blinders off of lady justice.

Even the Catholic Church did not use ministerial protections with the priest abuse scandals because they KNOW that it is not in church doctrine to diddle little boys. I hope the appellate court is compelled by the monsters they will create if they don't remand this case back to trial court. It sounds like the Headley's attorney used sufficient and appropriate case law to prove their point.

I'd like to see a summary of the opposing counsel. They may be almost admitting to abuse if they say that church doctrine leads to coerced abortions so you cannot separate this discussion from one on church doctrine.

I pray that the court does the right thing here. The third judge at least hinted towards compassion and doing the moral thing. Discussing original intent probably wasn't needed here because there's plenty of case law that puts human rights ahead of religious rights. I'm surprised that the Hosana-Tabor case wasn't discussed.

I've just posted a summary of the second half of the oral
hearings at Infinite Complacency (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/02/headleys-on-appeal-ii.html?utm_source=BP_recent).

Scientology’s attorney argued that the Headleys could
not argue psychological and social coercion based on
their upbringing in the Church: that it inevitably ran up
against First Amendment issues.

I got the impression that all the judges were sympathetic to what
the Headleys had suffered; but they need to be convinced -- or to
convince themselves -- that the principle of ministerial exception,
derived from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing
religious freedom, does not prevent from accepting the case.

Headley's team has taken the line of trying to trump ministerial
exception with another constitutionally based right: the right to
be free of slavery, tracing back the human trafficking complaint
back to the 13th amendment. But along the way they appear to
have conceded the point about the Headleys being ministers and
don't seem to be pursuing the low wage claims. It's certainly not
obvious to me that the Headleys were ministers -- not simply by
being members of the Sea Org. But I haven't seen the latest filings
and I'm having trouble getting access the PACER system because
they don't accept my foreign credit card. Once I get that sorted
out, hopefully I'll get a clearer idea.

But I'd be interested to see what attorney Scott Pilutik, who posts at
WWP as Tikk, has to say about this. His blog is:

http://realitybasedcommunity.net/

Best,

Jonny Jacobsen

[ChurchOfCylontology]

I've just posted a summary of the second half of the oral
hearings at Infinite Complacency (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/02/headleys-on-appeal-ii.html?utm_source=BP_recent).

Scientology’s attorney argued that the Headleys could
not argue psychological and social coercion based on
their upbringing in the Church: that it inevitably ran up
against First Amendment issues.

I got the impression that all the judges were sympathetic to what
the Headleys had suffered; but they need to be convinced -- or to
convince themselves -- that the principle of ministerial exception,
derived from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing
religious freedom, does not prevent from accepting the case.

Headley's team has taken the line of trying to trump ministerial
exception with another constitutionally based right: the right to
be free of slavery, tracing back the human trafficking complaint
back to the 13th amendment. But along the way they appear to
have conceded the point about the Headleys being ministers and
don't seem to be pursuing the low wage claims. It's certainly not
obvious to me that the Headleys were ministers -- not simply by
being members of the Sea Org. But I haven't seen the latest filings
and I'm having trouble getting access the PACER system because
they don't accept my foreign credit card. Once I get that sorted
out, hopefully I'll get a clearer idea.

But I'd be interested to see what attorney Scott Pilutik, who posts at
WWP as Tikk, has to say about this. His blog is:

http://realitybasedcommunity.net/

Best,

Jonny Jacobsen

Thanks Jonny. I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I am a fan of Scott's analysis on the legal perspective as well as yours. I'd be willing to purchase filings for you on PACER if the prices are reasonable (i.e. the documents aren't 100 pages). Let me know which dox you'd like and I can email them to you.

[jenni with an eye]

Just saw this:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/13/43831.htm

interesting :coolwink:

[Mimsey Borogrove]

How long before they make a ruling? Mimsey

[Type4_PTS]

:bump2:

[freethinker]

:bump2: any news?

[koki]

:drama::hmm:

[Cherished]

It could be months or even a year.

[freethinker]

Ok I'll go back to bed.
It could be months or even a year.

[freethinker]

In doing research today I came across 18 U.S.C. § 1589 : US Code - Section 1589: Forced labor.

Found here http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/77/1589/

According to FTS's blog Infinite Complacency, the Ministerial Exception is derived from the first amendment of the US Constitution protecting religious freedom.

The judge ruled that the Church was covered by the ministerial exception.

What the Judge and the courts fail to recognize is that the Headleys are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the 14th amendment of the same constitution and EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

The ministerial exception denies EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS and favors religion and their practices over god given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence declared these rights to Life, Liberty and The pursuit of Happiness as Unalienable rights endowed by the creator.

Unalienable means they can't be taken away or mitigated or given up or superceded by anyone or group or thing.

Religious freedom is not declared unalienable.

The Declaration of Independence is a senior document to the Constitution and is seemingly ignored by the courts and the judges. Both the D of I and Constitution are senior to the laws derived therefrom.

The D of I and the Constitution guarantee a trial by jury which the Headleys were denied by Summary Judgement. They did not get Due Process of the Law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

They really need to get their lawyer to look into this a lot deeper than he is.

[Mimsey Borogrove]

This is a really interesting point. Have you shared it with them? My next question is, who would pay the lawyer? Could the ACLU be interested in pursuing it? Another point is, why not email your post to Tony Ortega? He could ask his in house legal beagle to respond to it.

It really needs to be discussed further. Tony O. has a wonderful forum for this sort of thing.

Mimsey

[COBSP]

There seems to be a highly interesting new developement to the Headley case:

Scientology to Marc and Claire Headley: Spy For Us and We'll Forget the $43K You Owe


http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/scientology_marc_headley_spy_for_us.php