lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

[Free to shine]

Back to the thread.

Opinions on this? For a refund?

The contract calls for a panel of three Scientologists in good standing to decide what would be fair.

[Mystic]

In the United States of Rothschild, "Laws" are a commodity, bought and sold to the highest bidder.

[Feral]

There is several thing amiss with the cults argument.

Firstly it's claiming first amendment freedom to resolve the matter in arbitration when over in Texas apparently it isn't a matter for binding arbitration if Debbie Cook sends an e-mail, in fact it seems to be very much a matter for the courts in that case.

Second; The cults repayment policy ALWAYS guaranteed a repayment. A refund, not so much.

Thirdly; it was never a fucking gift.

Fourthly; Have you ever read the Fair game law and it's cancellation? Bert's got no hope.

Fifth, if Scientology is a charitable organisation, then I'm a horse.

Sixth; whatever documents we signed when we gave money, none of us got a copy, isn't that cute?

[Dulloldfart]

Back to the thread.

Opinions on this? For a refund?

It's a repayment, not a refund. They didn't take the services. The newspaper thinks the words are synonyms, but they are not to Scn accounts people.

-----

But a panel of "scientologists in good standing" being impartial? Yeah, right.

Paul

[Feral]

And unfortunately they have a valid argument per the terms of the contract. This is one of the dangers of the rush to end the 'abuses of trial lawyers' by politicians seeking to supplant the average citizens right to trial with 'binding arbitration'.

The contract as written lays out binding arbitration as the means of resolving the dispute. The Baumgarten both signed the contract, taking payment in 'due consideration'. Bother Baumgarten were adults presumed to be mentally competent at the time of signing. Ergo, their best hope is to find some means by which the agreement itself can be held to be invalid by the courts. That doesn't look like anything like remotely approaching to a 'sure thing'.


Mark A. Baker

I don't mean to be rude Mark but you're setting a record shitting up threads and this one, I'm afraid you're too busy trolling to have noticed, isn't even about the Baumgartens.

[Free to shine]

It's a repayment, not a refund. They didn't take the services. The newspaper thinks the words are synonyms, but they are not to Scn accounts people.

-----

But a panel of "scientologists in good standing" being impartial? Yeah, right.

Paul

Oops, was in a hurry, thanks, I did mean repayment. These two cases at once, there is something very wrong here and I don't understand the legalities enough to write about it and I hope someone does.

[Free to shine]

I don't mean to be rude Mark but you're setting a record shitting up threads and this one, I'm afraid you're too busy trolling to have noticed, isn't even about the Baumgartens.

Yeah I pointed that out in post #3. Someone was too carried away to notice the scenery had changed.... in fact the whole thread was different.

[LA SCN]

Your Wikipedia Law School degree notwithstanding, the stridency with which you hold forth on the law is no match for your bombastic misunderstanding of it.

Oh good - its not just me!

Moderator 2, Infinite, HelluvaHoax!, Jump, freethinker and 1 others says "thank you" for this post
scooter, Type4_PTS, Ladybird, Pooks, ChurchOfCylontology and 5 others liked this post

[Panda Termint]

Back to the thread.

Opinions on this? For a refund?

It sounds more like it's a Repayment (unused money on Account wanted back) than a Refund (Services delivered but unhappy with the Service and wants money back).

[Dulloldfart]

It sounds more like <snip>

Quick! You've got 17 minutes to edit this redundant post.

Paul