Scientology did not violate forced labor law, appeals court rules

[Mark A. Baker]

Keep in mind, the 9th Circuit Court is popularly known as the most overturned Circuit Court in the U.S.

Though, there may be statistical evidence to cause one to question that. They are also the largest Circuit Court in the country. (They cover the largest area of any court) A couple Supreme Court Justices have suggested it is too large and should be split...

If this was pushed to the Supreme Court there might be a different outcome...

Jack

I doubt it. The findings are well laid out & reasoned.

Courts decide cases based on the specific complaints filed and arguments offered, not some broad sense of wounded justice. The arguments made did not support the original complaints filed, so the court had no justifiable basis for finding on behalf of the Headley's.


Of a separate but related issue, two aspects of those findings which I find of particular interest.

From HEADLEY v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

... A church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that the free exercise clause protects the practice of shunning, explaining that when “[t]he members of [a] [c]hurch” “no longer want to associate with” someone who has “abandon[ed]” them, those members “are free” under the First Amendment “to make that choice”). A church may also warn that it will stop associating with members who do not HEADLEY v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 8409act in accordance with church doctrine. The former is a legitimate consequence, the latter a legitimate warning. Cf. Bradley, 390 F.3d at 151.

IV, A, 3 ...

Citation of legal precedent of why 'disconnection' is not illegal. Of interest as a reference particularly for those who think it should be.

... Likewise, we do not decide how the Headleys might have fared under a different statute or on other legal theories. The Headleys abandoned claims under federal and state minimum wage laws. And although the Headleys marshaled evidence of potentially tortious conduct, they did not bring claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any of a number of other theories that might have better fit the evidence. The Headleys thus wagered
all on a statute enacted “to combat” the “transnational crime” of “trafficking in persons”—particularly defenseless, vulnerable immigrant women and children. 22 U.S.C. § 7101(a), (b)(24); see id. § 7101(b)(1), (2), (4), (17), (22). Whatever bad
acts the defendants (or others) may have committed, the record does not allow the conclusion that the Church or the Center violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

IV, B, 5 ...

What is of interest is how the appeals court spells out how the arguments made might be taken to support complaints filed on different bases. That is not material that the court is required to provide. Consider it a form of indirect yet informative provision of legal insight & education. Certainly it is useful to law students and any lawyers representing clients with similar claims.


Mark A. Baker

[Karen#1]

Marc and Claire were Cult survivors and escapees. They were not legal wizards and relied on Counsel. Their lawyers did all the work. On the face of it, it does seem reasonable to charge "Human Trafficking" given that they had to work 80 to 100 hour weeks for some $20 a week. This is what the "church" gets away with under the "Religious Cloaking." It is run like a business, has stats like a business can even order SLEEP DEPRIVATION" to perform for them if the business stats are not high enough, but the entity gets "Church" and "Religious" Privileges. [/B]

Human trafficking does occur in moral ethical sense if not in a legal sense.
[/B]
The 9th Circuit has coached future Law Suits with guidelines ~~
“They did not bring claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any of a number of other theories that might have better fit the evidence,” O’Scannlain wrote.

The amount of spin fed to the 9th Circuit judges was mind boggling.

Lie #1 Sea Org Members learn that the ministry will require them to work long hours without material compensation.

NO SEA ORG RECRUITERS mentions SLEEP DEPRIVATION or any other abuses. No Sea Org Recruit mentions the RPF or Gulag. Sea Org pay being shut down to 1/2 pay, 1/4 pay is NEVER NEVER mentioned. The long hours, 12-18 hours a day work is a shock only experienced after Sea org contract is signed

Lie #2 Blaming enforced abortions on Sea Org Travel !!!!!

Stunning LIE. They LIE LIE LIE even to officers of the Court.

Quote "Because Sea Org Life may at any moment require a member indefinitely to serve anywhere in the world, the Church prohibits Sea org members from having Children ..

."

90% of the women who had abortions were never involved in any kind of travel ever.
90% of the women who were enforced to have abortions were not "Mission trained" i.e. had not done Mission School and were no where near eligible for "serving anywhere in the world."
SPIN SPIN SPIN

With an RTC Rep, execution arm for Miscavige posted in major "Church" outlets there is little need in this day and age for Mission traffic.

To blame enforced abortions on possible Sea Org travel is a bold faced lie.

Sea Org Recruitment poster promote a life of Excitement, Adventure, Challenge, Advancement, Saving the planet.

The sordid reality of the abusive RPF is 180 degrees different to the blather they promote.

[Ogsonofgroo]

Minds are kidnapped, even your's dear Karen.

When you realize how far you have been taken, how deep the hook, of LRon, then you may really, truly, move forward and live life.

My opinion, and no disrespect impli3d or meant beautiful person

[Albion]

Late, and a bit rough and ready, but I've written up the appeal court decision at Infinite Complacency:

http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot....-lawsuits.html

Jonny Jacobsen

[Albion]

I have just published a more extensive write-up on the appeal court ruling at Infinite Complacency, built around an analysis by the lawyer who filed the original lawsuits, Barry Van Sickle:

The U.S. Appeal court's rejection of the Headley lawsuits against Scientology is not carte blanche for future abuse, says the attorney who filed the original complaints: but the judgment still got it wrong, he argues.

It is much longer than I usually post and perhaps not the easiest read, but I thought it was worth exploring the issues in detail so as to take advantage of Van Sickle's informed opinions.

Jonny Jacobsen
Infinite Complacency

[guanoloco]

More fabulous PR for COS.

These days, even when they win, they lose.

That's what Scientology does really well...wins every battle and, by doing so, loses the war.

Here they are admitting to enforcing abortions.