lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

Discussion in 'Tampa Bay Times/SP Times' started by Free to shine, Feb 4, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Another case - this is getting really interesting. :)

    More at above link.
  2. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    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
  3. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    This is a different case. It's about a refund of money on account.
  4. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Mark, when a staff member's contract is finished, can they legally leave, or do they have to find a replacement (per policy) before they can legally leave?
  5. freethinker

    freethinker Crusader

    Court cases abound in 2012.

    All I could think of when reading this is the policy where Ron says " Someday someone will say this is illegal, just make sure we expand so much that only we can say what is legal or not."

    I think they are pushing for that day now. 2012 will be the year of the religious legal showdown.

    A church,and/or religion cannot have rights, it cannot assert them, it cannot defend them.
  6. tikk

    tikk Patron with Honors

    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.
  7. freethinker

    freethinker Crusader

    I gotta give you an amen on this one brother. Great Post!!!!!
  8. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Legally they can leave at anytime. The law in the u.s. does not allow for involuntary servitude. Church policy has no legal standing. It can only affect their standing with the church.

    Mark A. Baker
  9. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor


    Thank God (again) for someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

    One of my companies at any given time hold tens of thousands of contracts with clients, each of which has arbitration clauses that are (naturally) often tested by a certain category of lawyer looking for a fast nuisance lawsuit settlement. Over many years I have had actual experiences in a courtroom on this subject--not merely academic musings.

    Where does Baker come up with this clownish authoritative stuff? LOL

    When I read Baker's predictably amateurish diatribe, I just had to laugh and wonder how many people here on ESMB actually think his legal theories are not a joke.
  10. Lohan2008

    Lohan2008 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: 'Only Scientology law applies'

  11. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Back to the thread.

    Opinions on this? For a refund?

  12. Mystic

    Mystic Banned

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

    Feral Rogue male

    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?
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2012
  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    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.

  15. Feral

    Feral Rogue male

    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.

  16. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    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.
  17. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    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. :biggrin:
  18. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    Oh good - its not just me!

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

  19. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    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).
  20. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

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


Share This Page