lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

[Free to shine]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/lawyer-tells-judge-only-scientology-law-applies/1213941


Another case - this is getting really interesting.

CLEARWATER — The Church of Scientology, defending itself against a $35,000 refund claim, told a Pinellas judge Friday that the courts cannot meddle in its religious affairs.

Citing the First Amendment as it has in numerous court cases, the church told Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge John A. Schaefer that two former parishioners from Seattle must submit to an internal Scientology arbitration procedure to get any money back.

Bert Schippers and Lynne Hoverson, longtime Scientologists who left the church in 2009, sued two of the church's Clearwater entities in November after they requested their money back and didn't receive it.

As is common in Scientology, Schippers left the money "on account" with the church to pay later for spiritual counseling. But he never used it.

The church argues the couple first must submit to "binding religious arbitration" as laid out in a standard church contract Schippers signed before giving the money. The contract calls for a panel of three Scientologists in good standing to decide what would be fair. Schippers' lawyer, Brian Leung of Tampa, told Schaefer the arbitration process is inherently unfair because Schippers and Hoverson are estranged from the church and considered "suppressive." Scientologists in good standing consider them heretics. The three-member internal panel would be unlikely to give them a fair hearing, Leung said.

More at above link.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... The church argues the couple first must submit to "binding religious arbitration" as laid out in a standard church contract Schippers signed before giving the money. The contract calls for a panel of three Scientologists in good standing to decide what would be fair. ...

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

 

[Free to shine]

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

 

[degraded being]

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

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?

 

[freethinker]

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.

 

[tikk]

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

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.

 

[freethinker]

I gotta give you an amen on this one brother. Great Post!!!!!

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.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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?

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

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

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.

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.

 

[Lohan2008]

Re: 'Only Scientology law applies'

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.

AMEN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KZKZs-2YM

 

[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.

View attachment 4636

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