Scientology's Legal Gymnastics: Unmasking Arbitration Clauses and Dodging Accountability - Scientology Stories #44

Do you know how Scientology is using arbitration clauses to escape accountability? Join us as Claire Headley and special guest Tony Ortega reveal the hidden mechanisms behind Scientology's arbitration practices. From derailing legal challenges to the manipulative use of arbitration clauses, we uncover the church's evolving legal strategies and the powerful attorneys driving these changes. Highlighting crucial cases like the Garcia family, we illustrate how Scientology has crafted an arbitration process that is nearly impossible for former members to navigate successfully.

Listen to personal stories that lay bare the systemic biases within Scientology's arbitration system. Meet individuals like Valerie Haney and the Garcia family whose experiences expose the psychological and emotional toll of facing a skewed and oppressive process. Their stories, marked by encounters with their abusers and manipulative tactics, underscore a system rigged against anyone labeled as a "suppressive person." We draw comparisons to other flawed arbitration systems, emphasizing the absurdity and injustice perpetuated by Scientology-controlled panels.

Explore the relentless legal tactics employed by Scientology to sidestep justice. From extensive procedural delays in Laura DiCrescenzo's case to David Miscavige's evasive maneuvers, this episode highlights the lengths Scientology will go to avoid accountability. Personal anecdotes and detailed analyses shed light on systemic issues that favor organizations exploiting legal loopholes. Through these discussions, we stress the urgent need for greater scrutiny and potential government intervention to protect individuals from such abuses. Don't miss this eye-opening episode that calls for justice and transparency.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:12

and welcome back to the channel. I am your host for today, claire headley. Welcome back to blown for good, where we like to expose the shenanigans and practices of the abusive organization known as Scientology, my amazing guest for today, tony Ortega. Good to see you, tony. Hello Claire.

Speaker 2: 0:33

So good to see you.

Speaker 1: 0:35

You too, and so the reason I wanted to have this conversation with you today is I've just been following this arbitration matter let's call it shenanigans is a better word that Scientology has mired into recent legal cases, and it really struck me as worth discussing because of for many reasons, but personal to Mark and I, for many reasons, but personal to Mark and I is that during our lawsuit, which ran 2009 to 2012, never once were we remanded into Scientology's arbitration, and so, therefore, I thought it would be worthwhile having an in-depth conversation, including recent developments in Valerie Haney's case, of course, and later on we'll pull up a contract that I signed back in 1991. And I'd love to get your thoughts on kind of looking at how Scientology has used their multi-million dollar law firms to evolve this absolute farce of a practice known as arbitration.

Speaker 2: 1:45

Well, I'm glad you brought that up. That's an interesting question. I have also had that thought in relation to some other cases, but now that you bring it up, you're right. Why didn't they try to force your lawsuit into arbitration when you sued in 2009? Another person who sued in 2009 was Laura DiCrescenzo, and her case lasted nine years, and they also did not try to force her case into arbitration.

Speaker 2: 2:15

And I find that interesting, because the trap that they set for everybody is no matter what you do in Scientology, whether you're joining the SEAL organization or joining staff or just taking the purif doing the comm course, it doesn't matter. They put a waiver in front of you and they ask you to sign it before you do anything in Scientology, and it includes this arbitration clause which says look, if you have any problems with us, you promise you will not sue us. Instead, you'll go to our international justice chief and work out. Arbitration proved to be a major stumbling block for former Scientologists trying to sue the church, but they didn't try it against you and they didn't try it against Laura. Why not? And I wonder, claire, if maybe they didn't realize what they were sitting on until?

Speaker 1: 3:16

later. Yes, because, yeah, completely. So I will say that I have not read the contract that I signed, the one that we'll look at later. I signed that in 1991 at the age of 16 years old. Of course, I had no legal counsel, nobody was advising me as to what I was signing, and because it's been so long since I signed it, I did not realize that the arbitration clause existed there too, which makes it even more outrageous. Like you said that it was there, and they've obviously now just brought in higher paid attorneys to say, hey, let's use this piece to derail any attempts at justice.

Speaker 2: 4:00

Yeah, and, of course, the Garcia case is the one where everything changed. That was filed in 2013. Right, and they had to go to arbitration in 2017. But I think I actually first heard about this arbitration issue coming up in a lawsuit, in the lawsuit that Bert Shippers and Lynn Hoverson had filed, which was, I think, after yours but before the Garcia's. So somewhere in there, 2011 or so, their attorney started to figure this out, I think, and I don't think that Burt was forced into arbitration. I remember talking to an attorney about it, because an attorney had said you know, this violates the Hooters ruling. And I don't know if everybody knows the Hooters ruling. It's kind of fun.

Speaker 2: 4:49

The very first Hooters restaurant is in Clearwater, florida, of all places. It's got nothing to do with Scientology, but that's where it is. And a woman who was working there was suing for I don't remember what reason she was fired or whatever. And Scientology, see. But Hooters then said listen, you signed an employment contract that has this arbitration clause. You have to go to arbitration. Okay, fine. But then Hooters also insisted on choosing the arbitrator. This is what got ruled on by an appeals court that said no, you can't have a contract, but you can't also choose the arbitrator. That's unfair, and so that's when I first became aware of this issue was the Shippers-Hoverson lawsuit, but I don't think they were ultimately forced into arbitration. The first lawsuit where this worked was the Garcia lawsuit. It was filed in January 2013. They were Orange County Scientologists who had donated a lot of money and they were suing over the idea that they'd been lied to, that they'd been defrauded when they gave a lot of money to Scientology and Scientology said hey, you signed this contract that says you have to go to arbitration instead. And a federal court in Tampa said hey, you signed this contract that says you have to go to arbitration instead. And a federal court in Tampa said, yeah, contract's a contract. That was the first time that it ever happened.

Speaker 2: 6:14

They went to arbitration and it was for a day and it was a joke. I mean, luis wrote up this whole thing about it, about how he brought 900 pages of evidence of them being lied to and the international justice chief, mike Ellis, just automatically disregarded 90% of it. And they were asking for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars and the arbitrating panel which has to be Scientologists in good standing only gave him like 14,000. And the Garcias refused it, but the judge accepted it. And that was the kind of outrageous thing was, we were all expecting that. Once the judge hears about what a joke this was, that the Garcias couldn't have an attorney with them, they couldn't have their smartphones with them, they couldn't even you know, there was no transcript we all figured, oh, the judge is going to realize this is a joke. And the judge says, no, he accepts it. And so then, only then and this is the reason they went through this is that you can't appeal that ruling until you go through it, right. So once they had gone through it, then they appealed it. And then, three years later it took three years for that appeal, claire Then the 11th Circuit also upheld it.

Speaker 2: 7:23

So really bad, and I think Scientology at that point felt really emboldened. So in 2019, when Valerie sued, when the Jane Does from the Danny Madison case sued, they just you know Scientology. The first thing they do now is, oh, arbitration, here's your contract, got to go. Arbitration, here's your contract, you got to go. And then, when Valeska Paris sued in 2022 for trafficking, they also went, scientology automatically responded with the arbitration gambit and it worked. So it's just, it's really amazing that they have found this way to derail lawsuits from former Scientologists and I have wondered how far back it goes. We've tried to kind of find the first contracts that had that language and so the fact that you've got we can talk about this later. We know it was actually written earlier. It had been around a lot longer than that.

Speaker 1: 8:26

Right.

Speaker 2: 8:26

Has the arbitration language in it Right.

Speaker 1: 8:49

But I think it's only more recently, like 2011, maybe very limited under wise, but for business matters, and even then I knew of it I never heard of one actually happening, but certainly in relation to lawsuits, and especially in relation to members of the C organization who were under Scientology's complete control. Um, and, in the case of Valerie, had to escape in the trunk of a car to be sent back to the abuser and the inflictor is just so outrageous and honestly so. I will link to the article you put up today in relation to the most recent developments in Valerie's case, and this is just a sliver of why we will keep talking about arbitration until this is debunked for good and no longer being supported by the American justice system. Like what in the world's going on?

Speaker 2: 9:50

I know it's just so frustrating because you know she's she's alleging so much serious, more serious things than the Garcia's did. I mean she's talking about being held against her will. She was talking about when she you know, she escaped from the trunk of a car and then they were. They were they were tracking her and surveilling her, intimidating her and libeling her online, and so she's suing over all of that. But the judge the first judge in her case said no, a contract is a contract. You have to go to arbitration, and she fought that for a couple of years. But then you know again, the situation is you have to go through it in order to then appeal it, and so that's why she's going through it.

Speaker 2: 10:32

But not you know, just, the basic setup is so unfair and the Garcia's were the first ones really point this out that, look, a panel of Scientologists in good standing cannot, by definition, hear your case fairly. You're a suppressive person. Anybody who sues the Church of Scientology, by definition, is an SP. Those arbitrators aren't even supposed to be in the room with you.

Speaker 1: 10:56

That's right, exactly. It's against Hubbard policy for them to even be having a conversation for them to even be having a conversation.

Speaker 2: 11:07

So she's in this room with the three arbitrators and as well as two representatives of Scientology nobody representing her and two of the people that are in that room took part in her abuse Right. So, for example, when she escaped in the trunk of a car in November 2016,. She eventually made her way back to her family and she alleges it was a woman named Kristen Catano who then put a lot of pressure on her father to send her back. Yep, and you know, valerie considers this part of her abuse, that this Christian Catano took part in this abusive behavior by the church Scientology. Well, now Christian Catano is on the arbitrating panel. I mean, in a court of law, nothing like this would ever be considered, even for a moment. There's so many conflicts and then what do they do? The Garcia's? Their arbitration lasted one day, even for a moment. It's so there's so many conflicts and then what do they do? They? You know the Garcia's. Their arbitration lasted one day. It was frustrating. It was a joke that Garcia's weren't allowed to give put any real evidence in, but it only. At least it only lasted one day, right?

Speaker 2: 12:17

Valerie has now gone through five days of this, three days in October and two days in February, and she just has to sit there while they bring in these witnesses. They haven't even announced them to her. She doesn't have any time to prepare for them. They bring in boxes of documents. She has asked for some of these documents, but instead of giving them to her ahead of time to prepare like you would for court, they're just sitting them down in front of her and reading them out to her. So, for example, I remember that during that first session, they got out her billion year contract when she was 15 years old, right, you know? And what's this got to do with? The fact that in 2016, you were libeling her online? It's not. In the most recent court document her attorneys put together, they explained that they're trying to re-stimulate her. That's a Scientology concept, right?

Speaker 1: 13:13

Yes, no, completely. That's where I was going to head with this, because to me, reading your article today and, honestly, every other article you've covered in regards to Valerie's arbitration, it 100% takes me back to the four and a half grueling days of deposition that I did in my lawsuit. But at least I had my attorney present, At least there were other people not associated with Scientology. But there was Warren McShane, the head legal guy from Religious Technology Center, sitting at the table and a whole bunch of people from OSA. It was like nine people on Scientology's side of the table in my deposition and they did the exact same thing. It was intentional, using the language and programming that I had I grew up with from birth for crying out loud. They were trying to use it to destroy me and I knew that. And that is absolutely what they're doing. Hubbard says you tell a suppressive person no. That's why they're bringing all these people in and yelling at Valerie and they're in it's further abuse is the bottom line, and they're being sanctioned to do this by the court.

Speaker 2: 14:31

And you know, like this last two days in February, um, she, she rarely had access to computers in the Sea Org, but there was sort of a communal computer there that people could sit down and do some stuff on. And she didn't realize this until they brought in this box or these binders. They had a record of every search she had ever done on that computer.

Speaker 1: 15:00

Right, of course, they did Only in. Scientology Right, Of course she's only in Scientology.

Speaker 2: 15:04

She told me. She told me, tony, they're proving my point. They had complete control over me, they had complete surveillance, and but of course you know the advantage you had in that terrible situation that I wouldn't want to wish on anybody. But at least there was a transcript being held. Take it so that you could go into court and say, look, judge, look what they did to me. Valerie is taking notes, handwritten notes, and she's doing a great job. But that's not something you can go into court and say this absolutely happened. You know they're just going to say no, it didn't happen that way. So it's just, it's so, so, deeply unfair.

Speaker 1: 15:42

Yeah, and what do you want to bet? To bet, tony, that they are recording this.

Speaker 2: 15:47

Well, yeah, they probably are. Now, you know, it's their building, it's their building.

Speaker 1: 15:54

Exactly. They're recording it. I guarantee it. I well, I don't guarantee it. That's unfair, because I haven't been in that building. I would be willing to bet money on it that they are recording it.

Speaker 2: 16:06

Yeah and it's. And then I remember after the first three days. I remember after the first day I was like they're coming, you're coming back tomorrow. Why Well, they haven't even started on my claims yet. And second day, third day, fourth day, they're still not even arbitrating anything, they're just torturing her. And now they want to do five days in a row in August or something. I don't think they've quite worked out a date yet. Five more days in a row, and even that there's no guarantee that they're going to be done.

Speaker 1: 16:39

Then yeah, they're literally intentionally trying to wear her down. Wear her down. That's why it would be a requirement of five consecutive days. They're like we're going to do it, we're going to make her fold.

Speaker 2: 16:54

And you know so her attorney, graham Berry, and Diandrea, I think his name is. Anyway, graham wrote up a report. Valerie had told me about those two days in February. I wrote a story about it in April. Now Graham has written up a report about it and submitted it to the judge to let the judge know what's going on and what he's asking the judge, because he knows Scientology gets to set all the rules Once the judge decides that the contract is valid and they do have to go to arbitration.

Speaker 2: 17:28

People have asked me well, why can't California? According to California law, you have to have an attorney with you. No, you don't understand. Once it's religious arbitration, you can't tell a church what to do in its own proceeding, and so Scientology gets to set all the rules. Well, now they're starting to realize there's nothing in these committee of evidence rules or whatever they're bastardizing to be arbitration. There's nothing in there about a required end date. They could just keep doing this forever and say, no, we still have more to do doing this forever and say no, we still have more to do.

Speaker 2: 18:11

And so Graham Berry, in the filing this week, told Judge Killifer about all these crazy things going on and said we want the court to set an end date. At least give Scientology a deadline. You got to get everything done by this day and then come back to court and whatever. But I can tell you, I, you know, that's going to be heard in court on June 5th. I guarantee you the Scientology attorneys are going to go in there and say judge, you know you can't tell us what to do. It's our, it's our arbitration, we set all the rules, and so I, you know, I don't think the judge will set a deadline. It's just, it's so insane.

Speaker 1: 18:44

It is insane, oh my gosh. Well, hopefully there's going to be an end to this at some point. There has to be.

Speaker 2: 18:52

There has to be, tony, it's just Either Scientology will finally have a ruling, or Valerie will just say I've had enough, and I won't blame her if she does. You know.

Speaker 1: 19:00

No, me, neither. I know. It's not, you know, I don't know, having been through a lawsuit myself and having gone through even just a fraction of what Valerie's gone through. It's. It's no joke, especially as a victim of trauma and having again having to go back to your abuser and have them use the programming they intentionally ingrained from, from as a child, against you. And the same is true for Valerie. She was born and raised. I don't know if she was born into it, but she was definitely raised in Scientology, joined the C organization at a very young age. Valerie and I worked together at the headquarters for years, you know, and and I remember when she called, she called Mark and I and told us the whole story about escaping in the trunk of the car. We were like, oh, what? And then she was like and then I went back and we were like no, valerie, what?

Speaker 2: 19:58

You went back. It's terrible.

Speaker 1: 20:00

Yeah, but it illustrates how Scientology leverages your family against you. She did that only for her dad.

Speaker 2: 20:09

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 20:09

Anyway, crazy, crazy, absolutely crazy I think, another reason why Scientology has an incentive to string it up. On the Garcia case, even though Luis and Rocio Garcia are in Orange County, they sued in Tampa because that's where you know they, they, you know the. That area is where the Scientology was. That ripped them off, yep, and they went through the arbitration. And the arbitration was in Los Angeles but they they submitted it to this Tampa judge. Tampa judge signed off on it and so then they finally got to appeal.

Speaker 2: 20:47

But if you're in Florida in federal court, you have to appeal to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta and that's known as a conservative appellate court.

Speaker 2: 20:58

And sure enough, the sort of lead justice on that ruling that upheld it. You could tell he was clearly concerned about questioning a church and its arbitration procedures. Clearly the guy didn't know anything about Scientology. So I think what they're concerned about with Valerie is that if Valerie can get to the end of this thing and they have their ruling and tell her, no, we're not giving you any money, whatever Doesn't, whatever the rule, it doesn't matter what the ruling is.

Speaker 2: 21:28

Once the ruling is in, then she can go to the court and ask Judge Killifer to throw it out. But, and if Judge Killifer also accepts the ruling, then she can appeal, and we know that the Ninth Circuit well, she would appeal to state appellate court, second division appellate court, where the cases from Los Angeles Superior Court go, and that court has proved to be more friendly to victims of Scientology. So I think that's what Scientology is worried about, is that they know that her chances in appeals court will probably be better than the Garcias were, and so they are just going to string this thing out forever so that she can never appeal.

Speaker 1: 22:11

Yep, gosh, darn it. Valerie needs support, man, it's just so not okay that she's having a good life.

Speaker 2: 22:21

Yeah, with my story in April she told me she's been depressed, she's been really upset about the whole thing. It's been very hard on her.

Speaker 1: 22:28

Yeah, I know, like I said, I can completely relate and the shenanigans we went through was just a fraction of what she's having to go through. It's just absolute insanity Anyway. But yeah, so, on that note, here let's pull up my contract and we can just go through point by point and see how they've strategically changed things and other. You know we can make other comments, but let me add this in here hold on, here we go. Is that good enough? There we go, okay. So this is the employment contract that I signed at 16 years old when I lived in Burbank, california. This was actually signed the day that I started in the Sea Organization, which is July 17th 1991. Here I just thought it was interesting to note that the first item was if a minor.

Speaker 3: 23:27

That's right.

Speaker 1: 23:33

I've obtained the consent of my parents or guardians to the commitment and participation herein described. They've now eliminated that minor clause, right.

Speaker 2: 23:39

Yes, that was the first thing I noticed, too, when you sent me the copy of yours is. Oh well, there it is. They, you know they. I think they still employ minors today, but they're a lot more careful about it. Not too many years ago, I saw them bragging about a 16 year old Sea Org guy and what a great employee he was. So I think they still do it, but they're much more cautious about it and mindful about what they put down on paper. So, yes, that was definitely the first thing that hit me when you showed me your contract is that very first line is that? You know, the only reason you have that line in there is that you're signing up a bunch of miners and you got to make them you know, and you got to make them, you know.

Speaker 1: 24:22

Exactly, and now they've eliminated it altogether. And yet miners are still signing with no, yeah, no advice and no. You know how can a miner agree to the craziness in these contracts? We won't go through it line by line. That would take us hours to discuss the insanity of it Even from what's there.

Speaker 2: 24:46

I think the viewers can see that right away, after making sure to see if you're a minor or not, right away it goes into the confessional stuff. And that's why I was telling you before that this, this contract that you signed in 1991, feels more like the Joburg. You know, it's like an, it's like a Scientology interrogation, the kind of thing you see in the Johannesburg Confessional Security Check, where you know they're trying to find out if you're a reporter, if you're here on behalf of the FBI, if there's anybody else in law enforcement in your family, and then these things like are you a drug user? Et cetera, et cetera. I mean they're trying to, um, trying to figure languages in the law, the contract they're signing today, um, I think they still do that, I think they're still interrogating people for those things. But it's not. It's not in the contract back Back when you were signing it. It's right there. It's like all this stuff to make sure you're not some secret agent. It's wild.

Speaker 1: 25:51

Yes, and that I've never had any mental health history, never seen a psychologist, never seen a psychiatrist. What's this? Number number three? I have no institutional history of psychosis. At 16 years old they're making me sign this. It's just crazy. I have no electric insulin or other shock whatever. I can't see. It's behind the. I'm not an active drug pusher. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

Speaker 1: 26:18

It's straight taken out of the interrogations of scientology and I'm willing to bet money they realized this was duplicative of the life history form that any staff member or member of the SEER organization is required to not only complete but then be interrogated on to make sure that they haven't left anything off. I mean, it covers everything. And then so let's go to the next page here. So I included this one Because this, oh yeah. So point five. So this is really where, again, this is not a great copy, but this is the, the arbitration clause, really, in the, the version that I covered here or that I signed, rather. So point number five all arbitrators shall be Scientologists, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, again, I was talking to Mark and then he was saying oh, you should definitely talk with Tony about this and do a comparison of the documents Because, like we were saying the arbitration clause is there and yet it was not being applied earlier in lawsuits. They've developed this 100% as a legal strategy to avoid lawsuits.

Speaker 2: 27:38

It's really interesting to see it in a contract you signed in 1991. But also there's language elsewhere in that contract. You showed me where again part of this make sure you're not a double agent thing they ask you if you're out to harm L Ron Hubbard or Mary Sue Hubbard. Well, if that language is in there, this contract had to have been written more like in the early 80s. This contract form was probably 10 years old when you signed it in 1991. So that's another thing that is really interesting. That well does it say a date. But what's really interesting is that arbitration language has been in there longer than I ever realized. It's been in there a long, long, long time. But you're right, it's only been recent, since 2013 or so, that they've really gone after it in court as a legal strategy.

Speaker 1: 28:34

Right, and it really does show that Scientology uses law firms to evolve and change their approach.

Speaker 2: 28:41

In my mind, Well they should with the money they're spending. Claire.

Speaker 1: 28:48

Yeah, tax exempt dollars. I mean, it's no laughing matter, to be fair, it's disgusting.

Speaker 2: 28:52

They spend so much money. They have the best attorneys. I mean they and and for they're on a war footing. They're they're. They're litigating this. Whether there's hearings coming up in court or not, you know these attorneys are on call. They're litigating this. Whether there's hearings coming up in court or not, you know these attorneys are on call. They're getting paid huge amounts of money and so, yeah, they're going to come up with strategies.

Speaker 2: 29:13

I mean, just this week, you know the lawsuit filed by Danny Madison's victims the Bixler lawsuit the Jane Does who are they? Actually filed their lawsuit in 2019 before Danny was charged criminally through his criminal trials. Once he was convicted last year, their lawsuit finally got to get going again and, right out of the gate, scientology filed these nasty motions to try to gut the lawsuit and the judge said, no, he denied them. Well, now Scientology has appealed that and the judge revealed this week that's going to take a year to 18 months in appeals court. So you know and this is a lawsuit that was it's already five years old. That's just the thing. It's so hard. I was just thinking about that this week, claire. You know it's so hard to sue Scientology. It takes so many years, but then again. We shouldn't, you know, expect ex-Scientologists to do all this hard work for everybody. It should be the government who's going in and doing this and suing Scientology. They will not have as hard a time in court. I don't think Right.

Speaker 1: 30:29

I completely agree. Yeah, I mean, when we filed our lawsuit, a friend of mine who was never in Scientology said wow, you must feel so, so relieved and so good that this is filed, and I was like no, actually I'm terrified, I feel like I have a bullseye on my back and you know, and no, this is this is really, really hard. And then, of course, we just had our one little attorney, tony. There were times that I drove down to the federal courthouse myself with my six month old baby and walked into the federal courthouse myself with my six month old baby and walked into the federal you know courthouse and delivered filings to the judge's chambers myself personally, because our lawyer couldn't make it down that day or something. You know, it's just talk about David and Goliath. That's completely what it felt like. And and, by the way, it bears mentioning too, there are layer upon layer upon layer of legal strategies that Scientology has in place and have had in their 70 years of litigious history.

Speaker 1: 31:35

But the one that struck me when you were talking just now, who did my deposition in my lawsuit? Mark Marmoreau, who then went on to become a judge of the Supreme Court. He was on Scientology's paycheck through those depositions and ironically, you know, there were many times in that deposition that it was very clear to me that he had not a single clue what Scientology was about, what he was questioning me about, I mean, just one example that is impactful is he shows me a picture of me at six years old in the cadet organization, a photo that I didn't have because I escaped with the clothes on my back and said point to yourself, you know, okay, that's me. Did you have a happy childhood? I mean, what in the world question is that Are you freaking, kidding me? So I just was like no, I did not, but it just, it just goes to show, you know, the insanity of it all. And we're, we'll see where this path leads us. I guess it's shameful these attorneys.

Speaker 2: 32:45

I've written about this guy, burt Deixler, who has been the chief sort of deposition person for them for a number of years now and he deposed Laura Di Crescenzo and he's the guy. If the Bixler case does get to depositions at some point it'll probably be Burt Deixler and you know, in the legal world he's considered a great guy. You know he's a top attorney. He owns a bookstore in LA. You know great Good for him. I think he has to know something about Scientology when you look at all the filings he's made over the years. Know something about Scientology when you look at all the filings he's made over the years. But I'll never forget in the Laura DiCrescenzo case one thing she was fighting for were her files and her case was very similar to yours in some ways and both filed at the same time. Basically, abuse in the Sea Org, just mistreatment as children and as adults. And the best proof of that is in the files because you know, scientology writes everything down and just like a certain German administration from the past, it's just obsessive about keeping records.

Speaker 1: 33:56

Anyway, I'm sure it was patterned off that, by the way.

Speaker 1: 34:02

I don't know if I told you this is a diversion, but I have to get your reaction to this. You know, I recently learned Hubbard's words as to how he wanted RTC Religious Technology Center staff to behave was one of the many statements. Quote hard as cold chrome steel, unquote. Do you know? That's one word different than a quote from Hitler to Nazi youth Hard as cold, corrupt steel. Somebody pointed that out to me and it was mind boggling. Anyway, go ahead. We were talking about Bert Deixler.

Speaker 2: 34:36

So anyway. So Laura knows that the best way to prove that she's been mistreated, that she was forced to have an abortion, is to get her files, because everything's written down and the original judge in that case he later retired and left, but the original judge agreed and issued an order. Scientology give her her files. Scientology spent years fighting that. They went to appeals court. Scientology spent years fighting that they went to appeals court. They went to the California Supreme Court. They went to the US Supreme Court trying to prevent Laura from getting her files.

Speaker 2: 35:12

And what I'll never forget is Burt Dykes wrote those petitions and what he would always say is that the material in these folders is religious in nature. In these folders is religious in nature and to turn them over would be a violation of not only the church's religious rights but hers as well, because it's so religious, it's so spiritual. What's written down on these pieces of paper? Well, the courts didn't buy it. They finally had to turn them over. What's in the files? Is it religious? No, it's just notes about how a 13-year-old girl is being abused and kept from her parents. And, yes, there is evidence in there that she felt sick about getting an abortion and they were forcing her into it. That's the material she needed. So what makes me so upset is that Burt Deichler is not a Scientologist, but he was caught red-handed lying to the courts about what was in these files on behalf of Scientology, and he pays no price whatsoever. That drives me nuts. Yeah, completely, I know that drives me nuts.

Speaker 1: 36:20

Yeah, completely, I know. And and he's part of helping Scientology continue to get away with abuse and covering up abuse and, as in the, as in the cases of Valerie and Valeska, and yeah, you're right. What? Where is the accountability? Where is it? You know, if in any other industry there would be repercussions, and there should be right.

Speaker 2: 36:45

Absolutely.

Speaker 1: 36:46

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 36:46

Yeah, I've said many times that the US court system is simply not set up to deal with an organization that deals in nothing but bad faith.

Speaker 1: 36:58

Right.

Speaker 2: 36:59

They're always kind of assuming well, it's a church, the benefit of the doubt. No, all they do is lie. All they're trying to do is find ways to subvert your rules. The newest thing they didn't even try this against you. Then they tried everything against you.

Speaker 2: 37:21

The newest thing is this idea that David Miscavige, when he's named a defendant, david Miscavige, when he's named a defendant, he'll do everything he can to avoid service, hide from process servers. He's got security guards that keep you from getting anywhere near him. Months and months goes by and he basically is like no, you're never going to catch me, forget it. But then in two recent cases, eventually he saw the writing on the wall and realized the judge was going to make him a defendant no matter what, and he accepted service. This was in Jane Doe One's lawsuit forced marriage lawsuit and then Leah Remini's lawsuit. Miscavige saw the writing on the wall and said, ok, I'll accept service. So he's accepted service, but he still hasn't made his first official appearance, first official appearance.

Speaker 2: 38:10

The reason that's important is that, for example, in Jane Doe One's case and that's really relevant to what we're talking about, this arbitration thing she's suing because she said she was forced into a marriage as a minor in Scientology and she believes she was assaulted and it's basically slavery and so she's suing the Church of Scientology. They did the same thing. They dug out a contract she signed at one point and said sorry, you signed this contract, therefore you can't. You promise not to sue and this case should be forced into arbitration. Well, that judge took a close look at it and for the first time, a judge looked at it and said you know what? This is too one-sided, because Scientology is saying when you sign this contract, you can't sue them, but it doesn't say anything in here about the church not being able to sue you. It's too one-sided, it's so unfair, it's unconscionable. Now this judge wrote this in a tentative hearing which he posted on the evening of April 15th before the next morning's hearing, and I saw it sitting on the website. I wrote up a story that night that I published first thing in the morning, saying this is going to rule that Scientology's arbitration scheme is so unfair, it shocks the conscience and is unconscionable and he's going to dismiss their motion and Jane Doe 1 is going to be able to sue. This is great. This is great that morning before the hearing could take part, where the judge could declare that a final ruling, miscavige sent his personal attorney, jeffrey Riffer, down to the courthouse, who went to the judge and said okay, david Miscavige has accepted service.

Speaker 2: 39:56

Now this morning I'm here on his behalf to make his first actual official appearance in the lawsuit, even though the lawsuit was filed a year and a half ago. Today is day one for david miscavige and his first act on day one of the lawsuit for him is to file a preemptory challenge and remove you, judge. And the judge knew there was nothing he could do about it. So between the time the judge had posted the tentative ruling that was going to make history and declare Scientology arbitration unconscionable, and the morning hearing when he could make it final, the scavenge got in there and kicked him out and that tentative ruling went up in air. Just incredible.

Speaker 1: 40:42

It is, it is incredible.

Speaker 2: 40:44

Because they're taking advantage of him gaming the system. The only reason that was day one for him. See, real quick, when a lawsuit first starts, both sides in the first three weeks have an opportunity to remove the judge for no reason. And they want you to do it in those first three weeks before the judge does any work on the case, right? So you know, like Leah in her case, when she first sued, for whatever reason, the judge then signed the case. She didn't like him, she removed him. That's cool, that's fine. Either side can do that. Jane Doe's lawsuit was a year and a half old already.

Speaker 2: 41:20

but to the scavenge. It was day one. Why? Because he'd gamed the system, He'd sandbagged them, He'd run away from process servers. He should never have been in this position.

Speaker 2: 41:30

The judge had already, was about to make a historic ruling. It's so cynical. And why is it always that Scientology gets away with that kind of stuff? Whenever the plaintiffs try to do something like Jane Doe 1 then tried to appeal, that appeals court says, nah, no, we'll stand by it. It's just again. I don't think the courts are literally set up to deal with such an underhanded, bad faith dealing organization like the Church of Scientology.

Speaker 1: 42:01

Right and, as you and I both well know, they've been dealing and doing these shenanigans for seven decades. You know Hubbard was avoiding process servers in his day, just as David Miscavige is now. And it's ironic to me that the thing David Miscavige always said he was absolutely most deposition. I mean, I've seen him talk to Mike Rinder about that. Like you better make sure that I'm not called for deposition and you didn't handle this and oh my gosh, it's insanity. But you're right. I think the courts presume some kind of above board approach from Scientology and that's where you'll get it wrong every single time, unless you assume that they are going to do everything they can lie, destroy silence, do what fair means or foul, mostly foul, frankly do what fair means, or foul mostly foul frankly.

Speaker 2: 43:13

Well, I mean even even like a monsanto or you know some other black hat company that probably sues people out of existence. Even they will at some point make a make a calculation and say, well, do we really want to keep doing this? Let's just cut this guy a check, or whatever. But but scientology, no, they just appeal everything, they delay everything. It doesn't matter how much it costs. That's the difference between them and anybody else is that they relish screwing people up in court and they will try any appeal, no matter how ridiculous it is or how much money it costs them. They just you know that they're going to fight every single little thing. Right?

Speaker 1: 43:52

Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 43:54

Until. I mean, the only reason they cut Laura D a big check was that they were literally down after nine years. They were down to like six days or something before the start of trial and Laura's attorney had very intelligently filed something to make sure that David Miscavige would have to be there at the trial. And once Miscavige knew he couldn't get out of that and they were only a week away he wrote a check. So I mean that's but you have but to get there. It took her nine years.

Speaker 1: 44:26

Right, exactly, and in our case, scientology very intentionally racked up rush fees and this and that and the other thing, and you may or may not remember this, tony, but in the time that our appeal was pending, osa agents were going online saying oh ha ha, blown for good is going to be broke for good. Do you remember this?

Speaker 2: 44:48

No.

Speaker 1: 44:49

Yeah, no, and then and then, of course, you know the the part that we always talk about is our attorneys, unbeknownst to us. When we were, uh, the judge did the final ruling and said had we pursued other causes of action, such as false imprisonment, assault and battery, blah blah, we may have fared differently, but now we have to pay the 42,880, blah blah amount to Scientology and legal fees. And so our attorney approached them to say hey, in cases like this, we'll just agree to go our separate ways. You waive the bill, our clients will agree not to say or do anything or pursue any further legal action. We just all walk away.

Speaker 2: 45:31

And they were like, no, no, unless your client turns yeah, they wanted you to spy off for them.

Speaker 1: 45:40

Exactly, exactly. So, yeah, that was absolutely. I mean, it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. It makes made me so angry. Like, after all, we'd been through and they wanted us to turn over the rights to Mark's book and to never speak publicly about Scientology ever again and spy on not only, uh, any former Scientologists we'd been in touch with including Marty Rathbun was the only one they named by name, so ironically in this juncture and also any media. So any emails you and I had had, for example, they wanted turned over. Anyway, of course, needless to say, with your help and St Pete Times, and we did the GoFundMe. But we sold a van and sold a bunch of stuff and quickly got a cashier's check over to them, and then they turned around and said that, oh, the way that we paid quote unquote was because we participated in the Vanity Fair article and, for the record, we received not one penny from Vanity Fair ever. So there you have it Scientology. Go write that in your diary.

Speaker 2: 46:57

I still remember when they were trying to portray you guys as like having secret money or something. They had actually sent some private investigators to photograph workers working on your roof Right, because we had a hail claim that our insurance agent paid for some private investigators to photograph workers working on your roof Right, because we had a hail claim that our insurance agent paid for.

Speaker 2: 47:13

They were trying to. Oh, Mark and Claire can afford a new roof. They must have more money than people realize. And I asked you guys about it and it's like no, there was a hail storm and we had insurance, Right, and the insurance was paying. You know, doing what they were obliged to do, you know, it's just been incredible what they've subjected you guys to, and this is why you know most people don't want to sue. And then now they've got this thing where, well, go ahead and sue us, but get ready, You're going to go through this arbitration thing. It's just criminal.

Speaker 1: 47:48

Yeah, yeah, exactly. It is criminal, and thank you for all the work you do. We'll just hope that eventually something's got to happen on this arbitration crap. Excuse my language, but it just cannot. You cannot.

Speaker 2: 48:08

Well, david Miscavige. David Miscavige was successful in removing Judge Robert Broadbelt before he got a chance to make that historic ruling in Jane Doe 1's lawsuit Right. But that doesn't mean the judge that replaces Judge Broadbelt won't come to the same conclusion. And I'm going to assume that Jane Doe's attorneys are going to make sure and show the new judge Judge Broadbilt's tentative to say you know, take judicial notice of this, please take a look at what your predecessor found. And you know, and of course I can tell you right now Dave's attorneys are working day and night trying to come up with effective arguments to convince the new judge that Judge Braubel was wrong.

Speaker 2: 48:55

So it's going to be an epic battle, but at least. I mean it's just terrible what they got away with, but at least there is the fact that that judge came to that ruling. And you know other judges should think about that. Right. That, you know, is this you know, when these Scientologists sign this thing, they're signing it to something so unfair. Is it really enforceable? And you know, I think the big difference is judges that take the time and they don't like. With Valerie's judge it was so obvious he just wanted that case off his docket and just like he didn't look very deeply into it at all.

Speaker 1: 49:33

Right.

Speaker 2: 49:35

It's a shame.

Speaker 1: 49:36

Yep, it is a shame, but yeah, so we will keep talking about this until we don't have to anymore. How about that? And we'll, if I find any other relevant documents. You know, we have 30 bankers, boxes worth of all the, every single, filing everything from our lawsuits. They were going to our law firm was going to shred them and we were like, no, no, no, no, no, we're coming to get them. So it'll, it'll be some time, but we'll. We'll figure out anything we can find in there that's relevant that we can use.

Speaker 2: 50:11

We share it with me here for it.

Speaker 1: 50:13

Yes, for sure, awesome, tony. Well, thank you so much for having this conversation with me today. We'll put this up next week and, as always, thanks for everything that you do, thanks for doing the work, and, and yeah, and yeah, we'll do another one soon, I'm sure.

Speaker 2: 50:31

Thank you so much, Claire, and thank you for the testimony you did in that court case. I think it was very important and it's kind of I think it's changed some things. I think the press pays attention to something like that, so it was really really important. I'm glad you got to testify that and I'm glad I was in the courtroom to see it.

Speaker 1: 50:49

Yeah, honestly, in 18 years of exposing Scientology, that was hard. It was tough. You know the nuances of how do you sum up everything about Scientology not get deep in the weeds, but just keep it simple, keep it clear. So I really hope that, as you. I hope it helped and it was hard, but it was the right thing to do and I'll keep doing the work too.

Speaker 2: 51:17

Well, you had an original OJ dream team a member, sean Hawley, trying to basically diss you for only being OT, five trying to basically diss you for only being OT5.

Speaker 1: 51:31

You know, I will tell you this, tony, because I haven't talked about it much, because I just think it's better not to. But there was a conversation before one conversation before my testimony, with Sean Hawley and Ariel Anson and essentially, without getting into a lot of specifics, sean Hawley's line of questioning was well, surely Scientology can't all be bad, there's got to be some good part in it. I mean, surely you know there's all these people that are in it, so surely there's got to be some good part. And I just said you know what, if you want to go into an organization and get an auditing session or a counseling session, go right ahead. And she was like, oh, no, no, no, no, and and. And we were both like, wow, so you do know your client.

Speaker 1: 52:29

Then huh, I mean I didn't say that, but it was very revelatory, let's just put it that way that the judge ruled to say that, yes, I could give testimony and to have Scientology then announce that their counter expert witness was going to be none other than my stepfather, hugh Witt, who, by the way, signed over guardianship of me when I was 16 years old and did not even know where I physically worked for 14 years that I was at the headquarters of Scientology.

Speaker 1: 53:16

Yeah, that was shocking to me. I mean, I just sum that up as wow, scientology, so you destroyed my whole family. I will never be able to speak to my mother again, never be able to speak to my sisters, my brother, never be able to speak to my mother again, never be able to speak to my sisters, my brother, my aunts, my uncles, my cousins, any person I ever knew my entire life. I will never be able to speak to them again. And you think this is going to get under my head Like that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, you sailed it, scientology. It was just crazy.

Speaker 2: 53:47

Anyway, intended to actually put him on the stand, but it was just again to produce the effect in you which is what Scientology does, which again, another one of the many pieces of evidence that Scientology was at least running part of Danny Masterson's defense, which is part of the reason why he's sitting in prison now. I think I mean he's in prison mainly because those women did such a fantastic job on the stand and told their stories and you helped and all the other witnesses were great. But I think a part of the reason Danny Mastin is in prison today is that Scientology just had to meddle in his defense and cause problems.

Speaker 1: 54:28

Absolutely. Yep, they're mind games and they're meddling. It does start to backfire on them eventually. So the next piece that we need this to resolve for is arbitration. So there you have it. Awesome, tony Well. Thank you so much, have a wonderful weekend and we'll be in touch soon.

Speaker 2: 54:46

Thank you, Claire.

Speaker 1: 54:47

Alrighty, until next time.

Speaker 3: 54:49

Thanks for watching. If you'd like to help support the channel, feel free to check out the merch store link in the description. We have Hail Xenu Xenu is my homeboy and BFG branded mouse pads, shirts, mugs, all sorts of other stuff in there that helps us to bring you new content on a regular basis of other stuff in there that helps us to bring you new content on a regular basis. You can also pick up a copy of my book Blown for Good Behind the Iron Curtain of Scientology in hardback, kindle and audible versions as well. There's also a link to our podcast and you can get that on Apple, spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you'd like to watch another video, you can click on this link right here, or you can click on this one here, or you can click on the subscribe button right here. Thanks a lot, until next time.