Common questions we get about Scientology’s court martial it calls ‘arbitration’

[Valerie Haney and Valeska Paris, both forced into ‘arbitration’]

We’re still fuming after learning the details about what Valerie Haney has been put through by Scientology in what the church is calling an “arbitration.”

She’s in a room, by herself, not allowed to have an attorney or a friend with her, not allowed to have a cellphone with her. No recording of the proceedings is being produced that she might be able to point to as proof of what’s going on for the outside world. All she’s allowed to do is take handwritten notes as day after grueling day goes by, with a parade of Scientology “witnesses” calling her a liar, and volumes and volumes of records of her every waking moment in the years she spent in Scientology’s employ.

It’s all meant to wear her down, of course, and she’s so brave to have put up with five days of it so far. We are so humbled by her courage, and if you haven’t already seen it, she gave us an exclusive interview about the experience immediately after day three which we posted for our subscribers.

Every time we write about Valerie’s situation, as well as Scientology’s attempt to derail other ex-Scientologist lawsuits into “religious arbitration,” we inevitably get a lot of questions about how such a situation could arise in this country, where a court is forcing a woman to go crawling back to her abusers to take part in what is essentially a court martial. (Scientology’s version of a court martial, called a “committee of evidence” provides the basis for the proceeding, because founder L. Ron Hubbard never left behind any rules for “arbitration.”)

We thought we’d try to answer some of the most common questions that we get about Scientology arbitration, some of them even coming from attorneys who are mystified by how this is happening. We hope this helps you understand just how outrageous it is that Valerie is being put through, that Valeska Paris and Baxters are now facing in their trafficking lawsuit, and that Jane Doe 1 may be able to escape, but that is not yet determined. OK, here we go.

How can the Scientology billion-year contract, or contracts signed by children, be legal in court?

They aren’t. But there’s some confusion because although Sea Org members do sign billion-year contracts, and often as children, those aren’t the contracts that Scientology brings into court to force a case into arbitration. Since the 1990s (we’re still not exactly sure when), Scientologists have been required to sign waivers not only for employment, but for any kind of service received at an org. So when you do the Purif, or get some auditing, or sign up for a staff job, or join the Sea Org, or go OT — anytime you do anything in a Scientology org you first have to sign a document that contains an arbitration clause in the fine print, and by signing it you promise not to sue Scientology but to submit any grievance to their internal justice procedures instead. We’ve talked to numerous former Scientologists who say they had no idea they were agreeing to such a thing, but in court that sort of explanation usually carries little weight. Judges are anxious to get cases off their docket, and if Scientology comes in with a signed waiver with an arbitration clause, it’s leading to cases being derailed.

How can a contract be valid if it’s signed under duress?

Former Sea Org members have repeatedly made this argument, that not only didn’t they know they were signing away their right to sue, but that they didn’t read the document they were signing anyway because they were under duress to do so, pressured and threatened with punishment if they didn’t apply their signatures. But here’s how screwed up US law is on this: Judge Thomas Barber explained in the Tampa trafficking case that according to Supreme Court rulings, it’s the arbitrator who decides whether a contract was signed under duress, not the court. All the court can decide is whether it appears a signature is valid on a piece of paper.

State law allows someone to have an attorney with them during arbitration, so how can Scientology prevent that? Why can’t a judge require that someone like Valeska or Valerie have an attorney with them, and a court reporter to create a transcript?

This is one of the most frequent questions we get from attorneys and people who otherwise understand arbitration very well. They can’t understand why Scientology can prevent someone like Valerie Haney or Valeska Paris from bringing an attorney with them to a proceeding, or from having a transcript made. And that’s because there’s not just arbitration law in effect here, but also Scientology’s rights as a tax exempt religious organization. Once a court rules that a plaintiff has to honor a contract and go to Scientology arbitration, all other considerations are set by Scientology, not the court or the law. Why? Because a US court is prevented by the US Constitution from examining or interfering with the internal rules or customs of a religious organization.

Just a minor example: Scientology insists that Valerie Haney has to communicate directly with Scientology’s International Justice Chief, Mike Ellis, about anything regarding the arbitration. Scientology refuses to even discuss the terms of the proceedings with her attorneys. And although the court has been made aware of this, there is literally nothing the court can do about it. This is what is so hard for many people, even attorneys, to understand: Once a court rules that a case has to go to Scientology’s own arbitration, from that point onward Scientology sets all the rules.

Why can’t courts see that a panel of Scientologists in good standing are never going to give someone suing Scientology a fair arbitration?

This is the most frustrating thing that is going on. Plaintiffs have tried to explain to courts that a panel of three Scientologists in good standing — what is required by Scientology as its arbitrating panel — are never going to hear fairly the grievances of a “suppressive person,” which is what anyone suing Scientology would be declared. In fact, by Scientology rule, the arbitrators aren’t even allowed to be in the same room with the SP! But as soon as you begin to get into Scientology’s actual procedures, the court will stop you. The Constitution, they say, prevents them from examining a church’s internal rules.

So why would someone go through an arbitration that is so inherently unfair?

Another question we get frequently. So if Scientology arbitration is so messed up, why would the Garcias or Valerie, or potentially Valeska and the Baxters, subject themselves to it? And the answer again is very simple: They cannot appeal the judge’s ruling forcing them into arbitration until they complete the arbitration itself.

Valeska and the Baxters tried to go around that by asking permission to petition the Eleventh Circuit for an appeal now, not later, but the appeals court shot it down. Like the others, they will have to submit to the arbitration, no matter how maddeningly unfair it is or (in Valerie’s example) abusive, before they can then appeal the ruling. And we saw with the Garcias, even then they were unsuccessful when the Eleventh Circuit upheld the arbitration decision.

It’s maddening, and only once has a ruling forcing a case into Scientology arbitration been overturned, and that’s in the lawsuit filed by Danny Masterson’s victims, because the California state supreme court did allow an interlocutory appeal which was successful. Why did it succeed? Because it was then found that what these women were suing over occurred after they had left Scientology, and that the harassment Scientology then allegedly subjected them to as former Scientologists should not be something they are required to have adjudicated by a church they had already left. But repeatedly, in these lawsuits where a Scientologist is suing over what happened to them when they were in the church, the courts are telling them they can’t sue over it because of the contracts they signed.

OK, we know there is a lot of confusing stuff here, and we hope we’ve cleared some of it up. As for when courts are going to begin to see the light, as Judge Robert Broadbelt did before his tentative ruling was wiped away, well, your guess is as good as ours.

---

Drone footage of a Scientology fail

You may remember “PTS For Life” who was a great addition to Apostate Alex’s tour of Sunderland after the IAS gala in November.

PTS For Life is in Canada, and he decided to fly a drone over the site that Scientology has said will, some day, be its “Advanced Org” there. But as you can see, there’s little progress. Great stuff by PTS For Life.

---

Want to help?

Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com.

---

Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series…

Up the Bridge: A journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news