We have a couple of legal developments for you this morning. First, in the Bixler lawsuit, the plaintiffs have answered Scientology’s motion to strike.
The Bixler lawsuit is the one filed in 2019 by Danny Masterson’s victims against both Scientology and the That ’70s Show actor for a campaign of harassment the women say they’ve been enduring since they came forward with their allegations to the LAPD in 2016.
The lawsuit was on hold during Masterson’s criminal trials, and now that he’s been convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life in prison, the lawsuit started up again.
But Scientology then filed a motion to strike, asking the court to gut the case by making a couple of objections. First, that some of the material in the lawsuit regards things that happened while the Jane Does were still in Scientology. The appellate court that earlier revived this lawsuit said that it could proceed because the allegations of stalking and harassment have all occurred since the women left the church. Because that’s the case, Scientology argues, then the sections of the lawsuit that refer to what the women went through earlier should be taken out.
Secondly, Scientology is unhappy that the lawsuit makes references to its “Fair Game” policies, alleging that the church retaliates against people who leave the organization and speak out about it or, in this case, go to law enforcement. Scientology denies that it has a Fair Game policy, but it also argues that any discussion of its internal policies is not something a civil court can consider, and it wants the material pulled out.
Now, attorneys for the plaintiffs, John Kucera and Seth Lehrman, have submitted a calm and logical reply to Scientology’s motion.
They point out that one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Bobette Riales, was never a Scientologist, and she’s alleging all of the same causes of action as the others. So it’s pointless to try and pull out material related to when the others were Scientologists, because all of them are included in the lawsuit. And besides, what occurred when the Jane Does were Scientologists is relevant to what happened to them later when they went to the police.
Defendants now ask the Court to strike allegations dating from times in which some Plaintiffs were Scientologists on the basis that those allegations are irrelevant to all Plaintiffs’ causes of action, which arise out of the harassment campaign that Defendants inflicted on Plaintiffs. But, as this Court already held in denying a similar motion to strike filed by Defendant Masterson, Plaintiffs’ allegations from the period prior to the initiation of the harassment campaign are relevant to Plaintiffs’ causes of action because they explain “why Masterson and the other Defendants began to allegedly stalk and torment the Plaintiffs.”
As for Scientology taking offense to the references to Fair Game and other church policies, Kucera and Lehrman argue that Scientology’s behavior is relevant, whether or not one considers it a church.
What is relevant, however, is whether Defendants promulgated and enforced Fair Game and related policies, but those are factual questions, not religious ones. Whether Defendants promulgated and enforced Fair Game and related policies because of religious beliefs, in spite of religious beliefs, or without regard to religious beliefs is immaterial.
And as a more general principle, Scientology’s argument that its internal policies can’t be the subject of a lawsuit just isn’t supported by case law.
Defendants effectively argue that a religious organization can implement and enforce any policy it wants, and that civil plaintiffs can never allege that they were harmed by the implementation and enforcement of that policy. Unsurprisingly, this argument is foreclosed by controlling precedent.
They then cite a number of relevant cases which establish that while belief is protected, conduct is not.
“Plaintiffs do not challenge Defendants’ religious beliefs, but rather their conduct in promulgating and enforcing Fair Game and other policies,” they write.
Then, at the end, they make reference to their plans to file a new amended complaint, and point out that some of the things Scientology is complaining about are going to be left out of the new version of the lawsuit anyway.
(You’ll remember that previously, we had said it seemed odd that Scientology was spending so much time carping about a lawsuit that even they acknowledged was about to be superseded.)
So yes, that’s confirmation that the new amended complaint is coming, and that it will be substantially different than what was filed back in 2020 by the original team of attorneys from Philadelphia who first represented the Jane Does.
Judging by the skillful and calm way this filing was written (as opposed to Scientology’s hyperventilating) it suggests to us that the Jane Does are now in good hands. And the hearing on Scientology’s motion to strike is coming up fast: It’s scheduled for November 22.
Meanwhile, in Jane Doe 1’s forced-marriage lawsuit, the court has agreed to a December 13 hearing to consider her request for limited discovery while the lawsuit is on hold. Previously, Judge Robert Broadbelt had granted Scientology’s motion to put the case on ice until February, when the church’s motion to force the case into arbitration will be held.
Jane Doe 1’s team is asking for the right to investigate the 2002 contract that Scientology says obliges Jane Doe 1 to submit to “religious arbitration” and derail her lawsuit.
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).
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 every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
This is horse shit!
“Defendants effectively argue that a religious organization can implement and enforce any policy it wants, and that civil plaintiffs can never allege that they were harmed by the implementation and enforcement of that policy.”
FYI : “Individuals or groups who are "fair game" are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible.” “May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."