Judge grants Scientology unlimited leeway in Val Haney 'arbitration,' as expected
We just received this report from the great Meghann Cuniff. See this morning’s story for the setup to this hearing…
Judge Gail Killefer opened this morning’s status conference by saying, “It seems like counsel spent a lot of time telling the court what's happening when there's nothing the court can do,” referring to the report that attorney Graham Berry had submitted on behalf of Valerie Haney.
“I can't set an end to the arbitration dates,” Killefer said.
She told Berry, who appeared virtually, that she’s interested “in how long it will take.”
“Mr. Berry, it seems like the facts are very different from defendant’s viewpoint than yours,” she said.
Scientology lawyer William Forman of Winston & Strawn LLP asked the judge not to schedule another status conference, but Killefer said she’ll lose track of the case if she doesn't. She scheduled the next status hearing for Feb. 20, 2025.
Berry told Killefer she has “the power…to bring an end to these proceedings.” But the judge said doing so would involve her assuming that plaintiffs have no reason for the delay, “and I can’t say that.”
Berry told the judge, “I am not the reason for this delay.” He said other lawyers haven’t been able to get their pro hac vice applications approved “because of the motion for arbitration.”
“It’s their calendars that were in conflict. Not mine,” Berry said.
“Well, thankfully I don't need to decide that this morning,” Killefer replied.
Forman told Killefer another judge rejected the pro hac vice applications four years ago.
— Meghann Cuniff
Thank you, Meghann!
Wow: Scientology didn’t want Judge Killefer to set a future hearing date at all, which only confirms what we’ve come to realize, that Scientology intends to keep this “arbitration” farce going until Valerie simply gives up. Scientology has no intention of ever completing the proceeding and actually producing a ruling.
In other words, Valerie is a hostage to Scientology’s abusive scheme, and even an all-powerful superior court judge is powerless to stop it. Just incredible.
So, here’s where we are: Valerie has already endured five days of Scientology’s sham arbitration with no end in sight. There’s another court hearing set up for next February to report to the court how the arbitration goes from here. And Scientology wants Valerie to come in for five more days (and consecutive) in August as this court martial continues. And there’s nothing that Valerie or her attorney Graham Berry can do about it.
Simply amazing.
UPDATE: We have also learned that Forman asked, and Judge Killefer agreed, that there will be no more filings before the next status hearing in February 2025.
So no matter how abusive Scientology remains in this process, no matter how unreasonable or unfair or how long Scientology wants to string this out, Judge Killefer now officially doesn’t even want to hear about it.
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 for 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 a special podcast series…
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
So hard to find the comments section....I'll get it down one day.
FYI, The California State Bar typically allows only one Pro Hac Vice per attorney PER YEAR. This is to prevent us horrid out of state licensees from sullying up their perfect pool of CA licensed attorneys. Out of state attorneys have to take the CA Bar Exam to get a CA license, and I've known attorneys that have been in practice for 25 years that can't pass that stupid test. But, I digress.
If anyone is interested, here is the Yale Law Review article on why religious arbitrations are unconstitutional https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/10385/Chua_RubenfeldCosta_u2kkhumq.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Too bad that SCOTUS has expressed their extreme disdain for anything coming out of Yale or this Law Review article should have grown some legs.
Is a peremptory challenge possible? Would another judge be reasonable? Judge Killefer's ruling is outrageous. This makes me feel crazy, I can only imagine how Valerie Haney and Graham Berry feel.
Internet Research findings suggest that Valerie needs Graham Berry's interpretation to the following:
"Our courts simply will not interfere with the conduct of the arbitration, the fact finding, the legal rationale or the issuance of the award unless there is a defect which goes to the very heart of the American legal system, the appearance of fairness." Is WILL NOT INTERFERE the same as CAN NOT INTERFERE?
Is there a time limit on arbitration?
"No claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under the Code where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim." What is the time lapse from inital arbitration process and the last arbitration?
"According to the Court, under the Limitation Act, parties have a three-year period from the date when the right to apply accrues to file applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. May 8, 2024." Legalese that needs layperrson explanation.
How long does an arbitrator have to make a decision?
The arbitrator closes the record and, no more than 30 days later, issues a decision addressing all claims raised in the arbitration. The award may direct one or more parties to pay another party a monetary amount, or it may direct parties to take specific actions.
What is Scientol;ogy doesn't close the arbitration?