Taking the virtual roll this morning.
Asking everyone to put themselves on mute until their case is called.
Judge is in the courtroom.
Now in session.
Starting with other cases.
Graham Berry for Valerie
Brian Kent for Valerie
Bill Forman for CSI
Robert Mangels/Matthew Hinks RTC
Forman says Kent is not admitted in this mater.
Graham Berry: He is merely observing. And an application for pro hac vice has been submitted.
Judge: Mr. Berry, what do you want to do? Doesn't seem like your client wants to arbitrate, given her choice of arbitrators.
(Valerie had nominated Elisabeth Moss, Tom Cruise, and Shelly Miscavige in succession to be an arbitrator. Please see this morning’s story for the background.)
Berry: Client has done everything she can, but defendants have blocked it.
Berry says he will make a motion that the court appoint an arbitrator.
He cites law, if the agreed method fails, the court on petition of member can appoint an arbitrator.
Now, plaintiff doesn't think this will make the arbitration any more equitable, but it will at least move the matter forward.
So Valerie wants to make that petition, and to have the court ask Scientology to submit a list of members in good order, under seal if necessary, for the court to choose from, in camera if necessary.
Scientology is secretive, but the court could order them to turn over list of members in LA County, Berry says
Judge asks for Forman's response.
Forman: We're here on an order to show cause over a year ago. They have submitted the names of three people who are unavailable, and they were not serious.
No credible belief, this was just six months of delay. And then to say the process has failed, is pure gamesmanship.
We should be following the method in the agreement.
The selection has not failed. They have been peppering us -- or rather the IJC -- with frivolous choices.
Now he's citing from letter from IJC.
They say in the declaration filed late yesterday, that there was a new criterion. That is false. You have three people who are unavailable and it was quite predictable that they were unavailable
We've had a lot of nonsense for three years now. They've showed how little they take this seriously.
About Valerie doesn't know Scientologists in good standing: She was born into it, left in 2017. She knows literally hundreds of Scientologists not named Tom Cruise.
This is a farce, he says
Judge: As I understand Mr. Berry's motion, he would ask you to suggest names for potential arbitrators in LA County. Response?
Forman: My response is that this has been three years, and Valerie has not sent a single letter to IJC, asking for names of potential arbitrators.
Judge: Will you answer my question?
Forman says he is, that the request for names should go to IJC
Judge: Is the petition Mr. Berry is suggesting inconsistent with the arbitration agreement?
Forman says it is because the process hasn't failed. Says it's been frivolous.
Judge: If the court was inclined to give her another chance, what would you suggest, Mr. Forman?
Forman: She knows hundreds of Scientologists. she should pick one who would be an arbitrator.
Judge: Mr. Berry?
Berry: The plaintiff has done what she has been required to do. As I said, we don’t know who is in good standing. Only the defendant knows that.
We have wasted six months. We have proposed three names. We have waited over 30 days at times.
We urge the court to permit the petition to go forward.
Forman: Mr. Berry said that we have denied their selections. Defendants have not denied anything. IJC has not denied anything. The three persons are not available. She selected people that I think would be quite predictable would be unwilling.
Judge: Your point is that the court can't appoint an arbitrator, only the IJC?
Forman: The parties select the arbitrators, not the IJC
Judge: Asks about 1281.6 law that Berry wants to submit a petition under.
Forman says the law supports the process. She has decided not to follow it. She has been provided every opportunity to follow it. She can continue to select people. I don't think she gets to scuttle this because she didn't follow the process. Again he says she knows hundreds of people.
Judge: I'm inclined for her to have one more chance. I will give her one more chance to do that. Continued to March 15, 8:30 am.
Mr. Berry, your client has another chance. It should be a reasonable choice to get this process moving.
She says she's not inclined to go the route of the petition.
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…
Scientology is not going to give her a list of “reasonable” names to select from? That would be the most logical, yet judge seems too weak to rule that. Valerie must gamble & ask someone from the “hundreds” that she knows, hoping the person she selects is “in good standing.” 🙄
To arbitrate with an arbitrator. Is like a rape of a victim having to see her assaulter. It makes no sense. Religious arbitration should be abolished. Why does the victim get treated like shit. Why does an accused rapist have more rights than victims.