News report says Leah Remini’s Scientology suit ‘gutted’ — but the ruling says otherwise
On January 16, after Judge Randolph Hammock issued a tentative ruling in Leah Remini’s lawsuit against the Church of Scientology, the Courthouse News Service reported that the judge intended to grant parts of Scientology’s anti-SLAPP motions and “trim” Leah’s complaint, but her lawsuit was still “likely to survive.”
“In his tentative ruling, LA County Superior Court Judge Randolph Hammock wrote that he was likely to dismiss most, but not all, of the defamation claims against the church and leave most of the harassment claims more or less in place,” the article from CNS said that day.
On Tuesday, Judge Hammock finally did make his ruling final, and indeed he did dismiss most, but not all, of the defamation claims against Scientology and left in most of the harassment claims, just as CNS described in January.
But the Courthouse News Service, for some reason, has completely changed its tune about that.
“Judge guts Leah Remini’s harassment lawsuit against Church of Scientology,” CNS declared in a headline last night, even though the “harassment” portions of the lawsuit are still intact.
Judge Hammock’s final ruling is almost identical to his previous tentative rulings, but the Courthouse News Service is declaring that Leah’s lawsuit is on life support, and the Church of Scientology has won a great victory…
Church of Scientology spokesperson Karin Pouw called the ruling “a resounding victory for the Church and free speech,” adding in an email, “the Church is entitled to its attorney fees and will be seeking them.”
What’s bizarre is not only that CNS has decided that what it called a “trimming” earlier is now a “gutting” (even though nothing changed), but also the final ruling specifically states that given the mixed nature of it, either side “may” apply for attorney’s fees, but “This Court makes no finding at this time whether there actually is such a right to attorney’s fees and costs by any party.”
In other words, not only is the Courthouse News Service creating a false impression about the ruling, but it allowed Scientology’s spokeswoman Karin Pouw to make a statement that simply isn’t true.
What the hell?
We’re very curious to see how other news organizations report on this ruling, and if they’re swayed by the Courthouse News Service coverage and also claim that Leah’s lawsuit is on life-support, because it most definitely is not.
Let’s go over what has actually happened.
Leah made public her defection from Scientology in 2013. In the decade since then, she says she has been subjected to a constant barrage of retaliation from Scientology, but it has taken different forms.
Online, for example, Scientology constantly calls Leah a “bigot,” a “rape apologist,” a “racist,” and other pretty horrendous things. So part of her lawsuit is for defamation, and Leah alleges that Scientology says untrue things about her that harm her reputation.
However, Judge Hammock found that Leah and the church are both public figures, and that both sides have engaged in a very public war of words. He has stricken a number of paragraphs from the lawsuit that describe Scientology’s online attacks because, he found, they were opinion, and not statements of fact.
In other words, Leah can’t really do anything about Scientology calling her names, as long as they aren’t making factual claims that she could prove are untrue.
However, she is also alleging that Scientology is harassing her and her family, interfering with her business matters, and inflicting emotional abuse on her.
Judge Hammock has ruled that she has met the minimum standard for evidence of these claims so far, and so they are staying in the lawsuit.
Other major parts of the ruling:
The Religious Technology Center remains a defendant in the lawsuit after Mike Rinder and Claire Headley submitted declarations explaining how this Scientology subsidiary, chaired by church leader David Miscavige, routinely oversaw harassment campaigns of former Scientologists. That’s huge.
Alleged interference with Leah’s business contracts with Audioboom, iHeart and the Game Show Network remains in the case. This is also really important.
The harassment claims remain.
And actual malice in the remaining defamation claims is intact — another big victory for Leah. We were present in the courtroom when Judge Hammock said it was “common sense” that there was malice in Scientology’s unrelenting attacks.
Here’s the scorecard:
Count 1: Civil Harassment (REMAINS)
Count 2: Stalking (REMAINS, but needs to be re-pled)
Count 3: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (REMAINS)
Count 4: Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship (REMAINS)
Count 5: Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (REMAINS)
Count 6: Defamation (Some paragraphs stricken)
Count 7: Defamation By Implication (Some paragraphs stricken)
Count 8: False Light (Some paragraphs stricken)
Count 9: Declaratory Judgment (Stricken)
In that last count, Count 9, Leah was asking the judge to issue a declaration about Scientology’s harassment of her. It was Leah swinging for the fences, and the judge didn’t go for it. But losing such a count is not “gutting” a lawsuit, just as losing some of the defamation claims isn’t.
Leah Remini still has a major lawsuit that will seek to show that Scientology uses its “Fair Game” policy to destroy former Scientologists who dare to speak out.
But sure, Karin Pouw can declare victory all she wants. The point is, why would anyone give her any credence?
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
Excellent explanation. So carry on with the suit, and win it, and that reverses this "free speech" misstatement of the situation by Scientology.
Scientology always quick to misstate things, and claim free speech victory for their misstatements.
So Leah and her law team need to carry on, win their suit, and state that fact when it is accomplished.
Let Scientology have their free speech rights to misstate and exaggerate things.
Thankyou for parsing this.
It's why I donate monthly to the Underground Bunker and Tony's efforts to dissect all things Scientology.
Tony if I were your agent, I'd advertise you as an Editor/Advisor to other media doing stories on a story by story basis, so as to be their Scientology story editor consultant, and get you paid for that!
You know and understand Scientology like no one alive.
Posts like this make me wonder. How many nonprofits have the words “shudder into silence” among their policies and procedures; refuse to provide meaningful transparency of their financials to donors and the pubic (I’d like to see the line item for Handling Suppression); have no succession plan for leadership; and cannot demonstrate public benefit that outweighs its constant detriment to the communities it inhabits — and still expect to be treated like a benevolent organization?