We’ve seen several lawsuits filed by former Scientologists get forced out of court and into Scientology’s own internal “religious arbitration” in recent years, and next week there’s yet another that is facing a showdown over this, in the lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 1, who alleges she was forced as a minor into a marriage by Scientology in order to cover up underage sexual assault.
Could Scientology convince yet another judge that “a contract is a contract” and that a former Scientologist can’t sue the church, even when such horrendous allegations are in play? We told you that Jane Doe’s legal team is arguing that Congress had this kind of case in mind when it passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) in 2022, and Jane Doe should not be forced into arbitration because she signed a contract which, they say, is highly problematic anyway.
Scientology dug up an agreement that Jane Doe signed in 2002 when she made a visit to the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida. She explained in court declarations that she had gone to Flag to visit with her mother and spend time with her close friend Lisa Marie Presley, who was also a Scientologist then. She said that she had been told she had to sign an agreement merely to be remain at the base, and that she had no intention at the time to engage in “religious services.” So, in other words, a contract is not always a contract, she argues, and the 2002 document wasn’t even countersigned by anyone on Scientology’s staff anyway.
Now, before Tuesday’s hearing, Scientology has hit back at those arguments, saying that the EFAA doesn’t apply, and also accusing Jane Doe of changing her story over time about the circumstances of signing the contract and whether she accepted religious services or not. In other words, Scientology is arguing once again that a contract is a contract, which has worked for the church in several other cases.
Here’s the introduction to Scientology’s latest filing…
Plaintiff’s Opposition is the third time Plaintiff has submitted a declaration to evade application of her unambiguous assent to arbitration. The two declarations she has submitted in this case describe the supposed pressures on her to sign the Agreement, what she was told to “force” her to sign the Agreement, and what she felt as she signed the Agreement. No detail is too small, including the name of the restaurant where Lisa Marie Presley was holding a birthday party that Plaintiff would not have been permitted to attend absent execution of the Agreement. But over three years ago in Bixler v. Church of Scientology Int’l, Plaintiff swore under penalty of perjury: “I have no recollection of ever filling out, seeing, initialing, or signing [the Agreement].”
Plaintiff’s new narrative is contradicted by the contemporaneous record, other witnesses, and her own prior sworn testimony. Plaintiff’s willingness to say anything – regardless of her oath – to avoid enforcement of her Agreement is mirrored in her legal arguments. Her Agreement was accepted, as shown by her own signed acknowledgement of acceptance and her subsequent years of participation in Scientology Religious Services. The EFAA does not apply, as she has pled that the dispute between her and Defendants arose in 1991 – more than 30 years before the EFAA’s enactment and years before she signed the Agreement. The McGill rule is inapplicable as her Agreement does not bar public injunctive relief. Her unconscionability challenge claiming lack of mutuality contradicts clear authority that finds mutuality in similar arbitration language. And her claim that there are no procedures in Scientology arbitration rests purely on speculation, and ignores the language of the Agreement itself. Plaintiff’s Agreement must be enforced now.
When President Biden signed the EFAA into law two years ago, he handed the pen he used to Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor who had been so instrumental in lobbying for the legislation. And we certainly remember that Carlson, when testifying to Congress in 2021, specifically mentioned Scientology forcing the Danny Masterson victims into arbitration as an example of the kind of injustice she deplored. (Fortunately for that case, the ruling forcing it into arbitration was later overturned by an appeals court.)
Jane Doe’s legal team is arguing that the new Congressional act applies in her case because it was signed into law in March 2022 and Jane Doe filed her lawsuit in December 2022. But Scientology counters that it doesn’t work that way, and the EFAA doesn’t apply to allegations that took place in the 1990s.
Will that sway Judge Robert Broadbelt III, and will he agree, despite the sickening nature of these allegations, that the 2002 agreement obliges Jane Doe to take her case to Scientology’s one-sided arbitration, which requires a panel of arbitrators who are members of the church in good standing?
At least we only have to wait until next week to find out.
Meanwhile, yesterday in the Bixler lawsuit — which includes Jane Doe 1 as a plaintiff along with two other victims of Danny Masterson — a hearing was scheduled for the Court to consider whether to allow a new amended complaint that will add a fourth victim (actress Tricia Vessey) and racketeering allegations against the Church of Scientology.
However, after hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Upinder Kalra decided to continue the hearing to May 29. And remember, we’re still waiting for him to rule on previous motions filed by Scientology. This guy is apparently not in a hurry.
Join staff in swinging London!
Fresh off of her OT 3 triumph, Sandrine Mootoo Hall is featured in some new propaganda coming out of the London org (and thank you, Alex Barnes-Ross for sending it along). What’s holding you back from joining staff, pilgrim!
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
Good luck to all the plaintiffs and their legal teams. The courts in the US really should stop giving preferential treatment to an organisation whose head does not accept legal service.
Ugh Sandrine is a lawyer. Poor kid. I hope she escapes soon.
As for the arbitration ruling, if he rules against it, it will be appealed, if he rules for it it will be appealed. He needs to take his time to ensure whatever he says is viewed favorably in the appeals courts.