We told you it was pretty predictable that Scientology would respond to Jane Doe 1’s forced marriage lawsuit by digging up a contract she signed in 2002 that they say obliges her to take her case to Scientology’s own internal “religious arbitration.”
Jane Doe 1 fired back with a lengthy account of why the 2002 contract should not be considered valid, and we expect the fight over that question will consume this lawsuit for the time being. (Scientology wants the lawsuit put on hold until next May when the motion on arbitration can be addressed.)
Scientology is in the habit of throwing such roadblocks at lawsuits filed by former members. In Leah Remini’s case, for example, the church said it will be filing an anti-SLAPP motion next week. When Scientology filed an anti-SLAPP motion in Monique Rathbun’s 2013 harassment lawsuit, it held up the case for more than an entire year.
Scientology has also talked about filing an anti-SLAPP motion in the Bixler lawsuit filed by Danny Masterson’s victims.
And now, in a footnote in an obligatory document the church was required to file this week, we get a glimpse of even more roadblocks it plans to throw at the Jane Doe 1 lawsuit (and might also provide a preview of what Leah Remini can expect in hers).
Buried in a seven-page Case Management Statement, Scientology’s attorneys revealed this upcoming plan for bogging down the Jane Doe 1 lawsuit:
The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial: Motion to Compel Arbitration. In the event this matter proceeds in this Court, Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Bridge Publications Inc. (“BPI”) anticipate filing a demurrer, a motion to strike, and a summary judgment motion.
Similar statements were also submitted for the Religious Technology Center and for defendant Gavin Potter. (Nothing was submitted on behalf of Scientology leader David Miscavige because he has not been deemed served with the lawsuit yet.)
So, Scientology has filed its motion for arbitration and probably thinks it’s going to win it. But just in case that motion fails, they have three other ways to bog down the lawsuit waiting in the wings: a demurrer, a motion to strike, and a summary judgment motion.
We’ve seen a demurrer before, in Danny Masterson’s criminal and civil cases. It’s a kind of pleading where the defendant, rather than arguing the truth of the allegations, is asking the court, “so what?” In other words, challenging whether the lawsuit should go forward even if the underlying facts are true.
We’ve also recently seen a motion to strike, in the Bixler case, where Scientology is objecting to references to its “Fair Game” retaliation policy being a part of the lawsuit.
And of course we’ve seen some pretty dramatic summary judgment hearings, two of them in the Laura DeCrescenzo lawsuit that were both unsuccessful for Scientology and resulted in the church coughing up a big settlement to prevent trial.
So, in other words, Scientology has revealed that it plans to use all of the tricks in its arsenal to keep Jane Doe 1 from getting her day in court, and will probably throw a similar set of roadblocks at the Leah Remini lawsuit.
As L. Ron Hubbard instructed in what is literally Scientology scripture, the church will make any case an expensive slog for former Scientologists looking for justice.
Danny Masterson declared?
Very interesting discussion last night on Mike Rinder’s YouTube channel when he and Marc and Claire Headley had on Jeffrey Augustine to discuss Jeffrey’s report that he’d heard from multiple under-the-radar Scientologists that they had been brought in for briefings and told that the church has declared Danny Masterson a “suppressive person,” meaning that he has been expelled from the church after being convicted of two counts of forcible rape and being sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.
After Mike pointed out that this might be strictly a PR move and Masterson may not actually be declared, he agreed with a viewer that Scientology leader David Miscavige might be motivated to put out the notion that Masterson has been declared in order to prevent uncomfortable questions at next month’s IAS gala in East Grinstead, England, when Miscavige will be gladhanding the church’s biggest donors.
Mike also pointed out that even if Danny has been declared, he’s not likely to turn on the church or begin speaking out when he’s going to be appealing his criminal convictions over the next couple of years.
But either way, what a fascinating development. As Marc pointed out, it felt inevitable that the fallout from the Masterson case would involve the church turning on even some of its most well known members. How will the rest of the Masterson clan react? If you hear something from in their camp, please drop us a line!
Want to help?
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
As a California lawyer, I note that a defendant filing a "demurrer, a motion to strike, and a summary judgment motion" is not unusual at all.
A demurrer says that the facts set out in the lawsuit do not support one or all of the claims. Under most circumstances, when the motion is granted to the first draft of the lawsuit, the plaintiff given "leave to amend" which just means that they can have a do-over and add facts or other necessary detail to support their claims.
A motion to strike is narrower, and asks the court to strike language that is irrelevant, offensive, or whatever. But it is only as to a portion of the lawsuit.
A motion for summary judgment is expected, usually at the close of discovery, by the defendant and/or the plaintiff. It says that, based on uncontroverted evidence (i.e. what both parties agree are facts, one or more of the claims should be knocked out. For example, I had a case where a plaintiff claimed in his lawsuit that my client had defamed him. When I took his deposition, he conceded that he had no facts to support that claim. No one had ever told him that they'd heard my client defame him, etc. We promptly filed a summary judgment to knock out the defamation claim because the plaintiff had zero evidence to support it. (And, my client had never defamed him.)
I believe that Scientology's "arbitration agreement" should be tossed out of the courts because, in my understanding, it does not comply with California law's requirements for arbitration agreements and is unconscionable. I have no idea why any court has upheld it, at least not in California.
Rapeys's so called Declare is probably just window dressing. Just because a few Clams claim that he has been Declared an SP doesn't mean that the famous golden rod letter has been sent or received by anyone. In such an event, the Clampire will, of course, return all donations and fees that Rapey ever paid to the 'church'.
As for all of the civil suits, it is just the usual $cieno playbook. Delay, obfuscate and waste time. All of the plaintiffs lawyers are surely ready for that obvious play.