Scientology’s attack on Leah Remini’s suit: How the church responds to claims of interference
On Saturday, we gave you some sense of what’s in Scientology’s huge attack on Leah Remini’s lawsuit, a blast of court documents and exhibits that totals more than a thousand pages.
We told you that it essentially boils down to this: “Yes, we called Leah Remini names online, but only because she called us names first.”
But of course, Leah’s lawsuit is about more than the names Scientology has been calling her. We’ve been saying since she filed the lawsuit on August 2 that what impressed us the most was the way that Leah and her legal team elevated this suit beyond simply a defamation case by detailing the ways that Scientology’s coordinated campaign of harassment has negatively impacted her ability to make a living.
So we thought it was worth taking another look at the specific ways that Scientology is answering that charge in their big response.
First, as to the allegation that Scientology has been contacting Leah’s advertisers and media companies, rather than deny it Scientology says that’s protected speech.
“Advocating that media companies and advertisers boycott or shun Plaintiff’s bigotry business is perhaps the classic example of such protected speech and conduct,” the filing says.
Yes, did you catch that? Scientology says Leah is in the “bigotry business.”
They then go on… “The speech Plaintiff complains of in this case addresses matters of public interest — a sitcom star’s public vendetta against a world-wide religion. And the communications, be they texts, calls, emails, or letters, were directed at individuals with a ‘direct connection’ to and ‘authority over’ the public’s opinion of Defendants. These were persons who aired a TV show about Defendants, published books about Defendants, hosted podcasts about Defendants, or sponsored shows about Defendants.”
As for stalking her, Scientology says surveillance itself is not “tortious” (in other words, something you can successfully sue over). And once again as we’ve seen in other cases, Scientology justifies its use of private investigators for surveillance by claiming that it’s a “pre-litigation” posture.
They point to Leah’s 2013 missing-person report that she filed with the LAPD about Shelly Miscavige, the wife of church leader David Miscavige who has not been seen in public since 2007. Scientology calls it a “false police report” even though to this day the church refuses to provide any evidence of Shelly’s well-being.
Scientology claims that Leah’s missing-person report was actually an “extortion” attempt aimed at the church, and so since 2013 Scientology has had every right to gather information about Leah as a “pre-litigation” precaution.
“From 2013 onwards — before any of the alleged surveillance — Plaintiff was threatening the Church with legal action and the Church was in a pre-litigation stance. This qualifies as pre-litigation investigation in connection with ‘a person’s right of petition’…Likewise, such conduct is protected under the right of free speech.”
In other words, Scientology says it can have private investigators sneaking around and digging into your life because they might end up in court with you!
As for the things said about Leah on Scientology’s websites, they are statements of opinion, and therefore they are not provably false.
“Having spent years calling for the destruction of the Church and demonizing Scientologists as child sex-traffickers, Plaintiff now sues Defendants for expressing negative opinions of her views and what they say about her character. These statements all amount to a ‘subjective judgment, rather than a provably false statement of fact,’ and are not actionable…Courts have held that calling someone ‘racist’ or ‘nazi’ or invoking comparisons to the ‘KKK’ are all statements of opinion or hyperbole, not provable as fact in a court of law.”
As a consequence of that, Scientology says Leah can’t sue the church for calling her, in one instance, “a vicious, lying, narcissistic, deranged, demented and dangerous bigot,” because that’s like, their opinion, man.
So, as to the interference with her business projects, Scientology again isn’t apologizing for what they’ve done.
For example, as to iHeartMedia canceling the podcast that Leah was doing with Mike Rinder, Leah’s lawsuit alleges that Scientology called and emailed iHeartMedia figures “in an attempt to prevent Ms. Remini’s podcast from airing.”
Scientology doesn’t deny it…
“To which Defendants respond, so what? It is a nonactionable, and very well-supported opinion that Plaintiff’s podcast was filled with obscenity and abuse. That is her brand. And again, Defendants are entitled to exercise their free speech rights to demand a broadcaster remove offensive content, as happens every single day in this country. As hard as it is for Plaintiff to accept, she is not the only one who gets to express her opinion.”
And as for trying to influence the Game Show Network, where Leah is hosting the show People Puzzler, again Scientology does not deny that it wanted to get the network’s attention…
“As to Game Show Network, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants posted open letters on the STAND website calling Plaintiff an ‘unhinged bigot,’ and ‘rape apologist’, and pointed out that Plaintiff has inspired ‘hundreds of threats and acts of violence’. Defendants already addressed these statements of well-supported opinion and of fact respectively.”
In other words, Scientology says it posted those things about Leah because they believe they are true and are supported by the facts.
Wow.
Also, Leah added to her lawsuit a motion asking for an injunction that would declare “the practice of Suppressive Person operations are unlawful and should be ceased immediately.”
Rather than deny that this is what’s going on, Scientology again claims that what Leah’s asking for is unconstitutional restraint, and also that she’s asking a court to improperly tell a religion to change its scripture…
“More fundamentally, Remini’s claim fails because she asks the Court to modify the scripture of the Scientology religion…Neither this Court nor any jury may adjudicate whether Remini’s misleading description of supposed Scientology doctrine is truthful or accurate—much less edit the writings that comprise a religion’s scripture. The United States Constitution prohibits the government from interpreting or declaring the official doctrine of a religion.”
Well, there you have it. Scientology says it can follow Leah, call her names, and complain to her advertisers all it wants to because it’s a free country, and the court can’t tell Scientology to change its ways that would infringe on a church’s religious rights.
We’re really looking forward to the reply that must be coming from Leah’s legal team.
Happy Halloween: Here’s something spooky!
What a month of thrills and chills this October has been here at the Underground Bunker, with Scientology litigation becoming monstrous and wild with so many lawsuits in action!
One consequence of that is that our expenses for court documents has really exploded: This month alone, we’ve spent $365.80 for downloading court records from Los Angeles Superior Court.
We expect that these lawsuits are going to keep producing a lot of documents for us to pay for, and we will continue to bring that news to you.
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber of the Underground Bunker. At only $7 a month, you will help us with those expenses, and you’ll get access to our special features like the weekly Group Therapy podcast.
— Your Proprietor
Chris Shelton is going Straight Up and Vertical
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 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 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
Like a certain orange person, Scientology's "First Amendment" argument ignores that, while they are free to say whatever they want, they are also responsible for the effect of their statements. Furthermore, if they claim that Leah is lying about them, they should have sued her for defamation. But they wouldn't because they would be subject to discovery and have to disclose things through documents and testimony that her claims about "Fair Game" are false. In fact, it is Scientology that is attempting to impede Leah's First Amendment rights.
And ten years of "pre-litigation" surveillance? Seems a bit unhinged. Yes, you can surveil someone who is suing you or who has asserted a claim -- I loved my case where, when a guy claimed he was too incapacitated to see the company doctor, he was filmed engaging in construction on his home, lifting heavy beams, nailing overhead, etc. -- California has an anti-stalking statute that prohibits aggressive and threatening stalking.
Scientology, Inc. has such a creative worldview.
What they see as a “world-wide religion” literally everyone else sees as a destructive high-control organization.