The US Supreme Court has denied a petition by the Church of Scientology, which had asked the court to intervene in a California appeals court decision that restored a lawsuit filed against Scientology by Danny Masterson's rape accusers.
Good show, even if the smart money were always on this outcome.
Good luck to the plaintiffs and their legal teams, and here’s hoping that the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology will fold rather than go through the song and dance of a RICO counter suit.
(Don’t forget that it is not mandatory to sign an NDA when winning against the Co$, even if it happens a lot 😎)
Love your reporting but want to clarify that denial of a petition for cert is usually the result. It's just the Supremes saying, "There's not enough of a question of constitutional law here for us to get involved in it." It's not a commentary on how the Supreme Court views religious freedoms, the First Amendment, Scientology itself, or anything else. You are my go-to reporter for all things Scientology. I still don't understand how or why they haven't used RICO, the federal statutory scheme passed and used to take down organized crime, on Scientology. It is my sincerest hope this will happen one day because of all the destruction of lives and gross human rights violations of this organization. Thanks!
I didn't make any kind of suggestion of the sort. Scientology asked for the court to get involved, and the court decided not to, just as it does in most petitions.
One step down. Good deal that the Supreme Court refused to take it on. I sort of hoped they had only to have a Supreme Court decision on it saying the same thing, but the risk of them overturning it was also there.
Now on to the anti-SLAPP motion. Every time scientology files one of these, I roll my eyes. They are the epitome of a SLAPP action, putting every possible frivolous stop in the way of the suit in an attempt to silence their critics, yet they use the tactic against them as yet another attempt to silence them.
Are you referring to the criminal trial? Judge Olmedo has made it clear she will not allow cameras in the courtroom because of the nature of the crime.
No. They literally go through these petitions to see if they present enough of a question of unsettled constitutional law to take it up and rule on it. There is no commentary. Kinda like when your parents used to say, "No" back in the day, and when you wanted to know why, you either got "the look" or they just said, "Because I said so." LOL.
WHOO HOOOOOOOOO
Maybe we will finally start seeing the "ruin" of scientology
Good show, even if the smart money were always on this outcome.
Good luck to the plaintiffs and their legal teams, and here’s hoping that the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology will fold rather than go through the song and dance of a RICO counter suit.
(Don’t forget that it is not mandatory to sign an NDA when winning against the Co$, even if it happens a lot 😎)
Hi, Tony,
Love your reporting but want to clarify that denial of a petition for cert is usually the result. It's just the Supremes saying, "There's not enough of a question of constitutional law here for us to get involved in it." It's not a commentary on how the Supreme Court views religious freedoms, the First Amendment, Scientology itself, or anything else. You are my go-to reporter for all things Scientology. I still don't understand how or why they haven't used RICO, the federal statutory scheme passed and used to take down organized crime, on Scientology. It is my sincerest hope this will happen one day because of all the destruction of lives and gross human rights violations of this organization. Thanks!
I didn't make any kind of suggestion of the sort. Scientology asked for the court to get involved, and the court decided not to, just as it does in most petitions.
Well, the court did one decent thing this year. That will help with their 'credibility'. Yes it will.
One step down. Good deal that the Supreme Court refused to take it on. I sort of hoped they had only to have a Supreme Court decision on it saying the same thing, but the risk of them overturning it was also there.
Now on to the anti-SLAPP motion. Every time scientology files one of these, I roll my eyes. They are the epitome of a SLAPP action, putting every possible frivolous stop in the way of the suit in an attempt to silence their critics, yet they use the tactic against them as yet another attempt to silence them.
Do we know if the proceedings will be broadcast?
Are you referring to the criminal trial? Judge Olmedo has made it clear she will not allow cameras in the courtroom because of the nature of the crime.
Yes thank you. I know you had mentioned before but I was hoping it was specific to pre-trial events 😑 I can’t wait to read all about it!
No. They literally go through these petitions to see if they present enough of a question of unsettled constitutional law to take it up and rule on it. There is no commentary. Kinda like when your parents used to say, "No" back in the day, and when you wanted to know why, you either got "the look" or they just said, "Because I said so." LOL.