Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • DeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Petition For Writ of Mandate

    Hochgeladen von

    Tony Ortega
    7K Ansichten54 Seiten
    Scientology appeals Judge Doyle's decision on motion for summary judgment

    Originaltitel

    DeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Petition for Writ of Mandate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Scientology appeals Judge Doyle's decision on motion for summary judgment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    7K Ansichten54 Seiten

    DeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Petition For Writ of Mandate

    Hochgeladen von

    Tony Ortega
    Scientology appeals Judge Doyle's decision on motion for summary judgment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 54
    CASE No. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION Church of Scientology International, a corporate entity Petitioner, y, Superior Court for Los Angeles County Respondent. Laura Ann DeCrescenzo Real Party in Interest PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM; SUPPORTING EXHIBITS ‘On Petition From The Superior Court For the State of California For the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 411018, Hon. John P, Doyle KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP Bert H. Deixler (70614) bdeixler@kbkfirm.com Nicholas F. Daum (236155) dau @kbKgirm.com 10100 Santa Monica Bivd., Suite 1725 Los Angeles, C: Telepho Facsimile: fornia 90067 310.556.2700 310.556.2705 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, LLP Erie M. Lieberman (pro hac vice) 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: 212.254.1111 Facsimile: 212.674.4614 Attorneys for Petitioner Church of Scientology Intemational CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS (Cal, Rules of Court, Rule 8.208) The following entities or persons have either (1) an ownership interest of 10 percent or more in the party or parties filing this certificate (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.208(c)(1)), or (2) a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding that the justices should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves (Cal, Rules of Court, Rule 8.208(¢)(2)): Church of Scientology International Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, aka Laura A. Dieckman Religious Technology Center Dated: June 1, 2016 Respectfully 1, Nicl _— KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Attomeys for Petitioner Church of Scientology Intemational TABLE OF CONTE! INTRODUCTION TL. AUTHENT! [Y OF EXHIBITS. II THE PARTIES... IV. TIMELINESS OF PETITION. V. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. A. Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and Practices... : B. Undisputed Facts Conceming DeCrescenzo’s Religious Background and Religious Positions with ‘the Church C. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s “Forced Abortion” Claims (First and Second Causes of Action). D. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s False Imprisonment Claims = E. The Superior Court’s Order Denying Seas Tiuciceat setae sees acest secre 2 F. The Superior Court’s Disclosure, Disqualification, and Refusal To Void The Order Denying Summary Judgment 122 VI. BASIS FOR RELI REMEDIES. Vil. PRAYER VERIFICATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES L I. THE APRIL 27, 2016 ORDER IS VOID BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO ISSUED IT WAS DISQUALIFIED... THE APRIL 27 ORDER VIOLATED THE COURT’S DUTY TO CONSIDER THE CHURCH’S FIRST. AMENDMENT IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.. A. Introduction. B. The Ministerial Exception Applies Here As A Matter Of Law Cc. The Church's First Amendment Immunity Means That DeCrescenzo’s Abortion Claims Fail... 1¢ Church’s First Amendment Immunity Means That ‘The “False Imprisonment” Claims F: E. The Church’s First Amendment Immunity Means That The IED Claim Fails... eecensenh F, The First Amendment Immunity Barred The Wage and Hour and Section 970 Claims ......e..ssscseesssssssseecessenenennnnee 48 CONCLUSION... AD TABLE OF AUTHORITH Page(s) Cases Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, 598 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2010) Aleazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Arbishop of Seattle, 627 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2010)... Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003). a7 Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1999)... 1035, 47 NLRB v. Catholie Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979)... Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal, 4th $27 (2004)....... a Christie v. City of El Centro, 135 Cal.App.4th 767 (2006). Christofferson y. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1982) : Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl., 2010 WL 3184389 (C.D. Cal. 2010)... Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. 67 Cal. App.4th 995 (1998)... Ess v. Eskaton Props., Inc., 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240, 97 Cal.App.4th 120 Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2002). People v, Freeman, 47 Cal.Ath 993 (2010) 13, 14, 24, 31 Giometti v. Etienne, 219 Cal. 687 (1934)...... .29, 30 Golden Gateway Ctr. V. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn., 26 Cal.4th 1013 (2001 243 Gunn v. Mariners Church, 167 Cal. App.Ath 206 (2008)...00e 36,47 Headley, v. Church of Scientology Intl., 2010 WL 3157064 (C.D. Cal. 20107 35, 36 Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012).. passim Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus., Inc., 174 Cal.AppAth 1441 (2009). Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168 (1989)... Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity v. New York City Tax Comm., 55.N.Y. 24512, 450 N.Y.S 2d 292 (1978) Hope International University v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.4th, 719, 730 (2004) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)... es In Bates v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 1125 (2009). Kedroff'v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952)... Kerr v. Nelson, 7 Cal.2d 85 (1936)... Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (2008). Levy v. Superior Court in & for Los Angeles Cnt 15 Cal.2d 692 (1940)..... Lewis v. Holy Spirit Association for Unification of World Christianity, 589 F. Supp. 10 (D. Mass. 1983)...... Maxwell v. Brougher, 99 Cal. App. 2d 824 (1950) Meroni v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 506 N.Y.S.2d at 178... Moore v. Driscoll, 135 Cal.App. 770 (1933 People v. Murphy, 98 Mise.2d 235, 242 N.Y.S.2d $40 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1977)... Murphy v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of New England, Inc., 409 Mass. 842, 571 N. d 340 (1991)... Orlando v. Alamo, 646 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1981)..... Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987)..... Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008).... Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 USS. 440 (1969)... Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 131 Cal Appth 417 (2005). EEOC y. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, 213 F.3d 795 (4th Cir. 2000)... Ross v. Metro. Church of God, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2007)... Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Bank of Am., 149 Cal.App.4th 1353 (2007)... 12, 27, 29, 30 Rweyemamu v, Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2008)... 36 Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008). Schmoll v. Chapman Univ., 70 Cal.App.Ath 1434 (1999). Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) Shallichsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington 363 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2004). ‘Shulman y. Group W Prods., Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998). Silo v. CHW Med. Found., 27 Cal. 4th 1097 (2002) Smith v, Raleigh Dist. of the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, 63 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D.N.C. 1999)... Tatum v. S. Pac. Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 40 (1967)... Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.RL. 1978).. Universal Pictures Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty, 9 Cal.App 2d 490 (1935). Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc., 234 Cal. App.3d 415 (1991) Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., 535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass.1982)... Visueta v. General Motors Corp., 234 Cal.App.3d 1609 (1991)... Watson v. Jones, 80 US. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871)... Werft v. Desert Sw. Annual Conference, 377 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004)...... Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S, 205 (1969) Statutes Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1(6XAY(i). Section 170.1(6(A\( Section 170,3(a)(4). Section 170.3(d) Section 437¢(m)(1)... 128 28 .29, 30 13, 24, 31 Labor Code 970. Other Authorities Cal. Labor Commissioner’s Office, DLSE Opinion 1988-10-27... Wage and Hour Division, Dept. of Labor, Fie/d Operations Handbook § 10b03(b).. Rules California Rules of Court Rule 8,204... Rute 8.208 : Rule 8.208(€)(1).... Rule 8.208(e)(2) Rule 8.490... Rule 8.490(m). Constitutional Provisions United States Constitution First Amendment 1 INTRODUCTION This case falls into that rare category in which a Writ of Mandate is not only appropriate but necessary, for two separate reasons. First, the petition involves an order issued by a disqualified judicial officer. Days after entering an order denying summary judgment, the Superior Court judge disclosed a potentiaily-disqualifying family relationship under Canon 3(E)(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethies. The family relationship was known to the judge before he issued the summary judgment order. It was not known to the parties. After receiving the trial judge's disclosure, Petitioner explained that at east one member of the judge’s family was a planned trial witness. The trial judge then disqualified himself from the action. But in so doing he refused to void his prior summary judgment order. He did so even though if the required judicial disclosure had been made earlier (which it should have been) the grounds for disqualification would have been clear, causing both sides to seek and the judge to order recusal before hearing and deciding the motion. That was error. It is error that cannot be corrected after final judgment. Orders on judicial disqualification are, by statute, expressly reviewable only by writ, see Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3(d). Second, the petition seeks review of an order which inftinges upon an immunity guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That immunity precludes interference by secular courts on issues of religious doctrine and the condition of employment of ministers. The purpose of the immunity is precisely to avoid judicial interference with religion— including the imerference caused by the process of enduring a trial on the merits. Thus, an improper denial of that immunity cannot be corrected after trial and final judgment, This Court has expressly so held, explaining that Because of the very nature of the exception, it entails an immunity on the part of a religious institution from the intrusive examination into religious doctrine inherent in the suit, Such an immunity implicates a somewhat stronger interest than the more typical writ situation where a litigant is simply asserting the right to win at the summary judgment level... The very process of. review itself threatens to entangle the court ina. sectarian controversy. Hope International University v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.Ath, 719, 730 (2004) (emphasis added). ‘The action was brought by Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest Laura DeCrescenzo (“DeCrescenzo”), a former member of the Scientology religion DeCrescenzo belonged to Scientology’s religious order, known as the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”). The defendants are Petitioner-Defendant Church of Scientology International (“Church”) and another Scientology-affiliated organization, co-defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), DeCrescenzo alleged that as a member of the Sea Org she was subject to indoctrination and psychological pressure to have an abortion so she could continue to serve the religious order. She claimed that she participated in an intense religious rehabilitation process known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPE”), She claimed that she was required to undergo allegedly invasive confessional practices known as “sec checks.” And she claimed she was required, over the more than 10- year petiod in which she was a member of the religious order, to perform a heavy work schedule without being paid minimum wages or overtime. The Church filed a motion for summary judgment, It demonstrated that DeCrescenzo was a “minister” within the meaning of the ministerial exception, which provides broad constitutional immunity to a cluurch faced with allegations such as those DeCrescenzo interposed. See, e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v, EEOC, 132.8. Ct. 694 (2012); Hope International University y. Superior Court, 119 Cal. Appdth 719 (2004), ‘The Church showed in its motion that the First Amendment and the ministerial exception meant that none of DeCrescenzo’ s claims could be properly resolved by, or even put before, a secular trial court. The Church demonstrated that DeCrescenzo had agreed to undergo her abortion for religious reasons, ie., so she could remain a member of the order and continue her religious work. It showed that she repeatedly had stated publicly and testified that she participated 10 in the RPF, “sec checks,” and other Sea Org practices for religious reasons (and jon). And it showed that the ministerial exception barred judicial interference with the terms never against her will, as she was a committed member of the rel and conditions of her religious employment and discipline. The Superior Court (Doyle, J.) denied the motion on April 27, 2016. In so doing, the Court declined to adjudicate at all whether the immuni provided by the ministerial exception applied to DeCrescenzo and her claims, in whole or in part. Rather the Court stated that since the ministerial exception might not apply to certain torts and since the claim by a church that an individual might be a minister within the meaning of the exception could be examined by a court for alleged “subterfuge,” the question could not be resolved by summary judgment, But this was error, going to the power of the court to subject the church to trial by ju of law to be decided by the court. See Hosanna-Tabor B1 Determination of the applicability of the ministerial exception is a question ngelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 132.8. Ct. 694 (U.S. 2012) (holding ministerial privilege applied as a matter of law); Smith v. Raleigh Dist. of the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, 63 F. Supp. 2d 694, 706 (E.D.N.C. 1999) (“The applicability of the ministerial exception is a question of law for the court”). Nine business days after ruling on summary judgment, on May 10, 2016, the Court issued a six-page minute order, containing a disclosure under Canon 3(E)(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethies. In the disclosure, Judge Doyle explained that he had a first cousin who is a long-time Scientology minister. The ruling on ‘motion for summary judgment had been Judge Doyle's first substantive ruling in the case. Petitioner's Exhibit (“PE”) 4083. The disclosure explained that if any members of his family were witnesses or potential witnesses, Judge Doyle would likely be forced to disqualify himself, PE 4093. This disclosure was the first time the Church learned of any family relationship between Judge Doyle and Scientology or the Sea Org. PE 4103. In fact, the Church shall call at trial one, and possibly two other, of the Judge’s family members; the one had worked closely with DeCrescenzo in the Sea Org. i PE 4100. On May 16, two business days afier receiving the disclosure, the Church submitted a verified statement to the Court in response to the disclosure, explaining that at least one family member of the judge was a likely trial witness, PE 4099: On May 18, 2016, Judge Doyle recused himself from the action. Apparently, the basis for disqualification was Judge Doyle’s belief that his, relationship with a potential family-member witness created a potential impression of bias. PE 4107, In so doing; however, Judge Doyle expressly declined to void the summary judgment ruling. ‘This was error going to the very question of the court's power to have acted at all. An order from a disqualified judicial officer is void. Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Bank of Am., 149 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362 (2007). “*[D]isqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when the disqualification is established,’ “[I]t is the fact of disqualification that controls, not subsequent judicial action on that disqualification,”” fd. (quoting Christie v. City of El Centro, 135 Cal.App-th 767, 776-777 (2006)). Here, Judge Doyle knew of the family relationship before he issued the summary judgment ruling, the family member's availability as a witness pre-existed the summary judgment ruling, and it was only the fact that Judge Doyle belatedly disclosed the relationship after ruling that prevented him from disqualifying himself earlier. In these c' cumstances, the denial of summary judgment was both erroneous and void, and must be corrected on writ review, IL = AUTHENTICITY OF EXHIBITS All exhibits accompanying this petition are truc copies of original documents on file with respondent court or true copies of reporter's transcripts of proceedings therein. PE 4036-4082 contain a true copy of the original reporter's transcript of the hearing of April 27, 2016, PE 4083-4090 sets forth the Superior Court's Order denying summary judgment, PE 4093-4098 sets forth the Superior Court's disclosure under Canon 3(6)(2) of the Code of Judieial Ethics, and PE 4107-4109 sets forth the Superior Court’s order of disqualification, rejecting the voiding of the April 27, 2016 Minute Order. The exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth in this petition. The exhibits are paginated 12 consecutively from page 1 through page 4135, and page references in this petition (to PE) are to the consecutive pagination, UL THE PARTIES ‘The Church is the defendant in an’action pending in respondent Superior Court entitled DeCrescenzo vs. Church of Scientology International, et al. LASC No. BC411018. Plaintiff DeCrescenzo is named herein as the real party in interest. Iv. TIMELD SS OF PETITION ‘The lower court’s order denying summary judgment was issued on April 27, 2016, and notice was served by mail by DeCrescenzo that same day. The court extended the time in which petitioner could file this petition to and including June 2, 2016, by order dated May 9, 2016. PE 4091. This writ is timely under Code of Civil Procedure § 437¢(m)(1). ‘The trial court's order disqualifying Judge Doyle but rejecting the Church’s request to void the April 27, 2016 order was entered on May 18, 2016. It was served by the Court by mail. PE 4107. The wrt, insofar as it seeks reversal of that order, is timely under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(d), and indeed the May 18, 2016 order is only reviewable by writ, see People v, Freeman, 47 Cal.Ath 993, 1000 (2010). V. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AL Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and Practices The Scientology religion is based upon the research, writings and lectures of its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. PE 3877. The basic tenet of Scientology is that humans are immortal spiritual beings, called “thetans,” who have lived many lifetimes and have the potential of infinite survival. A thetan’s various bodies have died, but his/her life experience never stops. Over the ages, thetans have lost their spiritual identity and most of their native ability. Only through exploration of his/her past, through participation in Scientology practices, can a thetan overcome the negative experiences that reduce his/her inherent spiritual ability. PE 3877. 13 Scientologists believe that the principle of existence is to “Survive,” which is compartmented into eight “dynamics”: individual; family; groups; mankinds living things; material things; spirituality; and infinity PE 3878, which, in plaintiff's words, is “considered the God dynamic.” PE 3878-3879. A thetan’s spiritual advance in Scientology is across all dynamics, as a necessary component to spiritual salvation, PE 3879. A Scientologist is expected to act in a manner that achieves “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics,” a core belief of the religion that plaintiff always tried to follow. PE 3879. Scientology's religious services include “training” and “auditing.” Training involves the study of the Scripture, Auditing is ministered in confidential one-on-one sessions between a specially trained individual called an auditor and a parishioner. The auditor uses a device called an “E-Meter” to assist in locating and removing barriers to spiritual progress from a person’s past and current lives. PE 3881, Ethics is Scientology's religious moral code. Past or current unethical acts interfere with one’s spiritual progress. PE 3881-3882. Scientology ethics counseling includes confessionals through which a parishioner confronts his ethical transgressions, not only in his current life but in “past lives,” thereby overcoming that barrier to spiritual progress. PE 3882. Some of these confessionals are called “sec checks.” a. They are an essential part of the religious practices of Scientology. PE 3882. Some Scientologists choose to devote their lives to work for their religion full time, in the same manner as monks, nuns, priests, and other clergy. They do so by committing to join Scientology’s religious order, the Sea Org, PE 3885- 3886. To join the Sea Org, a Scientologist must undertake extensive training and study, pass a fitness examination, and receive certification. Sea Org members sign a symbolic commitment of one billion years, reflecting their dedication to service in furtherance of the religion and the salvation of humanity and their awareness of themselves a immortal spiritual beings. 1d. Potential Sea Org members are told they will be required to work long hours, they will be subject to lifestyle and disciplinary restrictions on their movements and 4 contacts, and they may be assigned anywhere in the world to further the goals of the religion. PE 3888-3889, See Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1174-75 (“The Sea Org's lifestyle constraints include strict policies on outside communications, marriage, and children. Sea Org members” mail is censored and phone calls are monitored as part of ministry di line and policy”). Sea Org members serve without expectation of compensation. PE 3889. They share tradition, and lifestyle. They wear uniforms when on duty and have a merit-based maritime rank and rating system and etiquette, They live communally and eat in common dining halls. The Church provides them with all living necessities and a small weekly allowance for personal incidentals. Id Sea Org members are held to the highest ethical standards and agree to submit to the discipline of the Sea Org. PE 3891. See Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1175 (“Sea Org members lean that strict discipline is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology's ministry. If a member fails to meet Scientology's ethical standards, he may be disciplined”), Ifa Sea Org member is found to bave committed serious ethical violations, he/she may be asked to participate in a program of spiritual rehabilitation, called the Rebabilitation Project Force (“RPF"). PE 3951. In accepting participation in the RPF, Sea Org members agree to undergo close supervision of their activities, to remain in relative isolation from other Sea Org members, and to have limited contact with others while undergoing their spiritual rehabilitation, PE 3952-3953. They engage in religious study and auditing and physical labor. PE 3951. After one “graduates” from the RPE, he/she will resume a Sea Org position, If'a Sea Org member chooses not to participate in the RPF, he/she will be dismissed from the Sea Org and from all staff positions. Id Such lifestyle restrictions and ecclesi orders. See PE 0578-0579. tical discipline are common to religious A Sea Org member “may formally withdraw his vows and leave the ministry through a process called ‘routing out," Headley v, Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1175, which often includes participating in Scientology ethics programs and the performance of manual chores. PE. 3893- 15 3894.! If a Sea Org member chooses to leave without routing out, other Sea Org I members may attempt to persuade her to stay or to retum; such efforts reflect the belief among Sea Org members that they are attempting to achieve the salvation of the individual. PE 3901-3904. See Headley, 687 F.3d at 1175. A person who insists on leaving or refuses to retum, without routing out, may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline, including, but not necessarily, being declared a “suppressive person,” which is the fimctional equivalent of being shunned or excommunicated. Id. “Such practices are also typical of religious orders.” PE 0575-0576. B. —_ Undisputed Facts Concerning DeCrescenzo’s Religious Background and Religious Positions with the Church DeCrescenzo was born into a family that practiced Scientology. PE 3904, Her parents were staff members at Scientology churches. Jd. DeCrescenzo learned and accepted Scientology doctrines and beliefs. PE 2764. DeCrescenzo joined the Sea Org at the age of 12, with the written permission of her parents, because she wanted “to help people.” PE 3906-3907, ‘She underwent extensive training under Scientology scriptures; she took 30-40 Scientology courses as training for her religious positions. Id. She also studied and earned her high school equivalency diploma. PE 3917. While DeCrescenzo held several positions over the course of her career at the Church, most of her time was devoted to two. First, for six years, she held the position of Investigations and Evaluation Director, whose function was to ensure that other Sea Org members were properly performing their work. PE 3920-3921. She conducted hundreds of investigations relating to the administration of the Church for management under-performance and for ethics violations, conducted ethics interviews (see checks) and used an E-Meter hundreds of times, and recommended remedial programs. PE 3957. DeCrescenzo agreed that her job was | Plaintiff knew “many people” who routed out of the Sea Org and remained practicing Scientologists in good standing. PE 3896-3897, Indeed, plaintif?’s sister Emily, whom plaintiff had recruited to join the Sea Org, routed out. PE 3899, done “in accordance with technology [Scientology religious practice]” and “consistent with the teachings of the Scientology scripture.” PE 3922. DeCrescenzo’s second major position was as “co-audit supervisor” while she herself was on the RPF. She was responsible for supervising the provision of auditing and confessionals to other Sea Org members who were there with her, and did so for hours on a daily basis. PE 3984-3985. C. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s “Forced Abortion” Claims (First and Second Causes of Action) In 1995, DeCrescenzo married Jesse DeCrescenzo, who also was a Sea Org member. PE 3930. They lived together in a private suite in a building that housed other Sea Org members. Jesse and Laura were strongly committed to serving in the Sea Org. Id. Laura practiced birth control. PE. 3932. According to Church religious policy, a Sea Org member may not remain in the Order if he or she has a young child, PE 3933-3934. The policy is based on the fact, as DeCrescenzo testified, that Sea Org members would be unable to carry out their responsibilities, which involve total commitment to one’s religious work, Tong hours and strict discipline, while also taking responsible care of young children. PE 3932-3933. Church policy requires a Sea Org member who becomes ‘a parent to leave the Sea Org by “routing out.” PE 3932-3934, DeCresconzo unilaterally decided (o cease taking her birth control pills, PE 3934, DeCrescenzo did not inform her husband of her decision or her desire to have a baby. Id. DeCrescenzo became pregnant in February 1996. She was aware Of the Sea Org policy, but “honestly didn’t care. [She] wanted to have a kid.” Id, When she told Jesse she had become pregnant, in her words he “freaked out,” stating he “was worried about not being able to raise a baby” and that “he didn’t want to leave the Sea Org.” PE 3935. DeCrescenzo testified that church officials tried to convince her to have an abortion because she and her husband had important religious responsibilities to fulfil in the Sea Org and it was the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” for them to remain in the Sea Org, which they could not do if they had to care for a young child. PE 3936-3937. While DeCrescenzo claims that Jesse at 7 one point agreed to leave the Sea Org with her to have a child, Jesse ultimately told DeCrescenzo that he wanted to remain, and that he thought she should have ‘an abortion because, “We both have always wanted to be in the Sea Org.” PE 3939. DeCrescenzo claims that other Sea Org members verbally pressured Jesse to remain. DeCrescenzo did not want to leave without him. PE 3940. If DeCrescenzo had wished to leave the Sea Org in 1996 to have a chil she could have done so. First, she could have routed out, PE 3934-3935, ‘Numerous women and their husbands have routed out for that very reason and Temained Scientologists in good standing, PE 3942-3943. Indeed, Jesse himself later routed out with his second wife in 2010 when she became pregnant, and remains a Scientologist to this day. Alternatively, DeCrescenzo could have left without “routing out.” To do so, however, would have been in violation of Sea Org rules and policy and might have led to her expulsion from the Church or excommunication. PE 3902. DeCrescenzo chose not to leave the Sea Org. Instead, as she testified, she ‘was convinced to remain in the Sea Org, and to obtain an abortion to allow her to do so, PE 3944-3945, DeCrescenzo acknowledged that “[nJo one physically forced me to have an abortion” and that she ultimately was “convinced” to have an abortion, because it was “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamies” and because she wanted to stay with Jesse, who had made clear that he would not leave the Sea Org. /d. Notably, these were the only reasons proffered by DeCrescenzo in her deposition for obtaining her abortion, and the only form of “coercion” to obtain an abortion from the Church that she could identify. There is no evidence whatsoever, and DeCrescenzo has never claimed, that anyone physically forced her to obtain an abortion. No one within the Church performed the abortion on DeCrescenzo; nor did anyone within the Church otherwise touch DeCrescenzo during or Icading up to the abortion so as to constitute an assault, nor (aside from the requirement that she leave the Sea Org if she attempted to raise a baby or young child) was there any evidence of any threat of negative practical consequence being made to her if she failed to obtain the abortion. The abortion was performed by licensed medical professionals at a private clinic who 18 were not in any way under the control of Defendants PE 3950, indeed, “Laura made the doctor's appointment and arranged the logistical details,” and Laura and Jesse drove to the appointment themselves. No one from the Church was present. PE 3950-3951. The claim for “forced abortion” rests entirely on DeCrescenzo"s role as a Sea Org member and minister, and her being persuaded to have an abortion for the reasons identified above. D. — Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s False Imprisonment Claims DeCrescenzo bases her claims for deprivation of liberty and false ‘imprisonment (Third and Fourth Causes of Action) upon her assignment to and experience on the RPF. She also bases her claim for intentional infliction of emotional

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen