This is an excellent piece in the Daily Beast from Kate Briquelet and old friend Marlow Stern.
It’s a story that needs far more coverage. And as this case progresses, I hope that will be the case.
The Amended Complaint details the Fair Game tactics being employed against the plaintiffs, as well as the strenuous efforts by Miscavige to evade service. Nothing unexpected, but it is good to see it detailed in a legal filing. Media feel protected when they report on documents filed in court.
Since the days when Hubbard was trying to avoid being served in lawsuits, there have been strict policies in place to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to effect legal service. When Hubbard shuffled off his mortal coil, these same practices shifted over to protect Miscavige. There are general procedures that all scientology security personnel are drilled on to never accept service for anyone and make it difficult for process servers to access anyone, but the measures are ratcheted up dramatically when it comes to Miscavige. The lawyers even get in on the act, claiming they are not allowed to even ask anything about the whereabouts of Dear Leader. It’s all a carefully framed facade — it is part of the “strategy” Hubbard developed of making litigation against scientology as punitive and costly as possible: “fight on the basis of total attrition of the enemy.” Many will lack the resources to be able to continue the fight to the end. Scientology will file endless motions and appeals and throw up every barrier possible to prevent lawsuits from progressing. It begins with the first battle — service of process. Then come the motions to dismiss, change venue, disqualify attorneys, enforce arbitration, recuse judges and on an on. When you have virtually unlimited, tax-free money available, it is an often effective strategy.
Let’s hope these plaintiffs and their lawyers have the resolve to take the fight to scientology all the way. It’s a long road, but they should always remember. Scientology has never won a damages case that has gone to trial.
Since it lays things out so clearly, could the court accept the ‘Daily Beast’ article as “Service by publication”??
Have you ever heard any one from mainstream religion ( Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism) ever went to court for copy right on religious text or to silence criticism ?
That’s the difference between religion and Cult.
With regards the KJV, certainly.
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol.%2014,%20No.%201,%201%20Syn.pdf
If the case is a joke then why is he hiding out and not answering said case and beating it in a court of law?
Easy answer, he knows he is wrong. He knows he would lose in court. And lose big.
Maybe the challenge presented by Scientology’s legal tactics is a tempting game changer for the opposing attorneys/legal service who can crack it. You’d make yourself famous and feared in legal circles if you were known as a giant killer. You’d be inundated with new work and financially set if you could penetrate how a wealthy cult protects itself. You’d also be doing the world a huge favor by putting a rabid dog like Miscavige behind bars.
Quite the challenge. I hope this is a consideration on the case here as well as the legal, moral & ethical satisfaction of bringing Scientology to it’s knees for its crimes. Things like child trafficking are so repulsive.
Re: When reached for comment, The Church of Scientology called the case “scurrilous,” a “scam and a sham,” and “nothing more than an attempted money grab.”–The Daily Beast
It’s interesting to note that when an accusation is made against another, it is most likely something the accuser is guilty of.
Scientology is “scurrilous,” a “scam and a sham,” and “nothing more than an attempted money grab.”
Good point, Fred.
Even Hubbard said (and I paraphrase) that if a person is on the receiving end of an overt act, they must have committed an overt act themseves first. And as you point out, many others have observed this ironic truth.
However, unfortunately, we cannot expect David miss Miscavidge to absorb this golden wisdom even when when it is uttered by Hubbard because narcissistic sociopaths cannot consider even for a moment that they have ever done or ever will do anything wrong.
This is a sociopaths blind spot.
And “the blind are leading the blind.”
… Where have we heard that phrase before?
You have made some undisputable points, Karl Woodrow. Especially the ones about the narcissistic sociopath.
Fred, I’ve observed that when some people want to deny, or believe they MUST deny an allegation which happens to be unfortunately and inconveniently true, they call the allegation “scurrilous” or “vicious”. They can’t call it false. They can’t state that what is alleged is untrue because it IS true, so their go-to push back on the allegation is that it is “scurrilous”.
That is interesting, Aquamarine. So, in a way when scientology (which rarely, if ever, tells the truth about anything) calls an accusation “scurrilous,” they are causing their own bad reputation. They are bringing it upon themselves.
Now, if Scientology would, instead, have a two-way comm or pow-wow with their accuser, each party would reap the benefits. For that to happen, however, Scientology would have to aside their preconceived ideas and education in everything Hubbard, and that ain’t gonna happen.
Nails on heads all over the place, Fred 🙂
They NEVER explain or defend.
Their only response to criticism or allegations of wrong doing is to ATTACK.
Its policy. Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic.
Its LRH policy to respond to accusations of wrong doing with attacks on the accusers.
And this applies to any and all accusations. Whether they’re true or not. Most likely especially if they’re true 🙂
Pure LRH…”Never defend, always attack”…is, as I recall, how it goes.
Also @ Fred:
“Now, if Scientology would, instead, have a two-way comm or pow-wow with their accuser, each party would reap the benefits.”
And there in a nutshell is the fundamental reason why I left the cult. Oh, there were reasons ON TOP of this one – specific off policy actions I observed going on which did not necessarily involve me – but underlying several serious beefs I had with the cult in the end was always their refusal to two way comm with me about it. I was willing; they were not. Not ever. As in never. Given my former pre-Scientology life experiences, these refusals were glaring red flags to me, and started me on my way out, which took 2 years of being UTR, but that’s another story 🙂
You’re a wise person, Aquamarine.
I hear you, Aquamarine.
From “Press Releases,” a Hubbard policy letter from Oct. 28, 1968:
“Always attack in a Press Release. Never defend or deny.”
Right! Nail on the head, Fred.
Correct response to a Press Release! Well, OK, I CAN see that viewpoint insofar as a press release. Not always correct but sometimes it could be, depending upon the press involved.
But how about an issue raised NOT in the press, but person to person, WITHIN an org, Scientologist to Scientologist, public to staff? That’s not “the Press”!
And I was VERY far from “attacking”.
I was INQUIRING. I was QUERYING. Respectfully, and with ARC!
Querying! Policy – LRH policy, permitted me – actually encouraged me to do that!
But yet I got treated as if I were attacking, and had overts and witholds. That I wouldn’t even be ASKING AT ALL if I didn’t have overts and witholds and/or very likely evil purposes against the group!
Wrong indicator! And at that time, my questions were sincere. I did NOT understand! I was NOT attacking my group, I was endeavoring to understand.
But no; just the fact that I was querying was of itself sufficient proof to them that I had taken on the color of an enemy!
THAT was my beef with the cult. And it was a big one, let me tell you! Thank you, Fred for allowing me to rant a little 🙂
I’ve had the pleasure of reading your posts here for the last 8 years, Aquamarine. I’d call that “justifiable rant!”
The process of Civilization has been the process of removing coercive force from the social order. The American Civil War was essentially an armed struggle between a consensual social order and a coercive social order.
Unfortunately, the struggle isn’t over. Violence against critics and nonbelievers appears to baked into the doctrine of Scientology by Hubbard.
“Scientology has never won a damages case that has gone to trial.”
That’s a statement I could stand to see EVERY morning. It puts scn’s antics into focus even before my first coffee.