Comments on: The Latest Judicial Tragedy

By: Kimo

Kimo — Thu, 04 May 2023 16:54:39 +0000

In reply to pluvo.

You make a (political) assertion, I make an assertion. Lecturing? Not really. Words matter.

But you can be right if you really, really have to be.

Remember that everything Hitler did was perfectly legal.

By: SpTv super fan

SpTv super fan — Thu, 04 May 2023 14:50:59 +0000

For these terrible rulings by judges in these cases, you can thank the following people

Donald Trump
Mitch McConnell and Republican senators… including the “moderate” ones
The federalist society and conservative donors
Certain Senate Democrats who keep things like the filibuster in place, effectively giving a free veto to republicans and stopping real reform.

Red States – we are looking at you.

Even after FDR got a lot of opposition to putting more seats on the Supreme Court, at least the justices changed their tune and actually started upholding the New Deal legislation. How likely is that with our current Supreme Court?

And as revolutionary as the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was in the late 18th century, maybe we need to stop treating a 240 year old document written by predominantly white, property-owning men like its an LRH policy letter.

By: OmegaPaladin

OmegaPaladin — Thu, 04 May 2023 14:43:45 +0000

I think the best way to attack this is to target either the original contract as not being valid or look to the statute and try to get scientology arbitration declared invalid.

Could a company require an ex-employee to be judged by an arbitrator from the company, who is not legally bound to be neutral? Even in a dispute with the company? What about declaring that the board of directors are the arbitration panel for any disputes with the company? At a certain point, there has to be some minimal standard for arbitration.

By: Geoff C

Geoff C — Thu, 04 May 2023 14:42:09 +0000

If the Judge is using precedent to send it back to Arbitration where is the precedent he/she can call on to stop it going back to Arbitration. In cases like these, lawyers need to go armed with all the cases that demonstrate that Arbitration is not the only logical outcome. Only one case needs to go against Scientology and then the house of cards will tumble. I am sure the Judges are looking for an excuse not to send it to Arbitration but right now it doesn’t appear that they are being presented with one.

By: pluvo

pluvo — Thu, 04 May 2023 10:53:13 +0000

In reply to Kimo. Ah, yeah, "legal" system; of course. Thanks for the (political) lecturing.

By: Yawn

Yawn — Thu, 04 May 2023 02:42:48 +0000

“Sigh.”

By: PeaceMaker

PeaceMaker — Thu, 04 May 2023 02:41:54 +0000

The judge refers to “existing law,” which is much of the problem – the Federal Arbitration Act fails to protect adequately against abuse and injustice, and improper “limitation on access to the courts.” Congress recently fixed some of that regarding particularly egregious circumstances, but a broader legislative overhaul of the act is necessary to really address the broader problems. Still, courts ought to rule that it’s unconstitutional for courts to delegate authority to private arbitration that doesn’t guarantee fundamental rights such as impartial jurists and access to counsel – and help spur a fix by Congress.

By: Erickson

Erickson — Wed, 03 May 2023 22:04:02 +0000

In my first year of law school, I was taught that unconscionable contracts are not enforceable. The court here acknowledges that the complaint alleges surprising and shocking conduct. If the facts here are not unconscionable, then nothing could meet that standard.

Indeed, if a billion year contract is enforceable then why limit it? I can only imagine what I agreed to — or what I might agree to — within that time.

By: GL

GL — Wed, 03 May 2023 22:00:55 +0000

I can see Judge Barber becoming $camology’s go-to judge for anymore cases of this type. When you find a good thing, stick to it.

By: Kimo

Kimo — Wed, 03 May 2023 21:56:11 +0000

In reply to pluvo.

We don’t have a justice system. We have a LEGAL system — true justice is an unattainable thing, because nobody can truly know another’s heart. So the legal system that has been built, out of the ruins of the reign of King Richard (who was an idiot) and John (who was a greedy evil little… Well, Miscavige). Until humans can read minds, the system we have is the best that has ever been. By and large, with honest people in charge, the legal system is good.

The goal of this system, however, is not justice but law. And there will always be those who learn to game the system, to either twist laws to allow them to do evil, or to use those laws to be able to gain the advantage over their fellow man. There will also always be the weak, the ones who get gamed, who are taken advantage of. Unfortunately, these politicians — and I include judges in this as well, tend to be lily-livered people-pleasers who are unwilling to take a stand for that which they KNOW is right, simply because they think someone will dislike them. It makes it worse that a full year or more of most tenures in elected office is spent trying to getnre-elected, and especially in those times those politicians are going to go into full-om ostrich mode, hoping the problem will just go away.

The system isn’t perfect, and people are not perfect either. Unless we vote in people with spines, this will continue to be the norm in this legal system.
,,