Don Carlo wrote:
Minimum wage violations are easier to prove than human trafficking, since US employees can't volunteer to be paid below-federal-minimum-wage, and CoS cannot deny underpaying. I hope Marc can at least get that charge to stick.
Some other info and professional opinion picked out of the WWP thread....
marklowell99 wrote:
The summary judgment motion, heard on 8/2/2010, from the defense in the Claire Headley case was for all remaining claims, not just a partial number of claims.
tikk wrote:
An appeal in this case would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; a denial there would be appealed to the Supreme Court. But an appeal to the Supreme Court is not a right--one must petition the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court can either accept (agree to hear) or deny (decline to hear). The Supreme Court only 'accepts cert' for a small percentage of cases.
I'll wait to read the actual decision and order before commenting at length, but given marklowell99's account (whose accuracy I have no reason to doubt, thanks mark), I'm struck by glibness of the judge's comments. This was, after all, a motion for summary judgment, and the judge's comments appear to indicate that she holds a categorical presumption as to the nature of consent; that it cannot be coerced under any circumstance. She may have overstepped her role, but I'll wait to read before commenting further.
tikk wrote:
They can be. I'll reserve my opinion until I actually read the documents though. But it's possible.
Aonymous wrote:
I was waiting for you to show up, to ask: Are the judge's comments beneficial to the appeal process? I mean, when a judge utters sound and convincing opinions on a case, it's a good, but she appeared to be incredibly dismissive (unreasonable?) given ml99's account. So I would think her opinion might be helpful on appeal. Yes, no?
As a local parallel, when Bob Minton turned on Ken Dandar and testified on behalf of Scientology in the Lisa McPherson case, Judge Schaeffer was so livid with Minton that she lambasted him in her opinion, which then opened the door to Scientology, through Minton, to successfully force Schaeffer off the McPherson case. (This was especially ironic given that the basis for Minton's argument was that the McPherson estate couldn't be given a fair trial since the judge had reserved so much venom for him as co-plaintiff, even though he was attempting to kill the case on Scientology's behalf at that point.) So yeah, when judges overstep their roles, they can jeopardize their own decisions/orders.
This next one is anonymous, so bare that in mind, but from what I've heard before in relation to previous questions about the possibility of appealing the first rejection of Claire Headley's labour claim earlier this year, the comment sounds like it has some logic in it.......
anonymous wrote:
My gripe is not necessarily with the decision itself. I haven't examined the case file in enough detail to know whether or not the plaintiffs brought enough to the table for a trial. However, the religious activity discussion in the original opinion was glib and analytically weak. It did the opposite of what a court deciding a motion for summary judgment should do, and simply assumed the moving party's facts were true without even looking into the issue.
While I hate to say this, since it's what I've heard Scientologists say time and again, it's probably good this case got thrown out at this point, because now it can be appealed, at least if it's a final order disposing of the entire case. Previously, only part of the case was thrown out, and that can't be appealed until after trial. That is, the case would have had to go all the way to the finish line, so that the original erroneous dismissal could be appealed, after the trial, and force the plaintiffs to go through a whole new trial on the revived claims.
Now (if this is a final order) it can be reviewed immediately, and if reversed on appeal, dealt with all in one case. And another, weak positive to this is that the case will be over sooner for everyone.
On the bad side, if OP is accurately describing the language of the judge, this is practically a setup for the defendants to file for costs (which they will get) and possibly fees (probably not), or claim the case was frivolous from the outset. I fully expect the cult to do that to punish these plaintiffs.
[...]
I still think the judge's categorical finding in the previous opinion is weak and hope that, because of that, it is reversible.
Login
Register
OCMB FAQ
FAQ
Search
