Talk About Tennis 2.0

Church of Scientology Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Force Danny Masterson Rape Accusers into Binding ‘Religious Arbitration’
AARON KELLER Jul 23rd, 2022, 7:03 pm


Danny Masterson was photographed at a Hollywood premiere on June 29, 2015. (Photo by Jason Merritt/Getty Images.)

The Church of Scientology is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case that questions whether religious groups can force their followers — and even their ex-followers — to submit to internal arbitration proceedings to settle disputes.

The case is connected to and indeed names Daniel Masterson, the “That 70s Show” actor who faces an upcoming rape trial in the California state court system. The respondents in the case allege that Masterson, who is described in Church legal filings as “another Church parishioner,” sexually assaulted them between 2000 and 2003. The instant case involves not the instances of alleged assault but rather whether church officials “improperly handled Respondents’ reporting of the alleged assaults.”

An intermediate California appellate court ruled on Jan. 19, 2022 that the respondents enjoyed a First Amendment right to leave the Church of Scientology and that their mandatory arbitration agreement with the church was terminated along with the respondents’ departure from the faith. That ruling flatly described the Masterson allegations as “rape”:

Petitioners in this writ proceeding are former members of the Church of Scientology who reported to the police that another Church member had raped them. They allege that, in retaliation for their reports, the Church encouraged its members to engage in a vicious campaign of harassment against them. After petitioners brought suit in superior court against the Church and related entities and persons, some of those defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on agreements that provided all disputes with the Church would be resolved according to the Church’s own “Ethics, Justice and Binding Religious Arbitration system.” That system was created to decide matters “in accordance with Scientology principles of justice and fairness.”

One key point of the California Court of Appeal ruling was that petitioners’ case involved conduct that allegedly occurred after the petitioners left the church:

Individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion. We hold that once petitioners had terminated their affiliation with the Church, they were not bound to its dispute resolution procedures to resolve the claims at issue here, which are based on alleged tortious conduct occurring after their separation from the Church and do not implicate resolution of ecclesiastical issues. We issue a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and instead to deny the motion.

The Court of Appeal opinion is officially unpublished and therefore carries little to no weight as precedent under the California Rules of Court (Rule 8.1115, specifically).

The California Supreme Court refused to take the case, so the church appealed to a higher authority. The church’s U.S. Supreme Court petition asks the nation’s highest court to pluck the matter from the California court system and proffers these two issues as questions presented:

(1) Where a parishioner freely executes a religious arbitration agreement with her church, does the First Amendment prohibit enforcement of the agreement if the parishioner leaves the faith?

(2) Does the First Amendment restrict the terms on which a Church may accept members into its faith?

At times co-opting language from the Court of Appeal opinion, the church asserts in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that its followers consented to an “irrevocable agreement” to “submit disputes to Scientology arbitration” — which is just “one of the prices of joining [the Scientology] religion.”

The church’s practice of resolving disputes with members is described in the petition as “religious arbitration.” The petition chides California’s court system for — in Scientology’s view — forcing it to change the way it admits and deals with its own congregants. The church argues that the First Amendment bans the state and its courts from governing church dispute resolution procedures.

“[R]eligious arbitration is a long-recognized institution that is increasing in use throughout the United States and across religions,” the church wrote. “Review by this Court is necessary to settle the confusion created by the California Court of Appeal. Religious organizations need this Court to remove any doubt that their contracts – including their agreements to arbitrate disputes before a religious forum – cannot be voided by a party’s professed change of mind. Churches have the right to know that their contracts are equal under law and not subject to ad hoc and unprecedented application of a state action theory by judicial officers.”

The church elsewhere described the dispute for the Court in these terms:

Contracts are contracts, even when a church is a party. It should go without saying that contracts with churches are entitled to the same protection under the law as contracts with secular entities. The California Court of Appeal disagrees. It held that a voluntary party to an otherwise enforceable contract with a church may annul that contract by asserting a First Amendment right to “leave the faith” and “extricate” themselves from the church. While secular entities can enforce contracts over the objections of a party that no longer wishes to be bound, churches now cannot, as long as a party asserts a change of faith. The Court of Appeal deprived churches of the contractual right that really matters – the right to enforce. And it did so expressly because churches are religious.

The statement of the case continues:

The dispute here is simple. The Respondents, as a condition for joining Petitioners’ church, repeatedly and expressly agreed to religious arbitration of any disputes between them and Petitioners, regardless of when those disputes arose. The agreement to submit disputes to religious arbitration is not anomalous. American courts have long recognized the right of religious institutions to use dispute resolution procedures derived from and guided by their foundational beliefs and scripture. Secular courts have placed agreements to submit disputes to religious arbitration on equal footing with agreements calling for secular arbitration – and declined invitations to discriminate against religious arbitration just because it is religious.

At some point, Respondents changed their minds, and their faith. They argued that their change of faith should free them from their contractual obligations to submit their disputes with Petitioners to the chosen religious forum. The California Court of Appeal agreed. It became the first court in the nation to overturn a freely executed religious arbitration agreement based on the objection by a party that the selected forum was exactly what the party agreed to – religious. The Court of Appeal arrived at this result by finding state action in the judicial enforcement of religious arbitration agreements, while acknowledging that the enforcement of secular arbitration agreements does not amount to state action.

A response to the church’s petition is due Aug. 22, according to the Supreme Court’s docket for the case.

Masterson is scheduled to face a separate criminal trial in California this October. Masterson has denied the allegations against him, Law&Crime has previously reported.

Read the church’s 144-page petition (and its concomitant attachments) below:

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/c ... qus_thread

Frigging evil-associations. All of them.
(And you know me, and you know I do mean all of them. Sorry).

One little successful goal accomplishment. Now, onto bigger "fish".

What a coward.
If you delivered a nail in the RoeVWade coffin, have some integrity and stand up and explain your legal rationale behind such a monumental decision. Don't frigging run away scared.

The judge presiding over this case was appointed by TFG. There are 74 tweets in the thread. There will be a lot of skipping of tweets

Jordan Fischer via @threadreaderapp

Good morning. I'm at D.C. District Court where, in a few minutes, the sentencing for Texas Three Percenter Guy Reffitt will begin. The DOJ will argue Reffitt should be the first Jan. 6 defendant to receive a terrorism enhancement. Follow for live coverage.

For those who like to listen to these themselves, it is not clear to me if there will be the usual listen-only line but, if there is, it will be this.

Toll Free Number: 877-336-1829
Access Code: 8424583

Guy Reffitt entered the courtroom a few minutes ago in an orange inmate's jumper and a white mask. Like at his trial, his hair is pulled back in a short ponytail. Reffitt is joined by his new attorney, F. Clinton Broden, who did not represent him at trial.
Now in the courtroom as the hearing begins: U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich and assistant U.S. attorneys Jeffrey Nestler and Risa Berkower.
Two victims will give impact statements today: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff and Guy Reffitt's son, Jackson. Both testified at his trial.

Reffitt's wife Nicole will also make a statement on his behalf.

Guy Reffitt's wife, Jodi Nicole Reffitt, already submitted a letter to the court. It does not mention the two occasions when Reffitt, according to Nicole's own statements on the podcast "Will Be Wild," placed a loaded gun against her head.



Defense raising a few objections to the PSR. Says they don't think it's fair to say Guy Reffitt recruited fellow militia member Rocky Hardie (Judge Friedrich says she thinks it is). Also, don't agree Reffitt instructed crowd how to overcome police.

Judge Friedrich says it seems to her to be overstating it to say Guy Reffitt "charged" police. She does agree it's fair to say Reffitt instructed fellow Three Percenters to purge texts. Doesn't think it's accurate to say Reffitt instructed Rocky Hardie on what firearms to bring.
None of these objections, as Guy Reffitt's attorney Clinton Broden said, will affect the sentencing calculation.
On to the more substantive questions about which, if any, sentencing enhancements Guy Reffitt should receive. The government is seeking quite a few. See their sentencing memo below.



Guy Reffitt's attorney F. Clinton Broden trying to walk a precarious line here. He's acknowledging the verbal threats Reffitt made to Speaker Pelosi and others, but denying they were threats made to further the obstruction charge.
Discussion has now turned to the amount of weapons/body armor/etc. Guy Reffitt brought to D.C.

"We believe the defendant brought more gear than almost anybody else" who's going to sentencing, AUSA Jeffrey Nestler says.
Judge Friedrich: "What concerns the court is... his decision to go to trial should not result in a dramatically different sentence" from those who took plea deals.

That's why she's probing evidence of planning by Guy Reffitt.
DOJ now arguing for the +2 level "aggravating role" enhancement. Judge Friedrich asks if Guy Reffitt encouraging/waving on the crowd is enough to warrant that.
Judge Friedrich: "It seemed... my impression from the trial was he was kind of a lone guy there who couldn't even get the leader of the Texas Three Percenters to join him."
Clinton Broden says the mob "would have gone up those stairs regardless without Mr. Reffitt, I think we all know that."

Guy Reffitt told multiple people he "lit the match" on Jan. 6 and bragged that no one was moving on police on the stairs until he did.

Judge Friedrich says it's a "very close call" whether there's enough evidence to support BOTH the extensive planning adjustment AND the aggravated role adjustment. Would be a "slam dunk," she says, if Guy Reffitt's fellow militia member Rocky Hardie had joined at the stairs.

Judge Friedrich: "I struggled with this. I'm not going to apply it." Says adding both the extensive planning and aggravated role adjustments would be cumulative.

We aren't to the terrorism enhancement the DOJ wants yet, but Judge Friedrich's rejection of an aggravated role enhancement does seem to suggest prosecutors will have an even steeper climb on that one. Aggravated role adds 2 levels. The terrorism enhancement does much more.

Judge Friedrich rules Guy Reffitt's offense level will be 29 with the adjustments she agreed on. That makes his recommended sentencing guideline 87-108 months in prison. But first: DOJ arguments for multiple upward departures.

(...)

AUSA Nestler says Guy Reffitt is responsible for four firearms: the two pistols he and Rocky Hardie carried onto Capitol grounds and the two fully assembled AR-15s they kept stored at the hotel in Georgetown.

Clinton Broden: "This is the only case where the government has asked for the terrorism enhancement, and this is the only case where the defendant has gone to trial. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out."

Judge Friedrich is NOT going to apply the upward departures for inadequate offense grouping or weapons. Terrorism enhancement being discussed now.

AUSA Nestler: "He was trying to take over our government. He wasn't just trying to stop the vote... the terrorism enhancement is warranted by all of those factors. Not just the defendant's conduct on Jan. 6, but afterward."

Judge Freidrich, sounding very much like she's going to deny the terrorism enhancement, notes there are many other cases involving weapons/assaults on police and the same sort of "very disturbing statements" Guy Reffitt made — but where DOJ didn't seek it.
Judge Friedrich references Mark Ponder, who I reported about last week, and Nicholas Languerand, an ex-Army private who assaulted police w/ multiple objects and had a notebook with a "target list."

(...)

JUST NOW: Judge Friedrich DENIES prosecutors' request to impose a terrorism enhancement and other upward departures at the sentencing of Guy Reffitt. His recommended sentencing range will be 87-108 months in prison.

The lowest end of this would be 2 years longer than the longest Jan. 6 sentence to date. Guy Reffitt's attorney will now argue for a downward variance to 24 months.

Former USCP Officer Shauni Kerkhoff speaking now. Says she was one of the first officers to confront Guy Reffitt: “I watched in horror as he encouraged the angry mob to push past him and advance on the Capitol – physically assaulting some of my fellow officers in the process.”

Shauni Kerkhoff says since testifying at Guy Reffitt's trial she's become a target of his supporters online. She asks for him to receive the maximum sentence: “His actions weren’t acts of patriotism. They were acts of domestic terrorism.”

AUSA Jeffrey Nestler, pushing back a bit on Judge Friedrich's reasoning on the terrorism enhancement, says Guy Reffit was "in a class all by himself."
"This is not someone who was a lone wolf," AUSA Nestler says. He had a leadership role in his militia group, reached out to Sen. Ted Cruz's office (no evidence Cruz responded), etc.

"He didn't just want President Trump to remain in office," AUSA Nestler says. "He wanted to physically and literally remove members of Congress from power. We believe he is a domestic terrorist."

Judge Friedrich: "This defendant has some frightening claims that border on delusional, and they are extraordinarily concerning for the court. But other defendants did too. That's the point I'm trying to make."

Judge Friedrich asks Nestler if she shouldn't consider Guy Reffitt's mental health issues as a mitigating factor? Agrees w/ Jackson that mental health should be part of sentence and she's going to order full treatment. Now clear he has "very serious" mental health issues.

AUSA Nestler: "We think he's dangerous. But we don't think any mental health condition" caused him to do what he did.


p1/2

P2/L

Guy Reffitt's daughter, Peyton, is speaking now. She says his mental health has "always been a real issue."

Adds: "My father's name wasn't on the flags that everyone was carrying that day. It was another man's name. He wasn't the leader."

Guy Reffitt's attorney, Clinton Broden: "A lot of this stuff is highly disturbing. A lot of this stuff... we're not even trying
to defend some of this stuff. But the government says this isn't about words, and a lot of it does seem to be about words."

Judge Friedrich: “The fact remains... he hasn’t walked back his statements about being a martyr. He hasn’t walked back his statements about being a patriot. And so, as here he sits, I have to consider: what is this man going to do when he’s released from prison?”

Judge Friedrich: "In a democracy we respect the peaceful transition of power. This election was challenged, and in courts across the country, judge after judge said there was no evidence of election fraud that would have changed the results of the election."

Judge Friedrich, having an hour or so ago rejected the DOJ's argument that Guy Reffitt deserved a terrorism enhancement because he was in a class of his own, tells Broden, somewhat confusingly, that Reffitt is in a class of his own.

Clinton Broden says we can "question the wisdom of keeping all these guys together," suggesting the grouping of many of the most serious Jan. 6 cases together in the D.C. Jail was a bad idea. Extremism experts told us as much last year.

Clinton Broden suggests Guy Reffitt's refusal to say what he was convicted of was wrong is more honest than other Jan. 6 defendants who've pleaded guilty and then "gone outside and held press conferences." Doesn't name anyone in particular.
Judge Friedrich: "From a deterrence perspective, what is this defendant going to do in the future? That's something that's very much on my mind."

Broden: "I do believe he's done with politics and demonstrations."

Judge Friedrich says Guy Reffitt wrote her a "very carefully crafted letter" that doesn't disavow the Three Percenters and makes "really troubling" comparisons between Jan. 6 and 1776.

Guy Reffitt is NOT going to speak today. Court is going to recess until 2:30 and then we'll learn his sentence.
You're not missing anything. Court hasn't resumed yet.

CHANGE OF PLANS: Now Guy Reffitt WILL make a statement. Stand by for that...

Learning first about some of the conditions for Guy Reffitt's eventual supervised release. It will include an order prohibiting him from contacting or associating with any members of an extremist group, including the Texas Three Percenters, Oath Keepers and Texas Freedom Force.
Judge Friedrich says Guy Reffitt's sentence will include the maximum period of supervised release (5 years). She warns if he violates any of the terms or doesn't abide by the mental health treatment requirements she will order him back to prison.

Guy Reffitt: "I want to make multiple apologies. I was, to put it colorfully, a f***ing idiot."

"I don't want to have anything to do with militia groups or any stupid s*** like that. I'd be lucky if I could get into a church group after this with my mouth."

Judge Friedrich: I'm hearing now at the 11th hour moments before sentencing what I would have expected to hear much earlier. Wonders if he's really sincere.

Judge Friedrich: "You were indicted on every count in the indictment. Do you believe now you violated the law?"

Guy Reffitt: "Yes your honor. I f***ed up."

Guy Reffitt says his family "would be on the streets if he didn't say something to garner money for them."

Judge Friedrich: You're telling me all the things you said in jail, during your trial, about needing to rebel against the tyranny of the government was just to raise money for your family?

Guy Reffitt, in short: Yes.

Judge Friedrich: "It's hard to sit here with a straight face and believe you just got caught up in the crowd" considering the weapons and body armor he brought and all his pre- and post-trial statements.

Judge Friedrich: How do I know you're not going to post tomorrow, I'm really a patriot folks I just said all that to get a lower sentence.

"How do I know you're really heartfelt?"

Guy Reffitt: "It's very clear to me I have an issue with just rambling and saying stupid s***."

Judge Friedrich: "It seems to me you like to be the big guy, the important guy, the first guy to go to trial. You really pushed hard for that trial over your defense attorney's objection."

Guy Reffitt, laughing, asks if he just gave the longest sentencing statement ever: "We're always setting precedents around here, aren't we?"

AUSA Nestler says Guy Reffitt told a reporter for the New Yorker as recently as a few months ago that Jan. 6 was a false flag.

In summation of everything Mr. Reffitt just said: "We don't think any of that was credible."

Nestler said they did offer Guy Reffitt a plea deal in the 50 month range and his former attorney Bill Welch told them he had rejected any felony plea.

Judge Friedrich is laying the groundwork for her sentencing order now. Talks about the "highly disturbing" threats Guy Reffitt made toward his children. Also his efforts to get fellow Three Percenters to delete messages after Jan. 6.

Judge Friedrich talks about the disturbing evidence Guy Reffitt has placed a loaded gun against his wife's head on at least two occasions.

(...)

Judge Friedrich: "Under no legitimate definition of the word patriot does what Mr. Reffitt did on Jan. 6 fit the term. What he and other rioters did was the antithesis of patriotism."

Judge Friedrich describes Guy Reffitt and those who committed similar acts a "direct threat to our democracy" and says they will be "punished as such."

Judge Friedrich says she's crediting Guy Reffitt's 11th hour apology "to a degree," but does not find credible at all his claim that he never saw a plea offer.

SENTENCE: U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich orders Guy Reffitt to serve 87 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Warns if he violates terms she will send him back to prison for up to maximum term. $2,000 in restitution.



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1554 ... 61408.html

The Alex Jones trial is going on now as well. This woman doesn't allow her posts to be aggregated on Thread Reader so starting kind of in the middle of what's going on. This will be multiple pages.











P1

P2


(...)






(...)

P3/L





Re EMDR

JJ MacNab @jjmacnab
I had to look that one up:

https://webmd.com/mental-health/emdr-what-is-it