church of scientology wants Danny Masterson's rape accusers to go to binding arbitration

[Gil Bang 25838]

what the fuck.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/church-of-scientology-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-force-danny-masterson-rape-accusers-into-binding-religious-arbitration/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

[Captainant 27239]

Sorta seems like the church (of scientology lulz) wants to have it's cake and eat it too. A key element of entering the religious contract at question is their faith - the church wouldn't accept the contract without it. But then once the parishioner loses/leaves their faith, the contract remains despite it now missing a key condition. 

Idk man, it's anyone's guess what the current court will do - there is no more precedent.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Ha, I love the balls of this argument. Fuck it. 

Quote

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.”

Signing their rights away forever is just one of the prices of joining Scientology 

cult gonna cult 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Neonmoon

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

Not a chance that gets granted cert 

[tx 3 putt 75920]

Maybe old Danny shouldn’t be so rapey. Seems like this case has been going on forever. When’s he getting the hammer dropped in him ?

[Texzilla58 4702]

Prosecutors should put Muscavege and Cruise on the stand to discuss their billion year contracts.

And xenu and shit.

[Deej 76373]

If Danny had just become a Baptist and gone to Baylor, he wouldn't be dealing with this. 

[Augustus 3061]

It's been so long since my business law classes but doesn't a contract have to have some kind of temporal limitation?  Or is that just non-compete agreements?

[TwiceHorn 31039]

8 minutes ago, Augustus said:

It's been so long since my business law classes but doesn't a contract have to have some kind of temporal limitation?  Or is that just non-compete agreements?

Mostly non-competes, which must be reasonable as to time, geographic area, and activity restrained.

If you take it out of the religion context, I can see it.  You enter into a contract with someone with an arbitration clause that applies to any disputes with that person arising out of the contract.  The contract is either breached or fully executed (complete), but after that time, someone sues out of something arising out of the contract, either the breach or something else.  That would likely be compelled to arbitration.

But it may come down to the "arising out of the contract" language or concept.  Tort claims like this generally aren't subject to arbitration clauses.  Like, everyone has an arbitration clause with their credit card company.  But if an employee of the cc company uses your personal information to find you and assault you, that's probably not going to be arbitrable.  But anything related to the credit relationship will be.

Those Scientology fuckers are pretty diabolical with their (ab)use of the legal system.  They used copyright to snag dissenters who reproduced and published their materials for quite a while.  Anytime someone sued the Church, they put someone at the courthouse to keep the court file checked out so press and members of the public couldn't get at the filings.

['stache 21726]

On 7/24/2022 at 4:52 PM, Pig Bellmont said:

Not a chance that gets granted cert 

The supreme court is pro theocracy, I think it has a good shot, to set a precedent that they'll love to use with other religions (except Islam, because reasons).

[Steel Shank 9376]

Saw Masterson perform as DJ Momjeans at a Lollapalooza in Grant Park. /csb

[Augustus 3061]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Mostly non-competes, which must be reasonable as to time, geographic area, and activity restrained.

If you take it out of the religion context, I can see it.  You enter into a contract with someone with an arbitration clause that applies to any disputes with that person arising out of the contract.  The contract is either breached or fully executed (complete), but after that time, someone sues out of something arising out of the contract, either the breach or something else.  That would likely be compelled to arbitration.

But it may come down to the "arising out of the contract" language or concept.  Tort claims like this generally aren't subject to arbitration clauses.  Like, everyone has an arbitration clause with their credit card company.  But if an employee of the cc company uses your personal information to find you and assault you, that's probably not going to be arbitrable.  But anything related to the credit relationship will be.

Those Scientology fuckers are pretty diabolical with their (ab)use of the legal system.  They used copyright to snag dissenters who reproduced and published their materials for quite a while.  Anytime someone sued the Church, they put someone at the courthouse to keep the court file checked out so press and members of the public couldn't get at the filings.

I was sued by Freebirds for breaching an NDA when I opened a burrito restaurant, for allegedly misappropriating trade secret information (which was hilarious, we made California style burritos, there couldn't have been anything less secretive involved) and I moved to have it sent to arbitration, and they argued that the dispute didn't arise out of my employment, and I of course argued that suing a former employee for breaching an NDA can't arise out of anything else.

Hadn't thought about that in years, until you mentioned "arising out of."

[Augustus 3061]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

The supreme court is pro theocracy, I think it has a good shot, to set a precedent that they'll love to use with other religions (except Islam, because reasons).

I hope that's hyperbole because good grief.

[Neonmoon 38127]

38 minutes ago, Augustus said:

I hope that's hyperbole because good grief.

Scientology isn’t the preferred fairy tale of SCOTUS, so they will lose this case. 

[Degenerate Gardner 4075]

On 7/24/2022 at 4:09 PM, Texzilla58 said:

Prosecutors should put Muscavege and Cruise on the stand to discuss their billion year contracts.

And xenu and shit.

While we’re asking, how about Mrs Miscaveige? She hasn’t been seen in public for 15 years, though she did go to Milford’s sister school.

['stache 21726]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

I hope that's hyperbole because good grief.

Wut? No, not even a little, did you see any parts of this scouts term?

[TwiceHorn 31039]

2 hours ago, Augustus said:

I was sued by Freebirds for breaching an NDA when I opened a burrito restaurant, for allegedly misappropriating trade secret information (which was hilarious, we made California style burritos, there couldn't have been anything less secretive involved) and I moved to have it sent to arbitration, and they argued that the dispute didn't arise out of my employment, and I of course argued that suing a former employee for breaching an NDA can't arise out of anything else.

Hadn't thought about that in years, until you mentioned "arising out of."

What wound up happening?  Sometimes, I think arbitration can actually be worse than court litigation.  It can pack a year's worth of court litigation into 30 or 60 days, and about the only good thing you can say about it is that it's over quick.

Arbitration is great for big guys vs. little guys, though.  No jury to get inflamed by big guy fuckery, and the big guy can afford whatever in whatever timeframe, while a little guy might could afford to spread out costs of litigation over a year or two, but not a couple of months.

In addition to avoiding some big court judgment, I'm relatively certain that Scientology's main interest is keeping it out of a public forum.

Edited July 28, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Augustus 3061]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What wound up happening?  Sometimes, I think arbitration can actually be worse than court litigation.  It can pack a year's worth of court litigation into 30 or 60 days, and about the only good thing you can say about it is that it's over quick.

Arbitration is great for big guys vs. little guys, though.  No jury to get inflamed by big guy fuckery, and the big guy can afford whatever in whatever timeframe, while a little guy might could afford to spread out costs of litigation over a year or two, but not a couple of months.

In addition to avoiding some big court judgment, I'm relatively certain that Scientology's main interest is keeping it out of a public forum.

I had two partners who owned 80% and I had 20%. They dropped the suit after the two partners agreed I wouldn't be allowed to operate the restaurant anymore so they bought me out.  We'd opened in a market they weren't in but planned to be in the near future and they didn't want me opening more stores in other territories they had plans for.  So there was never a ruling on my arbitration request.  Freebirds dropped half a million on every new store (and this was late 90's) and they expanded slowly/methodically.  I got a new restaurant open for a quarter of that and we were profitable in the 2nd month, and they knew I wanted to replicate Dube's success, as he'd replicated other chains.  

It all worked out. I hated the restaurant business.

[Augustus 3061]

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wut? No, not even a little, did you see any parts of this scouts term?

They seem pretty strict constructionists so I'd imagine the 1st amendment prohibition against a state religion would be, well, "gospel" to them.

The fact that religious people love the overturning of Roe (or Casey) doesn't make their reasoning religious, and there's absolutely nothing they've said or done to even hint that they favor overturning the constitution in favor a religious institution governing the US in the name of God.  

Anyway, we're straying close to cloaky stuff, so I'll shut up about this.  

[Augustus 3061]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Scientology isn’t the preferred fairy tale of SCOTUS, so they will lose this case. 

You just made me curious as to how an entity is able to be considered, for legal purposes, a religion.  I don't know much about scientology but nothing I've heard or read about it sounds "religious" in nature.  I'll have to explore that.

[Genco 3037]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

I don't know much about scientology but nothing I've heard or read about it sounds "religious" in nature. 

Which part?

The completely batshit origin story and mythology? The vast wealth accumulation at the expense of the "congregation?" The rampant sexual abuse and silencing of the victims to protect the institution?

It's a goddamn touchstone of American religion.

[rage-a-holic 4261]

4 minutes ago, Genco said:

Which part?

The completely batshit origin story and mythology? The vast wealth accumulation at the expense of the "congregation?" The rampant sexual abuse and silencing of the victims to protect the institution?

It's a goddamn touchstone of American religion.

uh, no.

The big difference between a cult like scientology and a weird newish religion like Mormonism is that 99% of Mormons are really nice people who will beg to tell you everything about their beliefs and hand over their doctrine for free. They have weird initiations and underwear. So do Shriners.

scientology demands payment for every second you spend "getting clear", charges you for literally everything while working you to death, bankrupts you and your family, then tries to kill you after you renounce them (or at least ruin your life.)

 

P.S., I am not religious, all religions should be wiped out ASAP.

[TwiceHorn 31039]

2 hours ago, Augustus said:

You just made me curious as to how an entity is able to be considered, for legal purposes, a religion.  I don't know much about scientology but nothing I've heard or read about it sounds "religious" in nature.  I'll have to explore that.

More than you probably wanted to know here. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3412&context=clr

[Neonmoon 38127]

10 hours ago, Augustus said:

You just made me curious as to how an entity is able to be considered, for legal purposes, a religion.  I don't know much about scientology but nothing I've heard or read about it sounds "religious" in nature.  I'll have to explore that.

According to TwiceHorn's link, in United States v Seeger, "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [excluding] essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

and the test for "belief in a relation to a Supreme Being is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its pocessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption."

So far, the court has tried to establish a clear difference between religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs such as social, political, and philosophical. It is understandable, they are trying to give special treatment to one's religious beliefs due to the constitution and the beliefs of a majority of Americans.

Personally, I do not see a difference between the two. A belief is a belief. It can be natural, unnatural, superstitious, social, political, philosophical. The government providing one's belief in their relation to a supreme being/creator/god more legal rights than one's belief in their relation to nature/community/existence is stacking the deck. It is unfair to other belief systems, but it is what it is. 

[Bateshorn 9853]

All I remember about this case is there were dipshits on TOS who had “boys will be boys” and “ME TOO is out of control” hot takes on this case until it was pointed out that Masterson was credibly accused on multiple rapes with extreme physical violence. 

['stache 21726]

12 hours ago, Augustus said:

They seem pretty strict constructionists so I'd imagine the 1st amendment prohibition against a state religion would be, well, "gospel" to them.

The fact that religious people love the overturning of Roe (or Casey) doesn't make their reasoning religious, and there's absolutely nothing they've said or done to even hint that they favor overturning the constitution in favor a religious institution governing the US in the name of God.  

Anyway, we're straying close to cloaky stuff, so I'll shut up about this.  

I forgot this is DT, but you're smarter than this, which means you're being intellectually dishonest, and it's not worth debating anyway. Lol especially at your "strict constructionist" comment. It's well established what that means to the current majority.

Edited July 28, 2022 by 'stache

[Captainant 27239]

Adding on to what Stache said and the topic of "religion is going to be more recognized by the courts..." Alitos recent first public statement in some time indicates there's going to be more religion favored rulings to come under the guise of "tradition":

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion,” he said. “There’s also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors.”

It's very aggy. 

['stache 21726]

Because asking a coach to pray at home is so hostile to religion, and, you know, not a foundational fucking principle of our constitution. I hope he dies soon.