242 CLAIRE HEADLEY V. CSI & RTC Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendants Summary Judgment Motion

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 160 Page ID
#:9340
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.
1 BARRY VAN SICKLE, ESQ., SBN 98645

1079 SUNRISE AVENUE, SUITE B-315
2 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
TELEPHONE: (916) 549-8784
3 EMAIL: barryvansickle@comcast.net
4 METZGER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
5 RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ., SBN 116020
GREGORY A. COOLIDGE, ESQ., SBN 211984
6 401 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4966
7 TELEPHONE: (562) 437-4499
TELECOPIER: (562) 436-1561
8 WEBSITE: www.toxictorts.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
CLAIRE HEADLEY
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 CLAIRE HEADLEY, ) CASE NO. CV09-3987 DSF (MANx)
)
15 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
) DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF
16 vs. ) UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, ) DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION
18 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CENTER, a corporate entity AND )
19 DOES 1-20, ) DATE: August 2, 2010
) TIME: 1:30 p.m.
20 Defendants. ) DEPT: 840
_______________________________ )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
#:9341
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I. DISPUTED FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3
II. PLAINTIFF’S UNDISPUTED FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4
III. DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5
IV. PLAINTIFF’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
JUDGMENT
#:9342
1 I. DISPUTED FACTS
2
PURPORTED PLAINTIFF’S DISPUTED FACTS
3 UNCONTROVERTED FACT AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
4
Plaintiff’s Background in Scientology
1. At the age of 16, with her parents’ 1. DISPUTED
5
consent, Plaintiff joined the Sea Mrs. Headley testified that her mother
6
Organization (“Sea Org”), an did not want her to join the Sea
7
organization within the Church of Organization, although she did not
8
Scientology whose members must make dispute her joining the Sea Organization
9
a symbolic commitment to serve for a publicly. Mrs. Headley also testified that
10
billion years. she joined the Sea Organization because
11
one of her step-father’s friends was at
12
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p.1; risk of being sent to the Rehabilitation
13
Declaration of Amy Lerner Hill (“Hill Project Force if she did not join.
14
Decl.”), Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) (Deposition of Claire Headley, (“C.
15
At 101:4-11; Exh. 12 at 2. Headley Depo.”), 72:24-76:11; 90:25-
16
91:7, attached at Exhibit “Q” to the
17
Declaration of Kathryn Darnell).
18
2. To qualify to join the Sea Org, a 2. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s
19
Scientologist must undertake extensive human trafficking claim.
20
training and study, pass a fitness
21
examination, and receive certification
22
that he or she is qualified for the rigors of
23
Sea Org life.
24
25
Declaration of Warren McShane
26
(“McShane Decl.”) ¶25.
27
28
1
JUDGMENT
#:9343
1
3. Sea Org members live communally, 3. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
eat in common dining areas, are provided Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
3
basic necessities, and are expected to
4
devote at least two and half hours a day
5
to religious study. They share tradition
6
and lifestyle. They wear uniforms when
7
on duty and have a merit-based maritime
8
rank and rating system and etiquette.
9
10
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1;
11
McShane Decl. ¶ 27; Declaration of
12
Frank Flinn ¶ 37.
13 4. Defendants’ staff all belong to the Sea 4. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s
14 Org. human trafficking claim.
15
16 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1.
17 5. It is exclusively from the Sea Org that 5. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s
18 the senior leadership of Scientology is human trafficking claim.
19 drawn, including the entire staff of senior
20 management and Advanced Scientology
21 churches.
22
23 McShane Decl. ¶ 24.
24 6. Sea Org members subscribe to The 6. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s
25 Code of the Sea Org Member, which human trafficking claim.
26 contains vows that are repeated at Sea
27 Org ceremonies that take place annually.
28
2
JUDGMENT
#:9344
1
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley
2
Depo.) At 100:2-101:3; Exh. 11, Code of
3
a Sea Org Member; McShane Decl. ¶29.
4 7. Before joining the Sea Org, potential 7. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s
5 members are told that they will be human trafficking claim.
6 required to work long and hard hours
7 without material compensation, and that
8 they may be assigned or reassigned
9 anywhere in the world to further the
10 goals and expansion of the Scientology
11 religion.
12
13 McShane Decl. ¶¶ 24, 30; Code of A Sea
14 Org member, item 11.
15 8. Plaintiff’s mother was a Sea Org 8. UNDISPUTED
16 member when Claire was a young child,
17 and remains a Scientologist to this day.
18 Her stepfather also was and is a
19 Scientologist
20
21 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.)
22 At 20:4-13, 27:19-28:6.
23 9. Plaintiff was raised in the faith of 9. UNDISPUTED
24 her parents, and was taught and
25 accepted the theology and doctrine of
26 the Scientology religion.
27
28 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1; Hill
3
JUDGMENT
#:9345
1
Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At
2
20:14-25.
3 10. At the time she joined the Sea Org, 10. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 Plaintiff understood what the lifestyle Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
5 of a Sea Org member entailed,
6 including wearing uniforms, living
7 communally, and receiving a small
8 allowance, because her mother, uncle
9 and cousins had all been Sea Org
10 members, and it was “pretty much all I
11 knew as a lifestyle.”
12
13 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley
14 Depo.) At 80:14-81:19, 91:11-92:3,
15 92:9-94:18.
16 11. Plaintiff’s mother had once accepted 11. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation
17 an assignment to the RPF, so Claire was and calling for speculation. It further is
18 well aware of the strict disciplinary code irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking
19 applied to Sea Org members. claim.
20
22 At 506:7-9.
23 12. Upon joining, Plaintiff signed a 12. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 declaration of religious commitment to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
25 the Sea Org, which stated that she
26 volunteered “to create a better world” for
27 a symbolic one billion years, “not in
28 contemplation of receiving any
4
JUDGMENT
#:9346
1
compensation whatsoever, and ...
2
forsaking all commercial and financial
3
motivation.”
4
5
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1, 4-5;
6
McShane Decl. ¶ 28; Hill Decl., Exh. A
7
(Claire Headley Dep.) At 101:4-11; Exh.
8
12 (Declaration of Relig io us
9
Commitment) at 1.
10 13. Plaintiff was a Sea org member from 13. UNDISPUTED
11 July 1991 to January 2005, and she
12 worked on various “posts” within the Sea
13 Org during that time.
14
15 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2.
16 14. During that period, Plaintiff served 14. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
17 the religion and believed she was Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
18 furthering the goals of Scientology. She
19 believed that the purposes of the Sea Org
20 included to “clear the planet.” Based on
21 her upbringing, Plaintiff believed she was
22 doing the right thing by being a Sea Org
23 member. She regularly recited the Code
24 of a Sea Org Member at ceremonies that
25 took place annually.
26
28
5
JUDGMENT
#:9347
1
At 20:17-25, 38:6-20, 51:5-24, 82:13-17,
2
100:2-101:3; Exh. 11.
3 15. Plaintiff had been raised to believe 15. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 “that it was wrong not to be in the Sea Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
5 Org and that people that left were out-
6 ethics criminals and various other things
7 along the same line of thought.... That’s
8 how I was raised, and I was doing what I
9 was raised to believe was right,”
10 specifically, “that joining the Sea Org
11 and being a Sea Org member is the
12 correct thing to do.” She had been
13 “firmly raised in that for [her] whole
14 life...”
15
17 At 21:6-7, 38:6-20.
18 16. Plaintiff testified that, “it took a fair 16. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
19 bit to make me actually get to the point of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
20 leaving because I was very firmly
21 connected, and I knew absolutely nothing
22 else.” It was not one event, but “many
23 events over a course of several years”
24 that led her to depart.
25
26 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo)
27 at 21:5-12, 22:1-10.
28
6
JUDGMENT
#:9348
1
17. During Plaintiff’s time in the Sea 17. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
Org, she became a Class IV auditor. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
3
4
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2
5 18. Scientology auditing is a one-on-one 18. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
6 session between a trained individual Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
7 called an auditor and a Scientology
8 parishioner. The auditor, according to
9 Scientology beliefs, helps people locate
10 areas of spiritual distress.
11
12 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2
13 19. Plaintiff worked as a staff member of 19. UNDISPUTED
14 the Church of Scientology International,
15 Inc. (“CSI”) while she was in Sea Org.
16
17 Court’s April 2, 2010 order, p. 2.
18 20. CSI is known as the “Mother 20. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
19 Church” within Scientology, and its Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
20 ecclesiastical authority extends to
21 overseeing the proper administration of
22 all Scientology churches and missions
23 worldwide.
24
26
27
28
7
JUDGMENT
#:9349
1
21. Plaintiff also worked as a staff 21. UNDISPUTED
2
member for Religious Technology Center
3
(“RTC”) while she was a member of the
4
Sea Org.
5
6
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 2.
7 22. Plaintiff restated her commitment to 22. DISPUTED as irrelevant for to
8 the Sea Org and the religion without Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
9 expectation of compensation upon
10 becoming a staff member of RTC in
11 1996.
12
14 at 375:19-376:13; Exh. 39.
15 23. Plaintiff worked as an RTC staff 23. DISPUTED
16 member from 1996 to 2004. Mrs. Headley testified that she was
17 never fully terminated from RTC and that
18 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 2 she continued performing work for RTC
19 until the left the Sea Organization in
20 January 2005. (C. Headley Depo.,
21 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q”
22 to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
23 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the
24 Darnell Decl.).
25 24. RTC is responsible for insuring the 24. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
26 orthodox practice of Scientology and the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
27 eternal preservation, transmission and
28 application of all Scientology doctrine
8
JUDGMENT
#:9350
1
and practices contained in the
2
Scientology scriptures.
3
4
Court’s April 2,2010 Order, fn. 3.
5 25. RTC and CSI are both institutions 25. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
6 within the Church of Scientology. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
7
9 26. Both RTC and CSI are recognized as 26. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 churches by the Internal Revenue Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
11 Service.
12
13 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, fn. 3.
14 27. During her time in the Sea Org, 27. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
15 Plaintiff was employed by a religious Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
16 institution.
17
19 28. Plaintiff was chosen for her position 28. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
20 within the Sea Org based largely on Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
21 religious criteria.
22
24 29. Plaintiff performed religious duties 29. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
25 and responsibilities while she was in the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
26 Sea Org.
27
9
JUDGMENT
#:9351
1
30. Plaintiff was able to hold her 30. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
positions with Defendants based largely Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
3
on religious criteria, namely her
4
commitment to a billion years of service
5
to Scientology and the lifestyle
6
constraints that come with being a
7
member of the Sea Org.
8
9
Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4-5.
10 31. As part of her job duties, Plaintiff 31. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
11 performed various religious duties and Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
12 responsibilities, including auditing and
13 “cramming.”
14
15 Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2.
16 32. During her time with the Sea Org, 32. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
17 Plaintiff carried out what she termed a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
18 “police” function to make sure other Sea
19 Org members were doing their jobs
20 properly.
21
23 at 382:11-24, 384:6-10, 384:22-385:3.
24 33. Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, 33. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
25 referred to Plaintiff as “a real strait-laced Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
26 Sea Org member,” who was very proud
27 of him and was “happier” when he gained
28 a “respectable position” within the Sea
10
JUDGMENT
#:9352
1
Org.
2
3
Declaration of G. Samuel Cleaver
4
(“Cleaver Decl.”), Exh. 63 of Marc
5
Headley v CSI case, Exh. A (Marc
6
Headley Dep.) at 873:10-874:6.
7 34. Plaintiff acknowledged in her 34. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 deposition that she held a relatively Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
9 “senior position in RTC.” There was a
10 group of about ten people who were
11 either directly or indirectly under her
12 supervision.
13
15 at 431:5-8, 448:5-449:6, 465:13-17.
16 Plaintiff’s Living and Travel Arrangements During Her Time as a Sea Org
17 Member
18 35. Plaintiff received her driver’s license 35. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
19 in June 1991. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
20 the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
21 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth
22 at 145:21-146:2. below.
23 36. Plaintiff had a fully operational 36. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 motorcycle while she lived at the Gold Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 Base. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
26 section of Undisputed Facts set forth
27 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below.
28 at 159:11-19, 208:3-21; Exh. 24 (photo).
11
JUDGMENT
#:9353
1
37. Plaintiff’s husband also had a fully 37. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
operational motorcycle. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth
5
at 159:20-21; Cleaver Decl., Exh. A below.
6
(Marc Headley Depo.) At 290:23-291:10.
7 38. While a Sea Org staff member, 38. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 Plaintiff’s husband owned and drove a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 jeep (for one year) and had access to and the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
10 used several automobiles. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
11 below.
12 Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley
13 Depo.) at 314:16-315:1, 497:18-498:1,
14 501:15-23.
15 39. In 1992, Plaintiff drove with her 39. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
16 husband and her father-in-law to Las Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
17 Vegas to get married. She was away the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
18 from the Gold Base for 2-3 days. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
19 below.
20 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley
21 Depo.) at 65:8-66:9, 174:9-15;
22 Declaration of Matthew D. Hinks
23 (“Hinks Decl.”), Exh. A (Bernard
24 Headley Depo.) at 36:23-37:8, 38:2-40:9,
25 40:17-41:2.
26 40. Plaintiff had a pet dog while she 40. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 lived at Gold Base. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
12
JUDGMENT
#:9354
1
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth
2
Depo.) at 858:25-859:16; Exh. 64; Hinks below.
3
Decl., Exhs. 538-1, 538-23, 538-24, Exh.
4
B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.)
5
at 1117:11-1118:19, 1128:14-1129:16.
6 41. Plaintiff was given a cell phone in 41. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
7 early 2000. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth
10 Depo.) at 133:12-134:1 below.
11 42. On occasion, Plaintiff used her cell 42. DISPUTED as incomplete and
12 phone to call her parents and her sister. misleading.
13 Mrs. Headley testified that while she
14 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was assigned a cell phone to receive
15 Depo.) at 135:20-136:1. phone calls from executives in the Sea
16 Organization, her phone calls were
17 monitored. After calling her family on a
18 few instances, she was confronted and
19 told that her calls were being monitored.
20 Mrs. Headley feared that if she made
21 personal calls on the phone, it would be
22 taken away from her and that she would
23 be assigned heavy labor. (C. Headley
24 Depo., 133:12-23; 135:3-136:35,
25 attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell
26 Decl.).
27
28
13
JUDGMENT
#:9355
1
43. Plaintiff had her cell phone until she 43. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
left the Gold Base in 2005, except for a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
period of 4-5 weeks in early 2002 and a the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
month in October 2004. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
5
below.
6
7
Depo.) at 135:3-7.
8 44. Plaintiff regularly communicated 44. DISPUTED as incomplete and
9 with her sister and mother. misleading.
10 All of Mrs. Headley’s communications
11 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley with her mother and sister were filtered
12 Depo.) at 844:5-15, 853:5-13, 859:4-10, by Defendants. She specifically did not
13 862:9-16; Exhs. 62, 63, 64, 65 (Letters); say anything negative in her
14 McShane Decl. ¶ 42, Exh. 131 (RTC communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-
15 2621, Letter from Claire); Declaration of 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-
16 Kirsten Whitt, passim; Declaration of 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
17 Geraldine Whitt, passim; Hinks Decl., Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
18 Exh. 538-27, Exh. B (Claire Headley 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
19 June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1130:11-17. Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
20 842:4-10; 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12;
21 849:19-24; 851:10-14; 852:10-24;
22 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
23 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached
24 as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
25
26
27
28
14
JUDGMENT
#:9356
1
45. In the early 2000s, Plaintiff 45. DISPUTED as incomplete and
2
attempted to recruit her younger sister to misleading.
3
join the Sea Org. It was Plaintiff’s “idea” Mrs. Headley recalls a phone call in
4
to “encourage” her sister to join the Sea which she may have suggested to her
5
Org “because [she] would have liked to sister that she should join the Sea
6
work with her” at the Gold Base. Organization, but noted that all of her
7
communications were monitored by
8
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Defendants, such that she would not have
9
Depo.) at 839:23-841:11; Exh. 62; said anything negative. She also recalls
10
Kirsten Whitt Decl. ¶ 6. being put up to encouraging her sister to
11
join the Sea Organization by a staff
12
member. (C. Headley Depo., 839:23-
13
842:10; 843:17-844:4, attached as
14
Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
15
16 46. While she was in the Sea Org, 46. DISPUTED as incomplete and
17 Plaintiff told her sister about how misleading.
18 exciting and fun it was to be in the Sea Mrs. Headley recalls a phone call in
19 Org and how important her work was. which she may have suggested to her
20 sister that she should join the Sea
21 Kirsten Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 5 [first par. #5]-6. Organization, but noted that all of her
22 communications were monitored by
23 Defendants, such that she would not have
24 said anything negative. She also recalls
25 being put up to encouraging her sister to
26 join the Sea Organization by a staff
27 member. (C. Headley Depo., 839:23-
28
15
JUDGMENT
#:9357
1
842:10; 843:17-844:4, attached as
2
Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
3 47. While she was in the Sea Org, 47. DISPUTED as incomplete and
4 Plaintiff often told her mother how good misleading.
5 the food was, how nice it was at the Gold All of Mrs. Headley’s communications
6 Base and RTC, how much she enjoyed with her family were filtered by
7 her work, and that she was getting great Defendants, such that she did not say
8 benefits from her auditing and training at a n y t h i n g negative in her
9 the Gold Base. communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-
10 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-
11 Geraldine Whitt Decl. ¶ 5. 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
12 Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
13 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
15 842:4-10; 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12;
16 849:19-24; 851:10-14; 852:10-24;
17 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
18 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached
20 48. In about 2002, Claire encouraged her 48. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation
21 brother Robert to join the Sea Org. As he and calling for speculation as to Mrs.
22 describes it, in 2002: Headley’s state of mind.
23 “I spoke to Claire on the telephone, and Additionally, all of Mrs. Headley’s
24 told her that I was thinking of joining the communications with her family were
25 Sea Organization myself some day. filtered by Defendants, such that she did
26 Claire was very excited about this and not say anything negative in her
27 arranged to have a long telephone communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-
28
16
JUDGMENT
#:9358
1
conversation with me to tell me about it. 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-
2
In the call, Claire was very encouraging 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
3
to me to join the Sea Org, and told me Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
4
that she could pull some strings so that if 37:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
5
and when I joined, she could arrange for Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
6
me to be posted close to her.” 842:4-10; 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12;
7
849:19-24; 851:10-14; 852:10-24;
8
Rob Whitt Decl. ¶ 4. 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
9
862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached
10
as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
11 49. Plaintiff wrote a “Project Prepare” 49. DISPUTED as incomplete and
12 for her bother Rob to join the Sea Org. A misleading.
13 Project Prepare is a long term project to All of Mrs. Headley’s communications
14 prepare a person to handle whatever is with her family were filtered by
15 necessary in his or her life to become Defendants, such that she did not say
16 qualified to join the Sea Org, and anything negative in her communications
17 sometimes may involve many actions and and only sent communications that she
18 may take years. After writing the knew would be passed along to her
19 program, Claire spoke to her brother family members. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-
20 about it several times. As he states: “She 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-
21 asked me about my project prepare and 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
22 plans for joining over the next several Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
23 years and continued to encourage me. 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
24 She called me occasionally to check on Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
25 my progress... The gist of our 842:4-10; 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12;
26 conversations was that joining the Sea 849:19-24; 851:10-14; 852:10-24;
27 Org would be a good, exciting and 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
28
17
JUDGMENT
#:9359
1
worthwhile thing to do.” Claire also 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached
2
discussed the Project Prepare over the as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
3
phone with her brother.
4
5
Rob Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Geraldine Whitt
6
Decl. ¶ 7.
7 50. Plaintiff always told her mother and 50. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation
8 siblings “that she was happy with her life and calling for speculation regarding
9 in the Sea Org and with her work in the Mrs. Headley’s state of mind.
10 Sea Org. She seemed happy, she told me Additionally, all of Mrs. Headley’s
11 that things were going very well, and she communications with her family
12 manifested her dedication to that life by members were filtered by Defendants,
13 her efforts to recruit her brother and sister such that Mrs. Headley did not say
14 to join and work with her.” anything negative in her
15 communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-
16 Geraldine Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-
17 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
19 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
21 842:4-10; 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12;
22 849:19-24; 851:10-14; 852:10-24;
23 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
24 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached
26
27
28
18
JUDGMENT
#:9360
1
51. Plaintiff testified: 51. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
Q. From the day you started to the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
day you left, you never enjoyed it? the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
section of Undisputed Facts set forth
5
A. I may have thought that I did at below.
6
the time. I was raised to believe that that
7
was enjoyable.
8
9
10
Depo.) at 276:9-12.
11 52. Plaintiff lived off the Gold Base 52. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
12 during the time she was posted there. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
15 Depo.) at 128:24-129:20, 143:23-144:12, below.
16 161:2-23. Mrs. Headley also testified to being
17 restricted to Gold Base for much of her
18 employment. (C. Headley Depo., 138:4-
19 12; 141:12-15; 141:21-142:6, attached as
20 Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
21 Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8,
22 attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell
23 Decl. C. Headley Depo., 881:13-882:23,
24 attached at Exhibit “T” to the Darnell
25 Decl.).
26 Additionally, she was told that she had
27 foregone her right to leave the Sea
28
19
JUDGMENT
#:9361
1
Organization, and that if she attempted to
2
leave, she would be pursued and brought
3
back. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-10,
4
attached hereto as Exhibit “T” to the
5
Darnell Decl.).
6 53. When Plaintiff first moved to Gold 53. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
7 Base, she lived at the Kirby Apartments, Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
8 which are located off of the Gold Base in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
9 the town of Hemet, an approximately 15 section of Undisputed Facts set forth
10 minute drive from the Gold Base. below.
11 Mrs. Headley also testified to being
12 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley restricted to Gold Base for much of her
13 Depo.) at 128:24-129:20. employment. (C. Headley Depo., 138:4-
14 12; 141:12-15; 141:21-142:6, attached as
16 Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8,
17 attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell
18 Decl. C. Headley Depo., 881:13-882:23,
19 attached at Exhibit “T” to the Darnell
20 Decl.).
21 Additionally, she was told that she had
22 foregone her right to leave the Sea
23 Organization, and that if she attempted to
24 leave, she would be pursued and brought
25 back. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-10,
26 attached hereto as Exhibit “T” to the
27 Darnell Decl.).
28
20
JUDGMENT
#:9362
1
54. Plaintiff lived at the Kirby 54. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
Apartments until March 1996. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
4
5
Depo.) at 132:2-4, 187:6-24; Exhs. 17, 18 below.
6
(Photos of Kirby Apartments); Hinks
7
Decl., Exh. D (Michael Norton June 15,
8
2010 Depo.) at 15:8-11).
9 55. Plaintiff had the combination to get 55. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 in and out of the gate to the Kirby Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
11 Apartments. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
13 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below.
14 Depo.) At 129:81-130:7; Hinks Decl.
15 Exh. D (Michael Norton June 15, 2010
16 Depo.) at 15:12-18.
17 56. There was a market on the corner, 56. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
18 half a block away from the Kirby Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
22 Depo.) at 131:23-132:1, 190:23-191:6.
23 57. There was a pay phone at the market 57. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 on the corner of the street where the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 Kirby Apartments were located. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
28 Depo.) at 191:7-8.
21
JUDGMENT
#:9363
1
58. Plaintiff utilized the market on the 58. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
corner. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
4
5
Depo.) at 190:23-191:6. below.
6 59. Plaintiff estimated that there were 59. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
7 approximately 100 apartments at the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
8 Kirby Apartments. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
11 Depo.) at 131:14-18.
12 60. Not everyone who lived at the Kirby 60. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
13 Apartments was affiliated with the Gold Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
14 Base, including the Manager of the the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
15 apartments. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
16 below.
18 Depo.) at 131:2-9.
19 61. There was a swimming pool and 61. DISPUTED as lacking in
20 lawn chairs at the Kirby Apartments, and foundation.
21 Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, wrote, It further is disputed as irrelevant to
22 he got “a serious tan.” Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
24 Cleaver Decl., Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) section of Undisputed Facts set forth
25 at 110. below.
26 62. From 1991-1999, Plaintiff had 62. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 Sunday mornings free from 9:30-11:30 to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 do laundry, room cleaning, and take care the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
22
JUDGMENT
#:9364
1
of personal hygiene. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
2
below.
3
4
Depo.) at 188:12-189:1.
5 63. On occasion, Plaintiff would go to 63. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
6 the Hemet Mall on Sunday mornings. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 Depo.) at 188:3-16. below.
10 64. Plaintiff went to live in Clearwater, 64. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
11 Florida for approximately one year (from Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
12 March 1996 until January 1997) for one the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
13 of her positions with RTC. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
14 below.
16 at 142:7-143:3, 143:23-24; Hinks Decl.,
17 Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010
18 Depo.) at 1096:4-1097:1, 1098:14-
19 1099:15, 1101-9-1103:7).
20 65. While Plaintiff was in Clearwater, 65. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
21 Florida, she lived at the Hacienda Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 Depo.) at 142:18-25, 387:6-10.
26 66. The Hacienda Apartments were 66. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 about a 5-10 minute drive from the place Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 where Plaintiff worked. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
23
JUDGMENT
#:9365
1
2
Depo.) at 387:11-15. below.
3 67. Although there was a security guard 67. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 at the Hacienda Apartments, he never Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 prevented Plaintiff from leaving. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
8 Depo.) at 387:22-388:8.
9 68. The building where Plaintiff worked 68. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 in Clearwater was downtown, and had its Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
11 entrance on the street. The facilities the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12 where Plaintiff worked in Clearwater section of Undisputed Facts set forth
13 were not on a “base” and had no physical below.
14 fence around them.
15
17 at 385:6-386:9, 394:4-7.
18 69. While Plaintiff was on post in 69. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
19 Clearwater, she had access to and drove Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
20 a staff vehicle. Plaintiff drove staff the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
21 members to the Hacienda Apartments for section of Undisputed Facts set forth
22 about a six month period of time. below.
23
25 Depo.) at 145:11-15.
26 70. While she was living in Clearwater, 70. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 Plaintiff went on an outing to Busch Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 Gardens, an amusement park. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
24
JUDGMENT
#:9366
1
2
Depo.) at 388:25-389:3; McShane Decl. below.
3
¶43; Exh. 132 (RTC 2706-2707, Photos);
4
Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-14 & 538-15,
5
Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010
6
Depo.) at 1125:11-25).
7 71. In May 1996, when she was living in 71. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 Clearwater, Plaintiff went with other staff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 members to dinner and jet-skiing on a the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
10 day off. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
11 below.
13 Depo.) at 802:17-803:3.
15 Plaintiff went to the movies. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
18 Depo.) at 804:13-16. below.
20 Plaintiff ran an errand for another staff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
21 member to pick up a photo album offsite. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
23 Hill Decl, Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below.
24 at 388:17-23.
25
26
27
28
25
JUDGMENT
#:9367
1
74. Plaintiff flew on a regular 74. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
commercial airline to and from Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
Clearwater, Florida. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
5
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below.
6
Depo.) at 390:6-18.
7 75. After she left Clearwater in January 75. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 1997, Plaintiff went to Los Angeles for Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 two or three weeks. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12 Depo.) at 143:23-144:4.
13 76. Plaintiff returned to Hemet in early 76. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 1997 and moved into the Vista Garden Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
15 Apartments in the town of Hemet, which the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
16 were located off Gold Base. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
17 below.
19 Depo.) at 143:23-144:12, 199:16-25;
20 Exhs. 19, 20 (Photos of Vista
21 Apartments).
22 77. Some of the people who lived at the 77. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
23 Vista Garden Apartments were not Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
24 affiliated with the Gold Base. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
27 Depo.) at 200:2-12.
28
26
JUDGMENT
#:9368
1
78. There were times when Plaintiff 78. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
drove herself to and from the Vista Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
Apartments. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
5
6
Depo.) at 144:5-144:12.
7 79. In 1999, Plaintiff was in a 79. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 motorcycle accident and stayed at Hemet Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 Hospital for three or four nights. Hemet the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
10 Hospital is about a 10 minute drive from section of Undisputed Facts set forth
11 Gold Base. below.
12
14 Depo.) at 648:10-15, 648:25-649:21.
15 80. Hemet Hospital is not a Scientology 80. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
16 facility. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
19 Depo.) at 649:6-8. below.
20 81. Plaintiff’s physician at Hemet 81. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
21 Hospital was not affiliated with Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
22 Scientology. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
25 Depo.) at 650:6-9.
26 82. Plaintiff received physical therapy 82. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 for her broken leg from August- Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 December 1999 at a medical facility in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
27
JUDGMENT
#:9369
1
Hemet. She attended the physical section of Undisputed Facts set forth
2
therapy 2-3 times per week, and she made below.
3
more than 30 trips to the physical
4
therapist in total.
5
6
7
Depo.) at 651:17-652:20, 657:18-658:3.
8 83. Plaintiff’s physical therapist was not 83. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
9 a Scientologist. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
12 Depo.) at 652:9-10. below.
13 84. Between 2000 and 2005, Plaintiff 84. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 and her husband lived in various houses Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
15 on Sublette Road, which were not on the the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
16 Gold Base property. Sublette Road is a section of Undisputed Facts set forth
17 public road adjacent to Gold Base. below.
18 Plaintiff’s homes on Sublette Road were
19 adjacent to a public golf course.
20
22 Depo.) at 161:2-23, 201:1-202:17,
23 206:18-207:2, Exhs. 21-23 (photos).
24 85. The Headleys often left the Base to 85. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
25 shop, go to restaurants, take care of their Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
26 dog or make and eat dinner. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
28 Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley below.
28
JUDGMENT
#:9370
1
Depo.) at 315:2-16; Hill Decl., Ex. A
2
(Claire Headley Depo.) at 172:15-173:8,
3
188:3-18, 190:23-191:10; Hinks Decl.,
4
Exhs. 538-33, 538-40, Exh. B (Claire
5
Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1132:6-
6
16, 1134:5-13).
7 86. When Plaintiff lived on Sublette 86. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 Road, she would at times drive her Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 motorcycle along a private road to her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
10 home from the Gold Base. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
11 below.
13 Depo.) at 160:2-7.
14 87. In order to get to her private road 87. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
15 from the Gold Base, Plaintiff would pass Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
16 through a pedestrian security gate to the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
17 which she had the combination. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
18 below.
20 Depo.) at 160:2-7, 202:18-203:5.
21 88. There was a telephone in one of the 88. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
22 homes Plaintiff lived on Sublette Road. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
24 Hill Decl., Ex. A. (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth
25 at 161:25-162:4. below.
26 89. Starting in 2000, Plaintiff had access 89. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 to an RTC staff vehicle. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
29
JUDGMENT
#:9371
1
2
3 90. During the time she had access to a 90. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 staff vehicle, when Plaintiff did not take Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 the bus home, she would drive herself the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
6 home in a staff vehicle. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
7 below.
9 Depo.) at 159:3-10.
10 91. In or about 2001, Plaintiff drove 91. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
11 another staff member who had also Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
12 broken her leg back and forth to Los the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
13 Angeles multiple times during a 1-2 section of Undisputed Facts set forth
14 month period for the staff member’s below.
15 treatment and surgery for her leg. They
16 would spend the day in Los Angeles
17 during these trips, and then they would
18 drive back to Hemet.
19
21 Depo.) at 167:1-25.
22
23 92. In 2003, Plaintiff drove by herself 92. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 once or twice to the Hollywood Guaranty Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 Building on Hollywood Boulevard in Los the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
26 Angeles to see another Sea Org member, section of Undisputed Facts set forth
27 Marty Rathbun. below.
28
30
JUDGMENT
#:9372
1
2
Depo.) at 170:18-171:12.
3 93. In 2003, Plaintiff drove by herself to 93. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 Author Services, which is located on Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
8 Depo.) At 171:18-25.
9 94. On occasion, during the time she was 94. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 posted at the Gold Base, Plaintiff drove Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
11 to Cabazon, an outlet shopping mall the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12 about 20-30 minute drive from Hemet to section of Undisputed Facts set forth
13 go shopping. below.
14
16 Depo.) at 172:4-23.
17 95. At Christmas time, Plaintiff would 95. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
18 go to the Cabazon outlet mall with other Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
19 staff members and stay there for several the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
20 hours to do Christmas shopping. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
21 below.
23 Depo.) at 172:25-173:8.
24
25
26 96. Plaintiff went to the Cabazon outlet 96. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 mall approximately six times while she Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 was a staff member at the Gold Base. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
31
JUDGMENT
#:9373
1
2
3 97. Plaintiff visited her family in Los 97. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 Angeles during Christmas time in various Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 years while she was a staff member. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
8 Depo.) at 176:21-177:6, 183:6-19;
9 Kirsten Whitt Decl., par. 5; Geraldine
10 Whitt Decl., par. 10; Hinks Decl., Exhs.
11 538-4, 538-13, Exh. B (Claire Headley
12 June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1120:3-12,
13 1124:20-1125:8).
14 98. Plaintiff went with other Sea Org 98. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
15 members to Big Bear for recreation. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
18 Depo.) at 817:17-818:9. below.
19 99. Plaintiff attended a Scientology new 99. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
20 Years Event in Los Angeles most years Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
21 she was in the Sea Org. She generally the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
22 saw her parents and siblings at the section of Undisputed Facts set forth
23 events. below.
24
26 Depo.) at 182:8-183:23, 212:1-214:17,
27 494:3-495:6; Exhs. 25, 26, 27 (photos);
28 Hinks Decl., Exh. 538-28, Exh. B (Claire
32
JUDGMENT
#:9374
1
Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at
2
1130:18-23.
3 100. Plaintiff’s husband would on 100. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 occasion drive Plaintiff to the New Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 Year’s event, and sometimes they would the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
6 go to her parent’s house afterwards. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
7 below.
9 Depo.) at 183:11-19.
10 101. In December 1991, Plaintiff had 101. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
11 one week off to spend Christmas with her Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
12 family. She stayed a few nights in he the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
13 [sic] parent’s home in Los Angeles, and section of Undisputed Facts set forth
14 then spent 4-5 days in Greenville, South below.
15 Caroline with her grandmother.
16
18 at 794:11-23.
19 102. Plaintiff’s grandmother is not a 102. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
20 Scientologist. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
23 Depo.) at 839:19-22. below.
24
25
26 103. Plaintiff spent half a day with her 103. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 family in Los Angeles during Christmas Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 time in 1992. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
33
JUDGMENT
#:9375
1
2
Depo.) at 796:25-797:13. below.
3 104. Plaintiff went to visit her 104. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
4 grandmother in Los Angeles for a few Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
5 days in 1994. Her grandmother was in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
6 town visiting from South Carolina. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
7 During this visit, Plaintiff stayed with her below.
8 mother in Burbank. Plaintiff’s husband
9 was with her during this visit.
10
12 Depo.) at 174:14-24, 798:22-799:19;
13 Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-2, 538-3, 538-4,
14 Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010
15 Depo.) at 1118:20-1120:2.
16 105. Plaintiff testified that she may have 105. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
17 visited her family at their home in Los Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
18 Angeles in December 1995. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
21 Depo.) at 801:9-15; Hinks Decl., Exh.
22 538-5, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15 ,
23 2010 Depo.) at 1120:13-19.
24 106. Plaintiff visited her family during 106. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
25 Christmas time in 1997. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 Depo.) at 806:25-807:5. below.
34
JUDGMENT
#:9376
1
107. Plaintiff saw her family again at 107. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
2
the 1998 New Years event in Los Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
3
Angeles. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
4
5
6
Depo.) at 494:24-495:2.
7 108. Plaintiff visited her family in Los 108. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 Angeles for Thanksgiving while she was Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 a staff member. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12 Depo.) at 177:7-11.
13 109. In 2004, Plaintiff’s father in law 109. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 was visiting Orange County, California, Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
15 and Plaintiff went by car with her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
16 husband and sister-in-law to visit him. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
17 below.
19 Depo.) at 815:20-816:13; Hinks Decl.,
20 Exh. A (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 12:6-
21 16:18-18:25, 19:11-20:7, 21:14-24:20;
22 Exhs. 6, 7.
23 110. In mid 2004, Plaintiff went to her 110. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 sister’s high school graduation in La Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 Crescenta, California. Plaintiff drove the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
26 herself to the graduation, then the family section of Undisputed Facts set forth
27 all went out to dinner. below.
28
35
JUDGMENT
#:9377
1
2
Depo.) at 180:25-181:24, 815:1-19;
3
Hinks Decl., Exh. 538-37, Exh. B (Claire
4
Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at
5
1133:12-16).
6 111. In December 2004, Plaintiff went to 111. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
7 her parent’s home in La Crescenta after Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
8 the New Year’s event, which she the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
9 attended with her parents. After visiting section of Undisputed Facts set forth
10 with her parents at their home, Plaintiff below.
11 and her husband drove back to Hemet
12 alone.
13
15 Depo.) at 177:12-179:13.
16 112. Plaintiff and her husband had bank 112. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
17 accounts and a PayPal account. They had Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
18 cell phones and Marc had a laptop with the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
19 Internet accessibility. section of Undisputed Facts set forth
20 below.
22 Depo.) at 135:3-7, 136:13-15; Cleaver
23 Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Depo.) at
24 109:17-110:1, 112:2-5, 276:3-11.
25 Plaintiff’s Departure from Gold Base
26 113. Plaintiff remained a committed Sea 113. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 Org member for many years. She Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
28 eventually had doubts and lost her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
36
JUDGMENT
#:9378
1
commitment, and in fact, she believed in section of Undisputed Facts set forth
2
Scientology until she left in January below.
3
2005.
4
5
6
Depo.) at 20:14-21:20, 39:11-40:3.
7 114. Plaintiff testified that she knew at 114. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 least one RTC staff member, Debra Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 Friedman, who routed out of the Sea Org the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s section
10 in or about 2003. of Undisputed Facts set forth below.
11 Additionally, Mrs. Headley was told
12 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley by her supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that
13 Depo.) at 519:4-25, 520:25-521:12. no one who worked for RTC would be
14 allowed to leave, and that if they did,
15 they would be brought back to Gold
16 Base. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13,
17 attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell
18 Decl.)
19 115. Plaintiff left the Sea Org after her 115. DISPUTED
20 husband left in January 2005 and she Mrs. Headley testified that she left
21 realized he was not coming back. the Sea Organization for many reasons,
22 including that she could no longer
23 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley tolerate the abuses at Gold Base, such
24 Depo.) at 278:21-24, 281:3-9. as people being made to divorce, clean
25 human excrement out of ponds,
26 subjected to verbal abuse, restricted to
27 Gold Base for months on end, required
28
37
JUDGMENT
#:9379
1
to sleep in sleeping bags at their work
2
stations, and not being allowed to leave
3
to eat or shower. (C. Headley Depo.,
4
279:6-279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q”
5
to the Darnell Decl.).
6 116. From the time her husband left the 116. DISPUTED as incomplete and
7 Sea Org until the time when Plaintiff left, misleading.
8 Plaintiff had a cell phone in her Mrs. Headley testified that after her
9 possession for almost all of that time. husband left Gold Base, her cell phone
10 was taken away from her and the number
11 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was changed. (C. Headley Depo., 509:5-
12 Depo.) at 509:20-510:2. 16, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell
13 Decl.).
14 Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified
15 that when she spoke to Mr. Headley, she
16 told him exactly what security told her to
17 say as they were monitoring her calls.
18 (C. Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2;
19 548:18-550:21, attached as Exhibit “R”
20 to the Darnell Decl.).
21 It further is disputed as irrelevant to
22 Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
25 below.
26
27
28
38
JUDGMENT
#:9380
1
117. After her husband left staff, 117. DISPUTED as incomplete and
2
Plaintiff spoke to him from her cell misleading.
3
phone twice. Mrs. Headley testified that after her
4
husband left Gold Base, her cell phone
5
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was taken away from her and the number
6
Depo.) at 518:13-19. was changed. (C. Headley Depo., 509:5-
7
16, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell
8
Decl.).
9
Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified
10
that when she spoke to Mr. Headley, she
11
told him exactly what security told her to
12
say as they were monitoring her calls.
13
(C. Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2;
14
548:18-550:21, attached as Exhibit “R”
15
to the Darnell Decl.).
16
It further is disputed as irrelevant to
17
Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
18
19
20
below.
21 118. After her husband left the Sea Org. 118. DISPUTED as incomplete and
22 Plaintiff tried to convince him to return. misleading.
23 Mrs. Headley testified that when she
24 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him
25 Depo.) at 537:16-538:14, 539:6-540:1; exactly what security told her to say as
26 Exh. 49 (Debrief of Phone Call) at 2. they were monitoring her calls. (C.
27 Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:18-
28
39
JUDGMENT
#:9381
1
550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the
2
Darnell Decl.).
3
It further is disputed as irrelevant to
4
5
6
7
below.
8 119. Plaintiff never attempted to invoke 119. DISPUTED
9 the Sea Org’s routing out procedure to Mrs. Headley was told by her
10 revoke her Sea Org vows and leave her supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one
11 positions with CSI or RTC. who worked for RTC would be allowed
12 to leave, and that if they did, they would
13 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley be brought back to Gold Base.
14 Depo.) at 277:22-278:5. Additionally, although Mrs. Headley
15 thought many times about leaving Gold
16 Base, she never asked to leave because
17 she knew the consequences would be too
18 severe, including assignment to heavy
19 labor, extensive interrogations,
20 assignment of an escort to prevent her
21 from leaving, separation from her
22 husband, and restriction to Gold Base for
23 a lengthy period of time. She also
24 believed that if she left and went to her
25 parents to try to get away, her mother
26 would turn her in and her step-father
27 would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo.,
28
40
JUDGMENT
#:9382
1
811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit
2
“T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley
3
Depo., 277:22-278:20, attached as
4
Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.).
5
This further is disputed as irrelevant to
6
7
8
9
below.
10 120. Plaintiff’s only attempt to leave the 120. DISPUTED
11 Sea Org without routing out was when Mrs. Headley was told by her
12 she departed in January 2005. supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one
13 who worked for RTC would be allowed
14 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley to leave, and that if they did, they would
15 Depo.) at 155:20-156:2, 496:15-497:4. be brought back to Gold Base.
16 Additionally, although Mrs. Headley
20 severe, including assignment to heavy
21 labor, extensive interrogations,
22 assignment of an escort to prevent her
23 from leaving, separation from her
24 husband, and restriction to Gold Base for
25 a lengthy period of time. She also
26 believed that if she left and went to her
27 parents to try to get away, her mother
28
41
JUDGMENT
#:9383
1
would turn her in and her step-father
2
would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo.,
3
811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit
4
“T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley
5
6
7
This further is disputed as irrelevant to
8
9
10
11
below.
12
13 121. Plaintiff testified that she had 121. UNDISPUTED
14 thoughts about leaving the Sea Org
15 starting in 1991, and she had such
16 thoughts “on and off” for many years,
17 including at the New Years event in
18 December 2004.
19
21 Depo.) at 495:7-10, 645:8-25.
22 122. Plaintiff testified that she did not 122. DISPUTED
23 leave the Sea Org before January 2005 Plaintiff testified to many more
24 because she did not want to be separated reasons for not leaving the Sea
25 from her husband or her family, as she Organization, including the fact that she
26 would be if she were declared a was told by her supervisor, Shelly
27 suppressive person for leaving the Sea Miscavige, that no one who worked for
28
42
JUDGMENT
#:9384
1
Org without routing out; she did not RTC would be allowed to leave, and that
2
know where to go, what she would do, if they did, they would be brought back
3
and she had no one to go to who was to Gold Base. Additionally, Mrs.
4
outside Scientology. Plaintiff also Headley believed that if she attempted to
5
testified that she did not leave because leave, she would be assigned heavy labor,
6
she had no money, no resources, no subjected to extensive interrogations,
7
connection, and no means of assignment of an escort to prevent her
8
transportation. from leaving, and that she would be
9
restricted to Gold Base for a lengthy
10
Hill Decl., Exh. A. (Claire Headley period of time. She also believed that her
11
Depo.) at 140:12-141:11, 282:14-283:24, step-father would lose his job. (C.
12
647:20-648:4, 829:25-830:6. Headley Depo., 811:4-13; 829:830:8,
13
attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell
14
Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20,
15
attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell
16
Decl.).
17
The additional reasons why Mrs.
18
Headley could not leave the Sea
19
Organization are identified in Plaintiff’s
20
21
below.
22 123. Near the end of her tenure with 123. DISPUTED
23 RTC, Plaintiff became embroiled in an Mrs. Headley testified that she was
24 ecclesiastical dispute that resulted in her never fully terminated from RTC and that
25 removal from her position at RTC in late she continued performing work for RTC
26 2004 and her reassignment to a senior until the left the Sea Organization in
27 position at CSI, a transfer she vehemently January 2005. (C. Headley Depo.,
28
43
JUDGMENT
#:9385
1
opposed and resisted. Plaintiff testified 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q”
2
that her removal from RTC came about to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
3
because RTC issued a new policy that 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the
4
henceforth RTC staff members either Darnell Decl.).
5
must be unmarried or, if married, only to
6
another RTC staff member. If an existing
7
RTC staff member were married to a staff
8
member of another Scientology
9
organization, such as CSI or Golden
10
ERA, the RTC staff member would be
11
transferred out of RTC. According to
12
Claire, she was given a choice: either to
13
divorce her husband or accede to the
14
transfer.
15
16
Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo)
17
at 222:4-16, 227:6-24.
18 124. Plaintiff as well as a number of 124. DISPUTED
19 other RTC staff, were removed from their Mrs. Headley testified that she was
20 positions at RTC at a meeting she never fully terminated from RTC and that
21 describes in her testimony, saying 20 she continued performing work for RTC
22 people were terminated, 10 of which until the left the Sea Organization in
23 were being transferred because their January 2005. (C. Headley Depo.,
24 functions had moved to CSI, and the 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q”
25 remainder had spousal issues. Plaintiff to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
26 admits that at least one RTC staff 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the
27 member who was married to a non-RTC Darnell Decl.).
28
44
JUDGMENT
#:9386
1
staff member remained in RTC. Mrs. Headley further testified that she
2
was told that she had to divorce her
3
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) husband to remain at RTC. (C. Headley
4
at 242:20-244:9, 247:23-248:10; Depo., 227:6:229:18, attached as Exhibit
5
McShane Decl. ¶ 41. “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley
6
Decl., ¶ 4; Deposition of Warren
7
McShane, (“McShane Depo.”), 93:1-8,
8
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell
9
Decl.).
10 125. According to Plaintiff’s testimony, 125. UNDISPUTED
11 she was “distraught” at allegedly having
12 to choose whether to divorce her
13 husband, seriously considered divorcing
14 her husband in order to retain her senior
15 position at RTC, and was “pleading for
16 [her] position” at RTC without divorcing
17 her husband.
18
19 Docket #109-3 (Claire Headley Dec.)
20 ¶ 17.
21 126. Plaintiff was not returned to her 126. DISPUTED
22 position at RTC, although she continued Mrs. Headley testified that she was
23 to perform some of the functions of her never fully terminated from RTC and that
24 former position. She also was informed she continued performing work for RTC
25 that she was not authorized for her new until the left the Sea Organization in
26 position at CSI. She concluded that “I January 2005. (C. Headley Depo.,
27 saw that there was absolutely nothing 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q”
28
45
JUDGMENT
#:9387
1
positive being accomplished by my to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
2
remaining there.” 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the
3
Darnell Decl.).
4
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) This further is disputed as irrelevant to
5
at 222:4-16, 252:2-23, 279:22-24. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
6
7
8
below.
9 127. Marc Headley’s departure came 127. DISPUTED as incomplete and
10 about as an immediate result of CSI’s misleading.
11 discovery that he had been using his First, Mrs Headley disputes the truth
12 personal PayPal account to deposit of the allegations that Mr. Headley
13 money he received from selling surplus engaged in peculations, and even testified
14 Golden Era equipment over eBay, that she was told that Mr. Headley was
15 resulting in accusations that he had falsely accused of these actions. (C.,
16 engaged in peculations. Headley Depo., 503:12-504:3, attached
17 as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.).
18 Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Further, Mr. Headley’s departure from
19 Depo.) at 276:8-15, 279:16-25, 440:14- Gold Base came after he was told that he
20 16; Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 299- was being sent to the RPF, which he
21 302. greatly feared. (M. Headley Decl., ¶ 5).
22 128. On December 28, 2004, Marc and 128. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
23 Claire had attended the Scientology New Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
24 Year’s event at the Shrine Auditorium. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
25 After the event, they posed for photos, section of Undisputed Facts set forth
26 left by themselves to see Plaintiff’s below.
27 family in La Crescenta, and then drove
28
46
JUDGMENT
#:9388
1
back alone for several hours to their
2
house on Sublette Road, just in time to
3
catch a movie.
4
5
Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley
6
Depo.) at 317:6-321:21; Exhs. 27-30
7
(Photographs); Exh. 63 (Blown for Good)
8
at 291, 295.
9 129. After the New Year, Marc 129. DISPUTED as incomplete and
10 Headley’s superior told him he was being misleading.
11 investigated for possible embezzlement, Mr. Headley decided to leave the Sea
12 but asked him first to fix a few points on Organization after being told that he was
13 his last written submission concerning being sent to the RPF, which he greatly
14 A/V systems. Marc Headley writes, feared.
15 “[h]alf of me wanted to tell her to go fly This purported uncontroverted fact
16 a kite, but the other half of me had a plan further is disputed for the reasons
17 [to leave].” That plan did not involve identified in Plaintiff’s section of
18 “routing out” nor did it involve telling Undisputed Facts set forth below.
19 Claire; rather, on January 4, 2005, Marc
20 left “for good,” after walking home off
21 the Base through the gate the night
22 before.
23
24 Cleaver Decl., Exh. 63 (Blown for Good)
25 at 291, 295, 299-302; Exh. A (Marc
26 Headley Depo.) at 438:11-439:11.
27 130. Plaintiff spoke to Marc Headley on 130. DISPUTED as incomplete and
28
47
JUDGMENT
#:9389
1
the phone and tried to convince him to misleading.
2
return. According to Plaintiff, he was Mrs. Headley testified that when she
3
upset because “He ha[d] constantly been spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him
4
fighting to get the [A/V] systems done exactly what security told her to say as
5
with no finance and no personnel.” they were monitoring her calls. (C.
6
During the phone call, Marc Headley Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:18-
7
stated to plaintiff that “[h]e couldn’t take 550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the
8
being a shit-head anymore.” To this, Darnell Decl.).
9
Plaintiff responded that “he was doing It further is disputed as irrelevant to
10
something of value and ... needed to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
11
come back and complete the project he the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12
was working on.” Marc Headley refused section of Undisputed Facts set forth
13
to return. He described their below.
14
conversation in his book:
15
“Well what about us?” Claire
16
is crying now. “You have to
17
come back.”... “I don’t know
18
what I am gonna do. I want
19
you to come back. I love you
20
so much,” Claire cries.
21
“Well I will never come
22
back...Ever. Never. Never
23
Ever.... Bye.” I hang up.
24
Cleaver Decl., Exh A (Marc Headley
25
Depo.) Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 320-
26
321; Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley
27
Depo) at 537:16-538:14, 539:6-540:1;
28
48
JUDGMENT
#:9390
1
Exh. 49 (Debrief of Phone Call).
2 131. Marc’s refusal to return caused 131. DISPUTED as incomplete and
3 Plaintiff to be “emotionally distraught misleading.
4 and devastated.” Mrs. Headley testified that she was
5 generally emotionally distraught and
6 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) devastated around the time period when
7 at 539:13-16. her husband left. A number of factors
8 played into this, including the abuse that
9 was ongoing such as people being made
10 to divorce, clean human excrement out of
11 ponds, being subjected to verbal abuse,
12 being restricted to Gold Base for months
13 on end, and being required to sleep in
14 sleeping bags at their work stations, and
15 not being allowed to leave to eat or
16 shower. (C. Headley Depo.,
17 227:6:229:18; 279:6-279:22, attached as
19 Headley Depo., 538:19-539:16, attached
20 as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.).
21 The additional reasons for Mrs.
22 Headley’s emotional condition are
23 identified in Plaintiff’s section of
24 Undisputed Facts set forth below.
25 132. Marc Headley’s refusal to return to 132. DISPUTED as misleading and
26 the Gold Base proximately caused incomplete.
27 Plaintiff to leave shortly thereafter. Mrs. Headley testified to multiple
28
49
JUDGMENT
#:9391
1
Plaintiff testified that, “[m]y husband had factors that caused her to finally leave
2
left. I knew that if I didn’t leave, I would Gold Base, including the abuse that was
3
never see him again.” ongoing such as people being made to
4
divorce, clean human excrement out of
5
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) ponds, being subjected to verbal abuse,
6
at 279:3-5. being restricted to Gold Base for months
7
on end, and being required to sleep in
8
sleeping bags at their work stations, and
9
not being allowed to leave to eat or
10
shower. (C. Headley Depo., 155:20-25;
11
227:6:229:18; 279:6-279:22, attached as
12
13
The additional reasons for Mrs.
14
Headley’s departure are identified in
15
Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set
16
forth below.
17 133. Plaintiff explained her reasons for 133. DISPUTED
18 leaving in a letter to her mother written Mrs. Headley wrote to her mother to
19 soon after she left: resolve mother’s upset. However, her
20 Obviously the change of org mother told her the letter would be given
21 [the transfer from RTC to to OSA, so Mrs. Headley couched her
22 CSI] and so forth was not statements and left the email incomplete
23 easy, but I could live with it because she could not convey her full
24 and was getting my feet on thoughts if OSA would read the email.
25 the ground. I lost it when (C. Headley Depo., 606:6-608:21; 642:6-
26 Marc left. I simply could not 22, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell
27 live with the idea of never Decl.).
28
50
JUDGMENT
#:9392
1
seeing him again...So I made
2
the choices I made and will
3
have to live through the
4
consequences of my action....
5
This would not have been my
6
decision had circumstances
7
been otherwise. I have
8
endured a lot over the years
9
and I am not one to easily
10
give up – it was simply that I
11
did not feel it possible to turn
12
my back on Marc. (Emphasis
13
added)
14
15
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.)
16
at 605:12-15, 606:6-9; Exh. 52 (Email to
17
Geraldine Whitt).
18 134. When Plaintiff left the Gold Base 134. DISPUTED as incomplete and
19 for good in January 2005, she was given misleading.
20 a ride to Wal-Mart in Hemet, where she Mrs. Headley testified that in order to
21 had told people at the Gold Base that she escape Gold Base, she requested to make
22 had an appointment with the Optometrist an appointment with an Optometrist, but
23 to get an eye exam and purchase new that this request was met with resistance
24 contact lenses. Instead of going to the by Defendants. Further, Mrs. Headley
25 Optometrist, plaintiff took a taxi from was assigned an escort whose entire
26 Wal-Mart to the bus station. purpose was to ensure that Mrs. Headley
27 attended this appointment and returned to
28
51
JUDGMENT
#:9393
1
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Gold Base. Mrs. Headley was able to
2
at 578:6-579:18. spare a few seconds of time absent the
3
escort and ran to a taxi at that moment.
4
(C. Headley Depo., 577:23-579:18,
5
attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell
6
Decl.).
7
8 135. Plaintiff had her driver’s license, 135. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
9 when she left the Gold Base for good in Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
10 January 2005. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
12 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below.
13 at 581:15-17.
14 136. When Ms. Headley left, Greg 136. DISPUTED
15 Wilhere, a senior Scientology official, Two Sea Organization members
16 went to the bus station in Las Vegas to tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in
17 try to convince her to return. No effort Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left.
18 was made to seize her or otherwise These individuals attempted to get Mrs.
19 physically force her to do so. She Headley to return to Gold Base with
20 refused to be persuaded, got on a bus, them, and one of the individuals
21 and traveled to Kansas City to be threatened that he would follow her to
22 reunited with her husband. No one ever her final destination, that her family
23 tried to force her to return. Afterward, would be barred from continuing in
24 she sent an e-mail to Wilhere stating, “I Scientology because she was leaving, and
25 am really sorry for what happened in that she would never be able to speak
26 Vegas, and what happened period – I with her family againThis same
27 know you were trying to help me and I’m individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband
28
52
JUDGMENT
#:9394
1
sorry I let you down.” and told him that she had been
2
intercepted and would not be coming to
3
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs.
4
at 155:20-157:2, 157:18-25; Cartwright Headley that her coworkers would be in
5
Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. 133 (Email to Greg serious trouble as a result of her leaving.
6
Wilhere). (C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26-
7
157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
8
Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
9
515:23-518:9, attached as Exhibit “R” to
10
the Darnell Decl.).
11 137. No one from the Sea Org or the 137. DISPUTED
12 Church followed Plaintiff to Kansas City Two Sea Organization members
13 to try and convince Plaintiff to return. tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in
14 Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left.
15 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley These individuals attempted to get Mrs.
16 Depo.) at 644:7-22; Hinks Decl., Exh. A Headley to return to Gold Base with
17 (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 40:10-41:2). them, and one of the individuals
18 threatened that he would follow her to
19 her final destination, that her family
20 would be barred from continuing in
21 Scientology because she was leaving, and
22 that she would never be able to speak
23 with her family againThis same
24 individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband
25 and told him that she had been
26 intercepted and would not be coming to
27 meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs.
28
53
JUDGMENT
#:9395
1
Headley that her coworkers would be in
2
serious trouble as a result of her leaving.
3
(C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26-
4
157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
5
6
7
the Darnell Decl.).
8 138. After leaving Gold Base, Plaintiff 138. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
9 considered returning and routing out Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
10 according to Scientology scripture the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
11 (explained below in SUF 163). She section of Undisputed Facts set forth
12 initiated contact with the Church to below.
13 determine what it would take for her to
14 route out.
15
17 at 22:24-23:3, 286:8-19; Exh. 51 (Email
18 to Kirsten Caetano).
19 139. After leaving Gold Base, Plaintiff 139. UNDISPUTED
20 tried to work with the Church for a month
21 or two to get back in good standing.
22
24 at 22:24-23:3; Exh. 51 (Email to Kirsten
25 Caetano).
26 140. Plaintiff would be required to pay 140. DISPUTED as incomplete and
27 her freeloader debt only if she desired to misleading as to Mrs. Headley’s state of
28 continue to take Scientology courses or mind while in the Sea Organization.
54
JUDGMENT
#:9396
1
services. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers were
2
threatened with being subjected to
3
Cartwright Decl. ¶ 10. Freeloader debt while in the Sea
4
Organization, regardless of whether this
5
was ultimately imposed upon them.
6
Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified that
7
if she wanted any communication with
8
her mother or family, she knew she
9
would be required to pay this purported
10
debt. (C. Headley Depo., 597:24-600:7,
11
12
Decl.).
13 141. The Church has never instituted 141. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 legal action to collect a freeloader debt. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim as set
15 forth below under Plaintiff’s section
16 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Undisputed Facts.
17 at 603:1-11; Cartwright Decl. ¶ 10.
18
19
20 142. Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, 142. DISPUTED as irrelevant for the
21 testified concerning his time at Gold that, reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
22 “I wasn’t saying to myself I’m being held Undisputed Facts set forth below.
23 against my will....whether or not I was Additionally, Mr. Headley testified
24 being held against my will, I don’t think that multiple factors caused him to
25 I thought those thoughts” believe that he could not leave the Sea
26 Organization or Gold Base, including he
27 Cleaver Decl., Exh. A ( Marc Headley would be recaptured, that he would lose
28
55
JUDGMENT
#:9397
1
Depo.) at 999:18-22. all contact with his wife and family
2
members, and that he would be subjected
3
to a significant freeloader debt. (M.
4
Headley Depo., 584:12-585:16, attached
5
as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M.
6
Headley Depo., 896:7-899:14; 903:3-
7
904:17, attached as Exhibit “E” to the
8
Darnell Decl.).
9
Mr. Headley also believed that his
10
wife would not leave with him if he
11
stopped working for Defendant, because
12
he had seen a number of marriages
13
dissolve at Gold Base once one spouse
14
left and because he was prohibited from
15
speaking with his wife about the
16
possibility of leaving. (M. Headley
17
Depo., 913:9-914:25, attached as Exhibit
18
“E” to the Darnell Decl.).
19 143. Marc Headley wrote about Plaintiff 143. DISPUTED as irrelevant for the
20 that “she is the only reason I had stayed reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
21 there on a number of occasions. If I had Undisputed Facts set forth below.
22 not married her, I figure that I would Additionally, Mr. Headley testified
23 have left at least 4 or 5 times earlier.” that multiple factors caused him to
24 believe that he could not leave the Sea
25 Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Organization or Gold Base, including he
26 Depo.) at 894:21-895:3; Exh. 63 (Blown would be recaptured, that he would lose
27 for Good) at 312. all contact with his wife and family
28
56
JUDGMENT
#:9398
1
members, and that he would be subjected
2
to a significant freeloader debt. (M.
3
Headley Depo., 584:12-585:16, attached
4
as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M.
5
Headley Depo., 896:7-899:14; 903:3-
6
904:17, attached as Exhibit “E” to the
7
Darnell Decl.).
8
Mr. Headley also believed that his
9
wife would not leave with him if he
10
stopped working for Defendant, because
11
he had seen a number of marriages
12
dissolve at Gold Base once one spouse
13
left and because he was prohibited from
14
speaking with his wife about the
15
possibility of leaving. (M. Headley
16
Depo., 913:9-914:25, attached as Exhibit
17
“E” to the Darnell Decl.).
18 144. During the time when Plaintiff was 144. DISPUTED
19 posted there, the location of the Gold It was a rule that the location of
20 Base was known to the public. During the Base in Hemet could not be disclosed.
21 that time, there were several public There were never public events there, but
22 events at the Gold Base where the Hemet there were events open to the Hemet
23 public would come onto the Base. For public. The location of Gold Base was
24 example, the Gold Base acted as a polling not known in the Scientology world.
25 place for the Hemet public. In regards to Likewise, Mrs. Headley testified that her
26 the Gold Base, Plaintiff testified that, family did not know where Gold Base
27 “Obviously, citizens in Hemet know that was located and was not allowed to know
28
57
JUDGMENT
#:9399
1
Golden Era Productions is there.” this information. (C. Headley Depo.,
2
204:25-205:21, attached as Exhibit “Q”
3
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
4
at 205:07-206:08; Hinks Decl., Exh. E 854:11-22, attached as Exhibit “T” to the
5
(Dufresne Depo.) at 62:24-63:15). Darnell Decl.).
6
7 145. Shortly after Plaintiff and her 145. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 husband left the Gold Base, Plaintiff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
9 contacted Defendants about retrieving the reasons identified Plaintiff’s section
10 her personal belongings. Plaintiff’s of Undisputed Facts set forth below.
11 husband went to collect their personal
12 items, which consisted of 67 boxes, and
13 included items such as a large amount of
14 clothing, make-up and other personal
15 items, numerous DVD’s (including
16 movies such as Braveheart, Daredevil,
17 Titanic and Gladiator), numerous books
18 (including the Lord of the Rings trilogy),
19 several magazine (including GQ, Rolling
20 Stone, Premiere), several CD’s, a large
21 jewelry collection, a large amount of
22 audio/video items (including CD players,
23 speakers, a television monitor, and a
24 turntable), an exercise bike and their dog
25 (for which the church had cared).
26
27 Cleaver Decl., Exh. 134 (Inventory,
28
58
JUDGMENT
#:9400
1
CSI501-548); Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire
2
Headley Depo.) at 596:17-24, 603-12-
3
604:11, 605:8-11; Exh. 51 (Email to
4
Kirsten Caetano.)
5 146. In May 2006, Plaintiff filed a 146. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
6 lawsuit against a third party in Kansas Plaintiff’s present human trafficking
7 City for false imprisonment for an claim.
8 incident in which she was “detained” by Further, Mrs. Headley specifically
9 a security guard at her apartment testified that she believed that she had no
10 complex in Kansas City for two to three right to sue Defendants based on a
11 hours. number of documents that she signed
12 during her employment. (C. Headley
13 Hill Decl, Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) D epo ., 717:10-19; 718:10-16;
14 at 11:10-12:7, 12:17-13:24, 730:23- 733:22-734:5, attached as Exhibit “T” to
15 732:19; Hinks Decl., Exh. F (settlement the Darnell Decl.).
16 agreement).
17 147. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the 147. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
18 management of the apartment complex Plaintiff’s present human trafficking
19 stating, “let me make clear that in the 15 claim.
20 years of apartment residence in Further, Mrs. Headley specifically
21 California, NEVER have my husband or testified that she believed that she had no
22 I been subjected to such physical abuse, right to sue Defendants based on a
23 harassment or treatment as we received at number of documents that she signed
24 the hands of your ‘Security’ -- where we during her employment. (C. Headley
25 were physically held, handcuffed and Dep o ., 717:10-19; 7 1 8 : 1 0 -1 6 ;
26 treated like c o m m o n 733:22-734:5, attached as Exhibit “T” to
27 criminals...”(original emphasis) She the Darnell Decl.).
28
59
JUDGMENT
#:9401
1
testified in a deposition to the same
2
effect: “we’ve been residents of
3
apartments in California for 15 years, and
4
we never had anything remotely like this
5
occur.”
6
7
Cleaver Decl., Exh. 135 (Exhibit 1 to
8
Claire Headley deposition in False
9
Imprisonment Case.); Exh. 136 (Claire
10
Headley Depo in Missouri Case) at
11
13:11-16.
12 The Scientology Ethics System
13 148. Scientology is a strictly orthodox 148. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 religion. Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
15
17 149. The religious technologies of 149. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
18 Dianetics and Scientology were Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
19 discovered and developed solely by L.
20 Ron Hubbard.
21
23 150. Many of Mr. Hubbard’s writings on 150. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 Ethics and Justice are set forth in the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
25 book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
26 These and related precepts of ethics in
27 Scientology are reflected in a large body
28 of Scientology Scripture written by Mr.
60
JUDGMENT
#:9402
1
Hubbard, which are among the writings
2
included in The Technical Bulletins and
3
The Organizational Executive Course.
4
They are an essential component of the
5
Scientology religion.
6
7
McShane Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, 21; Exh. 129
8
(Introduction to Scientology Ethics).
9 151. Scientology posits that only 151. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 individuals who are acting according to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
11 proper ethical precepts can advance
12 spiritually, and, indeed, unethical
13 behavior can impede the spiritual
14 progress not only of the individual but
15 also, if the individual is a church staff
16 member, of the church itself.
17
18 McShane Decl. ¶ 13; Exh. 129
19 (Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at
20 67-68.
21 152. In Scientology, harmful unethical 152. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
22 acts are referred to as “overts.” Once a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
23 person commits an overt act, he or she
24 will often withhold from others the
25 commission of that act. This is called a
26 “withhold.” A person with accumulated
27 overts and withholds is incapable of
28
61
JUDGMENT
#:9403
1
spiritual progress, and will not benefit
2
from auditing or training. The
3
Scientology Scripture details how it is
4
that harmful acts against one’s fellows
5
bring about the loss of integrity and
6
decrease one’s ability to handle life
7
successfully.
8
9
McShane Decl. ¶ 13.
10 153. The Scientology scriptures do more 153. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
11 than simply warn of the consequences of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
12 unethical conduct. Scientology scriptures
13 set forth techniques, called
14 “Confessionals” (sometimes called
15 “Security Checking” or “Sec Checking”),
16 intended to eradicate the harmful effects
17 of overts and to rehabilitate an
18 individual’s personal integrity and ability
19 to achieve “case gain”, i.e., spiritual
20 progress, not only for the individual but
21 also for the family and groups with which
22 he or she associates, i.e., on “all
23 dynamics”. Most of these scriptures are
24 collected in The Technical Bulletins.
25 One key writing is a Bulletin entitled
26 “Confessional Procedure,” which was
27 written by Mr. Hubbard in 1978. As
28
62
JUDGMENT
#:9404
1
stated in “Confessional Procedure”, the
2
procedure is designed to “straighten[] out
3
somebody on a moral code” by “helping
4
the individual to face up to his
5
responsibilities in his group and the
6
society and putting him back into
7
communication with his fellow man, his
8
family, and the world at large,” thereby
9
achieving “a great deal of Case Gain.”
10
11
McShane Decl. ¶ 14.
12 154. There are hundreds of pages on 154. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
13 which Mr. Hubbard has written on the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
14 subject of Ethics and Justice, all of which
15 is in full use and application in Churches
16 of Scientology around the globe. Many
17 additional scriptural writings are
18 compiled in Introduction to Scientology
19 Ethics.
20
21 Mc Shane Decl. ¶ 21,
22 155. The types of discipline historically 155. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
23 used within the Sea Organization are Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
24 based on scripture written by Mr.
25 Hubbard and are within the sphere of
26 ecclesiastical governance, ethics, justice
27 and discipline for members of a religious
28
63
JUDGMENT
#:9405
1
order.
2
3
McShane Decl. ¶ 32; Flinn Decl. ¶ 50,
4
51.
5 156. Sea Org members are held to the 156. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
6 highest ethical standards of the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
7 Scientology religion. They are expected
8 to study and comply strictly with
9 Scientology’s system of ethics and
10 justice.
11
13 157. If a Sea Org member acts outside 157. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
14 the ethical principles, he/she may be Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
15 subject to ecclesiastical discipline. The
16 form of discipline varies on a gradient in
17 proportion to the seriousness of the
18 offense, from a verbal warning or rebuke,
19 to temporary loss of privileges, removal
20 from post and assignment to a post with
21 less responsibility, manual labor such as
22 kitchen duty, gardening, etc., to
23 expulsion from the group.
24
26 158. Serious offenses are brought before 158. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
27 a committee of evidence consisting of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
28 other Sea Org members in good standing.
64
JUDGMENT
#:9406
1
McShane Decl. ¶ 33 d.
2 159. As described in Introduction to 159. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
3 Scientology Ethics, a Committee of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
4 Evidence is a higher gradient of justice
5 action than many others. It is defined in
6 that work as, “A fact finding body
7 composed of impartial persons convened
8 by a Convening Authority which hears
9 evidence from persons it calls before it,
10 arrives at finding and makes a full report
11 and recommendation to its Convening
12 Authority for his or her action.” These
13 ecclesiastical fact finding bodies are
14 governed by exact procedures set forth in
15 Scientology scripture. Such a committee
16 is required to confront the interested
17 party with any evidence received and he
18 may counter it with his own evidence or
19 testimony. There are also specific
20 procedures for recourse if the party
21 disagrees with the committee’s findings.
22 A Committee of Evidence is not
23 punishment although it may recommend
24 punishments or loss of privileges just as
25 any ecclesiastical court in any religion
26 might do.
27
28
65
JUDGMENT
#:9407
1
McShane Decl. ¶ 33 d; Exh. 129
2
(Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at
3
337-347, 363.
4 160. If a Sea Org member is found to 160. DISPUTED
5 have committed serious ethical violations Individuals who are told that they will
6 that justify expulsion, he/she may be be sent to the RPF do not have the option
7 offered the option of participation in a to refuse to participate in the RPF. Mr.
8 program of spiritual rehabilitation, called Headley was told that he was being sent
9 the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”). to the RPF on approximately January 3,
10 RPF members engage in religious study 2005, and when he decided to refuse to
11 and auditing and physical labor. After participate in the RPF and leave
12 one “graduates” from the RPF, he/she Defendant’s facilities, he was chased, run
13 will resume a Sea Org position. No one off the road, and told that he could not
14 is forced to participate in the RPF; if one leave. (Declaration of Marc Headley, ¶
15 refuses, he/she simply will be expelled 5; Deposition of Daniel Dunigan
16 from the Sea Org and from all staff (“Dunigan Depo.”), 185:8-186:23,
17 positions, and, depending on the nature attached as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell
18 of the ethical violation, perhaps the Decl.).
19 church. Moreover, Sea Organization members
20 are not allowed to leave and if they
21 McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e; Exh. 130 (HCO attempt to leave, they are pursued,
22 PL 24 June 1979, “Crime Additions”); returned, and restricted to church
23 Exh. 12 (Declaration of Religious property under full-time security watch
24 Commitment) at 2; Hinks Decl., Exh. A such that is logistically impossible for a
25 (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 27:21-28:14. Sea Organization member to refuse to go
26 to the RPF. (Norton Depo., 32:6-18;
27 36:4-37:13; 42:10-44:14; 48:19-50:16,
28
66
JUDGMENT
#:9408
1
82:3-83:10, attached as Exhibit “K” to
2
the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
3
4
the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo.,
5
79:7-17, attached as Exhibit “T” to the
6
Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19,
7
attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell
8
Decl.; see also Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12,
9
attached as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell
10
Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 926:18-949:22,
11
attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell
12
Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 148:21-154:19;
13
155:1-17; 193:11-199:13, attached as
14
Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl
15
Declaration of Marty Rathbun (“Rathbun
16
Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15).
17
Additionally, Sea Organization
18
members were not allowed to speak
19
about their desire to leave, and if it was
20
discovered that they wanted to leave and
21
not complete a program, they would be
22
placed on heavy manual labor, placed
23
under security watch, separated from
24
their spouses, interrogated, and restricted
25
to the Gold Base property. (C. Headley
26
27
Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.); (M.
28
67
JUDGMENT
#:9409
1
Headley Depo., 914:7-25, attached hereto
2
as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.) .
3 161. Plaintiff never participated in the 161. UNDISPUTED
4 RPF.
5
6 McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e.
7 162. Plaintiff’s husband never 162. DISPUTED
8 participated in the RPF. Although Mr. Headley never
9 participated in the RPF, he was told that
10 McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e. he was being sent to the RPF the day
11 before he escaped from Gold Base. (M.
12 Headley Decl., ¶ 5).
13 163. It sometimes occurs that a Sea Org 163. DISPUTED
14 member wishes to terminate his Mrs. Headley testified that she was
15 relationship with the religious order. told by Shelly Miscavige that as a
16 “Routing Out” is the Scientology member of RTC, she had forgone her
17 procedure by which a Sea Org member right to leave and that if she attempted to
18 may withdraw his vows of eternal service leave she would be returned to the
19 and leave the Sea Org, while still property. Additionally, although Mrs.
20 maintaining his or her relationship with Headley thought many times about
21 the Scientology churches and religion. A leaving Gold Base, she never asked to
22 person who has routed out becomes a leave because she knew the consequences
23 “public” Scientology parishioner. The would be too severe, including
24 process involves completing of a assignment to heavy labor, extensive
25 “leaving staff routing form” – which is interrogations, assignment of an escort to
26 simply a series of specific steps listed on prevent her from leaving, separation from
27 the form. It would normally include her husband, and restriction to Gold Base
28 participation in ethics and justice for a lengthy period of time. She also
68
JUDGMENT
#:9410
1
procedures, including believed that if she left and went to her
2
a confessional. parents to try to get away, her mother
3
4
McShane Decl. ¶ 34; Exh. 129; Hinks would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo.,
5
Decl., Exh. C (Warren McShane June 9, 811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit
6
2010 Depo.) at 367:13-23. “T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley
7
8
9
Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also
10
were strictly prohibited from
11
communicating any desire to leave Gold
12
Base. They were told that it was a major
13
transgression to want to leave, and that if
14
it was discovered that they thought about
15
leaving, they would be placed on heavy
16
manual labor and placed under security
17
watch. Additionally, they would be
18
separated from their spouses,
19
interrogated, and restricted to the Gold
20
Base property. (C. Headley Depo. 541:2-
21
5; 11-19, attached as Exhibit “R” to the
22
Darnell Decl.; Deposition of Astra
23
Woodcraft (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:10-
24
20, attached as Exhibit “M” to the
25
Darnell Decl.; see also Rathbun Decl., ¶¶
26
11-15).
27 164. While participating in the process 164. DISPUTED
28
69
JUDGMENT
#:9411
1
of routing out, a Sea Org member is Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also
2
excused from his post, but is expected to were strictly prohibited fro m
3
continue to contribute by performing communicating any desire to leave Gold
4
chores, such as gardening, cooking, Base. They were told that it was a major
5
cleaning, painting, etc. Numerous Sea transgression to want to leave, and that if
6
Org members have chosen to route out it was discovered that they thought about
7
due to changes in their life or leaving, they would be placed on heavy
8
c o mmi t me n t , wh i l e r e ma i n i n g manual labor and placed under security
9
Scientologists in good standing. watch. Additionally, they would be
10
11
McShane Decl. ¶ 34. interrogated, and restricted to the Gold
12
Base property. (C. Headley Depo. 541:2-
13
5; 11-19, attached as Exhibit “R” to the
14
Darnell Decl.; Deposition of Astra
15
Woodcraft (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:10-
16
17
Darnell Decl.).
18 165. If a Sea Org member chooses to 165. DISPUTED
19 leave without routing out, other Sea Org At any point that a Sea Organization
20 members may attempt to convince or member leaves without “routing out”
21 persuade him/her to stay or to return; Defendants engage in what it referred to
22 such efforts are a natural and inevitable as a “blow drill.” The purpose of these
23 outgrowth of the belief among the Sea blow drills is to locate the individual who
24 Org members that they are attempting to has left and get the person to return to
25 achieve the salvation of the individual Gold Base. (Norton Depo., 26:17-28:17;
26 and the clearing of the planet. Such 48:1-4, attached as Exhibit “K” to the
27 efforts sometimes have included locating Darnell Decl.; McShane Depo., 84:23-
28
70
JUDGMENT
#:9412
1
the person who left, and attempting to 85:23; 86:13-14, attached as Exhibit “G”
2
meet and/or discuss with him/her the to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
3
reasons for leaving and to convince the 138:24-139:12, attached as Exhibit “H”
4
person to return. If the person insists on to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo.,
5
leaving or refuses to return, he/she may 79:4-80:23, attached as Exhibit “M” to
6
be subject to ecclesiastical discipline, the Darnell Decl.).
7
including, but not necessarily, being During blow drills, individuals are
8
declared a “suppressive person”, which is pursued, and their whereabouts are
9
the functional equivalent of being tracked by a variety of methods. These
10
shunned or excommunicated. methods include tracking the checking,
11
credit and financial accounts of
12
McShane Decl. ¶ 34, 35. individuals, researching their travel
13
(Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at plans, and placing phone calls to
14
171. determine an individual’s location.
15
Anywhere from thirty to seventy people
16
could be dispatched to track the every
17
move of someone who left. After an
18
individual is located, efforts are made to
19
“persuade” them to return to Gold Base,
20
which sometimes involves physical
21
coercion. (C. Headley Depo.,
22
389:18-390:5; 495:7-496:24; 510:14-21,
23
attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell
24
Decl.; Norton Depo., 32:6-18; 36:4-
25
37:13; 42:10-44:14; 48:19-50:16,
26
attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell
27
Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 79:7-17,
28
71
JUDGMENT
#:9413
1
attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell
2
Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19, attached
3
as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.;
4
Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12, attached as
5
Exhibit “O” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
6
Headley Depo., 195:6-18, attached as
7
Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.;
8
Declaration of Marty Rathbun, (“Rathbun
9
Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15).
10
On a number of occasions when Sea
11
Organization members attempted to leave
12
Gold Base, they were captured and
13
returned. One of Mrs. Headley’s
14
coworkers drove a car through the
15
security gate at Gold Base to get out.
16
Several of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers
17
were physically restrained and returned
18
to the property. Other workers were
19
intercepted by Sea Organization members
20
at a bus station and convinced to return to
21
Gold Base; upon their return, they were
22
assigned hard labor. One worker
23
attempted to leave the Sea Organization
24
on several occasions and was returned,
25
each time being placed under 24-hour
26
surveillance. Indeed, as a general rule,
27
anyone who left Gold Base without
28
72
JUDGMENT
#:9414
1
permission and was returned, was
2
restricted to the property and assigned
3
manual labor. (M. Headley Depo.,
4
926:18-949:22, attached as Exhibit “E”
5
to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
6
148:21-154:19; 155:1-17; 193:11-199:13,
7
attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell
8
Decl.; McShane Depo., 66:3-68:17,
9
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell
10
Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 80:9-19; 169:9-19,
11
attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell
12
Decl.; Norton Depo., 82:3-10; 82:13-
13
83:10, attached hereto as Exhibit “K” to
14
the Darnell Decl.).
15
Mrs. Headley observed that after her
16
coworker, Tanja Castle, attempted to
17
leave, she was placed on heavy manual
18
labor, isolated from other workers, not
19
allowed to leave Gold Base for any
20
reason, and was assigned a permanent
21
guard. Additionally, Mrs. Castle was
22
locked in a room with Mike Rinder and
23
Warren McShane, high ranking Sea
24
Organization members, during which
25
these men yelled and screamed at Ms.
26
Castle and told her that she was never
27
going to be able to see her husband again.
28
73
JUDGMENT
#:9415
1
Mrs. Headley also was forced to try to
2
convince Mrs. Castle to stay and to
3
divorce her husband. (C. Headley Depo.,
4
260:18-262:2; 264:3-265:25, attached as
5
6 The Sea Org Cannot Accommodate Members with Children
7 166. Sea Organization members may be 166. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 called on at a moment’s notice to serve at Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
9 any location in the world. Thus, the
10 churches concluded that it was both
11 unfair to parents and children and
12 unworkable for the Sea Org for Sea org
13 members to bear the responsibilities of
14 caring for and raising young children.
15
16 Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag
17 Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members
18 and Sea Org Orgs).
19
20
21 167. In 1986, CSI promulgated a policy 167. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
22 that from that point forward, Sea Org Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
23 members who wished to have children Moreover, this purported
24 would be required to route out of the Sea uncontroverted fact is disputed as
25 Org, and, if they wished, work in one of Defendants officially prohibit forced
26 the many local churches of Scientology abortions, and make it clear that if a
27 whose staff members were not required woman is coerced to have an abortion,
28 to live such a rigorous and single minded such is a violation of church policy.
74
JUDGMENT
#:9416
1
lifestyle. (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16-
2
102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit
3
Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
4
Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit
5
and Sea Org Orgs). “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
6
Likewise, Although there was a
7
written policy that Sea Org members
8
would be sent to a Class 5 organization,
9
that policy was not utilized. Instead,
10
women who became pregnant were
11
placed on heavy manual labor (washing
12
large pots and pans in the mess hall,
13
digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and
14
were interrogated to convince them not to
15
leave, and instead to have abortions.
16
Mrs. Headley recalls at least three
17
coworkers who were placed on heavy
18
manual labor after they became pregnant
19
and refused to have abortions; at least
20
one of these women was placed on full-
21
time security watch. Other women were
22
coerced to have abortions, and Mrs.
23
Headley recalls a long list of women in
24
the Sea Organization who actually had
25
abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-
26
736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8;
27
746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15,
28
75
JUDGMENT
#:9417
1
2
3
4
5
6
Decl.).
7 168. The 1986 policy states: 168. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
8 [A] Sea Org member is expected to be Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
9 able to accomplish any action required, Moreover, this purported
10 and may be called on at a moment’s uncontroverted fact is disputed as
11 notice to serve...at anyh location on the Defendants officially prohibit forced
12 planet. These facts have occasionally abortions, and make it clear that if a
13 caused hardship for Sea Org members woman is coerced to have an abortion,
14 who are parents, and sometimes also for such is a violation of church policy.
15 their children...The Sea Org is a tough, (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16-
16 dedicated organization which requires all 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit
17 of its members to be fully on post – not “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
18 troubled with [family responsibilities]. 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit
19 “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
20 Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag Likewise, Although there was a
21 Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members written policy that Sea Org members
22 and Sea Org Orgs). would be sent to a Class 5 organization,
23 that policy was not utilized. Instead,
24 women who became pregnant were
25 placed on heavy manual labor (washing
26 large pots and pans in the mess hall,
27 digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and
28
76
JUDGMENT
#:9418
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8;
14
746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15,
15
16
17
18
19
20
Decl.).
21 169. In April 1991 a second Flag Order 169. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
22 reiterated the policy and the reasons for Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
23 it, and required that a pregnant member Moreover, this purported
24 must be permitted to complete the routing uncontroverted fact is disputed as
25 out process in no less than 60 days. Defendants officially prohibit forced
26 Claire testified that she would have seen abortions, and make it clear that if a
27 this Flag Order in 1991. woman is coerced to have an abortion,
28
77
JUDGMENT
#:9419
1
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) such is a violation of church policy.
2
at 746:8-747:7; Exh. 58 (Flag Order (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16-
3
3905-1, Children, Sea Org Members and 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit
4
Sea Org Orgs Addition). “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
5
160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit
6
“H” to the Darnell Decl.).
7
Likewise, Although there was a
8
written policy that Sea Org members
9
would be sent to a Class 5 organization,
10
that policy was not utilized. Instead,
11
women who became pregnant were
12
placed on heavy manual labor (washing
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8;
28
78
JUDGMENT
#:9420
1
746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15,
2
3
4
5
6
7
Decl.).
8
9 170. Plaintiff was aware of the Sea Org 170. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
10 policy regarding children before she Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
11 joined the Sea Org. When she was ten Moreover, this purported
12 years old, her mother, who was a member uncontroverted fact is disputed as
13 of the Sea Org became pregnant. This Defendants officially prohibit forced
14 was the period when the Sea Org was abortions, and make it clear that if a
15 about to implement its new policy that woman is coerced to have an abortion,
16 Sea Org members could not remain in the such is a violation of church policy.
17 Order if they had children. (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16-
18 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit
19 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
20 Depo.) at 30:22-31:4. 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit
22 Likewise, Although there was a
23 written policy that Sea Org members
24 would be sent to a Class 5 organization,
25 that policy was not utilized. Instead,
26 women who became pregnant were
27 placed on heavy manual labor (washing
28
79
JUDGMENT
#:9421
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8;
16
746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15,
17
18
19
20
21
22
Decl.).
23 171. Plaintiff testified that her mother 171. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
24 was told that she would be one of the last Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
25 Sea Org members to be able to remain a Moreover, Defendants officially
26 Sea Org member with a child. prohibit forced abortions, and make it
27 Nevertheless, her mother routed out soon clear that if a woman is coerced to have
28
80
JUDGMENT
#:9422
1
thereafter. an abortion, such is a violation of church
2
policy. (McShane Depo., 92:9-11;
3
Hill Decl., Exh. A. (Claire Headley 101:16-102:16; 156:12-21, attached as
4
Depo.) at 31:1-4, 31:13-19. Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser
5
Depo., 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as
6
Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
7 172. The Headleys married in 1992. She 172. DISPUTED
8 had an unplanned pregnancy in 1994. No Mrs. Headley was coerced to have an
9 one ordered her to have an abortion; one abortion in 1994, as demonstrated by the
10 staff member, not someone senior to her, following:
11 made a general statement concerning her Mrs. Headley became pregnant at
12 options. She testified, “I wanted a nineteen years old while working at Gold
13 family. But I was in a position where I Base. She was ordered by the Medical
14 knew that I couldn’t.” Had she and her Officer at Gold Base to have an abortion
15 husband not decided to have an abortion, and told that she would be placed on
16 she would have been required to leave heavy manual labor and subjected to
17 the Sea Org and CSI within 60 days. interrogation if she did not have an
18 abortion. She also was forbidden from
19 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Dep.) discussing her pregnancy with her
20 at 65:8-10, 736:15-19, 761:3-23; husband, other than telling him that she
21 Cartwright Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 58. was pregnant and that they would both be
22 in big trouble and she would be assigned
23 heavy manual labor if she did not have an
24 abortion. Mrs. Headley was escorted to
25 the abortion clinic by male staff member
26 and was coached in detail on how to
27 respond to the questions asked of her by
28
81
JUDGMENT
#:9423
1
staff at the abortion clinic. Mrs. Headley
2
was extremely distraught over this
3
abortion, but feared that the
4
consequences of not having an abortion
5
were too great. (C. Headley Depo.,
6
734:20-25; 735:1-15; 737:6-738:14;
7
739:12-740:21; 760:15-762:9; 764:81-
8
765:8; 770:10-771:7, attached as Exhibit
9
“S” to the Darnell Decl.).
10
Although there was a written policy
11
that Sea Org members would be sent to a
12
Class 5 organization, that policy was not
13
utilized. Instead, women who became
14
pregnant were placed on heavy manual
15
labor (washing large pots and pans in the
16
mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling
17
weeds) and were interrogated to convince
18
them not to leave, and instead to have
19
abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least
20
three coworkers who were placed on
21
heavy manual labor after they became
22
pregnant and refused to have abortions;
23
at least one of these women was placed
24
on full-time security watch. Other
25
women were coerced to have abortions,
26
and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of
27
women in the Sea Organization who
28
82
JUDGMENT
#:9424
1
actually had abortions. (C. Headley
2
Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21;
3
743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7;
4
778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the
5
Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-
6
7
8
902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to
9
the Darnell Decl.).
10
Astra Woodcraft, a former member of
11
the Sea Organization, testified that
12
Defendants coerce women in the Sea
13
Organization to have abortions. In fact,
14
she was specifically assigned the task of
15
convincing women to have abortions
16
when they became pregnant so that they
17
would continue working in the Sea
18
Organization. (Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-
19
25, 109:18-110:13, attached as Exhibit
20
“M” to the Darnell Decl.).
21 173. Plaintiff knew she and her husband 173. DISPUTED
22 would be required to route out of the Sea Mrs. Headley testified that although
23 Org within 60 days if she chose to there was a written policy that Sea Org
24 become a mother, which would require members would be sent to a Class 5
25 them to participate in confessionals and organization, that policy was not utilized.
26 to contribute by performing chores, such Instead, women who became pregnant
27 as gardening, cooking, cleaning, etc. were placed on heavy manual labor
28
83
JUDGMENT
#:9425
1
According to Plaintiff, this constituted (washing large pots and pans in the mess
2
forcing her to have an abortion because hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds)
3
she would be required to do “manual and were interrogated to convince them
4
labor” and participate in “interrogations.” not to leave, and instead to have
5
6
Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) three coworkers who were placed on
7
at 751:19-752:5, 752:16-753:11; Ex. 58. heavy manual labor after they became
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21;
16
743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7;
17
18
19
20
21
22
the Darnell Decl.).
23
Additionally, Astra Woodcraft, a
24
former member of the Sea Organization,
25
testified that Defendants coerce women
26
in the Sea Organization to have
27
abortions. In fact, she was specifically
28
84
JUDGMENT
#:9426
1
assigned the task of convincing women
2
to have abortions when they became
3
pregnant so that they would continue
4
working in the Sea Organization.
5
(Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-25, 109:18-
6
110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the
7
Darnell Decl.).
8
9 174. Plaintiff’s first abortion was in 174. UNDISPUTED
10 1994, when Plaintiff was 19 years old.
11
13 Depo.) at 735:1-15.
14 175. Plaintiff had another unplanned 175. DISPUTED
15 pregnancy and voluntary abortion in Mrs. Headley did not voluntarily have
16 1996. an abortion in 1996, and instead, was
17 coerced to undergo a second abortion
18 Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley while living away from her husband in
19 Depo.) at 771:22-772:4. Clearwater, Florida. After Mrs. Headley
20 discovered that she was pregnant in 1996,
21 one of the staff members in Florida told
22 her that she would have to undergo an
23 abortion and that they had already
24 arranged for one of her coworkers to loan
25 her the money for the procedure. Mrs.
26 Headley asked for permission to call her
27 husband in California to discuss her
28
85
JUDGMENT
#:9427
1
pregnancy and the demand that she have
2
an abortion, but this request was denied.
3
Further, another staff member told her
4
that she had have an abortion or else
5
there would be severe consequences.
6
After Mrs. Headley was coerced to have
7
her second abortion, she was interrogated
8
at length by a staff member to determine
9
if she had intentionally become pregnant
10
in an attempt to leave the Sea
11
Organization. Mrs. Headley believed
12
that if it appeared in any way that she
13
intentionally became pregnant, that she
14
would be removed from her position,
15
separated from her husband, and placed
16
on heavy manual labor. (C. Headley
17
Depo., 771:22-772:2; 772:17-778:4; ,
18
19
Decl.).
20
Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified
21
that although there was a written policy
22
that Sea Org members would be sent to a
23
Class 5 organization, that policy was not
24
utilized. Instead, women who became
25
26
27
28
86
JUDGMENT
#:9428
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21;
14
743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7;
15
16
17
18
19
20
the Darnell Decl.).
21 176. There have been several Sea Org 176. DISPUTED as irrelevant to
22 members who have left the Sea Org in Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.
23 order to have children. Further, Mrs. Headley testified that
24 although there was a written policy that
25 Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Sea Org members would be sent to a
26 at 742:5-15, 742:25-744:14. Class 5 organization, that policy was not
27 utilized. Instead, women who became
28
87
JUDGMENT
#:9429
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21;
17
743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7;
18
19
20
21
22
23
the Darnell Decl.).
24
Astra Woodcraft, a former member of
25
the Sea Organization, testified that
26
Defendants coerce women in the Sea
27
Organization to have abortions. In fact,
28
88
JUDGMENT
#:9430
1
she was specifically assigned the task of
2
convincing women to have abortions
3
when they became pregnant so that they
4
would continue working in the Sea
5
Organization. (Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-
6
25, 109:18-110:13, attached as Exhibit
7
“M” to the Darnell Decl.).
8
9
II. PLAINTIFF’S UNDISPUTED FACTS
10
1. Mrs. Headley experienced and (C. Headley Depo., 183:25-184:22;
11
observed instances of physical abuse at 279:6-22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
12
Gold Base on a number of occasions. In Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 8-9C.
13
the early to mid-1990s, one of her Headley Decl., ¶ 9; Deposition of
14
coworkers yelled and screamed at her, Thomas Davis (“Davis Depo.”), 67:10-
15
and then shoved her. Mrs. Headley also 18, attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell
16
recalls attending meetings where David Decl.).
17
Miscavige, the leader of the Church of
18
Scientology, assaulted coworkers in her
19
presence. Mr. Miscavige’s actions
20
included grabbing individuals from
21
behind the neck, bashing coworkers’
22
heads together, and shoving staff
23
members. Several staff members who
24
were shoved by Mr. Miscavige actually
25
fell down or into a table. Mrs. Headley
26
recalls at least fifty occasions when Mr.
27
Miscavige assaulted coworkers in her
28
89
JUDGMENT
#:9431
1
presence from 1996 onward. Mrs.
2
Headley prepared a report in 2002
3
documenting numerous instances of
4
physical abuse perpetrated by Marty
5
Rathbun, a former high-ranking Sea
6
Organization member.
7 2. Mrs. Headley’s husband similarly was (M. Headley Decl., ¶ 4; C. Headley Decl.,
8 subjected to physical abuse in the Sea ¶ 7; Deposition of Marc Headley (“M.
9 Organization and recalls seeing similar Headley Depo.”), 598:15-600:5, attached
10 acts of physical violence perpetrated as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M.
11 against coworkers. During a meeting that Headley Depo., 916:16-917:7, attached
12 Mr. an Mrs. Headley attended together as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.).
13 with David Miscavige, Mr. Headley was
14 escorted out of a meeting and
15 interrogated after failing to “correctly”
16 answer one of Mr. Miscavige’s questions.
17 3. Mrs. Headley’s former coworkers also (Deposition of Michael Norton (“Norton
18 recall observing physical abuse at Gold Depo.”), 79:17-80:8; 80:15-81:6; 81:16-
19 Base. Michael Norton testified that he 82:4, attached as Exhibit “K” to the
20 observed several instances of physical Darnell Decl.). (Deposition of Maureen
21 violence and heard about other instances Bolstad (“Bolstad Depo.”), 169:9-19,
22 of physical abuse that occurred at Gold attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell
23 Base. Likewise, Maureen Bolstad Decl.; see also M. Headley Depo.,
24 testified that on a number of occasions 933:18-935:12; 937:8-17, attached as
25 when she attempted to leave Gold Base, Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.).
26 she was physically attacked and sustained
27 a broken arm.
28 4. The Church of Scientology’s official (Davis Depo., 53:20-54:5; 54:21-55:15;
90
JUDGMENT
#:9432
1
spokesperson admitted under oath that 55:24-57:3; 77:9-78:4; 100:16-17; 102:3-
2
from the time period of 2001 to 2004, at 8, attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell
3
least fifty instances of physical abuse Decl.; Deposition of Warren McShane
4
occurred at Gold Base where Mrs. (“McShane Depo.”), 31:14-32:20,
5
Headley worked. These acts of physical attached as Exhibit “G”, to the Darnell
6
abuse were perpetrated by high-ranking Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 9); Declaration
7
officials within the Sea Organization. of Marty Rathbun, ¶ 25)..
8
9 5. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also (Norton Depo., 106:16-108:2; 108:12-
10 were subjected to a number of degrading 109:6, attached as Exhibit “K” to the
11 forms of verbal abuse and punishment. Darnell Decl.).
12 Gold Base was an “angry environment”
13 where there was lots of yelling and
14 demoralizing assignments unnecessarily
15 given to staff members. These
16 assignments included assigning the
17 executive council for Golden Era
18 Productions to clean all of the bathrooms
19 in the manufacturing department,
20 requiring an executive to clean the
21 dumpsters outside the food hall, and
22 requiring executives to live in tents on
23 the property. Employees at Gold Base
24 were yelled at on a daily basis and
25 belittled; these instances of verbal abuse
26 became so frequent that it was a
27 “constant scenario.”
28
91
JUDGMENT
#:9433
1
6. Mrs. Headley attended a meeting with (C. Headley Decl., ¶ 5).
2
David Miscavige in 1995. At this
3
meeting, Mr. Miscavige commented on
4
certain purported mistakes that Mr.
5
Headley made during a trip to
6
Clearwater, Florida, and told Mrs.
7
Headley and others that he had her
8
husband returned to Gold Base “in a
9
body bag.” Although Mr. Headley
10
ultimately was not returned in a body
11
bag, he was assigned heavy manual labor
12
upon his return to Gold Base and was in
13
terrible shape emotionally upon his
14
return.
15 7. During another meeting, David (C. Headley Depo., 184:25-185:17;
16 Miscavige grabbed the back of Mrs. 186:3-6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
17 Headley’s pants and made her drag him Darnell Decl.).
18 across a room to demonstrate to her and
19 others that they were his ball and chain.
20 This was a humiliating and physically
21 exhausting experience.
22 8. Mrs. Headley also was denied food (C. Headley Depo., 138:4-12; 141:12-15;
23 privileges for lengthy periods of time, 141:21-142:6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to
24 frequently was required to sleep at her the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
25 work station on the Gold Base, and was 594:3-16; 665:4-8, attached as Exhibit
26 assigned heavy manual labor. As a result “S” to the Darnell Decl. C. Headley
27 of some of these punishments, she lost Depo., 881:13-882:23, attached at
28
92
JUDGMENT
#:9434
1
significant weight and was emaciated and Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
2
sleep deprived by the time she finally
3
escaped Gold Base.
4 9. Mrs. Headley also observed her (C. Headley Depo., 227:6:229:18; 279:6-
5 coworkers being made to divorce, clean 279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
6 human excrement out of ponds, subjected Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 524:8-
7 to verbal abuse, restricted to Gold Base 17, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell
8 for months on end, required to sleep in Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 4; C. Headley
9 sleeping bags at their work stations, and Depo., 877:25-879:6, attached at Exhibit
10 not being allowed to leave to eat or “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
11 shower. Indeed, Mrs. Headley was told
12 on several occasions that she needed to
13 divorce her husband. This was first
14 suggested at a meeting in 2000, when
15 David Miscavige informed staff members
16 of a personnel policy that he was
17 considering implementing that would
18 require her to divorce her husband to
19 remain an employee of Religious
20 Technology Center (“RTC”). In 2004,
21 this policy became official and Mrs.
22 Headley was told that she had to divorce
23 her husband to remain at RTC. After
24 Mrs. Headley’s husband escaped Gold
25 Base, she again was told that she needed
26 to divorce him.
27 10. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers did (Fraser Depo., 100:11-24; 102:10-105:8;
28
93
JUDGMENT
#:9435
1
not have uncensored access to mail; 106:13-16; 107:24-110:10, attached as
2
incoming and outcoming mail was Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
3
censored. Additionally, personal Headley Depo., 137:11-12, attached as
4
telephone calls were monitored by a third Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
5
person, and Mrs. Headley and her H e a d l e y Depo., 842:4-10;
6
coworkers were required to obtain 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12; 849:19-24;
7
permission before making personal phone 851:10-14; 852:10-24; 854:23-858:18;
8
calls. Finally, Mrs. Headley and her 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5;
9
coworkers had limited access to email. 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T”
10
To use the internet, Sea Organization to the Darnell Decl.).
11
members at Gold Base were required to
12
ask and receive permission.
13 11. On at least one occasion, Mrs. (C. Headley Depo., 849:14-852:15;
14 Headley was pressured and threatened 854:11-22; 868:9-869:2, attached as
15 with punishment if she did not write a Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
16 threatening letter to her husband to “get
17 his act together” and get out of trouble
18 for whatever he had done previously.
19 Mrs. Headley knew that all of her
20 communications were filtered by
21 Defendants, and only included statements
22 in her letters that she knew would be sent
23 along to her family members. Her family
24 did not even know where Gold Base was
25 located, and was not allowed to know
26 this information.
27 12. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also (C. Headley Depo. 541:2-5; 11-19,
28
94
JUDGMENT
#:9436
1
were strictly prohibited from attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell
2
communicating any desire to leave Gold Decl.; Deposition of Astra Woodcraft
3
Base. They were told that it was a major (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:10-20, attached
4
transgression to want to leave, and that if as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.).
5
it was discovered that they thought about
6
leaving, they would be placed on heavy
7
manual labor and placed under security
8
watch. Additionally, they would be
9
10
interrogated, and restricted to the Gold
11
Base property.
12 13. Sea Organization members were told (Fraser Depo., 97:15-98:10, attached as
13 it was a “high crime” to call the police, Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
14 and Mrs. Headley believed that dire Headley Depo., 139:2-5; 139:7-140:10,
15 consequences would result if she attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell
16 attempted to call 911. Indeed, she feared Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 525:19-526:16;
17 that if she called 911, she would lose all 531:4-8, attached as Exhibit “R” to the
18 contact with her family, that she would Darnell Decl.).
19 be put on heavy manual labor, she would
20 be stripped of all rights, that she would
21 be ostracized from everyone at Gold
22 Base, that she would have no access to
23 outside phone lines for a year or two, that
24 she would not be allowed to leave the
25 property without a security escort, and
26 that she would be assigned a full-time
27 security watch. Mrs. Headley further
28
95
JUDGMENT
#:9437
1
believed that if she called 911, the police
2
would never get past the security at the
3
property. Indeed, the corporate designee
4
for the Church of Scientology
5
International testified that she could not
6
recall anytime when the police were
7
called to Gold Base for something that
8
occurred within the perimeter fence at
9
Gold Base or that concerned a Sea
10
Organization member.
11 14. Extensive security measures were put (Norton Depo., 59:23-61:4; 65:13-66:22;
12 in place at Gold Base to prevent Mrs. 68:25-71:3, attached as Exhibit “K” to
13 Headley and her coworkers from leaving. the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 31:14-
14 Gold Base is 500 acre piece of property 23, 65:6-67:22; 68:11-24; 69:18-25,
15 surrounded by a perimeter fence. Security attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell
16 cameras were located along the perimeter Decl.; Davis Depo., 186:12-188:12,
17 fence. Additionally, the perimeter fence attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell
18 was equipped with motion detectors, Decl. Norton Depo.,, attached as Exhibit
19 flood lights, and “shaker” type devices “K” to the Darnell Decl.; McShane
20 that detect whether or not the fence was Depo., 79:23-80:3, attached as Exhibit
21 moved. Portions of the perimeter fence “G” to the Darnell Decl.).
22 also were topped with spikes that face
23 both inward and outward. On at least one
24 occasion, the motion sensors on the fence
25 sounded an alarm when a staff member
26 attempted to climb the fence and leave;
27 this caused security to initiate a “blow
28
96
JUDGMENT
#:9438
1
drill” which is discussed in greater detail
2
later.
3 15. Security guards were present at Gold (Norton Depo., 74:1-13; 75:12-17; 75:22-
4 Base twenty-four hours a day during Mrs. 25; 76:14-77:8, attached as Exhibit “K”
5 Headley’s employment. These security to the Darnell Decl.; Dunigan Depo.,
6 guards carried handcuffs, batons, and 22:4-24:18; 41:19-21; 83:3-86:15,
7 mace. Some of the security guards also attached as Exhibit “N” to the Darnell
8 carried firearms, and an attack dog was Decl.; Fraser Depo., 62:14-63:3; 63:6-15;
9 assigned to the security detail at Gold 65:2; 68:18-69:5; 78:2-9; 181:13-18,
10 Base. attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell
11 Decl.; McShane Depo. 78:24-79:5,
12 attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell
13 Decl.).
14
15 16. There was an observation post on the (Davis Depo., 186:12-188:12, attached as
16 hillside near Gold Base containing Exhibit “L” to the Darnell Decl.).
17 cameras that monitor and scan the entire
18 Gold Base property.
19 17. By 2001 or 2002, a security camera (C. Headley Depo., 147:21-148:20;
20 was installed on top of Mrs. Headley’s 160:15-161:1, attached as Exhibit “Q” to
21 house by one of the security guards that the Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 55:9-
22 worked at Gold Base. If Mrs. Headley 21; 57:4-57:17; 110:5-23, attached as
23 drove down the road away from her Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.).
24 house, she easily could be detected by the
25 security camera. Security also was
26 present at some of the locations that Mrs.
27 Headley lived, and if staff members at
28 Gold Base did not arrive to work on any
97
JUDGMENT
#:9439
1
given day, security guards or other
2
personnel were dispatched to locate these
3
workers.
4 18. “Perimeter Council” meetings were (Fraser Depo., 87:17-88:4, attached as
5 regularly held at the Gold Base property. Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton
6 During these meetings individuals who Depo., 71:10-72:14, attached as Exhibit
7 were of “concern” were discussed, “K” to the Darnell Decl.).
8 including individuals who wanted to
9 leave. In fact, security guards were
10 instructed to keep a close eye on
11 individuals who were believed to want to
12 leave the Sea Organization.
13 19. Sea Organization members were (See Fraser Depo., 123:4-8; 123:23-
14 often not be allowed to leave Gold Base 124:9, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
15 without an escort if they were viewed as Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 73:7-73:25,
16 being at risk of leaving the Sea attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell
17 Organization. Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 582:24-585:16,
18 attached as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell
19 Decl.).
20 20. “Musters” were regularly held at (Fraser Depo., 129:1-17; 132:8-19,
21 Gold Base to account for the attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell
22 whereabouts of every single staff Decl.).
23 member.
24 21. Defendants engage in what it (Norton Depo., 26:17-28:17; 48:1-4,
25 referred to as a “blow drill” anytime a attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell
26 member of the Sea Organization leaves Decl.; McShane Depo., 84:23-85:23;
27 Gold Base without prior permission. The 86:13-14, attached as Exhibit “G” to the
28 purpose of these blow drills is to locate Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 138:24-
98
JUDGMENT
#:9440
1
the individual who has left and get the 139:12, attached as Exhibit “H” to the
2
person to return to Gold Base. Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 79:4-
3
80:23, attached as Exhibit “M” to the
4
Darnell Decl.).
5 22. During blow drills, individuals are (C. Headley Depo., 389:18-390:5;
6 pursued, and their whereabouts are 495:7-496:24; 510:14-21, attached as
7 tracked by a variety of methods. These Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton
8 methods include tracking the checking, Depo., 32:6-18; 36:4-37:13; 42:10-44:14;
9 credit and financial accounts of 48:19-50:16, attached as Exhibit “K” to
10 individuals, researching their travel the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo.,
11 plans, and placing phone calls to 79:7-17, attached as Exhibit “M” to the
12 determine an individual’s location. Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19,
13 Anywhere from thirty to seventy people attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell
14 could be dispatched to track the every Decl.; Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12, attached
15 move of someone who left. After an as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
16 individual is located, efforts are made to Headley Depo., 195:6-18, attached as
17 “persuade” them to return to Gold Base, Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.;
18 which sometimes involves physical Declaration of Marty Rathbun, (“Rathbun
19 coercion. Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15; 28).
20 23. On a number of occasions when Sea (M. Headley Depo., 926:18-949:22,
21 Organization members attempted to leave attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell
22 Gold Base, they were captured and Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 148:21-154:19;
23 returned. One of Mrs. Headley’s 155:1-17; 193:11-199:13, attached as
24 coworkers drove a car through the Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.;
25 security gate at Gold Base to get out. McShane Depo., 66:3-68:17, attached as
26 Several of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad
27 were physically restrained and returned Depo., 80:9-19; 169:9-19, attached as
28
99
JUDGMENT
#:9441
1
to the property. Other workers were Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton
2
intercepted by Sea Organization members Depo., 82:3-10; 82:13-83:10, attached
3
at a bus station and convinced to return to hereto as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell
4
Gold Base; upon their return, they were Decl.).
5
assigned hard labor. One worker
6
attempted to leave the Sea Organization
7
on several occasions and was returned,
8
each time being placed under 24-hour
9
surveillance. Indeed, as a general rule,
10
anyone who left Gold Base without
11
permission and was returned, was
12
restricted to the property and assigned
13
manual labor.
14 24. Mrs. Headley observed that after her (C. Headley Depo., 260:18-262:2; 264:3-
15 coworker, Tanja Castle, attempted to 265:25, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
16 leave, she was placed on heavy manual Darnell Decl.).
17 labor, isolated from other workers, not
18 allowed to leave Gold Base for any
19 reason, and was assigned a permanent
20 guard. Additionally, Mrs. Castle was
21 locked in a room with Mike Rinder and
22 Warren McShane, high ranking Sea
23 Organization members, during which
24 these men yelled and screamed at Ms.
25 Castle and told her that she was never
26 going to be able to see her husband again.
27 Mrs. Headley also was forced to try to
28
100
JUDGMENT
#:9442
1
convince Mrs. Castle to stay and to
2
divorce her husband.
3 25. Many of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers (Norton Depo., 84:8-86:3, attached as
4 at Gold Base were prevented from Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad
5 leaving. Michael Norton testified that he Depo., 80:9-19; 127:23-128:4; 164:10-
6 attempted to leave Gold Base in 2003, 20; 169:9-19, attached as Exhibit “J” to
7 and that staff members at Gold Base the Darnell Decl.).
8 attempted to physically prevent him from
9 leaving. In fact, he was physically
10 prevented access to his motorcycle when
11 he attempted to leave. Maureen Bolstad
12 also testified to being prevented from
13 leaving, and to being restricted to a trailer
14 on a corner of the property for a period of
15 time.
16 26. As recent as April of this year, the (Davis Depo., 17:8-18:9; 22:5-9;
17 Church of Scientology dispatched a team 194:13-1, attached as Exhibit “L” to the
18 of four individuals to Texas to pursue a Darnell Decl.; Incident Report, 6/8:30-
19 Sea Organization member who left Gold 36; 43-46, attached as Exhibit “P” to the
20 Base a few days earlier without Darnell Decl.).
21 permission. To determine the
22 whereabouts of this individual, private
23 investigators were hired, who then
24 tracked this individual to a motel in
25 Texas. Once his whereabouts were
26 determined, these four Sea Organization
27 members flew to Texas, arrived
28
101
JUDGMENT
#:9443
1
unannounced at the individuals’s motel at
2
5:30 in the morning, and then attempted
3
to persuade this individual to return to
4
the Sea Organization. Despite the
5
insistence of one of these four Sea
6
Organization members that he was not
7
“sent” by anyone at the Church to pursue
8
the individual who had blown the Sea
9
Organization, an Incident Report filed
10
with the Riverside County Sheriff
11
confirms that these four Scientology staff
12
members were summoned and sent to
13
“persuade” this individual to return to the
14
Sea Organization.
15 27. The passports of Sea Organizations (See Fraser Depo., 78:7-8, attached as
16 members were locked up at Gold Base, Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
17 preventing Sea Organization members
18 from freely coming and going.
19 28. Mrs. Headley was coerced into (C. Headley Depo., 734:20-25; 735:1-15;
20 having two abortions during her time the 7 3 7 : 6 - 7 3 8 : 1 4 ; 739:12-740:21;
21 Sea Organization. The first abortion 7 6 0 : 1 5 - 7 6 2 : 9 ; 764:81-765:8;
22 occurred when Mrs. Headley was only 770:10-771:7, attached as Exhibit “S” to
23 nineteen years old while working at Gold the Darnell Decl.).
24 Base. She was ordered by the Medical
25 Officer at Gold Base to have an abortion
26 and told that she would be placed on
27 heavy manual labor and subjected to
28
102
JUDGMENT
#:9444
1
interrogation if she did not have an
2
abortion. She also was forbidden from
3
discussing her pregnancy with her
4
husband, other than telling him that she
5
was pregnant and that they would both be
6
in big trouble and she would be assigned
7
heavy manual labor if she did not have an
8
abortion. Mrs. Headley was escorted to
9
the abortion clinic by male staff member
10
and was coached in detail on how to
11
respond to the questions asked of her by
12
staff at the abortion clinic. Mrs. Headley
13
was extremely distraught over this
14
abortion, but feared that the
15
consequences of not having an abortion
16
were too great.
17 29. Mrs. Headley was coerced to (C. Headley Depo., 771:22-772:2;
18 undergo a second abortion in 1996 while 772:17-778:4; , attached as Exhibit “S” to
19 living away from her husband in the Darnell Decl.).
20 Clearwater, Florida. After Mrs. Headley
21 discovered that she was pregnant in 1996,
22 one of the staff members in Florida told
23 her that she would have to undergo an
24 abortion and that they had already
25 arranged for one of her coworkers to loan
26 her the money for the procedure. Mrs.
27 Headley asked for permission to call her
28
103
JUDGMENT
#:9445
1
husband in California to discuss her
2
pregnancy and the demand that she have
3
an abortion, but this request was denied.
4
Further, another staff member told her
5
that she had have an abortion or else
6
there would be severe consequences.
7
After Mrs. Headley was coerced to have
8
her second abortion, she was interrogated
9
at length by a staff member to determine
10
if she had intentionally become pregnant
11
in an attempt to leave the Sea
12
Organization. Mrs. Headley believed
13
that if it appeared in any way that she
14
intentionally became pregnant, that she
15
would be removed from her position,
16
separated from her husband, and placed
17
on heavy manual labor.
18 30. Although there was a written policy (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-736:3;
19 that Sea Org members would be sent to a 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21;
20 Class 5 organization, that policy was not 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as
21 utilized. Instead, women who became Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.;
22 pregnant were placed on heavy manual Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as
23 labor (washing large pots and pans in the Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C.
24 mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached
25 weeds) and were interrogated to convince as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).
26 them not to leave, and instead to have
27 abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least
28
104
JUDGMENT
#:9446
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
actually had abortions.
10 31. Astra Woodcraft, a former member (Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-25, 109:18-
11 of the Sea Organization, testified that 110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the
12 Defendants coerce women in the Sea Darnell Decl.).
13 Organization to have abortions. In fact,
14 she was specifically assigned the task of
15 convincing women to have abortions
16 when they became pregnant so that they
17 would continue working in the Sea
18 Organization.
19 32. Specifically, she was told by her (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13; 829:830:8,
20 supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell
21 who worked for RTC would be allowed Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20,
22 to leave, and that if they did, they would attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell
23 be brought back to Gold Base. Decl.).
24 Additionally, although Mrs. Headley
28
105
JUDGMENT
#:9447
1
severe, including assignment to heavy
2
labor, extensive interrogations,
3
assignment of an escort to prevent her
4
from leaving, separation from her
5
husband, and restriction to Gold Base for
6
a lengthy period of time. She also
7
believed that if she left and went to her
8
parents to try to get away, her mother
9
10
would lose his job.
11 33. In late January 2005, Mrs. Headley (C. Headley, 155:20-25, attached hereto
12 determined that she could no longer bear as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.).
13 the conditions at Gold Base and escaped.
14
15 34. Two Sea Organization members (C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26-
16 tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in 157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the
17 Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left. Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,
18 These individuals attempted to get Mrs. 515:23-518:9, attached as Exhibit “R” to
19 Headley to return to Gold Base with the Darnell Decl.).
20 them, and one of the individuals
21 threatened that he would follow her to
22 her final destination, that her family
23 would be barred from continuing in
24 Scientology because she was leaving, and
25 that she would never be able to speak
26 with her family againThis same
27 individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband
28
106
JUDGMENT
#:9448
1
and told him that she had been
2
intercepted and would not be coming to
3
meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs.
4
Headley that her coworkers would be in
5
serious trouble as a result of her leaving.
6
7 35. When Mrs. Headley escaped Gold (C. Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8,
8 Base, she was emaciated and had been attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell
9 sleep deprived for years. For several Decl.).
10 weeks prior to escaping, she was forced
11 to sleep on her office floor in a sleeping
12 bag.
13 36. Mrs. Headley was forced to perform (Declaration of Robert V. Levine, PH.D.,
14 labor for Defendant against her will as a ¶¶1-101).
15 result of physical, social, and
16 psychological pressures imposed upon
17 him by Defendant.
18 37. “Scientologists, as a general rule, are (Davis Depo., attached as Exhibit “L” to
19 opposed of any human rights violation: the Darnell Decl., 104:25-105:14)
20 Anything that violates an individual’s (emphasis added).
21 right to choose, anything that would
22 reduce a person’s freedom,
23 individual[ity], and ability to think for
24 themselves.”
25 38. Pursuant to Defendants’ religious (McShane Depo., 153:17-156:3; 156:4-
26 policies, all men (and women) have 17, attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell
27 “inalienable rights to their own lives” and Decl.; Fraser Depo., 242:12-245:20;
28 “inalienable rights to think freely, to talk 246:20-247:1, attached as Exhibit “H” to
107
JUDGMENT
#:9449
1
freely, to write freely their own opinions the Darnell Decl.).
2
and to counter or utter or write upon the
3
opinions of others,” and have
4
“inalienable rights to the creation of their
5
own kind.”
6 39. Defendants officially prohibit human (McShane Depo., 100:18-101:6, attached
7 trafficking, forced labor, involuntary as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.;
8 servitude, and involuntary confinement. Fraser Depo., 168:20-25; 171:18-23,
9 attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell
10 Decl.).
11 40. Scientology officially prohibits (McShane Depo., 95:24-96:16; 162:22-
12 physical punishment or detention, 163:10 attached as Exhibit “G” to the
13 physical abuse, battery, assault, Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 161:6-8;
14 aggravated battery, physical isolation, or 161:21-162:2; 166:3-11; 172:22-173:2;
15 the use of threats or physical 174:16-176:2; 176:14-18, attached as
16 intimidation. Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
17 41. Defendants officially do not (McShane Depo., 85:17-87:2, attached as
18 physically force, threaten, or otherwise Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.).
19 coerce anyone to return to the Sea
20 Organization after they have left,
21 including making threats that a person
22 would never see their family members
23 again.
24 42. Defendants do not officially allow (McShane Depo., 96:17-96:20, attached
25 food or sleep deprivation. as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.;
26 Fraser Depo., 163:14-16, attached as
27 Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.).
28 43. It also religious doctrine that (McShane Depo., 163:11-13, attached as
108
JUDGMENT
#:9450
1
members of the Church of Scientology Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.).
2
must abide by the law.
3 44. Defendants officially prohibit forced (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16-
4 abortions, and if a woman is coerced to 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit
5 have an abortion, such is a violation of “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo.,
6 church policy. 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit
8 45. Defendants officially do not allow a (McShane Depo., 92:11-13, attached as
9 person to be forced or coerced to divorce Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser
10 his or her spouse. Depo., 160:8-10, attached as Exhibit “H”
11 to the Darnell Decl.).
12
13 III. DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14
15 PURPORTED CONCLUSION OF DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW LAW AND SUPPORTING
16 AUTHORITY
17 1. The essence of a claim for “forced 1. DISPUTED
18 labor” under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (“Section Defendants’ Purported Conclusion of
19 1595") is that the plaintiff is held in some Law is false for the following reasons:
20 form of captivity and forced to perform First, 18 U.S.C. § 1595 merely
21 labor against his or her will. Victims of provides that: “An individual who is a
22 Trafficking and Violence Protection Act victim of a violation may bring a civil
23 of 2000 (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1589 action against the perpetrator (or whoever
24 (defining “forced labor”). knowingly benefits, financially or by
25 receiving anything of value from
26 participation in a venture which that
27 person knew or should have known has
28 engaged in an act in violation of this
109
JUDGMENT
#:9451
1
chapter) in an appropriate district court of
2
the United States and may recover
3
damages and reasonable attorneys fees.”
4
This statutory section does not define
5
“forced labor” and does not limit forced
6
labor to only instances where there is
7
some form of captivity or a person is
8
forced to perform labor against his or her
9
will.
10
Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a) very
11
specifically defines forced labor as
12
follows: “Whoever knowingly provides
13
or obtains the labor or services of a
14
person by any one of, or by any
15
combination of, the following means--
16
(1) by means of force, threats of force,
17
physical restraint, or threats of physical
18
restraint to that person or another person;
19
(2) by means of serious harm or threats of
20
serious harm to that person or another
21
person;
22
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened
23
abuse of law or legal process; or
24
(4) by means of any scheme, plan, or
25
pattern intended to cause the person to
26
believe that, if that person did not
27
perform such labor or services, that
28
110
JUDGMENT
#:9452
1
person or another person would suffer
2
serious harm or physical restraint,
3
shall be punished as provided under
4
subsection (d).”
5
Third, 18 U.S.C. 1589(c)(2) defines
6
“serious harm” as “any harm, whether
7
physical or nonphysical, including
8
psychological, financial, or reputational
9
harm, that is sufficiently serious, under
10
all the surrounding circumstances, to
11
compel a reasonable person of the same
12
background and in the same
13
circumstances to perform or to continue
14
performing labor or services in order to
15
avoid incurring that harm.” Based on
16
these very specific definitions, “forced
17
labor” does not merely occur when
18
someone is held in “physical captivity.”
19
Fourth, case law makes clear that
20
this statutory section contemplated far
21
more than mere physical captivity, and
22
was intended to address not only
23
physical harm and captivity, but also
24
psychological methods of coercion:
25
“Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set
26
of provisions—the Victims of
27
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
28
111
JUDGMENT
#:9453
1
of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
2
was intended expressly to counter United
3
States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108
4
S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
5
United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145,
6
150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf.
7
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
8
Kozminski, the Supreme Court had
9
interpreted the pre-existing ban on
10
‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to
11
prohibit only conduct involving the use
12
or threatened use of physical or legal
13
coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150
14
(citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52).
15
“In glossing the new statute, the
16
conference report said ‘serious harm’ was
17
intended to encompass not only physical
18
violence, but also more subtle
19
psychological methods of
20
coercion—‘such as where traffickers
21
threaten harm to third persons, restrain
22
their victims without physical violence or
23
injury, or threaten dire consequences by
24
means other than overt violence.’ See
25
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It
26
continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as
27
used in this Act refers to a broad array of
28
112
JUDGMENT
#:9454
1
harms, including both physical and
2
nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d
3
150.
4 2. Section 1595 provides that “an 2. DISPUTED (IN PART)
5 individual who is a victim of a violation 18 U.S.C. § 1595 allows a victim of
6 of forced labor statutes “may bring a civil forced labor to bring a civil suit against
7 action” against someone who has not only the perpetrator of the crime, but
8 “obtain[ed] the labor or services of [that] also against “whoever knowingly
9 person by any one of, or by any benefits, financially or by receiving
10 combination of,” designated means set anything of value from participation in a
11 forth in the section. 18 U.S.C. § 1589. venture which that person knew or
12 should have known has engaged in an act
13 in violation of this chapter.”
14 3. “The interplay between the First 3. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
15 Amendment’s Free Exercise and ministerial exception does not apply to
16 Establishment Clauses creates an claims under the TVPA or to claims
17 exception to an otherwise fully applicable where there is no conflict between
18 statute if the statute would interfere with religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
19 a religious organization’s employment Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
20 decisions regarding its ministers.” (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
21 Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Report and Recommendation dated
22 Archbishop of Seattle, 598 F.3d 668, 670 August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
23 (9th Cir. 2010). Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
24 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
25 4. This constitutionally-compelled rule, 4. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
26 known as the “ministerial exception,” ministerial exception does not apply to
27 “applies as a matter of law across claims under the TVPA or to claims
28 statutes, both state and federal, that where there is no conflict between
113
JUDGMENT
#:9455
1
would interfere with the church-minister religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
2
relationship.” Id. at 673. The ministerial Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
3
exception applies “not only to the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
4
selection of ministers but more broadly to Report and Recommendation dated
5
employment actions”, including but not August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
6
limited to “the determination of a Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
7
minister’s salary, his place of assignment, 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
8
and the duty he is to perform in the
9
furtherance of the religious mission of
10
the church.” Id. at 672, 674.
11 5. Plaintiff Claire Headley is subject to 5. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
12 the ministerial exception. See Court’s ministerial exception does not apply to
13 April 2, 2010 Order (granting claims under the TVPA or to claims
14 Defendants’ Joint Motion for Partial where there is no conflict between
15 Summary Judgment). religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
16 Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
17 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
18 Report and Recommendation dated
19 August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
20 Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
21 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
22 6. “Because the ministerial exception in 6. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
23 constitutionally compelled, it applies as a ministerial exception does not apply to
24 matter of law across statutes, both state claims under the TVPA or to claims
25 and federal, that would interfere with the where there is no conflict between
26 church-minister relationship.” Alcazar, religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
27 598 F.3d at 673. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
28
114
JUDGMENT
#:9456
1
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
2
Report and Recommendation dated
3
August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
4
Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
5
940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
6 7. “The [ministerial] exception was 7. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
7 created because government interference ministerial exception does not apply to
8 with the church-minister relationship claims under the TVPA or to claims
9 inherently burdens religion.” Id. (court’s where there is no conflict between
10 emphasis). religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
16 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
17 8. Under Alcazar, “The Religion 8. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the
18 Clauses . . . require a ‘ministerial ministerial exception does not apply to
19 exception’ to employment statutes if the claims under the TVPA or to claims
20 statute’s application would interfere with where there is no conflict between
21 a religious institution’s employment religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
22 decisions concerning its ministers.” 598 Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
23 F.3d at 671-72. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
27 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
28
115
JUDGMENT
#:9457
1
Moreover, the TVPA is not an
2
“employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
3
No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
4
Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
5
August 21, 2009); see also United States
6
v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
7
Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
8
538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
9
United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
10
110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
11
(W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
12 9. Summary judgment is granted 9. DISPUTED
13 dismissing plaintiff’s Claim under the The ministerial exception does not
14 Victims of Trafficking and Violence apply to claims under the TVPA or to
15 Protection Act of 200 (“TVPA”), 18 claims where there is no conflict between
16 U.S.C. § 1589. Given Plaintiff’s religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
17 numerous, continuing and bountiful Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
18 opportunities to communicate with the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
19 world, to live off the premises for Golden Report and Recommendation dated
20 Era, to travel, and to visit friends and August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
21 relatives, and her admissions that she Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
22 only left because and as a result of the 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
23 fact that her husband left, Plaintiff’s Moreover, the TVPA is not an
24 claim cannot be supported on the basis “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
25 that she was subject to forced labor based No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
26 upon physical restraint. Plaintiff’s claims Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
27 that she was subjected to forced labor August 21, 2009); see also United States
28
116
JUDGMENT
#:9458
1
based upon alleged emotional and v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
2
psychological distress and restraint Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
3
arising from the lifestyle restraints of a 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
4
Sea Org member; upon what she United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
5
considered to be arbitrary and harsh 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
6
church discipline; and upon her choice (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
7
not to depart the Sea Org and Golden Era Additionally, case law makes clear
8
and RTC because she believed that if she that the TVPA contemplated far more
9
left unilaterally without following the Sea than mere physical captivity, and was
10
Org’s prescribed “routing out” method intended to address not only physical
11
for departure she would effectively be harm and captivity, but also
12
excommunicated and no longer able to psychological methods of coercion:
13
communicate with her husband, friends “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set
14
and family; cannot be the basis for an of provisions—the Victims of
15
action by a minister against her church Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
16
under TVPA or otherwise, because of the of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
17
application of the First Amendment, the was intended expressly to counter United
18
ministerial exception, and the Religious States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108
19
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
20
(“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145,
21
as more fully set forth below. 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf.
22
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
23
24
25
26
27
28
117
JUDGMENT
#:9459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
150.
19 10. First, the minsterial exception 10. DISPUTED
20 generally precludes application of the of The ministerial exception does not
21 the TVPA to the employment relationship apply to claims under the TVPA or to
22 between a church and its ministers, and in claims where there is no conflict between
23 particular, between Headley and CSI. To religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
24 determine whether Headley can maintain Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
25 her TVPA claim, the Court would need to (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
26 inquire into the means by which CSI Report and Recommendation dated
27 acquired and kept Headley’s services, August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
28
118
JUDGMENT
#:9460
1
one of its ministers. That, however, is Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
2
precisely what the Court cannot do under 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
3
the ministerial exception and the Free Moreover, the TVPA is not an
4
Exercise and Establishment Clauses of “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
5
the Constitution. Alcazar, 598 F.3d at No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
6
671-72 (“The Religion Clauses . . . Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
7
require a ‘ministerial exception’ to August 21, 2009); see also United States
8
employment statutes if the statute’s v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
9
application would interfere with a Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
10
religious institution’s employment 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
11
decisions concerning its ministers.”) United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
12
“Because the ministerial exception is 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
13
constitutionally compelled, it applies as a (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
14
matter of law across statutes, both state
15
and federal, that would interfere with the
16
church-minister relationship.” 598 F.3d
17
at 673 (emphasis added).
18 11. While government may criminalize 11. DISPUTED
19 or create civil remedies for kidnapping, Churches are not above the law and
20 aggravated battery, or false imprisonment can be held liable for their conduct. See
21 even by churches of their ministers, it Turner v. Unification Church (D. R.I.
22 may not do so by means of a broad 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, 372 (“The
23 statute whose primary purpose and focus Supreme Court has recognized that the
24 is to regulate labor, that reaches conduct first amendment’s protection of religious
25 not constituting forcible restraint or liberty ‘embraces two concepts – freedom
26 violence, and by applying it to the labor to believe and freedom to act. The first is
27 relationship between a church and its absolute but, in the nature of things, the
28
119
JUDGMENT
#:9461
1
ministers. “The [ministerial] exception second cannot be. Conduct remains
2
was created because government subject to regulation for the protection of
3
interference with the church-minister society. . . . Thus, religious operations
4
relationship inherently burdens religion.” that endanger public safety, threaten
5
Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 673 (court’s disorder, endanger the health of a
6
emphasis). member, or drastically differ from
7
societal norms may be regulated or
8
prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v.
9
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
10
is fundamental to our system that each
11
person has a right to believe as he wishes
12
and to practice that belief according to
13
the dictates of his conscience, so long as
14
he does not violate the personal rights of
15
others).
16
The limitation sought by Defendants
17
would completely undermine the
18
important government interest in
19
preventing modern-day slavery, and
20
Congress specifically contemplated that
21
the TVPA would address far more than
22
mere physical captivity. 18 U.S.C. §
23
1589 was intended to address not only
24
25
26
27
28
120
JUDGMENT
#:9462
1
2
of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
3
4
5
S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
6
7
8
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
121
JUDGMENT
#:9463
1
2
3
4
150.
5 12. The statutory remedies for a § 1595 12. DISPUTED
6 violation demonstrate why the statute The ministerial exception does not
7 must be construed as subject to and apply to claims under the TVPA or to
8 limited by the ministerial exception. 18 claims where there is no conflict between
9 U.S.C. § 1593 states that a person who religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
10 proves a § 1595 claim will be entitled to Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
11 restitution and “the greater of the gross (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
12 income or value to the defendant of the Report and Recommendation dated
13 victim’s services or labor or the value of August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
14 the victim’s labor as guaranteed under the Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
15 minimum wage and overtime guarantees 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.” 18 Moreover, the TVPA is not an
17 U.S.C. § 1593(b)(3). The ministerial “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
18 exception makes Defendants immune No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
19 from exactly this dictate to churches what Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
20 they should pay their ministers, under § August 21, 2009); see also United States
21 1593, the FLSA, or otherwise. Plaintiff v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
22 is simply trying to impose an Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
23 unconstitutional wage regulation on CSI 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
24 through the “back door” of the TVPA. United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
25 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
26 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
27 Moreover, minimum wage and
28
122
JUDGMENT
#:9464
1
overtime is only one of a plethora of
2
damages available under the TVPA.
3
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3) a victim of
4
human trafficking or forced labor is
5
entitled to the following:
6
[A]ny costs incurred by the victim for--
7
(A) medical services relating to
8 physical, psychiatric, or psychological
care;
9
(B) physical and occupational therapy
10 or rehabilitation;
11 (C) necessary transportation,

temporary housing, and child care
12 expenses;
13 (D) lost income;
14 (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other

costs incurred; and
15
(F) any other losses suffered by the
16 victim as a proximate result of the
offense.
17
18 Additionally, Under 18 U.S.C. §
19 1589, “[t]he crime of forced labor occurs
20 when someone knowingly . . . obtains the
21 labor or services of a person: 1) by
22 threats of serious harm to, or physical
23 restraint against, that person or another
24 person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan,
25 or pattern intended to cause the person to
26 believe that, if the person did not perform
27 such labor or services, that person or
28 another person would suffer serious harm

123
JUDGMENT
#:9465
1
or physical restraint; or 3) by means of
2
the abuse or threatened abuse of law or
3
the legal process. . . .” Nothing in this
4
statute suggests that a finding of forced
5
labor is contingent on the failure to pay
6
minimum wage or overtime or any other
7
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
8
Instead, as noted by the Shukla court, the
9
TVPA very clearly “seeks to address the
10
evil of human trafficking and forced
11
labor, both of which strike directly at the
12
core individual liberty.” Shukla, No. 07-
13
CV-29 7 2 (CBA), Report and
14
Recommendation, at *14 (emphasis in
15
original).
16 13. To interpret the TVPA 13. DISPUTED
17 constitutionally, it must be construed not The ministerial exception does not
18 to apply when the “labor or services” in apply to claims under the TVPA or to
19 question are comprised of ministerial claims where there is no conflict between
20 activities for a church. Otherwise, courts religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
21 will be in the untenable, and Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
22 unconstitutional, position of constantly (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
23 questioning the means by which religious Report and Recommendation dated
24 institutions acquire and keep their August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
25 ministers’ and religious personnel’s’ Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
26 services. This would require the Court to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
27 examine religious practices which, as Moreover, the TVPA is not an
28
124
JUDGMENT
#:9466
1
discussed further below, are protected “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
2
from state interference and would result No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
3
in both substantive and procedural Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
4
entanglement in churches’ affairs, August 21, 2009); see also United States
5
contrary to the Establishment Clause. v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
6
See, e.g., Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672-73. If Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
7
the Court were to attempt to apply the 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
8
TVPA to the process by which Headley’s United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
9
relationship to Golden Era was 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
10
terminated, it inevitably would become (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
11
entangled in matters of religious practice, Moreover, minimum wage and
12
in violation of the ministerial exception. overtime is only one of a plethora of
13
Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, damages available under the TVPA.
14
1170 (1989). Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3) a victim of
15
human trafficking or forced labor is
16
entitled to the following:
17
[A]ny costs incurred by the victim for--
18
(A) medical services relating to
19 physical, psychiatric, or psychological
care;
20
(B) physical and occupational therapy
21 or rehabilitation;
22 (C) necessary transportation,

temporary housing, and child care
23 expenses;
24 (D) lost income;
25 (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other

costs incurred; and
26
(F) any other losses suffered by the
27 victim as a proximate result of the
offense.
28
125
JUDGMENT
#:9467
1
Additionally, Under 18 U.S.C. §
2
1589, “[t]he crime of forced labor occurs
3
when someone knowingly . . . obtains the
4
labor or services of a person: 1) by
5
threats of serious harm to, or physical
6
restraint against, that person or another
7
person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan,
8
or pattern intended to cause the person to
9
believe that, if the person did not perform
10
such labor or services, that person or
11
another person would suffer serious harm
12
13
14
the legal process. . . .” Nothing in this
15
statute suggests that a finding of forced
16
labor is contingent on the failure to pay
17
minimum wage or overtime or any other
18
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
19
Instead, as noted by the Shukla court, the
20
TVPA very clearly “seeks to address the
21
evil of human trafficking and forced
22
labor, both of which strike directly at the
23
core individual liberty.” Shukla, No. 07-
24
CV-29 7 2 (CBA), Rep o rt and
25
Recommendation, at *14 (emphasis in
26
original).
27
28
126
JUDGMENT
#:9468
1
14. At minimum, the TVPA cannot be 14. DISPUTED
2
applied to a church’s relationship with its First, the ministerial exception does
3
ministers in the abasence of actual not apply to claims under the TVPA or to
4
physical force or restraint or the threat of claims where there is no conflict between
5
the imminent and likely use of such religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
6
force. A compelling analogy is to the Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
7
realm of political speech, also protected (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
8
by the First Amendment. The Supreme Report and Recommendation dated
9
Court has recognized that speech (like August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
10
religious doctrine and practice) can and Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
11
often is intended to have a 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
12
psychologically coercive effect. NAACP Second, churches are not above the
13
v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886, law and can be held liable for their
14
911 (1982) (“The claim that the conduct. See Turner v. Unification
15
expressions were intended to exercise a Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
16
coercive impact on respondent does not 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized
17
remove them from the reach of the First that the first amendment’s protection of
18
Amendment”) (quoting Org. for a Better religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts
19
Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 – freedom to believe and freedom to act.
20
(1971)). See Gitlow v. New York, 268 The first is absolute but, in the nature of
21
U.S. 652, 673 (1925) (“every idea is an things, the second cannot be. Conduct
22
incitement”) (Holmes, J., dissenting). remains subject to regulation for the
23
Nevertheless, such speech, even protection of society. . . . Thus, religious
24
“advocacy of the use of force or of law operations that endanger public safety,
25
violation,” is protected except and only to threaten disorder, endanger the health of
26
extent that it “is directed to inciting or a member, or drastically differ from
27
producing imminent lawless action and is societal norms may be regulated or
28
127
JUDGMENT
#:9469
1
likely to incite or produce such action.” prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v.
2
Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927-28 Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
3
(quoting Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. is fundamental to our system that each
4
444, 447 (1968)). So, too, a church’s person has a right to believe as he wishes
5
application of religious doctrine and and to practice that belief according to
6
practice to its minsters must be protected the dictates of his conscience, so long as
7
in the absence of actual physical restraint he does not violate the personal rights of
8
or the threat of imminent restraint. others).
9
Defendants’ actions with respect to Third, the limitation sought by
10
Headley cannot meet that constitutionally Defendants would completely undermine
11
mandated standard. the important government interest of
12
preventing modern-day slavery.
13
14
15
mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. §
16
1589 was adopted to address not only
17
18
19
20
21
22
of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
23
24
25
S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
26
27
28
128
JUDGMENT
#:9470
1
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
150.
25 15. Even if the TVPA could be applied 15. DISPUTED for all of the reasons
26 to narrow circumstances of actual or identified in Plaintiff’s section of
27 threatened physical restraint or harm, Undisputed Facts set forth above.
28
129
JUDGMENT
#:9471
1
Plaintiff’s claim still fails as a matter of
2
law. Plaintiff has testified that she did
3
not take advantage of his [sic] numerous
4
opportunities to leave Golden Era or
5
TRC by her own unilateral actions
6
because she feared he [sic] would be
7
“declared” a “suppressive person”
8
(effectively excommunicated) if she
9
attempted to leave the Sea Org.
10
However, a church’s implementation of a
11
policy requiring its members to “shun” an
12
excised former member or
13
excommunicating that member from the
14
religious community may not be a basis
15
to impose civil liability upon the church
16
or its officials. See, e.g., Paul v.
17
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New
18
York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir.
19
1987).
20 16. By the same token, Plaintiff’s 16. DISPUTED
21 claim that she did not leave because of The ministerial exception does not
22 the restricted lifestyle of Sea Org apply to claims under the TVPA or to
23 members fail to establish a claim under claims where there is no conflict between
24 TVPA when made in the context present religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
25 here: a minister complaining about the Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
26 conditions of her “employment” by her (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
27 church. Headley’s claims that the Report and Recommendation dated
28
130
JUDGMENT
#:9472
1
defendant churches i m p o s e d August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
2
psychological and emotional barriers that Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
3
prevented her from leaving her allegedly 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
4
forced labor, by, inter alia, restricting her Moreover, the TVPA is not an
5
access to the outside world; requiring her “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
6
to perform lowly tasks and physical No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
7
labor; subjecting her to a higly structured Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
8
work environment; depriving her of August 21, 2009); see also United States
9
sufficient sleep; and requiring she v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
10
undergo confessions of transgressions for Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
11
which she was subject to disciplinary 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
12
action, all “encompass[] tangible United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
13
employment actions”, including but not 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
14
limited to “the determination of a (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
15
minister’s salary, his place of assignment, Additionally, the limitation sought by
16
and the duty he is to perform in the Defendants would completely undermine
17
furtherance of the religious mission of the important government interest of
18
the church.” Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672, preventing modern-day slavery.
19
674. While TVPA’s provision that labor Congress specifically contemplated that
20
can be “forced” by the use of certain the TVPA would address far more than
21
forms of psychological or emotional mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. §
22
coercion as well as by physical force is 1589 was adopted to address not only
23
perfectly rational and constitutional in a physical harm and captivity, but also
24
secular context, such an application in psychological methods of coercion:
25
the religious context of the lifestyle “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set
26
constraints that come with being a of provisions—the Victims of
27
member of a religious order cannot be Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
28
131
JUDGMENT
#:9473
1
made under the First Amendment or the of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
2
ministerial exception. was intended expressly to counter United
3
4
S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
5
6
7
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
132
JUDGMENT
#:9474
1
2
3
150.
4
Finally, churches are not above the
5
law and can be held liable for their
6
conduct. See Turner v. Unification
7
Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
8
372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized
9
that the first amendment’s protection of
10
religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts
11
– freedom to believe and freedom to act.
12
The first is absolute but, in the nature of
13
things, the second cannot be. Conduct
14
remains subject to regulation for the
15
protection of society. . . . Thus, religious
16
operations that endanger public safety,
17
threaten disorder, endanger the health of
18
a member, or drastically differ from
19
20
21
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
22
23
24
25
26
27
others).
28
133
JUDGMENT
#:9475
1
17. Indeed, actions that may be 17. DISPUTED as irrelevant.
2
actionable as torts in the secular context The ministerial exception does not
3
cannot be the basis for a lawsuit in the apply to claims under the TVPA or to
4
context of the church/minister claims where there is no conflict between
5
relationship. In Higgins v. Mayer, a religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
6
Catholic priest brought numerous tort Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
7
claims against his Bishop and the Church (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
8
for his removal from his position, Report and Recommendation dated
9
subsequent mandated psychiatric August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
10
treatment, which included drugs and Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
11
shock therapy, and public revelation of 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
12
alleged private defamatory information.
13
The court found that the complaint
14
adequately alleged “torts of invasion of
15
privacy, defamation, and the intentional
16
and negligent infliction of emotion
17
distress,” and therefore would be
18
actionable in a secular context. 210
19
Cal.App.3d at 1175. The court, however,
20
dismissed the complaint because, even if
21
defendants had engaged in the alleged
22
tortious conduct, “the acts so taken were
23
part and parcel of the Bishop’s
24
administration of his ecclesiastical
25
functions,” and thus were protected
26
activity under the ministerial exception.
27
Id. at 1175-76. Further:
28
134
JUDGMENT
#:9476
1
the torts recited are simply
2
too close to the peculiarly
3
religious aspects of the
4
transaction to be segregated
5
and treated separately – as
6
simple civil wrongs. The
7
making of accusations of
8
misconduct; the discussion of
9
same within the order; the
10
recommendation of
11
psychological or medical
12
treatment; the infliction,
13
whether intentionally or
14
negligently, of emotional
15
distress – these are all
16
activities and results which
17
will often, if not usually,
18
attend the difficult process by
19
which priestly faculties are
20
terminated.
21
Id. at 1176 (emphasis added). Accord,
22
Gunn v. Mariners Church, 167
23
Cal.App.4th 206, 217 (2008) following
24
Higgins and affirming summary
25
judgment dismissing claims of dismissed
26
church musical director for defamation
27
and invasion of privacy against church:
28
135
JUDGMENT
#:9477
1
“the ministerial exception applies to
2
preclude further judicial review
3
regardless of the otherwise tortious
4
nature of the statements”) (emphasis
5
added).
6 18. The Ninth Circuit also has 18. DISPUTED as irrelevant.
7 recognized that claims for emotional The ministerial exception does not
8 distress arising out of participation in a apply to claims under the TVPA or to
9 church (even by a mere member, let alone claims where there is no conflict between
10 a minister) are not actionable, even where religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
11 they would be actionable in a secular Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
12 context: (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
13 Intangible or emotional Report and Recommendation dated
14 harms cannot ordinarily serve August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
15 as a basis for maintaining a Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
16 tort cause of action against a 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
17 church for its practices – or
18 against its members. . .
19 .Offense to someone’ [sic]
20 sensibilities resulting from
21 religious conduct is simply
22 not actionable in tort. . . .
23 Without society’s tolerance
24 of offenses to sensibility, the
25 protection of religious
26 differences mandated by the
27 first amendment would be
28
136
JUDGMENT
#:9478
1
meaningless.
2
Id. at 883 (citations and footnote
3
omitted). Accord, Van Schaick, 535 F.
4
Supp. at 1139; Orlando v. Alamo, 646
5
F.2d 1288, 1290 (8th Cir. 1981on the
6 19. The appropriateness of a church’s 19. DISPUTED
7 disciplinary actions taken against a The ministerial exception does not
8 member, particularly a minister, has apply to claims under the TVPA or to
9 consistently been held to be beyond the claims where there is no conflict between
10 cognizance of the civil courts. See, e.g., religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
11 Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
12 Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 717 (1976); (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
13 Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, Report and Recommendation dated
14 1175 (1989); Paul, 819 F.2d at 883. In August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
15 this case, it is impossible to separate out Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
16 any claim that Plaintiff was subjected to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
17 forced labor by psychological or Moreover, the TVPA is not an
18 emotional distress from Plaintiff’s “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,
19 commitment to the Sea Org for many No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and
20 years and the difficult process by which Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
21 Plaintiff relinquished her position within August 21, 2009); see also United States
22 the Church. Courts may not v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
23 constitutionally review the propriety of a Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
24 religious order’s lifestyle and the 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
25 discipline imposed on the order’s United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
26 members to insure their obedience to its 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
27 precepts, nor may it review the order (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
28
137
JUDGMENT
#:9479
1
member’s acceptance of that discipline. Additionally, the limitation sought by
2
Defendants would completely undermine
3
the important government interest of
4
preventing modern-day slavery.
5
6
7
mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. §
8
1589 was adopted to address not only
9
10
11
12
13
14
of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
15
16
17
S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
18
19
20
Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
138
JUDGMENT
#:9480
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
150.
17
Finally, churches are not above the
18
19
20
Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
139
JUDGMENT
#:9481
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
8
9
10
11
12
13
others).
14 20. For these reasons, Headley’s 20. DISPUTED
15 complaint that she did not leave CSI or The ministerial exception does not
16 RTC because she had few or even no apply to claims under the TVPA or to
17 family, friends or associates outside of claims where there is no conflict between
18 the religion, no secular experiences or religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
19 training, and nowhere else to go or Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
20 nothing else to do withher life cannot be (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
21 a basis for a claim under TVPA or any Report and Recommendation dated
22 other tort theory. For better or worse, August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
23 Headley was raised as a committed Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
24 Scientologist and committed her life to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
25 the Sea Org; indeed, as she Moreover, the TVPA is not an
26 acknowledges, she was fully familiar “employment” statute, and instead it
27 with the Sea Org life because her mother concerns the most fundamental and basic
28
140
JUDGMENT
#:9482
1
had been a Sea Org member. In this human rights upon which our society was
2
respect, Headley is no different than founded. Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-
3
young people throughout history who, 2 9 7 2 (CBA), Report and
4
raised in a devout religious tradition, Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y.
5
commit themselves to a lifetime of August 21, 2009); see also United States
6
religious service as monks, nuns, priests, v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st
7
etc, often in isolated abbeys, convents, Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim,
8
and monasteries, and pursuant to vows of 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008);
9
poverty, abstinence, abnegation, United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR
10
isolation, and/or even silence. All such 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
11
individuals are subject to the possibility (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
12
that their commitment will not remain Additionally, the limitation sought by
13
steady and firm, and that they may Defendants would completely undermine
14
become disillusioned or disappointed by the important government interest of
15
their church. If they change their minds, preventing modern-day slavery.
16
they risk being cast into a secular world Congress specifically contemplated that
17
with which they are unfamiliar, for which the TVPA would address far more than
18
they are untrained, and in which, perhaps, mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. §
19
they may be alone. Certainly a Buddhist 1589 was adopted to address not only
20
monk or a Catholic nun who spends 20 or physical harm and captivity, but also
21
30 years in a monastery or convent would psychological methods of coercion:
22
be in no better position to transform to a “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set
23
secular life if he/she were to lose his/her of provisions—the Victims of
24
commitment than was Claire Headley. Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
25
Such individuals, under our system of of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589
26
religious freedom, have a right to make was intended expressly to counter United
27
such a choice and to assume such a risk, States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108
28
141
JUDGMENT
#:9483
1
and all churches have a right to accept S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).”
2
and rely upon such a commitment. Thus, United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145,
3
it would seem beyond cavil that the state 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf.
4
could not enact a statute prohibiting a Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In
5
person from seeking to join a religious Kozminski, the Supreme Court had
6
order in which he/she agrees to the interpreted the pre-existing ban on
7
lifestyle constraints inherent in such a ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to
8
choice, or prohibiting a church from prohibit only conduct involving the use
9
recruiting or accepting such people from or threatened use of physical or legal
10
joining the order and relying upon their coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150
11
vows of commitment, on the basis that (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52).
12
the state is protecting the individual from “In glossing the new statute, the
13
making a life choice that could severely conference report said ‘serious harm’ was
14
limit his/her lifestyle or secular social or intended to encompass not only physical
15
economic potential in the future if he/she violence, but also more subtle
16
later were to walk away from such p s y c h o l o g i c a l methods of
17
religious commitment. Equally coercion—‘such as where traffickers
18
inconceivable is that the state threaten harm to third persons, restrain
19
constitutionally could enact a statute their victims without physical violence or
20
requiring a church to provide warnings or injury, or threaten dire consequences by
21
caveats to such prospective religious means other than overt violence.’ See
22
initiates that they may be limiting their H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It
23
subsequent life choices if they agree to continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as
24
join in such a religious life but later used in this Act refers to a broad array of
25
decide that it was a mistake to join the harms, including both physical and
26
order. Nor, under the ministerial nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d
27
exception, could the state enact 150.
28
142
JUDGMENT
#:9484
1
legislation requiring a church after the Finally, churches are not above the
2
fact to compensate a nun, monk, priest, or law and can be held liable for their
3
member of a religious order who chooses conduct. See Turner v. Unification
4
to abandon his/her religious calling after Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
5
years of religious service, on the basis 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized
6
that upon such renunciation of faith, he that the first amendment’s protection of
7
or she had nowhere else to go, nothing to religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts
8
do, no secular friends, contacts or – freedom to believe and freedom to act.
9
training, etc. See Alcazar, supra. The first is absolute but, in the nature of
10
Accordingly, Headley, as with all things, the second cannot be. Conduct
11
other Sea Org members, had a First remains subject to regulation for the
12
Amendment right to commit her life to protection of society. . . . Thus, religious
13
the Sea Org members, had a First operations that endanger public safety,
14
Amendment right to commit her life to threaten disorder, endanger the health of
15
the Sea Org, and CSI and RTC had a a member, or drastically differ from
16
First Amendment right to accept her societal norms may be regulated or
17
commitment. If a court were to find that prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v.
18
a person such as Headley who makes Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
19
such a commitment and then becomes is fundamental to our system that each
20
disaffected and disillusioned thereafter person has a right to believe as he wishes
21
may bring a civil lawsuit after the fact and to practice that belief according to
22
because her secular life choices have the dictates of his conscience, so long as
23
been substantially narrowed or he does not violate the personal rights of
24
compromised, then the court in effect others).
25
would be denying the right of such a
26
person to have made such a religious
27
commitment in the first place, and of a
28
143
JUDGMENT
#:9485
1
church to seek and accept it, just as
2
surely as if the legislature had directly
3
prohibited or regulated it. Churches
4
would be severely chilled and restrained
5
from encouraging or accepting people
6
into such a religious life and religious
7
order, and individuals seeking such a life,
8
including the vast majority of those who
9
would remain committed to their original
10
choices, ultimately would be denied the
11
ability to pursue it. As aptly stated by the
12
New York Appellate Division in Meroni,
13
supra, 506 N.Y.S.2d at 178 (citations and
14
inner quotations omitted):
15
[An individual] must have
16
the personal and individual
17
right to determine for himself
18
or herself to associate with a
19
religious group. Otherwise,
20
in order to avoid potential
21
liability, neither the church
22
nor any other association
23
could ever rely on a person’s
24
agreement to join, and the
25
individual’s ability to
26
consent to join would be
27
severely compromised.
28
144
JUDGMENT
#:9486
1
The clear lesson of the various cases
2
discussed above is that the First
3
Amendment not only prohibits the state
4
from interfering with such a religious
5
commitment directly, but also from
6
creating liability or punishment for it
7
after the fact if the religious life does not
8
work out to the satisfaction of the person
9
who made the commitment. As with all
10
freedoms, the freedom provided by the
11
First Amendment does not come with its
12
risks and potential downsides even to
13
those it protects. Our society has made a
14
fundamental constitutional choice on the
15
side of such freedom. It has decided that
16
it is more important to protect the
17
freedom of choice of its citizens, and to
18
require them to learn to anticipate and
19
live with their exercise of such freedom.
20
In short, when it comes to religious
21
exercise and association, the state must
22
step aside and respect those choices and
23
decisions.
24 21. The Religious Freedom 21. DISPUTED
25 Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 The limitation sought by Defendants
26 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq, also bars under RFRA would completely
27 Plaintiff’s TVPA claim. RFRA precludes undermine the important government
28
145
JUDGMENT
#:9487
1
state action coercing religious adherents interest in preventing modern-day
2
“to act contrary to their religious beliefs slavery, as Congress specifically
3
by the threat of civil or criminal contemplated that the TVPA would
4
sanctions.” Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest address far more than mere physical
5
Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended
6
2008). RFRA, moreover, amends all to address not only physical harm and
7
federal law, whether enacted before or captivity, but also psychological methods
8
after RFRA itself unless a statute of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of
9
specifically excludes its application, a broader set of provisions—the Victims
10
which the TVPA notably does not do. 42 of Trafficking and Violence Protection
11
U.S.C. §20000bb-3(a), (b). Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section
12
1589 was intended expressly to counter
13
United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931,
14
108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788
15
(1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390
16
F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R.
17
Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01
18
(2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme
19
Court had interpreted the pre-existing
20
ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section
21
1584 to prohibit only conduct involving
22
the use or threatened use of physical or
23
legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at
24
150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-
25
52). “In glossing the new statute, the
26
27
28
146
JUDGMENT
#:9488
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
150.
14
18 U.S.C. § 1589 cannot be construed
15
anymore narrowly than its stated form, as
16
doing so would place basic individual
17
liberties as risk.
18 22. A person whose religious practices 22. DISPUTED for all of the reasons
19 are burdened in violation of RFRA “may identified in Plaintiff’s section of
20 assert that violation as a claim or defense Undisputed Facts set forth above.
21 in a judicial proceeding[.]” Gonzales v. O
22 Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do
23 Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 424 (2006). As
24 the undisputed evidence establishes that
25 Plaintiff was not physically restrained or
26 imprisoned and had numerous
27 opportunities to leave, application of the
28
147
JUDGMENT
#:9489
1
TVPA to CSI’s imposition of
2
ecclesiastical rules and discipline with
3
respect to its ministers and Sea Org
4
members would violate the Free Exercise
5
Clause. Hence, Plaintiff’s claim is barred
6
by RFRA.
7 23. Accordingly, the Court grants 23. DISPUTED
8 defendants motion for summary judgment The Court must deny Defendants’
9 dismissing the third cause of action for Motion for Summary Judgment because
10 forced labor under TVPA. Mrs. Headley is a victim of human
11 trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
12 1589. Mrs. Headley was threatened with
13 serious harm and physical restraint as set
14 forth in the detailed factual history under
15 her section of Undisputed Facts. Further,
16 Defendants clearly engaged in scheme
17 and pattern of conduct to cause Mrs.
18 Headley to believe that if she did not
19 continue working for Defendants, she
20 would suffer serious harm or physical
21 restraint. This included the significant
22 security measures implemented by
23 Defendants at Gold Base, as well as
24 Defendants’ repeated pattern of pursuing
25 Sea Organization members who left, only
26 to bring them back and place them under
27 more restrictions. Notably, Defendants
28
148
JUDGMENT
#:9490
1
actually told Mrs. Headley that she had
2
“forgone” her right to leave and that she
3
would be brought back even if she
4
attempted to leave. (C. Headley Depo.,
5
811:4-13, attached as Exhibit “T” to the
6
Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Mrs.
7
Headley was subjected to other means of
8
abuse, such as threats of loss of all
9
communication with her family and
10
husband, forced abortions, and attempts
11
to force her to divorce her husband.
12
Indeed, Defendants coerced Mrs.
13
Headley to have an abortion so that she
14
would continue performing labor for
15
them.
16
17 24. In addition, and/or alternatively, the 24. DISPUTED
18 Court summarily adjudicates that The ministerial exception does not
19 plaintiff’s claims that she was subjected apply to claims under the TVPA or to
20 to forced labor because of the lifestyle claims where there is no conflict between
21 restrictions of the Sea Org, or defendants’ religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
22 ecclesiastical rule, governance or Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
23 discipline, including claims that the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
24 defendant churches i m p o s e d Report and Recommendation dated
25 psychological and emotional barriers that August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
26 prevent her from leaving her allegedly Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
27 forced labor, by, inter alia, restricting her 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
28
149
JUDGMENT
#:9491
1
access to the outside world; requiring her Moreover, churches are not above the
2
to perform lowly tasks and physical law and can be held liable for their
3
labor; subjecting her to a highly conduct. See Turner v. Unification
4
structured work environment; depriving Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
5
her of sufficient sleep; requiring she 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized
6
undergo confessions of transgressions for that the first amendment’s protection of
7
which she was subject to disciplinary religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts
8
action; mandating a formal procedure, – freedom to believe and freedom to act.
9
called “routing out” for Sea Org members The first is absolute but, in the nature of
10
who wish to revoke their vows of service things, the second cannot be. Conduct
11
and leave the Sea Org; imposing remains subject to regulation for the
12
disciplinary penalties, including the protection of society. . . . Thus, religious
13
equavalent of excommunication, upon operations that endanger public safety,
14
Sea Org members who unilaterally leave threaten disorder, endanger the health of
15
their positions without participating in a member, or drastically differ from
16
the routing out process, all “encompass[] societal norms may be regulated or
17
tangible employment actions”, including prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v.
18
but not limited to “the dertmination of a Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
19
minster’s salary, his place of assignment, is fundamental to our system that each
20
and the duty he is to perform in the person has a right to believe as he wishes
21
furtherance of the religious mission of and to practice that belief according to
22
the church” Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672, the dictates of his conscience, so long as
23
674, and may not be the basis of a TVPA, he does not violate the personal rights of
24
or any other claim, against defendants. others).
25
26
pursuant to RFRA would completely
27
undermine the important government
28
150
JUDGMENT
#:9492
1
interest in preventing modern-day
2
slavery, and Congress specifically
3
contemplated that the TVPA would
4
address far more than mere physical
5
captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended
6
to address not only physical harm and
7
captivity, but also psychological methods
8
of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of
9
a broader set of provisions—the Victims
10
of Trafficking and Violence Protection
11
Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section
12
13
14
108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788
15
16
17
Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
151
JUDGMENT
#:9493
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
150.
14
Moreover, Plaintiff was unable to
15
leave Gold Base and Defendant’s employ
16
for all of the reasons identified in
17
18
forth above, which include physical
19
abuse, restraint, and confinement.
20 25. The court further summarily 25. DISPUTED
21 adjudicates that only acts by which a The ministerial exception does not
22 minister is subjected to physical force apply to claims under the TVPA or to
23 and restraint, or the threat of imminent claims where there is no conflict between
24 and likely use of such force and restraint, religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.
25 can be the subject of state interference, Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
26 through a forced labor statute or (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting
27 otherwise. Report and Recommendation dated
28
152
JUDGMENT
#:9494
1
August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
2
Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d
3
940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
4
Moreover, churches are not above the
5
6
7
Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It
22
23
24
25
26
27
others).
28
153
JUDGMENT
#:9495
1
2
pursuant to RFRA would completely
3
undermine the important government
4
interest in preventing modern-day
5
slavery, and Congress specifically
6
contemplated that the TVPA would
7
address far more than mere physical
8
captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended
9
to address not only physical harm and
10
captivity, but also psychological methods
11
of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of
12
a broader set of provisions—the Victims
13
of Trafficking and Violence Protection
14
Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section
15
16
17
108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788
18
19
20
Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
154
JUDGMENT
#:9496
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
150.
17
Moreover, Plaintiff was unable to
18
leave Gold Base and Defendant’s employ
19
for all of the reasons identified in
20
21
forth above, which include physical
22
abuse, restraint, and confinement.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
155
JUDGMENT
#:9497
1 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2
CONCLUSION OF LAW SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
3 1. The ministerial exception does not (Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972
4 apply to claims under the TVPA. (CBA), at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)
5 (adopting Report and Recommendation
6 dated August 21, 2009).
7 2. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 under the TVPA (United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145,
8 was “intended to reach cases in which 156-57 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v.
9 persons are held in a condition of Calimlim, 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir.
10 servitude through nonviolent coercion,” 2008); United States v. Garcia, No. 02
11 and is “species of involuntary servitude.” CR 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4
12 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003); (Shukla v.
16 August 21, 2009).
17
18
19 3. “The crime of forced labor occurs (18. U.S.C. § 1589).
20 when someone knowingly . . . obtains the
21 labor or services of a person: 1) by
22 threats of serious harm to, or physical
23 restraint against, that person or another
24 person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan,
25 or pattern intended to cause the person to
26 believe that, if the person did not perform
27 such labor or services, that person or
28 another person would suffer serious harm
156
JUDGMENT
#:9498
1
2
3
the legal process. . . ."
4 4. To assert First Amendment defense (Grove v. Mead School Dist. No. 354,
5 pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause, 753 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir. 1985)
6 there must be a conflict between religion (pursuant to Free Exercise Clause, “a
7 and the conduct which a statute litigant must show that challenged state
8 challenges. action has a coercive effect that operates
9 against the litigant’s practice of his or her
10 religion.”); see also Malik v. Brown, 16
11 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994) (to merit
12 protection under the Free Exercise Clause
13 of the First Amendment, a religious claim
14 “must be rooted in religious belief”); see
15 also Bollard v. California Province of the
16 Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th
17 Cir. 1999).
18 5. “[C]hurches are not – and should not (Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. Of Seventh-Day
19 be – above the law” and [l]ike any other Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1171 (4th Cir.
20 person or organization, they may be held 1985); see also Turner v. Unification
21 liable for their torts. . . .” Church 473 F.Supp. 367, 371-72 (D. R.I.
22 1978) (“the first amendment absolutely
23 protects the holding of any religious
24 belief, no matter how bizarre or
25 irrational, . . . the ‘operational activities’
26 of a religion, those activities that are not
27 solely in the ideological or intellectual
28
157
JUDGMENT
#:9499
1
realm, are subject to judicial review and
2
may be regulated to achieve a sufficiently
3
important state objective.”).
4
5 DATE: July 12, 2010 METZGER LAW GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
6
/s/
7 ____________________________________
KATHRYN DARNELL, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARC HEADLEY
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
158
JUDGMENT

242 CLAIRE HEADLEY V. CSI & RTC Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendants Summary Judgment Motion

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

242 CLAIRE HEADLEY V. CSI & RTC Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendants Summary Judgment Motion

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 160 Page ID

1 BARRY VAN SICKLE, ESQ., SBN 98645

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND

11 (C) necessary transportation,

13 (D) lost income;

14 (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other

19 1589, “[t]he crime of forced labor occurs

20 when someone knowingly . . . obtains the

21 labor or services of a person: 1) by

22 threats of serious harm to, or physical

23 restraint against, that person or another

24 person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan,

25 or pattern intended to cause the person to

26 believe that, if the person did not perform

27 such labor or services, that person or

28 another person would suffer serious harm

22 (C) necessary transportation,

24 (D) lost income;

25 (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other

1 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Вам также может понравиться