Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 4469

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA

DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T-27TBM

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG

SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.

Defendants.
________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

Defendants, by their undersigned counsel, file this opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for

Miscellaneous Relief (Dkt. 257) and state:

Plaintiffs persist in their repeated efforts to re-argue the Courts prior orders and

conclusions with respect to the arbitration. The Court has held that the Garcias agreed to

arbitrate their claims pursuant to the ecclesiastical rules and procedures of the Church of

Scientology. As the Court has recognized throughout this case, it is for the Scientology religion

to establish and implement the procedures attendant to its internal justice system. The judiciary

has no role in interpreting or applying religious doctrine or practice. Presbyterian Church v.

Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969). A court

cannot begin to adjudicate what is and is not Church doctrine or the importance of the doctrine to

the religion. Litigating in court about what does or does not have religious meaning touches the

very core of the constitutional guarantee against religious establishment. New York v. Cathedral

1
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID 4470

Academy, 434 U.S. 125, 133 (1977). A Churchs declaration of its religious beliefs and practices

must be accepted by the Court, lest the judiciary become entangled in deciding the nature and

content of a religion. In re Holy Spirit Assn for the Unification of World Christianity v. Tax

Commn of the City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 512, 518 (N.Y. 1982).

The Eleventh Circuit rigorously has upheld this doctrine, insisting that the judiciary must

avoid even the appearance of intrusion into matters of church doctrine or internal governance:

The Fifth Circuit applied a settled principle when it declared that the law is clear:
civil courts are barred by the First Amendment from determining ecclesiastical
questions. Simpson v. Wells Lamont Corp., 494 F.2d 490, 493 (5th Cir.1974);
accord, e.g., Natal v. Christian & Missionary Alliance, 878 F.2d 1575 (1st
Cir.1989). In applying this principle we must not narrowly limit its scope to
actual differences in church doctrine. The cases negative such a strict view. A
spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular
control or m[a]nipulation[,] in short, power to decide for themselves, free from
state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and
doctrine is reflected in the Supreme Court's decisions. Simpson, 494 F.2d at 493
(quoting Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116, 73 S.Ct. at 154).

Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514, 1537 (11th

Cir. 1993).

In Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 (1929), Gonzalez

claimed the right to be appointed to a chaplaincy in the Roman Catholic Church under a will

which provided that a member of his family receive that appointment. The Archbishop of Manila

refused to appoint Gonzalez on the ground that he did not satisfy the qualifications established

by Canon Law for that office. The Court held it was the Archbishopric, not the civil courts,

which had the task of analyzing and interpreting Church law in order to determine the validity of

Gonzalez' claim to a chaplaincy. Here it is the International Justice Chief who has the task of

analyzing and interpreting Church law and applying it to the resolution of the Garcias dispute.

The point was reemphasized in even stronger terms in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese

v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976), where the Court reversed a state court decision finding the

2
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID 4471

removal of a Bishop to be arbitrary under Church procedures. The Court held that the decision of

the Serbian Diocese authorities was beyond civil court review.

[N]o arbitrariness exception in the sense of an inquiry whether the decisions of

the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with church
laws and regulations is consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil courts
are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious
organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal
organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.

Id. at 713.

In light of this doctrine, plaintiffs motion must be denied in its entirety. Indeed,

plaintiffs seek to revisit the Courts previous rejections of the same or similar efforts to interpose

the Court into the religious arbitration process.

I. First, plaintiffs re-argue that the Court should forbid the Church from utilizing the

Scientology procedure known as a Committee of Evidence. Plaintiffs claim that the Court

prohibited the use of such procedure in its March 13, 2015 Order. This is inaccurate. While this

Court found at an earlier stage of this case that a Committee of Evidence had not been

established as the ecclesiastical procedure prior to the motion to compel arbitration having been

made in this case (Order of March 13, 2015 at 12-13), the question addressed here is quite

different. At this point, the IJC, who is the senior authority on the matter within the Scientology

internal justice system, must determine the appropriate ecclesiastical procedures to be followed

in implementing an arbitration as contemplated under the Enrollment Agreements. The Court

recognized the potential use of such procedures in a later segment of the very opinion to which

plaintiffs refer in holding that the Garcias were aware of the nature and source of Scientology

ecclesiastical procedures:

Moreover, by virtue of the ecclesiastical nature of the dispute resolution

procedures set forth in the Enrollment Applications, the Garcias, as "committed"
Scientologists, necessarily would have "some idea" of the procedures by which
arbitration is to be conducted. Indeed, Luis Garcia testified that he successfully

3
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID 4472

completed the "Ethics Specialist Course," during which he studied, among other
things, the Committee on Evidence and its procedures, as well as the Scientology
Justice System. He agreed to arbitrate any disputes that might arise "in accordance
with the arbitration procedures of Church of Scientology International." From a
secular perspective, one can only assume that they had "some idea" of what those
procedures were. See Malone & Hyde, Inc., 515 So. 2d at 366.

Order of March 13, 2015 at 15-16.

Plaintiffs motion is also irrelevant. The arbitration is not a Committee of Evidence, and

defendants have not claimed that it is. Rather, they have stated that certain procedures used in a

Committee of Evidence may be utilized in the arbitration. The Enrollment Agreements specify

that it is the IJC who is responsible that the arbitration proceed in accordance with Scientology

principles, including most importantly in accordance with the . . . ecclesiastical rule, custom,

and law of the Scientology religion, and in accordance with the constitutional prohibitions which

forbid governmental interference with religious . . . dispute resolution procedures. The IJC

will instruct the arbitrators about the matter to be investigated and the procedures they will

follow. As Mr. Ellis testified before this Court, the IJC will also advise the members of the panel

that they must be fair and neutral in finding the facts and determining a just result, no matter

whether the parties are in good standing with the Church. He also will instruct the members of

the panel as to the appropriate Scientology policy or policies that may apply to the subject matter

of the dispute.

These questions of the interpretation and application of Scientology ecclesiastical justice

and law are not matters within the cognizance of the civil courts, for all the reasons discussed

throughout this case and which the Court has previously recognized, including in its latest Order

of August 17. Plaintiffs made the exact same request and argument that they make in the instant

motion at the hearing on August 15, and defendants made the same response. See transcript at

10-13. The Court stated it would consider the matter and issue an appropriate order. Id.at 14-15.

4
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID 4473

In its Order of August 17, the Court declined to intervene in the procedures by which the

arbitration is to be conducted, instead repeating what it had previously made clear: [T]he

parties are directed to arbitrate this matter beginning at 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 2017 at the

location agreed to by the parties, in accordance with the arbitration procedures of the

Church of Scientology International. (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs have failed to show why

this Court should reconsider its Order.

II. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require that a court reporter attend and record the

proceedings. Again, this request would constitute an improper judicial intrusion into the

ecclesiastical proceedings. Plaintiffs claim that without a court reporter there would be nothing

for the Court to review if plaintiffs were to challenge the arbitration decision. In doing so,

plaintiffs quote from a portion of colloquy from the hearing of February 19, 2015 (See Plaintiffs

Motion at Point 5 (Plaintiffs motion unfortunately is not paginated).) Plaintiffs cut off their

quotation of the colloquy with the Courts question to Mr. Pope What am I going to review,

and then state, Mr. Pope never responded to the Courts inquiries. The latter statement is

blatantly false. As the transcript of the hearing makes plain, Mr. Pope immediately and directly

responded to the Courts inquiry, stating that

a report is written up with a binding decision and thats what would come back to
you as the Court compelling the arbitration.

THE COURT: So you do contemplate that there would be some memorialization

of whatever the arbitrators decide?

Am I going to get something in writing signed by these three arbitrators saying

here are the facts, here's our conclusions, and we agree or disagree with the
Garcias?

MR. POPE: That was the import of whatMr. Ellis said. There is a report that
comes out of the process.

Transcript of hearing of February 19, 2015 at 87-88.

5
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID 4474

Thus, the Garcias are afforded advance notice of the hearing, an opportunity to be heard

and present their claim, and a written statement of decision. The Court should not interfere with

the Churchs procedures by interposing new regulations and requirements such as requiring the

use of an outside court reporter. That simply is not and has never been part of any Scientology

ecclesiastical justice proceeding. The Garcias agreed to abide by the principles and procedures

of the Scientology internal justice system. The Court has so ordered. The Garcias attempts to

try to convert the arbitration into the equivalent of a secular civil court or arbitration proceeding

must be rejected. Constitutional concepts of due process, invoking secular notions of

fundamental fairness do not apply to ecclesiastical matters. Serbian Eastern Orthodox

Dioceses v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 715. The question of due process cannot be answered by

what happens in a civil court trial proceeding, but rather by what process is due (Matthews v.

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976)). "[D]ue process is flexible, and calls for such procedural

protections as the particular situation demands." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.

481 (1972). In a religious arbitration, especially where the concerned parties have repeatedly

agreed to submit their disputes to ecclesiastical resolution pursuant to ecclesiastical procedures,

that question is to be settled by the ecclesiastical authorities. As the Court stated in its Order of

March 13, 2015, By joining voluntary religious organizations, individuals like the Garcias

consent to their governing structures, policies, and doctrines and bind themselves to submit to the

organization's rules. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. at 728-29. Order at 16, n.11.

III. Finally, plaintiffs ask the Court to expand its order requiring the parties and their

counsel to execute a sworn statement of non-interference with the arbitrators to require that the

arbitrators themselves subject themselves to court supervision by also executing sworn

statements. The requested relief would constitute unconstitutional supervision of the Court of

6
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID 4475

the arbitration process. It would send a message to the arbitrators that their actions may be

subject to judicial oversight and control, even to the point of judicial sanctions. And it is

contrary to the Courts statement at the August 15 hearing, where the Court stated that while it

would require such a statement from the parties and their attorneys because it previously had

made such a statement at a prior hearing, Im not going to expand it however. Transcript of

hearing of August 15 at 19, ll 10-11. Once again, plaintiffs seek to re-argue the issue.

Plaintiffs argue that it is inconceivable that no arbitrator contacted a Church official, and

point out that defendants stated as much in a prior pleading. Defendants indeed twice stated that

potential arbitrators might contact officials of their local churches to determine if the arbitration

indeed was an authorized proceeding, and raised the questions of how such Church officials

might respond to such inquiries. The Court responded that the Defendants are permitted to

inform Church officials that this matter is pending, arbitration is imminent, and of the Courts

directives. Order of June 26, 2017.

There does exist a real and present danger, however, that plaintiffs are engaged in a clear

effort to unduly influence the arbitrators and interfere with the arbitration. Defendants have just

been informed that the Garcias and their counsel, Mr. Babbitt, have been interviewed and will

appear on a weekly sensationalistic anti-Scientology series entitled Leah Remini: Scientology

and the Aftermath on the A&E Network. The program stars Remini and Mike Rinder, whom the

Court may recall served as a paid consultant to plaintiffs counsel and who also engaged

previously in an effort to interfere with the appointment of arbitrators. 1 According to a letter sent

1
See Defendants Verified Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Take Deposition of Brandon
Orlando, Document 231 (March 17, 2017) at 7-8, 14-15 (Ex. 2), showing that one Smith-Levin
and Rinder each posted on Facebook soliciting potential arbitrators. See also Transcript of
7
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID 4476

by Myles Reiff, the Executive Producer of the series, to the Church of Scientology International,

the program will feature the very claims at issue in this case and the contemplated arbitration:

One of our interview subjects, Luis Garcia, is suing the Church for fraud. He
claims that despite paying to ascend the Bridge, he never received any of the
promised benefits. In addition, he claims that the process of getting a refund from
the Church is unjust because it involves arbitration before a panel of three
arbitrators, two of whom are Scientologists and may not speak to the person
asking for a refund.

Luis also claims he donated $60,000 for the Cross on the Super Power building
in Clearwater which he was told would later be known as the Garcia Cross. The
cross was never named after him, and he later found out that other parishioners
who donated money for the Cross were given the same exact sales pitch.

Mr. Reiff invited a response from the Church by no later than October 2, 2017. The

Church does not intend to comment in response to Mr. Reiffs request because the matter is

pending before the Court and in arbitration. Past experience with Mr. Reiff has been that the

program at issue will be broadcast shortly after such a deadline, which would fall immediately

prior to or even during the arbitration proceeding. The program typically receives news

coverage in the Los Angeles tabloid press, including The Hollywood Reporter which provides a

weekly summary of the latest program.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs motion should be denied in all respects.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 5, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing

to the following: THEODORE BABBITT, ESQUIRE, tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com, and

Proceedings of April 7, 2017, where the Court questioned Mr. Babbitt about Rinder and warned
against further attempts to influence or interfere with the proceedings and arbitration.
8
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 260 Filed 10/05/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID 4477
other counsel of record.
Of Counsel:
Eric M. Lieberman
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard,
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
61 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10006
elieberman@rbskl.com
JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR,
RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
/s/ F. Wallace Pope Jr..
F. Wallace Pope, Jr.
Florida Bar No. 124449
wallyp@jpfirm.com
Robert V. Potter
Florida Bar No. 363006
bobp@jpfirm.com
Post Office Box 1368
Clearwater, Florida 33757
(727) 461-1818; (727) 462-0365-fax
Attorneys for Flag Church & Ship Church