Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/29/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP


WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)
2 wforman@scheperkim.com
DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)
3 dscheper@scheperkim.com
MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
4 pdayton@scheperkim.com
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90017-2701
Telephone: (213) 613-4655
6 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

7 Attorneys for Defendant,


Church of Scientology International
8
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
9 ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
rmangels@jmbm.com
10 MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
mhinks@jmbm.com
11 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
12 Telephone: (310) 203-8080
Facsimile: (310) 203-0567
13
Attorneys for Defendant,
14 Religious Technology Center

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

17 VALERIE HANEY, CASE NO. 19STCV21210


Assigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.
18 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
19 v. SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
20 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS OF MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF
21 TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25, RECONSIDERATION
22
Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Opposition Brief;
23 Supporting Declarations of Lynn R. Farny,
Michael Sutter, Deidre Assam, William H.
24 Forman, and Gary S. Soter; and Objections to
the Declarations of Hana Whitfield and Robert
25 W. Thompson]

26 Date: August 11, 2020


Time: 1:30 p.m.
27 Dept: 37

28 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER


1 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER (Exhibit 5 to the
Thompson Declaration)
2
Global Objection to the Declaration of Michael Rinder
3
By his own admission, Michael Rinder left the Church of Scientology 13 years ago.
4
(Rinder Decl. ¶ 2.) Since then, Mr. Rinder has devoted his life to publicly criticizing the Church
5
through false and malicious attacks. Indeed, Mr. Rinder makes his livelihood through vicious and
6
unsubstantiated criticisms of the Church and the Scientology religion: he maintains a blog for the
7
exclusive purpose of criticizing Scientology, (concurrently-filed Declaration of Lynn R. Farny
8
(“Farny Decl.”) ¶ 9; see also, e.g., concurrently-filed Declaration of William H. Forman (“Forman
9
Decl.”) Ex. U); he was the co-host and co-executive producer of Leah Remini: Scientology and
10
the Aftermath, a show dedicated to criticizing Scientology, (Farny Decl. ¶ 6); and he has been a
11
paid litigation “consultant” for individuals bringing lawsuits against the Church, (concurrently-
12
filed Declaration of Gary S. Soter ¶ 6).
13
The day of the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, Mr.
14
Rinder even used his blog as a platform to criticize this Court, its Order, and the court system
15
generally. Mr. Rinder commented that, in compelling arbitration, the Court “took the lazy, easy
16
way out.” (Forman Decl. Ex. U.) He further stated on his blog, as follows:
17
Judge Burdge is not the first to fall for the scientology ruse, and I am sure that once an
18 Appeals Court reviews the facts, this decision will be overturned for any number of
reasons.
19
First, some observations about courts generally. Judges are overloaded with cases and LA
20 Superior Court is not only not an exception but perhaps a model of all that is wrong with
the judicial system in this country. Spend any time in this court and you will know what a
21 thankless, sisyphean task it is to preside in one of those courtrooms. To relieve their loads,
Judges jump at any opportunity to move a case out from underneath them. They
22 encourage settlements, mediation and arbitration whenever possible. And when there is a
“contract” that calls for arbitration it is the easiest thing in the world them to grant the
23 request. . . .

24 ...

25 Secondly, based on many, many years of experience, being appointed (or in some cases
elected) as a Judge does not make you smarter than the average bear. In fact, many
26 judges got a law degree and didn’t want to or couldn’t make it as lawyers. Ultimately,
the ones who are smarter and better tend to rise to Appellate Court level or to the
27 Federal Court. I have absolutely no information concerning Judge Burdge’s intelligence
or ability to see through bs. I only make this point because the word of a State Court
28 judge is not the final word and is not always right.

2
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 (Id. (emphasis added).) After disparaging the Court in this manner, Mr. Rinder’s blog post

2 continues by arguing the Court’s ruling compelling religious arbitration was incorrect, making

3 many of the same meritless arguments presented in his declaration and in Plaintiff’s motion for

4 reconsideration. (Id.) Indeed, Mr. Rinder commented that he “hope[d]” to have the “opportunity”

5 to comment on the Church’s arbitration procedures – noting “we just have to get to that point

6 where any testimony is allowed.” (Id.) While it is obvious Mr. Rinder has an axe to grind with

7 both the Church and this Court, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate forum

8 for Mr. Rinder to air his grievances. Even disregarding Mr. Rinder’s obvious bias and lack of

9 credibility, his declaration is inadmissible, as set forth fully in the specific objections below.

10 Mr. Rinder is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Plaintiff’s allegations and her counsel’s

11 arguments. Such a declaration is inadmissible. See Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego

12 Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (disregarding evidence submitted in

13 opposition to anti-SLAPP motion that was without foundation, hearsay, argumentative,

14 speculative, impermissible opinions, and without foundation or personal knowledge); Gilbert v.

15 Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge,

16 or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

17 disregarded”); see also Saldana v. Globe-Weis Sys. Co., 233 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1518 (1991) (“It

18 hardly bears mentioning that argument of counsel is neither a declaration nor admissible as

19 evidence in court.”).

20 Furthermore, Mr. Rinder’s declaration proffers inaccurate “facts” of which he has no

21 personal knowledge and consists of inappropriate opinion testimony that is not based on his own

22 personal observations.

23 For instance, Mr. Rinder states that “Valerie Haney has been declared a ‘Suppressive

24 Person’ by Scientology.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶¶ 18, 20.) Mr. Rinder terminated his

25 relationship with the Church thirteen years ago, (Rinder Decl. ¶ 2); he has no personal knowledge

26 of Ms. Haney’s status in the Church. Plaintiff’s Memorandum claims that a document called the

27 Fitness Board Turndown demonstrates that Ms. Haney had been declared a “Suppressive Person,”

28 but the document does not state this – it states that if she takes certain actions “she is subject to

3
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 declare.” (Rinder Decl. Ex. G (emphasis added).) .

2 Similarly, Mr. Rinder claims that Scientology arbitration is a “Committee of Evidence,”

3 and then devotes paragraphs of his declaration to describing his version of a Committee of

4 Evidence. (Rinder Decl. ¶¶ 12-14, 16-19, 22-23.) Mr. Rinder has never participated in a

5 Scientology religious arbitration and has no personal knowledge of the procedures governing

6 Scientology religious arbitration. Instead, in support, Mr. Rinder claims that in the case Garcia v.

7 Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., “Scientology asserted the [arbitration]

8 procedures were outlined in a writing of L. Ron Hubbard concerning a [S]cientology ritual known

9 as a ‘Committee of Evidence.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 14.) Mr. Rinder is incorrect in his description of

10 how Scientology arbitration works and the positions taken by the Church in Garcia. Scientology

11 arbitration may utilize certain evidentiary procedures from the Scientology Ethics and Justice

12 system, such as are found in Committees of Evidence, but the substantive framework for the

13 arbitration (such as selection of the arbitrators, qualifications of the arbitrators, and the binding

14 authority of the arbitrators), is as set out in the Agreements themselves. Garcia v. Church of

15 Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-10844160, 2015 WL 10844160, at *6-*8, *9 n.11

16 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2015)) (Garcia I); (Forman Decl. Ex. Q (Garcia Dkt. # 91) at 1 (articulating

17 the Church’s position on the exact procedures that apply to arbitration; “[t]he procedures

18 governing Scientology arbitration are set forth in the enrollment agreements and in Church of

19 Scientology justice policies.”)

20 Furthermore, certain rules and procedures Mr. Rinder claims apply to Scientology

21 arbitration do not apply. For instance, Mr. Rinder claims that “a Committee of Evidence is

22 convened when it is suspected or alleged that a given person has committed a wrong (a ‘Crime’ or

23 ‘High Crime’ in Scientology parlance)”. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 16.a.) By contrast, Scientology

24 arbitration can be initiated by any party to the arbitration agreement to address disputes, as

25 happened in the Garcia case. (Forman Decl. Ex. Q (Garcia Dkt. # 91) at 2.) Mr. Rinder claims

26 that “Suppressive Persons” cannot participate in Scientology arbitration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 18.)

27 Yet, the Garcia plaintiffs were declared “Suppressive Persons” and participated in Scientology

28 religious arbitration. (Farny Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Rinder asserts Scientology justice procedures

4
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 function as a “fact-finding jury, charged ONLY with determining the guilt or innocence of the

2 ‘Interested Party.’” (Rinder Decl., ¶ 16.c.). That does not describe Scientology justice procedures,

3 including arbitration. Indeed, the Agreements with Plaintiff vests arbitrators with full authority to

4 make binding decisions on disputes between parties. Mr. Rinder further represents that under

5 Scientology justice procedures the fact-finders may not take a position contrary to the Church,

6 and that fact-finders are “answerable to and ultimately governed by the International Justice

7 Chief.” (Id. ¶¶ 16.e & f.) Again, what Mr. Rinder is describing is not Scientology justice

8 procedures, or specifically Scientology arbitration. In Scientology arbitration, the arbitrators make

9 the final binding decision, and are not prohibited from taking a position contrary to the Church.

10 Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL

11 3439638 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) (appeal pending) (“Garcia II”) (court affirming binding

12 monetary award of arbitrators in favor of the Garcias and against the Church).

13 Mr. Rinder makes additional false statements about Scientology arbitration. For instance,

14 he claims that “[i]n more than sixty (60) years of operation, there has never been a ‘scientology

15 religious arbitration.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 13.) Yet, the Garcia plaintiffs participated in a

16 Scientology religious arbitration. Garcia II, supra. Mr. Rinder also claims that the arbitrators in

17 any arbitration would be “beholden” to the “higher authorities of Scientology” and would have to

18 find against the petitioner. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 19.) Yet, in the Garcia Case, the Church took the

19 position that the Garcia plaintiffs should receive no refund; the arbitrators rejected the Church’s

20 position and awarded the Garcia plaintiffs a partial refund. Garcia II, 2018 WL 3439638, at *3,

21 n.4.

22 Furthermore, Mr. Rinder has no basis to describe a Scientology arbitration. He has never

23 participated in one; indeed, he incorrectly believes that one has never occurred. (Rinder Decl. ¶

24 13.) Mr. Rinder has no personal knowledge of the “facts” concerning the procedures for a

25 Scientology arbitration, and this portion of his declaration is speculative and inadmissible for this

26 reason as well.

27 Mr. Rinder’s declaration is also replete with improper opinion testimony. “One of the

28 fundamental theories of the law of evidence is that witnesses must ordinarily testify to facts, not

5
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 opinions.” Jambazian v. Borden, 25 Cal. App. 4th 836, 848 (1994). Evidence Code Section 801

2 provides a limited exception to this rule, id., and provides that a “layperson’s opinion testimony is

3 admissible only if it is ‘(a) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and [¶] (b) Helpful

4 to a clear understanding of his testimony,’” Osborne v. Todd Farm Srvc., 247 Cal. App. 4th 43, 52

5 (2016) (quoting Evidence Code § 800). “[W]hen a lay witness offers an opinion that goes beyond

6 the facts he personally observed, it is held inadmissible.” People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289,

7 1308 (1991) (In Bank). Furthermore, opinion testimony that gives “[the witness’s] conclusions as

8 to the legal significance of various facts,” or is “merely based on [the witness’s] examination of

9 documents and correspondence, which [a]re equally before the judge and jury” is inadmissible.

10 Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Summers v. A.L.

11 Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999) (quoting and citing Marx & Co., Inc., 550

12 F.2d at 510). “[S]uch testimony, ‘amounts to no more than an expression of the (witness’) general

13 belief as to how the case should be decided.’” Marx & Co., Inc., 550 F.2d at 510.

14 Mr. Rinder improperly opines that Scientology arbitration is a “kangaroo court,” (Rinder

15 Decl. ¶ 14), that Scientology arbitration “is not arbitration as it is commonly understood by the

16 civil court system,” (id. ¶ 22), that Ms. Haney was under duress at the time she signed the Staff

17 Departure Agreement in 2017, (id. ¶ 20), and “[h]ad discovery been permitted, other evidence of

18 coercion, duress, and Scientology’s influence over Valerie and individuals in her position would

19 be uncovered,” (id. ¶ 20). Mr. Rinder did not observe and has no firsthand knowledge of any of

20 the events upon which he opines. Mr. Rinder has never participated in a Scientology religious

21 arbitration, (Rinder Decl. ¶¶ 13, 14; Farny Decl. ¶ 10), and was not present when Ms. Haney

22 signed the Staff Departure Agreement, (Soter Decl. ¶ 5); therefore, any opinions he may have

23 about these topics are not based on any personal observation. His opinions are inadmissible.

24 Evid. Code § 800; McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d at 1308. Further, Mr. Rinder’s opinions regarding the

25 adequacy of Scientology’s religious arbitration procedures, the necessity of discovery in this case,

26 and the facts sufficient to constitute duress are merely “conclusions as to the legal significance of

27 various facts,” based on his “examination of documents and correspondence,” which are equally

28 before the Court. Such opinions are inadmissible. Marx & Co., Inc., 550 F.2d at 505, 510.

6
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 Finally, the entire Rinder Declaration is irrelevant. All of the “evidence” and arguments in

2 the Rinder Declaration could have been presented to the Court in the original briefing on the

3 Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration had Plaintiff and her counsel exercised diligence;

4 therefore, it cannot be considered on a motion for reconsideration and is irrelevant. Garcia v.

5 Hejmadi, 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 689 (1997); see also CSI’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For

6 Reconsideration, generally.

7 Specific Objections to the Declaration of Michael Rinder

8 OBJECTION 1:

9 Material objected to: “Valerie Haney has been declared a ‘Suppressive Person’ by

10 Scientology.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 5.)

11 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal

12 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert

13 v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

14 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

15 are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352 (The only document

16 submitted in support of this claim, the Fitness Board Turndown (Rinder Ex. G) does not declare

17 Plaintiff a “Suppressive Person”; instead, it states that if she takes certain actions “she is subject to

18 declare.” (Rinder Decl. Ex. G (emphasis added)); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350).

19 OBJECTION 2:

20 Material objected to: “In the eyes of Scientology [Valerie Haney] has committed Crimes

21 and High Crimes including speaking with the media, spreading ‘disaffection,’ refusing to comply

22 with the orders of the organization, reporting alleged crimes by Scientologists to law enforcement,

23 and finally the act of bringing a lawsuit against Scientology.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 5.)

24 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal

25 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert

26 v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

27 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

28 are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid.

7
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 Code § 350).

2 OBJECTION 3:

3 Material objected to: “A ‘Suppressive Person’ is considered an enemy of Scientology and

4 is to be destroyed. Anyone declared a ‘Suppressive Person’ is expelled from Scientology.” (Rinder

5 Decl. ¶ 5.)

6 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal

7 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert

8 v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

9 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

10 are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid.

11 Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not qualified to opine

12 on the doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion)).

13 OBJECTION 4:

14 Material objected to: “According to Scientology policy a ‘Suppressive Person’ has no

15 rights, including under internal Scientology ethics procedures and Committees of Evidence

16 (discussed below). It has long been the practice of Scientology that ‘Suppressive Persons’ who

17 have been expelled from Scientology can ‘no longer take advantage of the internal ecclesiastical

18 support and justice procedures’ the church provides ‘to resolve disputes.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 6.)

19 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal

20 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert

21 v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

22 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

23 are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid.

24 Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not qualified to opine

25 on Scientology arbitration procedures)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521,

26 1523(a), (d) (the declarant appears to be quoting from a written “policy” or document, the

27 declarant’s description and characterization of a written document is not admissible to prove the

28 content of the document)); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

8
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 OBJECTION 5:

2 Material objected to: “According to Hubbard’s own writings ‘Suppressive Persons’ must

3 be ‘ruin[ed] . . . utterly,’ ‘shudder[ed] . . . into silence,’ and ‘obliterate[d].’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 6.)

4 Grounds for objection: Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d)

5 (the declarant appears to be quoting from a “writing,” the declarant’s description and

6 characterization of a written document is not admissible to prove the content of the document);

7 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code

8 § 702(a)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350);

9 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

10 OBJECTION 6:

11 Material objected to: “When a person is declared a ‘Suppressive Person’ they are subject to

12 the Scientology policy of ‘Fair Game’ which states that a ‘Suppressive Person’ may be ‘deprived

13 of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the

14 Scientologist.’ The ‘Suppressive Person’ may ‘be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.’ (See a true

15 and correct copy of HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967 attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’).”

16 (Rinder Decl. ¶ 7.)

17 Grounds for objection: Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d)

18 (the declarant claims to be quoting from a document, Exhibit A; the declarant’s description and

19 characterization of a written document is not admissible to prove the content of the document);

20 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code

21 § 702(a)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350);

22 Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not qualified to opine on the doctrine,

23 beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion)); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

24 OBJECTION 7:

25 Material objected to: “The ‘practice of declaring people Fair Game’ was ‘cancelled’ in

26 1968 per Hubbard because it ‘cause[d] bad public relations.’ (See a true and correct copy of HCO

27 Policy Letter of 21 October 1968 attached hereto as Exhibit ‘B’).” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 8.)

28 Grounds for objection: Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d)

9
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 (the declarant claims to be quoting from a document, Exhibit B; the declarant’s description and

2 characterization of a written document is not admissible to prove the content of the document);

3 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code

4 § 702(a)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350);

5 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

6 OBJECTION 8:

7 Material objected to: “However the order from Hubbard cancelling the practice of

8 declaring people ‘Fair Game’ did not end the policy of how ‘Fair Game’ was applied to

9 ‘Suppressive Persons.’ First, it only ended the practice of ‘declaring people’ Fair Game. (See

10 Exhibit ‘B’) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the order specifically stated that it did ‘not cancel any

11 policy on the treatment or handling of a [ Suppressive Person].’ (See Exhibit ‘B’) (emphasis

12 added). Therefore, all that resulted from the 1968 order was that Scientology stopped publicly

13 acknowledging ‘Fair Game’ campaigns against ‘Suppressive Persons.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 8.)

14 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

15 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

16 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

17 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

18 Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant claims to be

19 quoting from a document, Exhibit B; the declarant’s description and characterization of a written

20 document is not admissible to prove the content of the document)); Lack of personal

21 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352);

22 Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code §

23 403).

24 OBJECTION 9:

25 Material objected to: “This included the ‘Religious Services Enrollment Application,

26 Agreement and General Release’ (hereinafter ‘Enrollment Agreement’) and all other agreements

27 scientologists are required to sign. No member of Scientology is allowed to raise objections to the

28 content of the Enrollment Agreement. Any objection to or disagreement with the contents of the

10
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 Enrollment Agreement would be seen as an attack against the church and would be dealt with

2 harshly by the church.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 11.)

3 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (Plaintiff’s Motion for

4 Reconsideration makes no argument at all regarding the Enrollment Agreement. Further, the court

5 has ruled that plaintiff signed multiple, enforceable agreements to arbitrate, (Order at 4-6); this

6 declarant’s criticism of the Enrollment Agreement is irrelevant because the remaining agreements

7 are enforceable. Finally, the First Amendment affords CSI unfettered discretion to set the terms of

8 enrollment. Because the Court cannot exercise supervision over how CSI chooses to admit and

9 govern its relations with members, Mr. Rinder’s argument that the Enrollment Agreement is unfair

10 is irrelevant. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 729-31 (1871).); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code

11 § 403); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory and

12 unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack

13 foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion,

14 hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352);

15 Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not

16 qualified to opine on the doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion)).

17 OBJECTION 10:

18 Material objected to: “During my time in Scientology and thereafter, the Enrollment

19 Agreement contained an ‘arbitration clause.’ ‘Religious arbitration’ in Scientology is a fiction

20 created for the in terrorem effect on potential plaintiffs. There is no Hubbard writing that uses the

21 term arbitration. There is no prescribed procedure for Scientology ‘arbitration’ anywhere in

22 Hubbard writing or any policy for that matter. Instead, as admitted by Scientology before, the

23 rules that apply for ‘arbitration’ in Scientology are the rules for a ‘Committee of Evidence.’”

24 (Rinder Decl. ¶ 12.)

25 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (Plaintiff’s Motion for

26 Reconsideration makes no argument at all regarding the Enrollment Agreement; further, the court

27 has ruled that plaintiff signed multiple, enforceable agreements to arbitrate, (Order at 4-6); this

28 declarant’s criticism of the Enrollment Agreement is irrelevant because the remaining agreements

11
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 are enforceable); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Conclusory

2 and unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that

3 lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible

4 opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);

5 Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and

6 characterization of the contents of the Enrollment Agreement and an unidentified document

7 ascribed to “Scientology”, written documents, is not admissible to prove the content of the

8 document)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not qualified to opine on

9 the Scientology arbitration); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code

10 §§ 350, 352 (Scientology arbitration is not a “fiction”; a Scientology religious arbitration was

11 conducted in October 2017 and the award was confirmed in the United States District Court for

12 the Middle District of Florida. Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc., No. 8:13-

13 cv-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) (appeal pending)); Improper

14 argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27).

15 OBJECTION 11:

16 Material objected to: “‘Religious arbitration’ was, and still is, a legal artifice, created by

17 lawyers working for Scientology without understanding what scientology religion actually

18 encompasses. In more than sixty (60) years of operation, there has never been a ‘scientology

19 religious arbitration.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 13.)

20 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

21 Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

22 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

23 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Lack of foundation

24 (Evid. Code § 403); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801(the declarant is not qualified to

25 opine on Scientology arbitration)); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); Misstates the evidence (Evid.

26 Code §§ 350, 352) (A Scientology religious arbitration was conducted in October 2017 and the

27 award was confirmed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Garcia

28 v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638

12
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) (appeal pending)); Improper argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th

2 at 27).

3 OBJECTION 12:

4 Material objected to: “The case of Garcia v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust et al.,

5 brought in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, centered around the return of payments

6 for religious services that the plaintiffs had made to the defendants. The plaintiffs had signed an

7 ‘Enrollment Agreement’ that included an ‘arbitration’ clause. Scientology argued that someone

8 such as the plaintiffs asking for return of payments would be bound to resolve the dispute based on

9 the ‘Enrollment Agreements’ they had signed when they paid for religious services. The scope of

10 the plaintiffs’ claim was limited to return of funds. The court asked the Scientology Defendants to

11 describe the ‘religious arbitration’ procedures. Scientology asserted the procedures were outlined

12 in a writing of L. Ron Hubbard concerning a scientology ritual known as a ‘Committee of

13 Evidence.’ In the end the court ordered that an arbitration be held under those terms.” (Rinder

14 Decl. ¶ 14.)

15 Grounds for objection: Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d)

16 (the declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is

17 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code

18 § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); Improper

19 summary (Evid. Code § 1523(a), (d)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352) (The

20 court in Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., held that “the

21 procedures set forth in the Enrollment Application are minimally sufficient,” and ordered an

22 arbitration under the procedures in the Enrollment Application, which referenced the “internal

23 Ethics, Justice and binding religious arbitration procedures . . . in accordance with the arbitration

24 procedures of Church of Scientology International.” Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Srvc.

25 Org., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-10844160, 2015 WL 10844160, at *6-*8, *9 n.11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13,

26 2015)).

27 OBJECTION 13:

28 Material objected to: “The ‘kangaroo court’ that ensued bore no resemblance to an

13
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 arbitration and this is now pending on appeal before the 11th Circuit.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 14.)

2 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

3 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

4 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

5 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

6 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Improper summary (Evid. Code § 1523(a),

7 (d)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s

8 description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to

9 prove the content of the documents)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert, 147 Cal.

10 App. 4th at 27); Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid.

11 Code § 403); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc.,

12 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184

13 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801).

14 OBJECTION 14:

15 Material objected to: “In nearly every respect, this case is very different from Garcia. Ms.

16 Haney is not asking for a return of money she paid in connection with religious services or an

17 Enrollment Agreement she allegedly signed.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 15.)

18 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

19 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

20 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

21 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

22 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Improper summary (Evid. Code § 1523(a),

23 (d)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s

24 description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to

25 prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack

26 of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc.

27 v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App.

28 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801); Conclusory and

14
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 unsupported by facts (Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27).

2 OBJECTION 15:

3 Material objected to: “The Enrollment Agreements were designed by Scientology to

4 prevent people from getting their money back and the clear language of the agreements ties the

5 contractual obligations to ‘enrolling’ in Scientology services.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 15.)

6 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (Plaintiff’s Motion for

7 Reconsideration makes no argument at all regarding the Enrollment Agreement; further, the court

8 has ruled that plaintiff signed multiple, enforceable agreements to arbitrate, (Order at 4-6); this

9 declarant’s criticism of the Enrollment Agreement is irrelevant because the remaining agreements

10 are enforceable); Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

11 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

12 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc.

13 v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Misstates the evidence

14 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the

15 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not

16 admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation

17 (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Improper legal opinion (Evid.

18 Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v.

19 A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§

20 800, 801); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27).

21 OBJECTION 16:

22 Material objected to: “No such claims of return of monies are being made here. Instead she

23 is seeking damages as a result of allegedly tortious conduct on the part of Scientology including

24 for harassment and defamation.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 15.)

25 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

26 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

27 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

28 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

15
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§

2 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of

3 multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of

4 personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code §

5 403); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d

6 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999));

7 Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801).

8 OBJECTION 17:

9 Material objected to: “What is similar to the Garcia case is Scientology proclaiming that

10 their so-called arbitration is conducted under the rules of a Committee of Evidence. It is plain on

11 their face as delineated in the official Scientology publication, Introduction to Scientology Ethics,

12 that these rules are nothing like an impartial arbitration that any civil court would be familiar with.

13 By way of example:

14 (a) It is Church policy and practice that a Committee of Evidence is convened when it is

15 suspected or alleged that a given person has committed a wrong (a ‘Crime’ or ‘High Crime’ in

16 Scientology parlance);

17 (b) Those Scientology ‘Crimes’ and ‘High Crimes’ include testifying before a civil court,

18 filing a lawsuit against Scientology, speaking to the media about scientology without authorization

19 and various other ‘crimes’ that each of these plaintiffs is, according to Scientology, guilty of;

20 (c) It is Church policy and practice that a Committee of Evidence functions as a fact-

21 finding jury, charged ONLY with determining the guilt or innocence of the ‘Interested Party;’

22 (d) It is Church policy and practice that a Committee of Evidence consists of appointed

23 members, rather than party-selected arbiters. It is Church policy that the findings of the Committee

24 have to be authorized by higher Scientology authorities. In fact, in the Garcia matter, the plaintiffs

25 were not permitted to select one of the three appointed members as was represented by the

26 Church;

27 (e) It is Church policy and practice that a Committee of Evidence consists of members of

28 scientology in good standing and that they may not even communicate with a declared

16
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 ‘Suppressive Person’ like the plaintiffs in this case. Beyond not communicating with them, they

2 cannot take their side against the Church or they too will be declared a Suppressive Person and

3 their scientology family, friends, and even employers will be forced to stop speaking to them;

4 (f) A Committee of Evidence is answerable to and ultimately governed by the International

5 Justice Chief. The International Justice Chief is an employee of the Church of Scientology

6 International, Inc., which is a party to this matter.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 16.)

7 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350 (the procedures described are not part

8 of Scientology arbitration, as set out in the Agreements.) See Global Objection to Rinder

9 Declaration)); Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

10 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

11 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc.

12 v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Misstates the evidence

13 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352 (The Church did not claim in the Garcia case that any of the alleged

14 provisions identified at Rinder Decl., ¶ 16, apply to Scientology arbitration. Scientology

15 arbitration may utilize certain evidentiary procedures from Scientology Ethics and Justice system,

16 but the substantive framework for the arbitration (such as selection of the arbitrators, qualifications

17 of the arbitrators, and the binding authority of the arbitrators), is as set out in the Agreements

18 themselves. Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-10844160, 2015

19 WL 10844160, at *6-*8, *9 n.11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2015)). See also Global Objection to Rinder

20 Declaration)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s

21 description and characterization of the contents of the publication, Introduction to Scientology

22 Ethics, a written document, is not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of

23 personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code §

24 403); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on the

25 doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion)).

26 OBJECTION 18:

27 Material objected to: “Scientology has repeatedly and publicly stated that ‘Suppressive

28 Persons’ who have been expelled from Scientology (as Ms. Haney has been) ‘could no longer take

17
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 advantage of the internal ecclesiastical support and justice procedures Churches of Scientology

2 provide to resolve disputes...’ (See a true and correct copy of Scientology Newsroom FAQ

3 attached hereto as Exhibit ‘E’ available at https://www.scientologynews.org/faq/what-does-the-

4 term-fair-game-refer-to.html).” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 18.)

5 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Secondary evidence rule (Evid.

6 Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and characterization of the contents

7 of Exhibit E, a website, is not admissible to prove the content of the document)); Improper

8 argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack

9 foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion,

10 hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified

11 Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350,

12 352); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation

13 (Evid. Code § 403); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to

14 opine on Scientology arbitration)); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

15 OBJECTION 19:

16 Material objected to: “A Committee of Evidence is a Scientology religious ritual and is

17 nothing akin to an ‘arbitration.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 19.)

18 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350 (Framework for Scientology is set

19 out in the Agreements See Global Objection to Rinder Declaration)); Improper argument (See

20 Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

21 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

22 are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal.

23 App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v.

24 Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App.

25 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not

26 qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert,

27 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary evidence

28 rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and characterization of

18
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the content of the

2 documents)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

3 foundation (Evid. Code § 403).

4 OBJECTION 20:

5 Material objected to: “Any scientologist who has been charged as an ‘Interested Party’ in a

6 Committee of Evidence proceeding remembers it well.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 19.)

7 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Lack of personal

8 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);

9 Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)

10 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,

11 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)).

12 OBJECTION 21:

13 Material objected to: “A higher official of Scientology (a ‘Convening Authority’) charges

14 one with Crimes and High Crimes that he or she has determined you are likely guilty of, much like

15 a prosecutor in a criminal case. But here those who are sitting in judgment (The Chairman,

16 Secretary, and Members of the Committee of Evidence, i.e. the panel of ‘arbiters’) are beholden to

17 that ‘Convening Authority’ and know that if they do not find the ‘Interested Party’ guilty they can

18 be charged with ‘dereliction of duty’ and investigated for ‘similar crimes of their own.’ (See a true

19 and correct copy of Addendum to HCO Policy Letter of 7 September 1963 attached hereto as

20 Exhibit ‘F’). The higher authorities of Scientology are not to be challenged or second guessed by

21 those lower on the chain of command. Even scientologists in good standing appearing before a

22 Committee of Evidence know it is a foregone conclusion that they will face an adverse

23 determination.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 19.)

24 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (none of the procedures described

25 apply to, or have ever been applied to, a Scientology arbitration); Improper argument (See

26 Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal

27 knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory

28 are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal.

19
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v.

2 Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App.

3 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not

4 qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (Gilbert,

5 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary evidence

6 rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and characterization of

7 the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the content of the

8 documents)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

9 foundation (Evid. Code § 403).

10 OBJECTION 22:

11 Material objected to: “This document [the Fitness Turndown Board, Exhibit ‘G’] operated

12 to terminate Ms. Haney’s position with the Sea Organization and the Church of Scientology. The

13 document makes clear that her declaration as a ‘Suppressive Person’ would be held in ‘abeyance’

14 if she cooperated with conditions outlined by Scientology and was not involved in any ‘out-

15 security’ or created any ‘enturbulation.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

16 Grounds for objection: Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d)

17 (the declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is

18 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§

19 350, 352) (the Fitness Board Turndown did not terminate Ms. Haney’s relationship with the

20 Church of Scientology; indeed, she stated that when she signed the Staff Departure Agreement she

21 intended to maintain and continue her relationship with the Church. (Forman Decl. Ex. F at Ex. 1

22 at pp. 2, 26)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

23 foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

24 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

25 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

26 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

27 Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505,

28 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999));

20
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350).

2 OBJECTION 23:

3 Material objected to: “The term ‘out-security’ means disclosing any information to anyone

4 that Scientology considers will be harmful to Scientology or cause public embarrassment to

5 Scientology. The term ‘enturbulation’ means to cause upset.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

6 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

7 foundation (Evid. Code § 403).

8 OBJECTION 24:

9 Material objected to: “The effect of this document was to make sure Ms. Haney knew that

10 if she did not cooperate with its conditions, she would be declared a ‘Suppressive Person,’ and

11 therefore subjected to, among other things, complete disconnection with any friends or family who

12 remained in Scientology and the potential ‘ruin’ of her life at the hands of Scientology. This

13 document further means that if Ms. Haney did not sign future documents, such as the ‘Staff

14 Departure Agreement’ produced by Scientology in this matter, that she would be declared a

15 Suppressive Person and subjected to the same ‘ruin.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

16 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

17 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

18 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

19 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));

20 Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on the

21 doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion)); Conclusory and unsupported by facts

22 (Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary

23 evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and

24 characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the

25 content of the documents)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

26 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350).

27 OBJECTION 25:

28 Material objected to: “Once Ms. Haney left her position within the church, and found

21
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 safety away from the church, she abandoned these conditions and was declared a ‘Suppressive

2 Person.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

3 Grounds for objection: Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147

4 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are

5 argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

6 disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Lack of personal knowledge

7 (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350).

8 OBJECTION 26:

9 Material objected to: This document was in the possession of the Church of Scientology,

10 clearly has an impact on any evaluation of the duress Ms. Haney was under at the time of signing

11 documents surrounding her exit from Scientology, and was not filed in connection with

12 Scientology’s attempt to enforce ‘arbitration.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

13 Grounds for objection: Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147

14 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are

15 argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

16 disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Lack of personal

17 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);

18 Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and

19 characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the

20 content of the documents); Improper argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27 (2007);

21 Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238

22 (2003)); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550

23 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184

24 (1999)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on

25 “any evaluation of the duress Ms. Haney was under at the time of signing documents surrounding

26 her exit from Scientology”)); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (the Court stated at the hearing that

27 the question of duress was for the arbitrators, not the Court) (1/30/2020 Hearing Tr. at 8:8-13)).

28

22
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 OBJECTION 27:

2 Material objected to: “Had discovery been permitted, other evidence of coercion, duress,

3 and Scientology’s influence over Valerie and individuals in her position would be uncovered.”

4 (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20.)

5 Grounds for objection: Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147

6 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are

7 argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

8 disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Lack of personal

9 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);

10 Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s speculation as

11 to the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to prove the content of the

12 documents); Improper argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27 (2007); Tuchscher Dev.

13 Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003)); Improper

14 legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d

15 Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Improper

16 opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on the appropriateness of

17 discovery)); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350) (the Court stated at the hearing that the question of

18 duress was for the arbitrators, not the Court) (1/30/2020 Hearing Tr. at 8:8-13)).

19 OBJECTION 28:

20 Material objected to: “Indeed, Scientology would never fashion their procedure after

21 anything familiar to the civil justice system so as to avoid participating in the ‘wog’ (non-

22 scientology) justice system because Scientology believes it is undoubtedly corrupt and will side

23 against them. Again quoting from Introduction to Scientology Ethics book:

24 (a) ‘Police and courts offer an open-armed opportunity to the vicious and corrupt to

25 establish themselves in a position of safety while satisfying their strange appetites of perverted

26 viciousness toward their fellow man.’

27 (b) ‘There is little thought of administering justice so that individuals can improve. There

28 is every thought to punish and create misery.’

23
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 (c) ‘Justice systems thereby become a sort of cancer which erode every splendid ambition

2 and achievement of the decent citizen.’ (See a true and correct copy of excerpts from Introduction

3 to Scientology Ethics attached hereto as Exhibit ‘C’).” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 21.)

4 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

5 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

6 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Secondary

7 evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and

8 characterization of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, a written document, is not admissible to

9 prove the content of the documents)); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant

10 is not qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350,

11 352); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation

12 (Evid. Code § 403); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at

13 27)); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d

14 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)).

15 OBJECTION 29:

16 Material objected to: “What Scientology purports to be ‘religious arbitration’ is not

17 arbitration as it is commonly understood by the civil court system. It is not administered under

18 AAA or any other similarly situated body. It is not designed to be fair but instead to achieve a

19 specific outcome which is the outcome most favorable to the Church.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 22.)

20 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

21 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

22 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Improper

23 opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on Scientology

24 arbitration); Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc.,

25 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184

26 (1999)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s

27 description and characterization of the contents of multiple written documents is not admissible to

28 prove the content of the documents)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Lack of

24
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code §

2 403); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27)).

3 OBJECTION 30:

4 Material objected to: “No Suppressive Person can ever receive a fair or unbiased

5 Committee of Evidence before any Convening Authority or panel of ‘Scientologists in good

6 standing.’” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 23.)

7 Grounds for objection: Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,

8 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,

9 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Conclusory

10 and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27)); Misstates the evidence (Evid.

11 Code §§ 350, 352); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

12 foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350).

13 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXHIBITS TO THE RINDER DECLARATION

14 OBJECTION 31:

15 Material objected to: Exhibit A to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.)

16 Grounds for objection: Exhibit A to the Rinder Declaration is not “a true and correct copy

17 of HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967,” as represented in Paragraph 8 of the Rinder

18 Declaration. Exhibit A to the Rinder Declaration bears a handwritten notation, “6934X,” which is

19 not a part of the original document. While not a part of the original document, this same notation

20 appears on the version of the HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967 that was filed in Garcia v.

21 Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc., District Court for the Middle District of Florida

22 Case No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM (the “Garcia Case”) at Docket Number 32-1, ECF page 48 of 51.

23 (Forman Decl. Ex. N.)

24 OBJECTION 32:

25 Material objected to: Exhibit B to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

26 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,

27 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering

28 documents submitted without proper foundation)).

25
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 OBJECTION 33:

2 Material objected to: Exhibit C to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. C.)

3 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,

4 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering

5 documents submitted without proper foundation)).

6 OBJECTION 34:

7 Material objected to: Exhibit D to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. D.)

8 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,

9 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering

10 documents submitted without proper foundation)).

11 OBJECTION 35:

12 Material objected to: Exhibit F to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. F.)

13 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,

14 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering

15 documents submitted without proper foundation)).

16 OBJECTION 36:

17 Material objected to: Exhibit G to the Rinder Declaration. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. G.)

18 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,

19 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering

20 documents submitted without proper foundation)).

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 DATED: June 25, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
2 DAVID C. SCHEPER
3 MARGARET E. DAYTON

5 By:
William H. Forman
6
Attorneys for Defendant, Church of Scientology
7 International

8 DATED: June 25, 2020 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
9 MATTHEW D. HINKS
10

11
By:
12 Matthew D. Hinks
Attorneys for Defendant, RELIGIOUS
13 TECHNOLOGY CENTER
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1900 Avenue
4 of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308.

5 On June 25, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as

6 DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND


RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF
7 MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
8
as follows:
9
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10
BY PERSONAL SERVICE VIA FIRSTLEGAL: I personally arranged for a FirstLegal
11 messenger to deliver the document(s) to the person at the addresses listed in the Service List.
Delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an
12 envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an
individual in charge of the office.
13
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
14 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
15 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
16 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The
17 envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.

18 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s) to be


sent from e-mail address vr1@jmbm.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the
19 Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed on June 25, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

23

24
Victoria Robles
25

26
27

28

67676487v1
1 SERVICE LIST
2

3 SERVED VIA PERSONAL SERVICE AND Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
E-MAIL
4 Robert W. Thompson
Kristen A. Vierhaus
5 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
6 Burlingame, CA 94010

8
ATTORNEY NOT ADMITTED TO THE
9 CALIFORNIA BAR – SERVED VIA MAIL
AS A COURTESY
10
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
11 Lea P. Bucciero
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
12 One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300

13 Miami, FL 33131
rmartinez-cid@podhurst.com
14 lbucciero@podhurst.com

15
Brian D. Kent Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
16 Guy D’Andrea
M. Stewart Ryan
17 Lauren E. Stram
LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
18 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19102
19 bkent@lbk-law.com

20 Jeffrey P. Fritz Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney


Lauren Goodfellow
21 SOLOFF & ZERVANOS, P.C.
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
22 Philadelphia, PA 19102
jfritz@lawsz.com
23
Marci Hamilton Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
24 University of Pennsylvania
Fox-Fels Building
25 3814 Walnut Street

26 Philadelphia, PA 19104
hamilton.marci@gmail.com
27

28

67676487v1
1 SERVED VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Attorneys for Defendant Church of Scientology
International
2 William H. Forman
David C. Scheper
3 Margaret E. Dayton
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
4 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor

5 Los Angeles, CA 90017


wforman@scheperkim.com
6 dscheper@scheperkim.com
pdayton@scheperkim.com
7

8 SERVED VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant
David Miscavige
9 Jeffrey K. Riffer
ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
10 GARTSIDE LLP
10345 W. Olympic Blvd
11 Los Angeles, CA 90064
jriffer@elkinskalt.com
12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

67676487v1