tikk › Comments

On May 21, 2009, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled against Diskeeper's Motion for summary judgment in its case against Godelman and Le Shay, although it did find for Diskeeper in part by preemptively removing the availability of punitive damages from the case, likely to prompt settlement. Jury trial is now set for July 13, 2009 [PDF], and is estimate to run 14 days. The Court issued separate rulings(Godelman ruling [PDF]; Le Shay ruling [PDF]) with regard to Diskeeper's summary judgment motion to reflect the minor factual differences in the plaintiffs' cases. One other difference is that the Court accepted Diskeeper's argument that Godelman failed to show that he sought a reasonable accommodation in lieu of of Hubbard Management Technology. But the news is largely good insofar as a jury is now scheduled to decide (amongst other things) whether Hubbard Management Technology is religious in nature. An adverse ruling for Diskeeper will greatly decrease the ability of other Scientology... - tikk

[The following was also posted at Why We Protest, and concerns a wrongful termination case brought by two former employees of Diskeeper who refused to participate in Scientology training; I've posted about this case on previous occasions; see the 'recent posts' list to the left if you need more backstory] Since the judge found for Diskeeper on its motion to strike Godelman and Le Shay's request in their complaint for injunctive relief barring Diskeeper from using Hubbard Admin Tech, Diskeeper has moved for summary judgment (summary judgment basically means that even if the facts in the complaint are accepted as true, plaintiff still has no claim as a matter of law), and now Godelman and Le Shay have filed replies opposing Diskeeper's summary judgment motion. If the judge finds for Diskeeper's summary judgment motion, the case is over (but could be appealed); if the judge rules against it, the case goes to trial. The last few months have also seen a great deal of motion practice on the... - tikk

David Souter's announced retirement from the Supreme Court today is somewhat of a blow to establishment clause separationists, for whom there was no more eloquent a proponent than Souter. I've come back to Souter's inspired concurrence in Lee v. Weisman more than once, so I thought I'd post some of that concurrence here. In Lee v. Weisman, a 5-4 majority found unconstitutional a public high school's practice of inviting clergy members to deliver invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies. Souter joined the majority and in his concurrence (joined only by Stevens), began with a principle once the majority opinion Since Everson, we have consistently held the Clause applicable no less to governmental acts favoring religion generally than to acts favoring one religion over others. The defendant school district in Lee v. Weisman, aware of its constitutional liability, sought to quell it by ensuring that the invocation (to be given by a Rabbi) be "denominationally neutral". The... - tikk

I rarely dive into sensationalist crime but this story about a mother, Ria Ramkissoon, accused of starving her son to death at the suggestion and behest of her fellow cult members (because he failed begin his dinner with an "amen") is interesting because of the unusual plea agreement into which she entered. Members of the 1 Mind Ministries (could there be a more obviously cultic name?) apparently believed that the dead child, named Javon, would be resurrected:After he died, Antoinette laid Javon's body on a couch, and the others knelt and prayed while Ramkissoon danced around the body, Assistant State's Attorney Julie Drake said. The group carried his remains in a green suitcase when they later moved to Philadelphia. The mother, facing a 20 year sentence, pled guilty in exchange for her cooperation in testifying against other cult members, and (here's where it gets interesting) on the condition that she be permitted to withdraw the plea if her dead son had a "Jesus-like resurrection"... - tikk

Some Christians are up in arms over a North Carolina family court's order last week that mother Venessa Mills discontinue homeschooling her children and send them to public school instead. After reading the news coverage, and then reading the order [pdf], I think the court got it right, and for the right reasons, few of which directly relate to homeschooling. If anything, this was an anti-cult decision, not an anti-homeschooling decision. Yet, the vast majority of articles and opinion pieces are keyed only to the fear and outrage that this decision somehow spells apocalyptic doom for homeschooling. Take T. Keung Hui of the Raleigh News & Observer, whose allegedly straight news report on the decision begins: Home-school groups and conservatives across the country are infuriated by a Wake County judge's declaration that he will make a North Raleigh mother stop teaching her children at home and send them to public schools. L.A. Williams of the Christian Action League, similarly leads... - tikk

On February 6, 2007, Kyle Brennan, a disabled adult, left his Virginia home to visit his Scientologist father in Clearwater Florida. Eleven days later, he was dead. Three Scientologists, Denise Miscavige Gentile (twin sister of Scientology head David Miscavige), her husband Gerald Gentile, Thomas Brennan (Kyle's father), and the Church of Scientology's Flag Service Organization, now face a wrongful death suit brought by Brennan's mother. The complaint [PDF], filed by Florida attorney Kennan Dandar, who was the lawyer for estate of Lisa McPherson (in the interest of full disclosure, I briefly worked for Ken Dandar on the Lisa McPherson case), alleges that Brennan was taking Lexapro for depression and social anxiety, prescribed by his Virginia psychiatrist, at the time of the Florida visit. When Denise Miscavige Gentile discovered that Kyle was taking Lexapro, she, in her capacity as "Scientology Chaplain" (see Scientology's site here) and her husband Gerald Gentile allegedly advised... - tikk

I realize that we're trundling on down the procedural rabbit hole here, and it's pretty easy to get lost, so let me start by providing an enumerated roundup of where we are and how we got here. 1. In November, 2008, Godelman and Le Shay file a wrongful termination suit [pdf] against Diskeeper. Among the relief requested is a prospective injunction which would prevent Diskeeper from requiring present and future employees to take Hubbard Management Technology courses. 2. On December 10, 2008, Diskeeper moves to strike [pdf] Godelman's prospective injunction request, arguing that it is barred as a matter of law, an argument I believe they fell far short in demonstrating. 3. On January 13, 2009, Godelman opposed Diskeeper's motion to strike, arguing that the prospective injunction request is permitted by law and that the injunction request was not "irrelevant, false or improper," which is the legal threshold one must establish in order for the court to strike material from a pleading. 3A.... - tikk