As we await Monday’s ruling by Los Angeles Judge Steven Kleifield concerning Scientology’s demand to force rape victims into their Comm Ev farce, Leah Remini has spoken out on The Underground Bunker.
Remini points out that calling this “arbitration” is misleading and wrong. She also very rightly notes that the Judge potentially has no real idea of what the Committee of Evidence as created by L. Ron Hubbard actually entails. It is reasonable to believe that Judge Kleifield will see the word “arbitration” and assume it is the familiar form of alternate dispute resolution used by corporate entities and Unions.
Unless the Judge has seen Hubbard’s version he will have no reason to suspect that his decision may be based upon a lack of information and facts.
Scientology’s Committee of Evidence, or Comm Ev, is nothing short of a blatantly biased pretense that violates the constitutional rights of anyone forced to participate.
So what is Scientology’s kangaroo court?
Committee of Evidence (Comm-Ev) Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration of is chapter 13 in Hubbard’s work; Scientology Justice Procedures.
Early in the chapter Hubbard instructs, “Justice should serve as a means of establishing guilt or innocence and awarding damages to the injured. The fact of its use should not preestablish guilt or award. Justice which by its employment alone establishes an atmosphere of guilt or greed is harmful and creates disorder.” (Emphasis ours)
This one statement serves as the lynchpin for the validity of the Comm Ev.
Scientology is quick to point to the law to defend their own rights.
“‘Under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions the Church may establish its own rules governing its relationship with its members exempt from civil law,'” states a motion to compel religious arbitration, provided by the outlet. “‘The Church’s ecclesiastical arbitration is a condition of participating in Scientology services. This Court may not interfere with this condition by imposing civil rules for arbitration. The Church’s arbitration agreements, as written and agreed to, must be enforced.‘”
In this case it’s in for a penny, in for a pound for the COS as the law equally requires that one must be treated as innocent until proven otherwise.
Arbiters hold a solemn responsibility to be both experienced and impartial so that the ultimate decisions made are fair, just and equitable. Further, arbitration is supposed to address civil matters, not serious criminal charges such as human trafficking, rape, false imprisonment and more. It is not reasonable to believe that Scientology will ever seriously consider Valerie Haney’s charges against them. Even more remote is the idea that upon finding themselves guilty of these charges any real justice will be meted out.
Plaintiffs, or in the case of Scientology the “Interested Party” facing arbitration have a right to assume they will be heard in an atmosphere untainted by bias and with the presumption of innocence. This expectation is challenged with any religious arbitration by its very nature but the concern increases exponentially when dealing with Scientology.
Known for its destructive policies of Dead Agent, Fair Game and Disconnection as well as a documented history of illegal, malicious retaliation against innocent people, the idea that Scientology could operate fairly and without prejudice towards someone who has challenged them is ludicrous.
In outlining the format for Scientology’s Comm Ev, Hubbard leads with the admonition that, “The fact of its use should not preestablish guilt”.
A serious conflict arises and casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the Comm Ev however when one consider the conundrum of the cult’s “sacred scripture” testimony.
Fighting for their tax exemption to be restored, Scientology submitted a legal document in the form of Attached Statement, Form 1023, with their Exemption Application. This document has two conclusive admissions that must, under the circumstances of their utterances, be accepted as truths.
First is their declaration that “Scientology is a religion based on the research, writings and recorded lectures of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, which collectively constitute the Scriptures of the religion…The Scientology Scriptures are the sole source of all the doctrines, tenets, sacraments, rituals and policies of the Scientology faith.”
Second is the assertion that there is only one way to achieve salvation and that is, “if and only if the path to salvation outlined in the Scripture’s religious technology is followed without deviation.”
Bearing these statements in mind HCOPL 23, December 1965, Revised on 8, January 1991; Suppressive Acts/Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists firmly and succinctly orders, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology”.
“The imagination must not be stretched to place this label on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.”
“A truly Suppressive Person has no rights of any kind as Scientologists.”
“A Committee of Evidence may be called by any Convening Authority who wishes more concrete evidence of efforts to suppress Scientology or Scientologists but if such a Committee’s findings, passed on, establish beyond reasonable doubt Suppressive Acts, this Policy Letter applies and the person is fair game.“
This is Scientology scripture and must be followed without deviation.
Because of this policy/scripture it is unequivocally clear that Valerie Haney and the women who have accused Danny Masterson of violent rape are Suppressive Persons.
Especially in Haney’s case the proof that she is a Suppressive Person and thus open to fair game can be seen on the Scientology hate site directed at Leah Remini. There are multiple videos attacking Valerie and smearing her reputation.
How can the same church that authorized, created and continue airing these attacks also be expected to fairly arbitrate anything where their defined enemies are concerned?
Anyone who has publicly left and spoken out against Scientology is by Hubbard Law a Suppressive and guilty of a high crime. Under these conditions it is utterly impossible for someone already viewed in such a hostile way to receive anything remotely resembling a fair hearing.
Even the wordage used for the Comm Ev shows a preconceived slant exists against the Interested Party.
In the section on Evidence, the prohibition on using the e-meter seems to be due to the idea that chances are the person is already guilty. Further, Hearsay is not admissible except in the case where it reflects negatively on the Plaintiff.
Hubbard here decries the use of an e-meter, citing a presupposition of criminal behavior.
Conversely in his Manual of Justice he writes “Investigation to us in Scientology is a fine art. It’s like auditing. If they won’t take a meter test, you know they’re guilty. If they do, you can watch that needle dip a ‘Yes’ every time you’re right even when the suspect won’t say anything verbally.”
In the first chapter, page 7 under Judgment and Punishment it says, “Guilt is established by a person’s actions and statements, by witnesses and written evidence and by an expertly run E-meter.”
This obvious lack of clarity and consistency should be worrisome to Judges considering forcing a Plaintiff into a Comm Ev. Obviously Scientology cannot conclusively decide the proper way to determine guilt.
Leah Remini is right to be frustrated and concerned about this upcoming decision. It is not an Arbitration as the legal community understands it.
Rather it is a skewed, biased, prejudiced group of people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy and a Suppressive Person undeserving of the most basic of human rights. Scientologists believe that going to the police for anything is a crime, displaying their inherent distrust of and scorn for the legal system of this country.
They demand their rights under the First Amendment, yet defy those very protections by demanding those who no longer wish to practice their “religion” be forced to do so.
George Washington is quoted as saying “In this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
Valerie Haney and the brave women who have come forward demanding their rights of protection and justice under the Law now have these rights in jeopardy by the very entity that should be standing up for them. Scientology forcing a former member to continue to submit him or herself to their form of ecclesiastical justice is tantamount to violating his or her First Amendment Rights of religious freedom and of NOT having any religion forced upon them.
That the court has ordered Valerie Haney into Scientology’s Comm Ev procedure should ultimately be considered a breach of Constitutional Law and Haney’s human rights as a United States citizen.
As we await Monday’s decision for Masterson’s accusers it is to be hoped that Judge Kleifield doesn’t fall prey to Scientology’s fraudulent claims and instead does the right thing and allow justice to prevail.