As Valerie Haney fights for her right to Due Process, Aaron Smith-Levin posted a video that calls to mind the twisted path of Scientology “justice”.
The journey begins with the Enrollment Agreement.
In order to be considered a legal contract, enforceable by a court, the document must abide by certain requirements. Amongst those requirements are:
Consideration– Also known as Quid Pro Quo. All parties to the agreement have to promise or provide something of value to the other. Without this exchange, there is no contract. Further, all involved must have the same understanding of the terms outlined in the contract.
Clearly stated in the Enrollment Agreement is the fact that Scientology promises nothing. There is nothing of value offered by COS.
If Scientology argues the definition of “value” then so too should they define “Spirit” and how to measure it’s progress or healing. L. Ron Hubbard may have dreamt up his theories on the Thetan but this is a purely Scientological ideology which no prospective member could possibly agree they understand beforehand.
While Scientology disavows any promise that actually practicing Hubbard’s “spirituality” will have any particular effect, the candidate agrees he or she will participate in those same, ineffective rituals and courses thus promising a future of financial payments.
What is explained to these interested parties that leaves them comfortable to sign the Agreement? How are the interests of the signatory protected?
Here then is the first unequal breach; COS promises nothing in exchange for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In order to participate in Scientology religious services, including auditing, one must pay for them.
It could also be argued that by proffering Scientology as being able to “save the spirit”, they are peddling something that cannot be proven, defined or presented as real in trade for money. No one could ever prove that a spirit has been saved or healed therefore Scientology offers nothing with which to prove they uphold their side of the contract.
Most importantly, all parties must have the same understanding of the terms outlined in the contract.
Given that Scientology does not reveal the full extent of it’s belief system until one has paid copious amounts of money and spent years on courses it is impossible for anyone to agree that they are “informed and aware and fully understand that Scientology is a religion.”
OT III and the Xenu story are not revealed until one is years along the Bridge.
It is completely feasible that even the registrar handling the Enrollment Agreement may not be fully aware of the entire doctrine of COS.
Upper levels promising godlike super powers are not revealed in their entirety until one arrives there. Some courses can only be taken on board Freewinds or at Flag in Clearwater, FL.
Further, it would be reasonable to suggest that since there are as yet unreleased upper levels that not even COB David Miscavige knows, Scientology is unable to make the claim that anyone fully understands that COS’ teachings are religious. Without the promised but missing levels, Scientology is incomplete.
Leading the signer to believe they are fully aware of all that makes the group a religion when there is so much hidden or nonexistent is intentionally misleading.
Based upon all this, the legality of this “contract” is seriously questionable.
Indisputable is that in signing the Enrollment Agreement one becomes a Scientologist. No participation in the courses or rituals is allowed without this contract.
Are kidnapping, child labor, harassment, trafficking and other such crimes “Scientology Religious Services”? Surely the onus should be upon Scientology to prove that the allegations of crimes against them all fall under the umbrella of “religious services” and are therefore protected under the contract.
Valerie is not suing Scientology for a refund or because the tech failed to yield results. Her suit is not connected to religious services unless Miscavige is willing to agree in court that Haney’s claims are in some way connected to Hubbard’s sacred scripture.
She is alleging criminal actions.
Extant too, the question of Hubbard’s Ethics and Justice which provide the foundation for the Comm Ev.
Applied Scholastics has courses on Justice and Ethics, claiming they are part of LRH’s secular works. Delphian School, which insists they are not affiliated with Scientology and are a secular institution, includes in their Student Handbook direct quotes from Scientology’s Ethics book.
If the Comm Ev is founded on Hubbard’s secular work then it is secular. It cannot be a religious service covered under the Enrollment Agreement.
Scientology’s membership contract deals exclusively with the Scientology “religion”. It makes NO mention of Hubbard’s secular works nor does it in any way bind the signer to anything except the “spiritual”.
If in fact the Comm Ev is a religious service, then so too is the Justice and Ethics ideology that defines it and therefore Delphian School is, indeed, a religious school teaching Scientology religious principles.
Scientology cannot have it both ways.
With the foundation laid questioning the legitimacy of the Enrollment Agreement the next step is the Suppressive Person.
From this same HCO Policy Letter:
In Valerie Haney’s case, she has clearly violated numerous defined Suppressive Acts which automatically places her under the terms of this and similar policies. In fact this policy letter cites an interesting decree:
Haney did not request a Comm Ev. It was forced upon her by Scientology.
The purpose of the Comm Ev is also defined here; “…in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing Scientology…”.
Nowhere does it say that Scientology arbitration (Comm Ev) is to determine guilt or innocence in a legal case where the law has been broken.
Accepting that this policy letter applies as stated then the Comm Ev is redundant as Haney’s actions have already been defined as Suppressive Acts.
If Scientology revokes a member’s rights, placing them “beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being” then this revocation extends to the rights and privileges they were granted upon signing the Enrollment Agreement. Such a person, excommunicated from the “religion”, is ipso facto no longer a member.
“Suppressive persons or groups relinquish their rights as Scientologists by their very actions and may not receive the benefits of the Codes of the Church.” –HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965, Revised 8 January 1991
Valerie Haney exercised her First Amendment Right not to participate in Scientology. She escaped from the organization and engaged in multiple actions defined by her former “church” as Suppressive Acts. Both behaviors clearly demonstrated her desire to not be affiliated with Scientology.
For their part, Scientology requires a contract agreement in order for one to be considered a member of the organization. This agreement, once signed, allows the member to participate in all aspects of Scientology’s “spiritual” regimen and binds them to its policies, rules and code. Part of this code decrees that by committing Suppressive Acts one is excommunicated de facto if not in word.
Once one is guilty of Suppressive Acts they are an enemy, fair game and “may not receive the benefits of the Codes of the Church” as granted in the Enrollment Agreement.
Thus as a former member of Scientology both in her exercise of her First Amendment Right to not participate in a particular religion as well as by Scientology’s own code and policy Valerie Haney is under no obligation whatsoever to be forced into COS arbitration.