Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
1SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone: (916) 549-8784E-Mail: bvansickle@surewest.netAttorney for PlaintiffCLAIRE HEADLEY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESCLAIRE HEADLEY
,Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporateentity, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGYCENTER, a corporate entity ANDDOES 1 - 20
 Defendants.))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. BC405834PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT FOR:1)
 
RESTITUTION OF WAGES DUE(B&P §17200 ET. SEQ)2)
 
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REONGOING UNFAIR BUSINESSPRACTICES3)
 
FORCED LABOR aka HUMANTRAFFICKING ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JANEL. JOHNSON, DEPT. 56INTRODUCTION
1)
 
This case challenges Scientology’s business model, notits belief system. Plaintiff worked long, hard hours for illegalwages, was forced to have abortions to keep her job and wassubjected to violations of personal rights and liberties for thepurpose of obtaining coerced labor.2)
 
Defendants scoff at the suggestion that they aresubject to labor laws, but they protest too much. Plaintiff’scase has a solid legal foundation. Under controlling law,
 
 
2SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Plaintiff was entitled to the protections of the labor laws.Plaintiff’s case is supported by statutory law and decisions ofthe U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court and theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants are subject to laborlaws and other neutral laws of general applicability irrespectiveof whether Scientology should, or should not, enjoy tax exemptstatus. Further, the rights in question cannot be waived andviolations of law cannot be excused by exculpatory contracts.(Authorities cited below.)3)
 
Plaintiff seeks payment for her work at minimum wage,overtime pay, an injunction against forced abortions and otherremedies authorized by law. Plaintiff seeks to establish thatDefendants are subject to labor laws including the laws againstforced labor. Defendants are prone to hiding behind grandioseclaims of religiosity; however, there is no omnipotent“religious” defense to save Defendants in this case. The claimsof religion as a defense to violation of law are alsodisingenuous. In promotional literature, Scientology’s founderL. Ron Hubbard answered the rhetorical question, “What isScientology” in the following terms: “Scientology is today theonly successfully validated psychotherapy in theworld…Scientology is a precision science.” (From the “TechnicalBulletins” of L. Ron Hubbard.) Is it a therapy, science orreligion? It does not matter for purposes of the labor laws,which apply in any case, but such inconsistencies reveal thenature of the beast.4)
 
Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI)represents itself to be the “Mother Church” of Scientology. CSI
 
 
3SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
has its principal office and apparent headquarters in LosAngeles, California. The County of Los Angeles is an appropriatevenue for this action. Defendant CSI controls lower levelorganizations, develops and markets promotional materials, andcharges for its activities.5)
 
Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”)purports to be a California non-profit corporation. RTC’s rolein the corporate shell game of the Scientology enterprise is topolice access and use of L. Ron Hubbard’s works. RTC supposedlyprotects copyrighted material and trademarks. It is not clearexactly what RTC is protecting, although it clearly plays therole of “enforcer”. RTC is quick to claim copyright infringementwhenever anything Hubbard related is mentioned in the media, orby critics. But copyright protection applies to expressions ofan idea, not to the idea itself. It is basic copyright law thatcopyright protection does not cover “any idea, procedure,process, system, method of operation, concept, principle ordiscovery, regardless of the form in which it is …embodied” (17USC §102(b)). Whatever the legal propriety of its businessoperations, RTC is a business. RTC charges fees for protectionof claimed intellectual property rights and is thereforeinherently a commercial enterprise. RTC effectively controls CSIand other entities in the Scientology enterprise. The head ofRTC, David Miscavige, is responsible for setting and enforcingthe significant business practices of both Defendants CSI andRTC, including rules against minimum wage, overtime pay andhaving children.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more