UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ and wife, MARIA DEL

Case No. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHURCH

O

SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et al.; Defendants.

~/

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AUTHENTICATED COPY OF COMPLETE 1963 HCO POLICY LETTER

Plaintiffs, LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ and MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA,

y

and through their undersigned attorneys, file this response to Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Authenticated Copy

of

Complete 1963 HCO Policy Letter [D.E. 127] and state:

1

Plaintiffs are reluctant to object to the introduction

of

the authenticated copy

of

the complete 1963 HCO policy letter because even a cursory review

of

it shows that the so-called Rules

of

Committee

of

Evidence has zero

to

do with arbitration, which is not even mentioned in the letter.

In

fact, the procedure for a Committee

of

Evidence couldn't possibly be used in arbitration. • The Committee is convened by a convening authority, not the parties. • The subject matter

of

the jurisdiction

of

the Committee is punishment, not fraudulent donations.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 128 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 2927

 

• It is composed

of

an appointed chainnan, appointed secretary and 2 -5 members all appointed by the convening authority, not three Scientologists in good standing chosen

y

the parties. • Its findings can

e

altered

or

nullified by the convening authority who approves, mitigates or disapproves the findings and may, at any time, simply disband the Committee (Page 3). • The ultimate authority for reviewing the findings

of

a Committee

of

Evidence is

L

Ron Hubbard who has been dead for 28 years (Page 7). It is, in fact, exquisite

proof

of

the absence

of

arbitration rules and

is

understandably never mentioned in the Arbitration Agreement.

2

The problem with allowing the Defendants

to

put in this letter after hearing additional evidence is: • It is too late to add evidence. • The hearing was nonevidentiary. • It invites further argument. • Plaintiffs attempted to place this letter and affidavits concerning it at the time the Defendants responded

to

this Court's Order

of

October 18, 2013 [D.

E

# 89] and Defendants successfully objected and moved to strike that evidence which resulted in this Court's Order [D.E.# 98]

of

November 13, 2013, striking the very same information. • This Court already ruled at the hearing that this letter was inadmissible at a nonevidentary hearing.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 128 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2928

 

•

f

admitted, in fairness, Plaintiffs affidavits and exhibits stricken at Defendants requests should be admitted in rebuttal. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants Motion to file an authenticated copy

of

the complete 1963 HCO policy letter. Dated: September

3 ,

2014 Respectfully submitted,

~ ~~

~

Florida Bar No: 091146 Babbitt Johnson Osborne LeClainche, P.A.

1641

Worthington Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: 561-684-2500 Fax: 561-684-6308 tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson-com -and-Ronald

P

Weil, Esq. Florida Bar No: 169966 Amanda

M

McGovern Florida Bar No: 964263 Weil Quaranta McGovern, P A. Southeast Financial Center, Suite 900 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-372-5352 Fax: 305-372-5355 RPW @weillaw net amcgovern@weillaw.net Counsel for Plaintiffs Luis

A

Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 128 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID 2929