1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST; et al. Defendants. ________________________________________/
DEFENDANTS BENCH MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRATION PROVISION AND ITS INCLUSION OF PROCEDURES EFFECTING ARBITRATION
Defendants, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc.
(“Flag Church”)
and Church of Scientology Ship Service Organization, Inc.
(“Ship Church”)
file this memorandum of law to address the two issues raised by the Court
’s
Order of November 13, 2014 (Dkt 137): the existence of rules of procedure and whether the arbitration is unconscionable and state.
I.
THE PROCEDURAL CONDUCT OF AN ARBITRATION IS GOVERNED BY THE SYSTEM OF PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN CHURCH SCRIPTURE THAT APPLY TO COMMITTEES OF EVIDENCE
Church Scripture consists of the writings and lectures of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of Scientology and Dianetics. (Ex. 1, Deposition of Mike Ellis, p. 158). Church Scripture includes documents called HCO Policy Letters
(“HCO PLs”)
. HCO PL 7 September 1963, entitled
Committees of Evidence; Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of
, governs the conduct of Scientology Ethics and Justice Procedures. A Committee of Evidence may be requested by any Scientologist
“
for whatever reason,
”
including by a Scientologist who has been expelled from the Church. (Ex. 1, Ellis Depo., pp. 125, 138, 140.) It may address any
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 166 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 25 PageID 3113
2 and all matters of Ethics and Justice according to the Scientology Justice system. (
Id
., pp. 211, 212.) HCO PL 7 September 1963 unequivocally and conspicuously states on its title page:
“
This system is for use in all matters of justice in Scientology.
”
It also is Scripture of the Church that all disputes between and among Scientologists or between Scientologists and any church entity be settled through such internal justice procedures, and not through the civil courts. (
Id
., pp. 104-105, 229.
)
Indeed, that system is bilateral, meaning that if the Church had a dispute with a Scientologist, it too would resolve the matter through the internal justice system. (
Id
.) Scientologists are taught those principles through participation in Scientology training and courses. Plaintiff Luis Garcia participated in precisely such a course, and fully understood and agreed with the principle of internal dispute resolution through the Scientology justice system. Thus, Mr. Garcia testified: I was familiar with all the ethics procedures and justice procedures. And I knew there was a system whereby Scientologists could settle disputes, have hearings . . . . And I used some things of the system. . . . I was aware of the committees of evidence, I knew how that worked. I mean, most Scientologists do because they study them. We study this book, and we study . . . the ethics specialty course, and we become well versed on how these things are supposed to work. (Ex. 2, Deposition of Luis Garcia, pp. 23-24, 46-48.) In agreeing to arbitration, the Plaintiffs signed numerous enrollment agreements over many years. The enrollment agreements directly at issue here are the agreements that Plaintiffs signed with Defendants Flag Church and Ship Church. Those agreements, with which the Court is now familiar, specifically provide that if a dispute arises between the Plaintiffs and any Scientology church or entity, the Plaintiffs will not seek relief in the civil courts, but will submit such disputes to resolution through the Scientology system of dispute resolution procedures. Accordingly, the Enrollment Agreements at issue here specifically provide that the Plaintiffs will seek resolution of any such dispute
“
solely and exclusively through Scientology
’
s internal
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 166 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 25 PageID 3114
3 Ethics, Justice and binding religious arbitration procedures, which include application to senior ecclesiastical bodies, including, as necessary, final submission of the dispute to the International Justice Chief of the Mother Church of the Scientology religion, Church of Scientology International (
“
IJC
”
) or his or her designee.
”
Enrollment Agreement, para. 6(d). Those internal justice procedures were the system of procedures applicable to Committees of Evidence, as stated in the aforementioned HCO Policy Letter of 7 September 1963, which Mr. Garcia studied assiduously in the course of his Scientology training. The Enrollment Agreement then sets forth in greater detail the specific step of internal arbitration, which, the Plaintiffs agreed, should be conducted
“
in accordance with Scientology principles, and consistent with the ecclesiastical nature of the procedures and the dispute . . .
”
Id
., par. 6(e). Michael Ellis is the International Justice Chief for the Church of Scientology International, the senior management church of the hierarchical Scientology religion. (Ex. 1, Ellis Depo, pp. 202, 203.) Mr. Ellis is the senior church authority over all justice matters concerning Scientology churches, missions, and parishioners. (
Id
.) Mr. Ellis trained for his ecclesiastical position by intensely studying Scientology Scripture and policy relating to justice and ethics matters for over a year, spending well over 3000 hours in such religious study. (
Id
., pp. 204-205). He has held his position since 1998. (
Id.,
p. 203.) It is to Mr. Ellis that any request for arbitration must be submitted, and it is his responsibility to insure that any arbitration be conducted
“
in accordance with Scientology principles, and consistent with the ecclesiastical nature of the proceedings . . .
”
(
Id
., pp. 230-231.) Mr. Ellis has specifically studied the question of the procedures to be applied in an arbitration proceeding, and he has definitively found that, according to Scientology Scripture and
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 166 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 25 PageID 3115
