UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMP A DIVISION LUIS

A

GARCIA SAZ and Wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARDIA, Plaintiffs, vs. CHRUCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et

al

, Defendants. CASE NO: 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

PLAINTIFFS BENCH MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, LUIS

A

GARCIA SAZ and MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, by and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully file this Bench Memorandum in Opposition

to

Defendants Motion

to

Compel Arbitration.

I

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The evidence shows that there are

no

procedures for conducting arbitration and that the rules

o

the Committee

o

Evidence cannot apply

to

arbitration. This arbitration

is

, therefore, procedurally unconscionable. An arbitration by a declared person, such as the Garcias, before a panel

o

three Scientologists in good standing cannot possibly be fair because

o

the policies

o

the Church

o

Scientology, which make such procedures inherently unfair. The arbitration procedure is, therefore, substantively unconscionable.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3223

 

Contrary to Defendants' belief, this Court -not the Church -must decide the initial question

o

arbitrability.

See Riley Manufacturing

Co

. 

Inc

v. Anchor Glass Container

Corp

157 F.3d 775, 779

1Oth

Cir. 1998). Indeed, Defendants' motion

to

compel arbitration cannot be won by prohibiting the Court from exercising its inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction.

II LEGAL MEMORANDUM

On October 1

7,

20

13,

this Court ordered the Defendants

to

provide proof that there were existing written procedures governing Scientology arbitration. [DE 89] On October 24, 2013, Defendants filed a response that The Church

o

Scientology International Justice Chief (IJC) has ruled that the procedures and rules governing the Committee

o

Evidence apply in arbitration proceedings. [emphasis added] [DE

91]

That statement was simply untrue. On September 24, 2014, this Court entered an Order requiring Defendants

to

provide evidence that the Chief Justice had ruled that the Committee

o

Evidence rules applied

to

arbitration. [DE 131] Defendants filed a sworn declaration

o

Mike Ellis which did not tell the Court how or when he had ruled a year earlier that the rules

o

the Committee

o

Evidence applied

to

arbitration. Instead, Ellis indicated that he had recently received a request for arbitration. [DE 132] That is not the same point.

t

is undisputed that there has never been a single arbitration in the history

o

the Church.

t

is also undisputed that this was the first request for arbitration that had ever been made. [Ellis 39:

19]

Plaintiffs requested every document that surrounded the recent request for arbitration and were provided with a redacted letter

o

September 30, 2014, written six days after this Court's

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID 3224

 

Order requiring that the Defendants provide evidence

of

the alleged ruling by the International Justice Chief a year earlier.

In

the deposition

of

Mike Ellis, the International Justice Chief who filed the Declaration insisted he could not remember any

of

the facts surrounding the recent request for arbitration other than the fact that the person requesting arbitration was a Scientologist. (Ellis

55

:20, 58:9, 60:9, 61:5) When presented with an unredacted copy

of

the September 30, 2014letter written

to

Mr. Jonathan Ramsay, who is not a Scientologist, Ellis recanted his testimony to avoid prosecution for perjury. (Ellis 69:2) The true facts are that Mr. Ramsay has never been a Scientologist and was requesting the return

of 17

,000.00 that his father had paid

to

take Scientology courses which were never taken because his father died prior to being able

to

take those courses. (Ellis 75:20) Defendants failed to provide the documents that showed they had denied Mr. Ramsay s claim in May 2013, and that they never contacted him until three days after this Court s September Order. At that time,

he

received an unsolicited request for his physical address

so

that the IJC could send the letter in question. (Ellis 92:

17 In

his deposition, Mr. Ellis claimed that the prior ruling referred

to

in Defendants response related

to

a casual conversation

he

had had with a person who asked him out

of

curiosity what rules applied to arbitration and

he

responded that the rules

of

the Committee

of

Evidence applied. (Ellis 46:8) There is no record

of

any kind concerning that conversation and the Defendants have failed

to

call the only witness who could confirm

it.

(Ellis 200:

19

Mr. Ellis never mentioned this supposed ruling in his declaration even though it was filed by the Defendants

to

attempt

to

comply with this Court s Order

of

September 24, 2014, requiring Defendants

to

provide all evidence that

he

had ruled on this issue.

t

is patently obvious that the

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3225