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

’

 MOTION TO STRIKE FALSE AND SCANDALOUS PORTIONS OF

PLAINTIFFS’ BENCH MEMOR 

ANDUM

Defendants, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (“Flag Church”) and

Church of Scientology Flag Ship

Service Organization, Inc. (“Ship Church”) file this motion and

memorandum to strike portions of plaintiffs bench memorandum (Dkt. 170) as impertinent, irrelevant, and scandalous and state: 1.

 

Plaintiffs failed to file a timely bench memorandum and instead file a memo seeking to rebut

Defendants’

 bench memo (Dkt. 166). In doing so, however, plaintiffs grossly misstate the testimony of Mike Ellis, even to the point of stating that he testified in a manner directly contrary to what he said. 2.

 

Rule 12(f) provides a remedy to strike from a pleading

“

any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.

”

 MEMORANDUM At page 5 of their bench memo plaintiffs assert that Scientology

“

 policies specifically  provide that Scientology retains the right to sue the Gracias notwithstanding the arbitration agreement

”

 and cite in support Mike Ellis deposition at page 189:18. Not only did Mr. Ellis not

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 173 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID 3243

 

2

testify to such a fact at page 189:18, he expressly testified to the contrary at 104:11-105:4, attached. Q Meaning that whatever the arbitrators decide would be binding on both sides; right? A That's my understanding of it. Q Okay. Did the church intend to be bound by the enrollment agreement? THE WITNESS: In -- in my understanding I would say yes because the church uses its internal ethics and justice procedures to resolve almost all matters as a first -- what am I trying to say? -- a first instinct, first impulse, first rule, whatever. BY MR. BABBITT: Q So when they had Mr. Garcia sign this, they intended Mr. Garcia to be bound  by the language contained within the enrollment agreement; right? A Yes. Q It was a contract; right? A Yes. My understanding, yes. Q And they intended themselves to be bound as well, "themselves" being the Church of Scientology? A That would be my understanding as well, yes. (Ex. A, Ellis Depo., at 104:11-105:4) Similarly the plaintiffs assert at on page 5 of their brief that

“

The deposition of Mr. Ellis, as well as other witnesses to be called by the Plaintiffs, shows that all three arbitrators, because they are Scientologist in good standing, would have to believe that the Garcias are guilty of a high crime, are not able to do the prerequisites to arbitration, have no rights under Scientology, cannot believe a word the Garcias say, believe that the Garcias are psychotic or are like Communists, Fascists or criminals, and would themselves be subject to excommunication if they found against the Church.

”

 In support of this claim the plaintiffs cite to Mr. Ellis's testimony at 195:8. Mr. Ellis offered no such testimony and in fact states the exact opposite at 175-178 and at 199:2-17 attached. Q Turn to the second page. Talking about suppressive people, it says, "They are the true psychotics no matter how sane they sound." And further down it says, "Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90  percent of the population, so we set them aside for another day." Do you see that? A Yes. Q If an arbitrator believed that, he would have a hard time finding for that  person; right?

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 173 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID 3244

 

3

THE WITNESS: I disagree. BY MR. BABBITT: Q So even though they thought they were psychotic, suppressive people are  psychotics they still could -- they still could find for them? THE WITNESS: Regardless of the situation, if there is evidence of a certain thing, which is what is being looked at, the evidence is what is looked at, not the  person or anything other than just the evidence. BY MR. BABBITT: Q But part of the evidence is Mr. and Mrs. Garcia would be allowed to testify; right? THE WITNESS: He would be an interested party, yes. BY MR. BABBITT: Q Would he be allowed to testify? A I guess I don't know if "testify" is the same terms or whatever, but he would  be interviewed by the -- by the arbitration, and he would also be able to originate whatever he wanted to in his -- to present his side of the story. Q Okay. So -- so he would speak to the arbitrators and present his side of the story -- A Sure, sure. Q Testify? If an arbitrator believes the person they're speaking to is psychotic, do you think that might interfere with their ability to believe them? THE WITNESS: Do I believe that? I believe it could, but it doesn't have to. BY MR. BABBITT: Q Right. But there's no way to tell, is there -- I mean, whether a particular arbitrator is going to believe somebody they think is psychotic or not believe them? A Okay. The arbitrators will be instructed, based on basic Scientology justice  principles that they are impartial and they are not going to have any  predetermined idea of what to believe or not believe. They're there to get facts,  provide whatever evidence, collect whatever evidence is needed so that they can arrive at a fair conclusion. Q But they can -- somebody can be impartial to a psychotic; right? They can be impartial to the psychotic, but they probably are not going to believe them if they are psychotic because psychotic people dream up things, and the definition of  psychotic is somebody who is not in reality? THE WITNESS: Okay. I can tell you that the justice procedure is based on the fact of evidence, not opinion. So if they present evidence of something, then the  board or the committee or the arbitrators or whatever the situation is would accept the evidence and verify whether it's true or not. BY MR. BABBITT: Q But part of that evidence is the testimony, the statement, of the person who has been declared suppressive in this case; right? That's part of -- A Evidence? Q Yeah. A Evidence is, yes, the spoken word or the written. Q Yeah.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 173 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3245