Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 160 Page ID #:9340

F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BARRY VAN SICKLE, ESQ., SBN 98645 1079 SUNRISE AVENUE, SUITE B-315 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE: (916) 549-8784 EMAIL: barryvansickle@comcast.net METZGER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ., SBN 116020 GREGORY A. COOLIDGE, ESQ., SBN 211984 401 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4966 TELEPHONE: (562) 437-4499 TELECOPIER: (562) 436-1561 WEBSITE: www.toxictorts.com Attorneys for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLAIRE HEADLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, ) RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY ) CENTER, a corporate entity AND ) DOES 1-20, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ ) CASE NO. CV09-3987 DSF (MANx) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DATE: TIME: DEPT: August 2, 2010 1:30 p.m. 840

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 160 Page ID #:9341
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. DISPUTED FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PLAINTIFF’S UNDISPUTED FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 PLAINTIFF’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

i
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 160 Page ID #:9342
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

DISPUTED FACTS PLAINTIFF’S DISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PURPORTED UNCONTROVERTED FACT Plaintiff’s Background in Scientology

1. At the age of 16, with her parents’ 1. DISPUTED consent, Plaintiff joined the Sea Mrs. Headley testified that her mother Organization (“Sea Org”), an did not want her to join the Sea

organization within the Church of Organization, although she did not Scientology whose members must make dispute her joining the Sea Organization a symbolic commitment to serve for a publicly. Mrs. Headley also testified that billion years. she joined the Sea Organization because one of her step-father’s friends was at Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p.1; risk of being sent to the Rehabilitation Declaration of Amy Lerner Hill (“Hill Project Force if she did not join. Decl.”), Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) (Deposition of Claire Headley, (“C. At 101:4-11; Exh. 12 at 2. Headley Depo.”), 72:24-76:11; 90:2591:7, attached at Exhibit “Q” to the Declaration of Kathryn Darnell). 2. To qualify to join the Sea Org, a 2. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Scientologist must undertake extensive human trafficking claim. training and study, pass a fitness examination, and receive certification that he or she is qualified for the rigors of Sea Org life. Declaration of Warren McShane

(“McShane Decl.”) ¶25.

1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 160 Page ID #:9343
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3. Sea Org members live communally, 3. DISPUTED as irrelevant to eat in common dining areas, are provided Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. basic necessities, and are expected to devote at least two and half hours a day to religious study. They share tradition and lifestyle. They wear uniforms when on duty and have a merit-based maritime rank and rating system and etiquette. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1; McShane Decl. ¶ 27; Declaration of Frank Flinn ¶ 37. 4. Defendants’ staff all belong to the Sea 4. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Org. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1. 5. It is exclusively from the Sea Org that 5. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s the senior leadership of Scientology is human trafficking claim. drawn, including the entire staff of senior management and Advanced Scientology churches. McShane Decl. ¶ 24. 6. Sea Org members subscribe to The 6. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Code of the Sea Org Member, which human trafficking claim. contains vows that are repeated at Sea Org ceremonies that take place annually.
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 160 Page ID #:9344
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 100:2-101:3; Exh. 11, Code of a Sea Org Member; McShane Decl. ¶29. 7. Before joining the Sea Org, potential 7. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s members are told that they will be human trafficking claim. required to work long and hard hours without material compensation, and that they may be assigned or reassigned anywhere in the world to further the goals and expansion of the Scientology religion. McShane Decl. ¶¶ 24, 30; Code of A Sea Org member, item 11. 8. Plaintiff’s mother was a Sea Org 8. UNDISPUTED member when Claire was a young child, and remains a Scientologist to this day. Her stepfather also was and is a Scientologist Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 20:4-13, 27:19-28:6. 9. Plaintiff was raised in the faith of her parents, and was taught and accepted the theology and doctrine of the Scientology religion. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1; Hill
3
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9. UNDISPUTED

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 160 Page ID #:9345
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 20:14-25. 10. At the time she joined the Sea Org, Plaintiff understood what the lifestyle of a Sea Org member entailed, including wearing uniforms, living communally, and receiving a small allowance, because her mother, uncle and cousins had all been Sea Org members, and it was “pretty much all I knew as a lifestyle.” Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 80:14-81:19, 91:11-92:3, 92:9-94:18. 11. Plaintiff’s mother had once accepted 11. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation an assignment to the RPF, so Claire was and calling for speculation. It further is well aware of the strict disciplinary code irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking applied to Sea Org members. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 506:7-9. 12. Upon joining, Plaintiff signed a 12. DISPUTED as irrelevant to declaration of religious commitment to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. the Sea Org, which stated that she volunteered “to create a better world” for a symbolic one billion years, “not in contemplation of receiving any
4
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 7 of 160 Page ID #:9346
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

compensation motivation.”

whatsoever,

and

...

forsaking all commercial and financial

Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1, 4-5; McShane Decl. ¶ 28; Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Dep.) At 101:4-11; Exh. 12 (Declaration of Relig io us Commitment) at 1. 13. Plaintiff was a Sea org member from 13. UNDISPUTED July 1991 to January 2005, and she worked on various “posts” within the Sea Org during that time. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2. 14. During that period, Plaintiff served 14. furthering the goals of Scientology. She believed that the purposes of the Sea Org included to “clear the planet.” Based on her upbringing, Plaintiff believed she was doing the right thing by being a Sea Org member. She regularly recited the Code of a Sea Org Member at ceremonies that took place annually. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.)
5
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

the religion and believed she was Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 8 of 160 Page ID #:9347
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

At 20:17-25, 38:6-20, 51:5-24, 82:13-17, 100:2-101:3; Exh. 11. 15. Plaintiff had been raised to believe 15. DISPUTED as irrelevant to “that it was wrong not to be in the Sea Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. Org and that people that left were outethics criminals and various other things along the same line of thought.... That’s how I was raised, and I was doing what I was raised to believe was right,” specifically, “that joining the Sea Org and being a Sea Org member is the correct thing to do.” life...” Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) At 21:6-7, 38:6-20. 16. Plaintiff testified that, “it took a fair 16. DISPUTED as irrelevant to bit to make me actually get to the point of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. leaving because I was very firmly connected, and I knew absolutely nothing else.” It was not one event, but “many events over a course of several years” that led her to depart. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 21:5-12, 22:1-10.
6
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

She had been

“firmly raised in that for [her] whole

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 9 of 160 Page ID #:9348
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17. During Plaintiff’s time in the Sea 17. Org, she became a Class IV auditor. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2 18. Scientology auditing is a one-on-one 18. called an auditor and a Scientology parishioner. The auditor, according to Scientology beliefs, helps people locate areas of spiritual distress. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

session between a trained individual Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

19. Plaintiff worked as a staff member of 19. UNDISPUTED the Church of Scientology International, Inc. (“CSI”) while she was in Sea Org. Court’s April 2, 2010 order, p. 2. 20. CSI is known as the “Mother 20. authority extends to DISPUTED as irrelevant to Church” within Scientology, and its Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. ecclesiastical overseeing the proper administration of all Scientology churches and missions worldwide. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 2.

7
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 10 of 160 Page ID #:9349
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Plaintiff also worked as a staff 21. UNDISPUTED

member for Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) while she was a member of the Sea Org. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 2. 22. Plaintiff restated her commitment to 22. expectation 1996. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 375:19-376:13; Exh. 39. 23. Plaintiff worked as an RTC staff 23. DISPUTED member from 1996 to 2004. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 2 Mrs. Headley testified that she was never fully terminated from RTC and that she continued performing work for RTC until the left the Sea Organization in January 2005. (C. Headley Depo., 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.). 24. RTC is responsible for insuring the 24. eternal preservation, transmission and application of all Scientology doctrine
8
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant for to

the Sea Org and the religion without Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. of compensation upon becoming a staff member of RTC in

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

orthodox practice of Scientology and the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 11 of 160 Page ID #:9350
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and

practices

contained

in

the

Scientology scriptures. Court’s April 2,2010 Order, fn. 3. 25. RTC and CSI are both institutions 25. within the Church of Scientology. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4. 26. Both RTC and CSI are recognized as 26. churches Service. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, fn. 3. 27. During her time in the Sea Org, 27. institution. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4. 28. Plaintiff was chosen for her position 28. religious criteria. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4. 29. Plaintiff performed religious duties 29. Sea Org. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4.
9
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

by the Internal Revenue Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff was employed by a religious Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

within the Sea Org based largely on Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

and responsibilities while she was in the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 12 of 160 Page ID #:9351
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30. on to

Plaintiff was able to hold her 30. religious criteria, and namely the her

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

positions with Defendants based largely Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. commitment to a billion years of service Scientology lifestyle constraints that come with being a member of the Sea Org. Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 4-5. 31. As part of her job duties, Plaintiff 31. responsibilities, including auditing and “cramming.” Court’s April 2, 2010 Order, p. 1-2. 32. During her time with the Sea Org, 32. “police” function to make sure other Sea Org members were doing their jobs properly. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 382:11-24, 384:6-10, 384:22-385:3. 33. Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, 33. Sea Org member,” who was very proud of him and was “happier” when he gained a “respectable position” within the Sea
10
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

performed various religious duties and Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff carried out what she termed a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

referred to Plaintiff as “a real strait-laced Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 13 of 160 Page ID #:9352
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Org. Declaration of G. Samuel Cleaver (“Cleaver Decl.”), Exh. 63 of Marc Headley v CSI case, Exh. A (Marc Headley Dep.) at 873:10-874:6. 34. Plaintiff acknowledged in her 34. DISPUTED as irrelevant to deposition that she held a relatively Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. “senior position in RTC.” There was a group of about ten people who were either directly or indirectly under her supervision. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 431:5-8, 448:5-449:6, 465:13-17. Plaintiff’s Living and Travel Arrangements During Her Time as a Sea Org Member 35. Plaintiff received her driver’s license 35. in June 1991. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth at 145:21-146:2. 36. Base. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff had a fully operational 36.

motorcycle while she lived at the Gold Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below. at 159:11-19, 208:3-21; Exh. 24 (photo).
11
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 14 of 160 Page ID #:9353
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

37. Plaintiff’s husband also had a fully 37. operational motorcycle.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth at 159:20-21; Cleaver Decl., Exh. A below. (Marc Headley Depo.) At 290:23-291:10. 38. While a Sea Org staff member, 38. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s husband owned and drove a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for jeep (for one year) and had access to and the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s used several automobiles. Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Depo.) at 314:16-315:1, 497:18-498:1, 501:15-23. 39. In 1992, Plaintiff drove with her 39. DISPUTED as irrelevant to husband and her father-in-law to Las Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Vegas to get married. She was away the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s from the Gold Base for 2-3 days. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 65:8-66:9, 174:9-15; Declaration of Matthew D. Hinks (“Hinks Decl.”), Exh. A (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 36:23-37:8, 38:2-40:9, 40:17-41:2. 40. Plaintiff had a pet dog while she 40. lived at Gold Base.
12
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 15 of 160 Page ID #:9354
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 858:25-859:16; Exh. 64; Hinks below. Decl., Exhs. 538-1, 538-23, 538-24, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1117:11-1118:19, 1128:14-1129:16. 41. Plaintiff was given a cell phone in 41. early 2000. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 133:12-134:1 phone to call her parents and her sister. below. DISPUTED as incomplete and Mrs. Headley testified that while she Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was assigned a cell phone to receive Depo.) at 135:20-136:1. phone calls from executives in the Sea Organization, her phone calls were monitored. After calling her family on a few instances, she was confronted and told that her calls were being monitored. Mrs. Headley feared that if she made personal calls on the phone, it would be taken away from her and that she would be assigned heavy labor. (C. Headley Depo., Decl.). 133:12-23; 135:3-136:35, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell misleading. 42. On occasion, Plaintiff used her cell 42.

13
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 16 of 160 Page ID #:9355
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

43. Plaintiff had her cell phone until she 43.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

left the Gold Base in 2005, except for a Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for period of 4-5 weeks in early 2002 and a the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s month in October 2004. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 135:3-7. 44. Plaintiff regularly communicated 44. DISPUTED as incomplete and with her sister and mother. misleading. All of Mrs. Headley’s communications Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley with her mother and sister were filtered Depo.) at 844:5-15, 853:5-13, 859:4-10, by Defendants. She specifically did not 862:9-16; Exhs. 62, 63, 64, 65 (Letters); say anything negative in her McShane Decl. ¶ 42, Exh. 131 (RTC communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:112621, Letter from Claire); Declaration of 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24Kirsten Whitt, passim; Declaration of 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Geraldine Whitt, passim; Hinks Decl., Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., Exh. 538-27, Exh. B (Claire Headley 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1130:11-17. Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 842:4-10; 849:19-24; 841:25-842:10; 851:10-14; 846:7-12; 852:10-24; section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).

14
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 17 of 160 Page ID #:9356
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

45.

In the early 2000s, Plaintiff 45.

DISPUTED as incomplete and Mrs. Headley recalls a phone call in

attempted to recruit her younger sister to misleading. join the Sea Org. It was Plaintiff’s “idea” to “encourage” her sister to join the Sea which she may have suggested to her Org “because [she] would have liked to sister that she should join the Sea work with her” at the Gold Base. Organization, but noted that all of her communications were monitored by Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Defendants, such that she would not have Depo.) at 839:23-841:11; Exh. 62; said anything negative. She also recalls Kirsten Whitt Decl. ¶ 6. being put up to encouraging her sister to join the Sea Organization by a staff member. (C. Headley Depo., 839:23842:10; 843:17-844:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 46. While she was in the Sea Org, 46. DISPUTED as incomplete and Mrs. Headley recalls a phone call in which she may have suggested to her sister that she should join the Sea Kirsten Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 5 [first par. #5]-6. Organization, but noted that all of her communications were monitored by Defendants, such that she would not have said anything negative. She also recalls being put up to encouraging her sister to join the Sea Organization by a staff member.
15
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff told her sister about how misleading. exciting and fun it was to be in the Sea Org and how important her work was.

(C. Headley Depo., 839:23-

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 18 of 160 Page ID #:9357
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16

842:10; 47. While she was in the Sea Org, 47.

843:17-844:4,

attached

as

Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). DISPUTED as incomplete and Plaintiff often told her mother how good misleading. the food was, how nice it was at the Gold All of Mrs. Headley’s communications Base and RTC, how much she enjoyed with her family were filtered by her work, and that she was getting great Defendants, such that she did not say benefits from her auditing and training at a n y t h i n g the Gold Base. Geraldine Whitt Decl. ¶ 5. negative in her communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:1124; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 842:4-10; 849:19-24; 841:25-842:10; 851:10-14; 846:7-12; 852:10-24;

854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 48. In about 2002, Claire encouraged her 48. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation brother Robert to join the Sea Org. As he and calling for speculation as to Mrs. describes it, in 2002: “I spoke to Claire on the telephone, and Sea Organization myself some day. Headley’s state of mind. Additionally, all of Mrs. Headley’s filtered by Defendants, such that she did

told her that I was thinking of joining the communications with her family were Claire was very excited about this and not say anything negative in her arranged to have a long telephone communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:11-

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 19 of 160 Page ID #:9358
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

conversation with me to tell me about it.

24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24-

In the call, Claire was very encouraging 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the to me to join the Sea Org, and told me Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., that she could pull some strings so that if 37:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the and when I joined, she could arrange for Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., me to be posted close to her.” Rob Whitt Decl. ¶ 4. 842:4-10; 849:19-24; 841:25-842:10; 851:10-14; 846:7-12; 852:10-24;

854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).

49. Plaintiff wrote a “Project Prepare” 49. Project Prepare is a long term project to

DISPUTED as incomplete and

for her bother Rob to join the Sea Org. A misleading. All of Mrs. Headley’s communications prepare a person to handle whatever is with her family were filtered by necessary in his or her life to become Defendants, such that she did not say qualified to join the Sea Org, and anything negative in her communications sometimes may involve many actions and and only sent communications that she may take years. After writing the knew would be passed along to her program, Claire spoke to her brother family members. (Fraser Depo., 100:11about it several times. As he states: “She 24; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24asked me about my project prepare and 110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the plans for joining over the next several Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., years and continued to encourage me. my progress... The gist of 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the 841:25-842:10; 851:10-14; 846:7-12; 852:10-24; She called me occasionally to check on Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., our 842:4-10; conversations was that joining the Sea 849:19-24;

Org would be a good, exciting and 854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2;
17
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 20 of 160 Page ID #:9359
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

worthwhile thing to do.” Claire also 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached discussed the Project Prepare over the as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). phone with her brother. Rob Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Geraldine Whitt Decl. ¶ 7. 50. Plaintiff always told her mother and 50. DISPUTED as lacking in foundation siblings “that she was happy with her life and calling for speculation regarding in the Sea Org and with her work in the Mrs. Headley’s state of mind. Sea Org. She seemed happy, she told me Additionally, all of Mrs. Headley’s with her family that things were going very well, and she communications

manifested her dedication to that life by members were filtered by Defendants, her efforts to recruit her brother and sister such that Mrs. Headley did not say to join and work with her.” Geraldine Whitt Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. anything negative in her communications. (Fraser Depo., 100:1124; 102:10-105:8; 106:13-16; 107:24110:10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 137:11-12, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 842:4-10; 849:19-24; 841:25-842:10; 851:10-14; 846:7-12; 852:10-24;

854:23-858:18; 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).

18
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 21 of 160 Page ID #:9360
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

51. Plaintiff testified: day you left, you never enjoyed it?

51.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Q. From the day you started to the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth A. I may have thought that I did at below. the time. I was raised to believe that that was enjoyable. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 276:9-12. 52. Plaintiff lived off the Gold Base 52. during the time she was posted there. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 128:24-129:20, 143:23-144:12, below. 161:2-23. Mrs. Headley also testified to being restricted to Gold Base for much of her employment. (C. Headley Depo., 138:412; 141:12-15; 141:21-142:6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl. C. Headley Depo., 881:13-882:23, attached at Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, she was told that she had foregone her right to leave the Sea
19
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 22 of 160 Page ID #:9361
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20

Organization, and that if she attempted to leave, she would be pursued and brought back. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-10, attached hereto as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 53. When Plaintiff first moved to Gold 53. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Base, she lived at the Kirby Apartments, Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for which are located off of the Gold Base in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s the town of Hemet, an approximately 15 section of Undisputed Facts set forth minute drive from the Gold Base. below. Mrs. Headley also testified to being Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley restricted to Gold Base for much of her Depo.) at 128:24-129:20. employment. (C. Headley Depo., 138:412; 141:12-15; 141:21-142:6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl. C. Headley Depo., 881:13-882:23, attached at Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, she was told that she had foregone her right to leave the Sea Organization, and that if she attempted to leave, she would be pursued and brought back. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-10, attached hereto as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 23 of 160 Page ID #:9362
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

54.

Plaintiff lived at the Kirby 54.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Apartments until March 1996.

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 132:2-4, 187:6-24; Exhs. 17, 18 below. (Photos of Kirby Apartments); Hinks Decl., Exh. D (Michael Norton June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 15:8-11). 55. Plaintiff had the combination to get 55. Apartments. DISPUTED as irrelevant to in and out of the gate to the Kirby Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) At 129:81-130:7; Hinks Decl. Exh. D (Michael Norton June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 15:12-18. 56. There was a market on the corner, 56. Apartments. DISPUTED as irrelevant to half a block away from the Kirby Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 131:23-132:1, 190:23-191:6. 57. There was a pay phone at the market 57. Kirby Apartments were located. DISPUTED as irrelevant to on the corner of the street where the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 191:7-8.
21
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 24 of 160 Page ID #:9363
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

58. Plaintiff utilized the market on the 58. corner.

DISPUTED

as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 190:23-191:6. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 59. Plaintiff estimated that there were 59. Kirby Apartments.

approximately 100 apartments at the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 131:14-18. 60. Not everyone who lived at the Kirby 60. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Apartments was affiliated with the Gold Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Base, including the Manager of the the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s apartments. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 131:2-9. 61. There was a swimming pool and 61. Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, wrote, he got “a serious tan.” DISPUTED as lacking in lawn chairs at the Kirby Apartments, and foundation. It further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Cleaver Decl., Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) section of Undisputed Facts set forth at 110. 62. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to From 1991-1999, Plaintiff had 62. section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

Sunday mornings free from 9:30-11:30 to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for do laundry, room cleaning, and take care the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
22
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 25 of 160 Page ID #:9364
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of personal hygiene. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 188:12-189:1.

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

63. On occasion, Plaintiff would go to 63. the Hemet Mall on Sunday mornings.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 188:3-16. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 64. Plaintiff went to live in Clearwater, 64.

Florida for approximately one year (from Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for March 1996 until January 1997) for one the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s of her positions with RTC. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 142:7-143:3, 143:23-24; Hinks Decl., Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1096:4-1097:1, 1098:141099:15, 1101-9-1103:7). 65. While Plaintiff was in Clearwater, 65. Apartments. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Florida, she lived at the Hacienda Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 142:18-25, 387:6-10. 66. The Hacienda Apartments were 66. DISPUTED as irrelevant to about a 5-10 minute drive from the place Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for where Plaintiff worked.
23
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 26 of 160 Page ID #:9365
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 387:11-15. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 67. Although there was a security guard 67. prevented Plaintiff from leaving.

at the Hacienda Apartments, he never Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 387:22-388:8. 68. The building where Plaintiff worked 68. entrance on the street. DISPUTED as irrelevant to in Clearwater was downtown, and had its Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for The facilities the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s where Plaintiff worked in Clearwater section of Undisputed Facts set forth were not on a “base” and had no physical below. fence around them. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 385:6-386:9, 394:4-7. 69. While Plaintiff was on post in 69. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Clearwater, she had access to and drove Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for a staff vehicle. Plaintiff drove staff the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s below. members to the Hacienda Apartments for section of Undisputed Facts set forth about a six month period of time. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 145:11-15. 70. While she was living in Clearwater, 70. Gardens, an amusement park.
24
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff went on an outing to Busch Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 27 of 160 Page ID #:9366
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 388:25-389:3; McShane Decl. ¶43; Exh. 132 (RTC 2706-2707, Photos); Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-14 & 538-15, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1125:11-25). 71. In May 1996, when she was living in 71. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Clearwater, Plaintiff went with other staff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for members to dinner and jet-skiing on a the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s day off. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 802:17-803:3. 72. While she was living in Clearwater, 72. Plaintiff went to the movies. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 804:13-16. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 73. While she was living in Clearwater, 73. section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. below.

Plaintiff ran an errand for another staff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for member to pick up a photo album offsite. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl, Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below. at 388:17-23.

25
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 28 of 160 Page ID #:9367
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

74.

Plaintiff flew on a regular 74. airline to and

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

commercial

from Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth

Clearwater, Florida.

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 390:6-18. 75. After she left Clearwater in January 75. two or three weeks. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 1997, Plaintiff went to Los Angeles for Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 143:23-144:4. 76. Plaintiff returned to Hemet in early 76. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 1997 and moved into the Vista Garden Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Apartments in the town of Hemet, which the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s were located off Gold Base. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 143:23-144:12, 199:16-25; Exhs. 19, 20 (Photos of Vista DISPUTED as irrelevant to Apartments). 77. Some of the people who lived at the 77. affiliated with the Gold Base. Vista Garden Apartments were not Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 200:2-12.
26
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 29 of 160 Page ID #:9368
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

78.

There were times when Plaintiff 78.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

drove herself to and from the Vista Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Apartments. the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 144:5-144:12. 79. In 1999, Plaintiff was in a 79. DISPUTED as irrelevant to motorcycle accident and stayed at Hemet Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Hospital for three or four nights. Hemet the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hospital is about a 10 minute drive from section of Undisputed Facts set forth Gold Base. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 648:10-15, 648:25-649:21. 80. Hemet Hospital is not a Scientology 80. facility. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 649:6-8. 81. Hospital was not affiliated below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to with Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 650:6-9. 82. Plaintiff received physical therapy 82. DISPUTED as irrelevant to for her broken leg from August- Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for December 1999 at a medical facility in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s
27
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

below.

Plaintiff’s physician at Hemet 81.

Scientology.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 30 of 160 Page ID #:9369
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hemet.

She attended the physical section of Undisputed Facts set forth

therapy 2-3 times per week, and she made below. more than 30 trips to the physical therapist in total. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 651:17-652:20, 657:18-658:3. 83. Plaintiff’s physical therapist was not 83. a Scientologist. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 652:9-10. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 84. Between 2000 and 2005, Plaintiff 84.

and her husband lived in various houses Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for on Sublette Road, which were not on the the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Gold Base property. Sublette Road is a section of Undisputed Facts set forth public road adjacent to Gold Base. Plaintiff’s homes on Sublette Road were adjacent to a public golf course. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 161:2-23, 201:1-202:17, DISPUTED as irrelevant to 206:18-207:2, Exhs. 21-23 (photos). 85. The Headleys often left the Base to 85. dog or make and eat dinner. shop, go to restaurants, take care of their Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley below.
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

below.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 31 of 160 Page ID #:9370
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Depo.) at 315:2-16; Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 172:15-173:8, 188:3-18, 190:23-191:10; Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-33, 538-40, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1132:616, 1134:5-13). 86. When Plaintiff lived on Sublette 86. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Road, she would at times drive her Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for motorcycle along a private road to her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s home from the Gold Base. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 160:2-7. 87. In order to get to her private road 87. DISPUTED as irrelevant to from the Gold Base, Plaintiff would pass Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for through a pedestrian security gate to the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s which she had the combination. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 160:2-7, 202:18-203:5. 88. There was a telephone in one of the 88. homes Plaintiff lived on Sublette Road. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Ex. A. (Claire Headley Depo.) section of Undisputed Facts set forth at 161:25-162:4. to an RTC staff vehicle.
29
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

89. Starting in 2000, Plaintiff had access 89.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 32 of 160 Page ID #:9371
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 145:16-18. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 90. During the time she had access to a 90.

staff vehicle, when Plaintiff did not take Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the bus home, she would drive herself the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s home in a staff vehicle. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 159:3-10. 91. In or about 2001, Plaintiff drove 91. DISPUTED as irrelevant to another staff member who had also Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for broken her leg back and forth to Los the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Angeles multiple times during a 1-2 section of Undisputed Facts set forth month period for the staff member’s below. treatment and surgery for her leg. They would spend the day in Los Angeles during these trips, and then they would drive back to Hemet. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 167:1-25. 92. In 2003, Plaintiff drove by herself 92. DISPUTED as irrelevant to section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

once or twice to the Hollywood Guaranty Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Building on Hollywood Boulevard in Los the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Angeles to see another Sea Org member, section of Undisputed Facts set forth Marty Rathbun.
30
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

below.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 33 of 160 Page ID #:9372
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 170:18-171:12. 93. In 2003, Plaintiff drove by herself to 93. Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Author Services, which is located on Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) At 171:18-25. 94. On occasion, during the time she was 94. DISPUTED as irrelevant to posted at the Gold Base, Plaintiff drove Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for to Cabazon, an outlet shopping mall the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s about 20-30 minute drive from Hemet to section of Undisputed Facts set forth go shopping. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 172:4-23. 95. At Christmas time, Plaintiff would 95. DISPUTED as irrelevant to go to the Cabazon outlet mall with other Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for staff members and stay there for several the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s hours to do Christmas shopping. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 172:25-173:8. section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. below.

96. Plaintiff went to the Cabazon outlet 96. was a staff member at the Gold Base.
31

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

mall approximately six times while she Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 34 of 160 Page ID #:9373
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 172:20-23. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 97. Plaintiff visited her family in Los 97. years while she was a staff member.

Angeles during Christmas time in various Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 176:21-177:6, 183:6-19; Kirsten Whitt Decl., par. 5; Geraldine Whitt Decl., par. 10; Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-4, 538-13, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1120:3-12, 1124:20-1125:8). 98. Plaintiff went with other Sea Org 98. members to Big Bear for recreation. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 817:17-818:9. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to 99. Plaintiff attended a Scientology new 99.

Years Event in Los Angeles most years Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for she was in the Sea Org. She generally the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s saw her parents and siblings at the section of Undisputed Facts set forth events. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 182:8-183:23, 212:1-214:17, 494:3-495:6; Exhs. 25, 26, 27 (photos); Hinks Decl., Exh. 538-28, Exh. B (Claire
32
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

below.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 35 of 160 Page ID #:9374
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1130:18-23. 100. Plaintiff’s husband would on 100. DISPUTED as irrelevant to occasion drive Plaintiff to the New Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Year’s event, and sometimes they would the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s go to her parent’s house afterwards. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 183:11-19. 101. In December 1991, Plaintiff had 101. DISPUTED as irrelevant to one week off to spend Christmas with her Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for family. She stayed a few nights in he the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s [sic] parent’s home in Los Angeles, and section of Undisputed Facts set forth then spent 4-5 days in Greenville, South below. Caroline with her grandmother. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 794:11-23. 102. Plaintiff’s grandmother is not a 102. Scientologist. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 839:19-22. below. section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

103. Plaintiff spent half a day with her 103. time in 1992.
33

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

family in Los Angeles during Christmas Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 36 of 160 Page ID #:9375
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 796:25-797:13. 104. below. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff went to visit her 104.

grandmother in Los Angeles for a few Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for days in 1994. Her grandmother was in the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s town visiting from South Carolina. mother in Burbank. Plaintiff’s husband was with her during this visit. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 174:14-24, 798:22-799:19; Hinks Decl., Exhs. 538-2, 538-3, 538-4, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1118:20-1120:2. 105. Plaintiff testified that she may have 105. Angeles in December 1995. DISPUTED as irrelevant to visited her family at their home in Los Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 801:9-15; Hinks Decl., Exh. 538-5, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15 , 2010 Depo.) at 1120:13-19. 106. Plaintiff visited her family during 106. Christmas time in 1997. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley section of Undisputed Facts set forth Depo.) at 806:25-807:5.
34
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth

During this visit, Plaintiff stayed with her below.

below.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 37 of 160 Page ID #:9376
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

107. Plaintiff saw her family again at 107. Angeles.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

the 1998 New Years event in Los Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 494:24-495:2. 108. Plaintiff visited her family in Los 108. a staff member. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Angeles for Thanksgiving while she was Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley below. Depo.) at 177:7-11. 109. In 2004, Plaintiff’s father in law 109. DISPUTED as irrelevant to was visiting Orange County, California, Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for and Plaintiff went by car with her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s husband and sister-in-law to visit him. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 815:20-816:13; Hinks Decl., Exh. A (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 12:616:18-18:25, 19:11-20:7, 21:14-24:20; Exhs. 6, 7. 110. In mid 2004, Plaintiff went to her 110. Crescenta, California. all went out to dinner.
35
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

sister’s high school graduation in La Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Plaintiff drove the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s below. herself to the graduation, then the family section of Undisputed Facts set forth

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 38 of 160 Page ID #:9377
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 180:25-181:24, 815:1-19; Hinks Decl., Exh. 538-37, Exh. B (Claire Headley June 15, 2010 Depo.) at 1133:12-16). 111. In December 2004, Plaintiff went to 111. DISPUTED as irrelevant to her parent’s home in La Crescenta after Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the New Year’s event, which she the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s attended with her parents. After visiting section of Undisputed Facts set forth with her parents at their home, Plaintiff below. and her husband drove back to Hemet alone. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 177:12-179:13. 112. Plaintiff and her husband had bank 112. DISPUTED as irrelevant to accounts and a PayPal account. They had Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for cell phones and Marc had a laptop with the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s Internet accessibility. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 135:3-7, 136:13-15; Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Depo.) at 109:17-110:1, 112:2-5, 276:3-11. Plaintiff’s Departure from Gold Base 113. Plaintiff remained a committed Sea 113. Org member for many years. DISPUTED as irrelevant to She Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for
36
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

eventually had doubts and lost her the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 39 of 160 Page ID #:9378
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

commitment, and in fact, she believed in section of Undisputed Facts set forth Scientology until she left in January below. 2005. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 20:14-21:20, 39:11-40:3. 114. Plaintiff testified that she knew at 114. DISPUTED as irrelevant to least one RTC staff member, Debra Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Friedman, who routed out of the Sea Org the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s section in or about 2003. of Undisputed Facts set forth below. Additionally, Mrs. Headley was told Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley by her supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that Depo.) at 519:4-25, 520:25-521:12. no one who worked for RTC would be allowed to leave, and that if they did, they would be brought back to Gold Base. Decl.) 115. Plaintiff left the Sea Org after her husband left in January 2005 and she realized he was not coming back. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 278:21-24, 281:3-9. 115. DISPUTED Mrs. Headley testified that she left the Sea Organization for many reasons, including that she could no longer tolerate the abuses at Gold Base, such as people being made to divorce, clean human excrement out of ponds, subjected to verbal abuse, restricted to Gold Base for months on end, required
37
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13,

attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 40 of 160 Page ID #:9379
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38

to sleep in sleeping bags at their work stations, and not being allowed to leave to eat or shower. (C. Headley Depo., 279:6-279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). 116. From the time her husband left the 116. Plaintiff had a cell phone in her possession for almost all of that time. DISPUTED as incomplete and Sea Org until the time when Plaintiff left, misleading. Mrs. Headley testified that after her husband left Gold Base, her cell phone was taken away from her and the number Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was changed. (C. Headley Depo., 509:5Depo.) at 509:20-510:2. 16, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified that when she spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him exactly what security told her to say as they were monitoring her calls. (C. Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:18-550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). It further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 41 of 160 Page ID #:9380
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

117.

After her husband left staff, 117.

DISPUTED as incomplete and

Plaintiff spoke to him from her cell misleading. phone twice. Mrs. Headley testified that after her husband left Gold Base, her cell phone Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley was taken away from her and the number Depo.) at 518:13-19. was changed. (C. Headley Depo., 509:516, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified that when she spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him exactly what security told her to say as they were monitoring her calls. (C. Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:18-550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). It further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 118. After her husband left the Sea Org. 118. Plaintiff tried to convince him to return. DISPUTED as incomplete and misleading. Mrs. Headley testified that when she Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him Depo.) at 537:16-538:14, 539:6-540:1; exactly what security told her to say as Exh. 49 (Debrief of Phone Call) at 2. they were monitoring her calls. (C. Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:1839
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 42 of 160 Page ID #:9381
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40

550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). It further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 119. Plaintiff never attempted to invoke 119. DISPUTED the Sea Org’s routing out procedure to positions with CSI or RTC. Mrs. Headley was told by her who worked for RTC would be allowed to leave, and that if they did, they would Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley be brought back to Gold Base. Depo.) at 277:22-278:5. Additionally, although Mrs. Headley thought many times about leaving Gold Base, she never asked to leave because she knew the consequences would be too severe, including assignment to heavy labor, extensive interrogations, assignment of an escort to prevent her from leaving, separation from her husband, and restriction to Gold Base for a lengthy period of time. She also believed that if she left and went to her parents to try to get away, her mother would turn her in and her step-father would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo., revoke her Sea Org vows and leave her supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 43 of 160 Page ID #:9382
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41

811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). This further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 120. Plaintiff’s only attempt to leave the 120. DISPUTED Sea Org without routing out was when she departed in January 2005. Mrs. Headley was told by her supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one who worked for RTC would be allowed Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley to leave, and that if they did, they would Depo.) at 155:20-156:2, 496:15-497:4. be brought back to Gold Base. Additionally, although Mrs. Headley thought many times about leaving Gold Base, she never asked to leave because she knew the consequences would be too severe, including assignment to heavy labor, extensive interrogations, assignment of an escort to prevent her from leaving, separation from her husband, and restriction to Gold Base for a lengthy period of time. She also believed that if she left and went to her parents to try to get away, her mother

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 44 of 160 Page ID #:9383
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 42

would turn her in and her step-father would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). This further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 121. Plaintiff testified that she had 121. UNDISPUTED

thoughts about leaving the Sea Org starting in 1991, and she had such thoughts “on and off” for many years, including at the New Years event in December 2004. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 495:7-10, 645:8-25. 122. Plaintiff testified that she did not 122. DISPUTED leave the Sea Org before January 2005 Plaintiff testified to many more for not leaving the Sea because she did not want to be separated reasons

from her husband or her family, as she Organization, including the fact that she would be if she were declared a was told by her supervisor, Shelly suppressive person for leaving the Sea Miscavige, that no one who worked for

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 45 of 160 Page ID #:9384
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Org without routing out; she did not RTC would be allowed to leave, and that know where to go, what she would do, if they did, they would be brought back and she had no one to go to who was to Gold Base. outside Scientology. Additionally, Mrs. Plaintiff also Headley believed that if she attempted to

testified that she did not leave because leave, she would be assigned heavy labor, she had no money, no resources, no subjected to extensive interrogations, connection, transportation. and no means of assignment of an escort to prevent her from leaving, and that she would be restricted to Gold Base for a lengthy Hill Decl., Exh. A. (Claire Headley period of time. She also believed that her Depo.) at 140:12-141:11, 282:14-283:24, step-father would lose his job. (C. 647:20-648:4, 829:25-830:6. Headley Depo., 811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). The additional reasons why Mrs. Headley could not leave the Sea Organization are identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 123. Near the end of her tenure with 123. DISPUTED RTC, Plaintiff became embroiled in an Mrs. Headley testified that she was ecclesiastical dispute that resulted in her never fully terminated from RTC and that removal from her position at RTC in late she continued performing work for RTC 2004 and her reassignment to a senior until the left the Sea Organization in position at CSI, a transfer she vehemently January 2005. (C. Headley Depo.,
43
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 46 of 160 Page ID #:9385
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

opposed and resisted. Plaintiff testified 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q” that her removal from RTC came about to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., because RTC issued a new policy that 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the henceforth RTC staff members either Darnell Decl.). must be unmarried or, if married, only to another RTC staff member. If an existing RTC staff member were married to a staff member of another Scientology organization, such as CSI or Golden ERA, the RTC staff member would be transferred out of RTC. According to Claire, she was given a choice: either to divorce her husband or accede to the transfer. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 222:4-16, 227:6-24. 124. Plaintiff as well as a number of 124. DISPUTED other RTC staff, were removed from their Mrs. Headley testified that she was positions at RTC at a meeting she never fully terminated from RTC and that describes in her testimony, saying 20 she continued performing work for RTC people were terminated, 10 of which until the left the Sea Organization in were being transferred because their January 2005. (C. Headley Depo., functions had moved to CSI, and the 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q” remainder had spousal issues. Plaintiff to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., admits that at least one RTC staff 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the member who was married to a non-RTC Darnell Decl.).
44
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 47 of 160 Page ID #:9386
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

staff member remained in RTC.

Mrs. Headley further testified that she was told that she had to divorce her

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) husband to remain at RTC. (C. Headley at 242:20-244:9, 247:23-248:10; Depo., 227:6:229:18, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 4; Deposition of Warren McShane, (“McShane Depo.”), 93:1-8, attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.). 125. According to Plaintiff’s testimony, 125. UNDISPUTED she was “distraught” at allegedly having to choose whether to divorce her husband, seriously considered divorcing her husband in order to retain her senior position at RTC, and was “pleading for [her] position” at RTC without divorcing her husband. Docket #109-3 (Claire Headley Dec.) ¶ 17. 126. Plaintiff was not returned to her 126. DISPUTED position at RTC, although she continued Mrs. Headley testified that she was to perform some of the functions of her never fully terminated from RTC and that former position. She also was informed she continued performing work for RTC that she was not authorized for her new until the left the Sea Organization in position at CSI. She concluded that “I January 2005. (C. Headley Depo., saw that there was absolutely nothing 219:25-222:16, attached as Exhibit “Q”
45
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

McShane Decl. ¶ 41.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 48 of 160 Page ID #:9387
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

positive being accomplished by my to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., remaining there.” Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 222:4-16, 252:2-23, 279:22-24. 567:11-23, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.). This further is disputed as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 127. Marc Headley’s departure came 127. discovery that he had been using his DISPUTED as incomplete and about as an immediate result of CSI’s misleading. First, Mrs Headley disputes the truth personal PayPal account to deposit of the allegations that Mr. Headley money he received from selling surplus engaged in peculations, and even testified Golden Era equipment over eBay, that she was told that Mr. Headley was resulting in accusations that he had falsely accused of these actions. (C., engaged in peculations. Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Headley Depo., 503:12-504:3, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). Further, Mr. Headley’s departure from Depo.) at 276:8-15, 279:16-25, 440:14- Gold Base came after he was told that he 16; Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 299- was being sent to the RPF, which he 302. greatly feared. (M. Headley Decl., ¶ 5). DISPUTED as irrelevant to 128. On December 28, 2004, Marc and 128. Year’s event at the Shrine Auditorium.

Claire had attended the Scientology New Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s After the event, they posed for photos, section of Undisputed Facts set forth left by themselves to see Plaintiff’s below. family in La Crescenta, and then drove
46
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 49 of 160 Page ID #:9388
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

back alone for several hours to their house on Sublette Road, just in time to catch a movie. Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Depo.) at 317:6-321:21; Exhs. 27-30 (Photographs); Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 291, 295. 129. After the New Year, Marc 129. DISPUTED as incomplete and Headley’s superior told him he was being misleading. investigated for possible embezzlement, Mr. Headley decided to leave the Sea but asked him first to fix a few points on Organization after being told that he was his last written submission concerning being sent to the RPF, which he greatly A/V systems. Marc Headley writes, feared. This purported uncontroverted fact “[h]alf of me wanted to tell her to go fly

a kite, but the other half of me had a plan further is disputed for the reasons [to leave].” That plan did not involve identified in Plaintiff’s section of “routing out” nor did it involve telling Undisputed Facts set forth below. Claire; rather, on January 4, 2005, Marc left “for good,” after walking home off the Base through the gate the night before. Cleaver Decl., Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 291, 295, 299-302; Exh. A (Marc Headley Depo.) at 438:11-439:11. 130. Plaintiff spoke to Marc Headley on 130.
47
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as incomplete and

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 50 of 160 Page ID #:9389
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the phone and tried to convince him to misleading. return. According to Plaintiff, he was Mrs. Headley testified that when she upset because “He ha[d] constantly been spoke to Mr. Headley, she told him fighting to get the [A/V] systems done exactly what security told her to say as with no finance and no personnel.” they were monitoring her calls. (C. During the phone call, Marc Headley Headley Depo., 512:14-513:2; 548:18stated to plaintiff that “[h]e couldn’t take 550:21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the being a shit-head anymore.” To this, Darnell Decl.). Plaintiff responded that “he was doing It further is disputed as irrelevant to something of value and ... needed to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for come back and complete the project he the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s was working on.” Marc Headley refused section of Undisputed Facts set forth to return. He described their below. conversation in his book: “Well what about us?” Claire is crying now. “You have to come back.”... “I don’t know what I am gonna do. I want you to come back. I love you so much,” Claire cries. “Well I will never come back...Ever. Never. Never Ever.... Bye.” I hang up. Cleaver Decl., Exh A (Marc Headley Depo.) Exh. 63 (Blown for Good) at 320321; Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) at 537:16-538:14, 539:6-540:1;
48
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 51 of 160 Page ID #:9390
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exh. 49 (Debrief of Phone Call). 131. Marc’s refusal to return caused 131. and devastated.” DISPUTED as incomplete and Plaintiff to be “emotionally distraught misleading. Mrs. Headley testified that she was generally emotionally distraught and Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo) devastated around the time period when at 539:13-16. her husband left. A number of factors played into this, including the abuse that was ongoing such as people being made to divorce, clean human excrement out of ponds, being subjected to verbal abuse, being restricted to Gold Base for months on end, and being required to sleep in sleeping bags at their work stations, and not being allowed to leave to eat or shower. (C. Headley Depo., 227:6:229:18; 279:6-279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 538:19-539:16, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). The additional reasons for Mrs. Headley’s emotional condition are identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 132. Marc Headley’s refusal to return to 132. Plaintiff to leave shortly thereafter.
49
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as misleading and Mrs. Headley testified to multiple

the Gold Base proximately caused incomplete.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 52 of 160 Page ID #:9391
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff testified that, “[m]y husband had factors that caused her to finally leave left. I knew that if I didn’t leave, I would Gold Base, including the abuse that was never see him again.” ongoing such as people being made to divorce, clean human excrement out of Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) ponds, being subjected to verbal abuse, at 279:3-5. being restricted to Gold Base for months on end, and being required to sleep in sleeping bags at their work stations, and not being allowed to leave to eat or shower. (C. Headley Depo., 155:20-25; 227:6:229:18; 279:6-279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). The additional reasons for Mrs. Headley’s departure are identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth below. 133. Plaintiff explained her reasons for 133. DISPUTED leaving in a letter to her mother written soon after she left: Mrs. Headley wrote to her mother to resolve mother’s upset. However, her

Obviously the change of org mother told her the letter would be given [the transfer from RTC to to OSA, so Mrs. Headley couched her CSI] and so forth was not statements and left the email incomplete easy, but I could live with it because she could not convey her full and was getting my feet on thoughts if OSA would read the email. the ground. I lost it when (C. Headley Depo., 606:6-608:21; 642:6Marc left. I simply could not 22, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell live with the idea of never Decl.).
50
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 53 of 160 Page ID #:9392
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeing him again...So I made the choices I made and will have to live through the consequences of my action.... This would not have been my decision had circumstances been otherwise. I have endured a lot over the years and I am not one to easily give up – it was simply that I did not feel it possible to turn my back on Marc. (Emphasis added) Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 605:12-15, 606:6-9; Exh. 52 (Email to Geraldine Whitt). 134. When Plaintiff left the Gold Base 134. a ride to Wal-Mart in Hemet, where she DISPUTED as incomplete and for good in January 2005, she was given misleading. Mrs. Headley testified that in order to had told people at the Gold Base that she escape Gold Base, she requested to make had an appointment with the Optometrist an appointment with an Optometrist, but to get an eye exam and purchase new that this request was met with resistance contact lenses. Instead of going to the by Defendants. Further, Mrs. Headley Optometrist, plaintiff took a taxi from was assigned an escort whose entire Wal-Mart to the bus station. purpose was to ensure that Mrs. Headley attended this appointment and returned to
51
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 54 of 160 Page ID #:9393
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Gold Base. Mrs. Headley was able to at 578:6-579:18. spare a few seconds of time absent the escort and ran to a taxi at that moment. (C. Headley Depo., 577:23-579:18, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.). 135. Plaintiff had her driver’s license, 135. January 2005. DISPUTED as irrelevant to

when she left the Gold Base for good in Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) below. at 581:15-17. 136. When Ms. Headley left, Greg 136. DISPUTED Two Sea Organization members Wilhere, a senior Scientology official,

went to the bus station in Las Vegas to tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in try to convince her to return. No effort Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left. was made to seize her or otherwise These individuals attempted to get Mrs. physically force her to do so. She Headley to return to Gold Base with refused to be persuaded, got on a bus, them, and one of the individuals and traveled to Kansas City to be threatened that he would follow her to reunited with her husband. No one ever her final destination, that her family tried to force her to return. Afterward, would be barred from continuing in she sent an e-mail to Wilhere stating, “I Scientology because she was leaving, and am really sorry for what happened in that she would never be able to speak Vegas, and what happened period – I with her family againThis same know you were trying to help me and I’m individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband
52
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 55 of 160 Page ID #:9394
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sorry I let you down.”

and told him that she had been intercepted and would not be coming to

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs. at 155:20-157:2, 157:18-25; Cartwright Headley that her coworkers would be in Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. 133 (Email to Greg serious trouble as a result of her leaving. Wilhere). (C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 515:23-518:9, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). 137. No one from the Sea Org or the 137. DISPUTED Church followed Plaintiff to Kansas City to try and convince Plaintiff to return. Two Sea Organization members tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley These individuals attempted to get Mrs. Depo.) at 644:7-22; Hinks Decl., Exh. A Headley to return to Gold Base with (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 40:10-41:2). them, and one of the individuals threatened that he would follow her to her final destination, that her family would be barred from continuing in Scientology because she was leaving, and that she would never be able to speak with her family againThis same individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband and told him that she had been intercepted and would not be coming to meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs.
53
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 56 of 160 Page ID #:9395
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Headley that her coworkers would be in serious trouble as a result of her leaving. (C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 515:23-518:9, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.). 138. After leaving Gold Base, Plaintiff 138. according to DISPUTED as irrelevant to considered returning and routing out Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for Scientology scripture the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s She section of Undisputed Facts set forth (explained below in SUF 163).

initiated contact with the Church to below. determine what it would take for her to route out. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 22:24-23:3, 286:8-19; Exh. 51 (Email to Kirsten Caetano). 139. After leaving Gold Base, Plaintiff 139. UNDISPUTED tried to work with the Church for a month or two to get back in good standing. Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 22:24-23:3; Exh. 51 (Email to Kirsten Caetano). 140. Plaintiff would be required to pay 140. DISPUTED as incomplete and her freeloader debt only if she desired to misleading as to Mrs. Headley’s state of continue to take Scientology courses or mind while in the Sea Organization.
54
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 57 of 160 Page ID #:9396
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

services. Cartwright Decl. ¶ 10.

Mrs. Headley and her coworkers were threatened with being subjected to Freeloader debt while in the Sea Organization, regardless of whether this was ultimately imposed upon them. Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified that if she wanted any communication with her mother or family, she knew she would be required to pay this purported debt. (C. Headley Depo., 597:24-600:7, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.).

141. The Church has never instituted 141. legal action to collect a freeloader debt.

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim as set forth below under Plaintiff’s section

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Undisputed Facts. at 603:1-11; Cartwright Decl. ¶ 10.

142. Plaintiff’s husband, Marc Headley, 142. DISPUTED as irrelevant for the testified concerning his time at Gold that, reasons against my will....whether or not I was I thought those thoughts” identified in Plaintiff’s “I wasn’t saying to myself I’m being held Undisputed Facts set forth below. Additionally, Mr. Headley testified believe that he could not leave the Sea Organization or Gold Base, including he Cleaver Decl., Exh. A ( Marc Headley would be recaptured, that he would lose
55
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

being held against my will, I don’t think that multiple factors caused him to

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 58 of 160 Page ID #:9397
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Depo.) at 999:18-22.

all contact with his wife and family members, and that he would be subjected to a significant freeloader debt. (M. Headley Depo., 584:12-585:16, attached as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 896:7-899:14; 903:3904:17, attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.). Mr. Headley also believed that his wife would not leave with him if he stopped working for Defendant, because he had seen a number of marriages dissolve at Gold Base once one spouse left and because he was prohibited from speaking with his wife about the possibility of leaving. “E” to the Darnell Decl.). (M. Headley Depo., 913:9-914:25, attached as Exhibit

143. Marc Headley wrote about Plaintiff 143. DISPUTED as irrelevant for the that “she is the only reason I had stayed reasons not married her, I figure that I would have left at least 4 or 5 times earlier.” identified in Plaintiff’s there on a number of occasions. If I had Undisputed Facts set forth below. Additionally, Mr. Headley testified that multiple factors caused him to believe that he could not leave the Sea Cleaver Decl., Exh. A (Marc Headley Organization or Gold Base, including he Depo.) at 894:21-895:3; Exh. 63 (Blown would be recaptured, that he would lose for Good) at 312.
56
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

all contact with his wife and family

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 59 of 160 Page ID #:9398
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57

members, and that he would be subjected to a significant freeloader debt. (M. Headley Depo., 584:12-585:16, attached as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 896:7-899:14; 903:3904:17, attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.). Mr. Headley also believed that his wife would not leave with him if he stopped working for Defendant, because he had seen a number of marriages dissolve at Gold Base once one spouse left and because he was prohibited from speaking with his wife about the possibility of leaving. “E” to the Darnell Decl.). 144. During the time when Plaintiff was 144. DISPUTED posted there, the location of the Gold It was a rule that the location of Base was known to the public. During the Base in Hemet could not be disclosed. that time, there were several public There were never public events there, but events at the Gold Base where the Hemet there were events open to the Hemet public would come onto the Base. For public. The location of Gold Base was example, the Gold Base acted as a polling not known in the Scientology world. place for the Hemet public. In regards to Likewise, Mrs. Headley testified that her the Gold Base, Plaintiff testified that, family did not know where Gold Base “Obviously, citizens in Hemet know that was located and was not allowed to know (M. Headley Depo., 913:9-914:25, attached as Exhibit

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 60 of 160 Page ID #:9399
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Golden Era Productions is there.”

this information. (C. Headley Depo., 204:25-205:21, attached as Exhibit “Q”

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., at 205:07-206:08; Hinks Decl., Exh. E 854:11-22, attached as Exhibit “T” to the (Dufresne Depo.) at 62:24-63:15). 145. Darnell Decl.). DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Shortly after Plaintiff and her 145.

husband left the Gold Base, Plaintiff Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim for contacted Defendants about retrieving the reasons identified Plaintiff’s section her personal belongings. Plaintiff’s of Undisputed Facts set forth below. husband went to collect their personal items, which consisted of 67 boxes, and included items such as a large amount of clothing, make-up and other personal items, numerous DVD’s (including movies such as Braveheart, Daredevil, Titanic and Gladiator), numerous books (including the Lord of the Rings trilogy), several magazine (including GQ, Rolling Stone, Premiere), several CD’s, a large jewelry collection, a large amount of audio/video items (including CD players, speakers, a television monitor, and a turntable), an exercise bike and their dog (for which the church had cared). Cleaver Decl., Exh. 134 (Inventory,
58
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 61 of 160 Page ID #:9400
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CSI501-548); Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 596:17-24, 603-12604:11, 605:8-11; Exh. 51 (Email to Kirsten Caetano.) 146. In May 2006, Plaintiff filed a 146. DISPUTED as irrelevant to lawsuit against a third party in Kansas Plaintiff’s present human trafficking City for false imprisonment for an claim. incident in which she was “detained” by Further, Mrs. Headley specifically a security guard at her apartment testified that she believed that she had no complex in Kansas City for two to three right to sue Defendants based on a hours. number of documents that she signed during her employment. (C. Headley Hill Decl, Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) D epo ., 717:10-19; 718:10-16; at 11:10-12:7, 12:17-13:24, 730:23- 733:22-734:5, attached as Exhibit “T” to 732:19; Hinks Decl., Exh. F (settlement the Darnell Decl.). agreement). 147. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the 147. DISPUTED as irrelevant to management of the apartment complex Plaintiff’s present human trafficking stating, “let me make clear that in the 15 claim. years of apartment residence in Further, Mrs. Headley specifically California, NEVER have my husband or testified that she believed that she had no I been subjected to such physical abuse, right to sue Defendants based on a harassment or treatment as we received at number of documents that she signed the hands of your ‘Security’ -- where we during her employment. (C. Headley were physically held, handcuffed and Dep o ., treated like criminals...”(original emphasis) 717:10-19; 7 1 8 : 1 0 -1 6 ; c o m m o n 733:22-734:5, attached as Exhibit “T” to She the Darnell Decl.).
59
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 62 of 160 Page ID #:9401
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

testified in a deposition to the same effect: “we’ve been residents of apartments in California for 15 years, and we never had anything remotely like this occur.” Cleaver Decl., Exh. 135 (Exhibit 1 to Claire Headley deposition in False Imprisonment Case.); Exh. 136 (Claire Headley Depo in Missouri Case) at 13:11-16. The Scientology Ethics System 148. Scientology is a strictly orthodox 148. religion. McShane Decl. ¶ 36. 149. The religious technologies of 149. and Scientology DISPUTED as irrelevant to Dianetics were Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

discovered and developed solely by L. Ron Hubbard. McShane Decl. ¶ 36. 150. Many of Mr. Hubbard’s writings on 150. book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics. These and related precepts of ethics in Scientology are reflected in a large body of Scientology Scripture written by Mr.
60
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Ethics and Justice are set forth in the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 63 of 160 Page ID #:9402
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hubbard, which are among the writings included in The Technical Bulletins and The Organizational Executive Course. They are an essential component of the Scientology religion. McShane Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, 21; Exh. 129 (Introduction to Scientology Ethics). 151. Scientology posits that only 151. DISPUTED as irrelevant to individuals who are acting according to Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. proper ethical precepts can advance spiritually, and, indeed, unethical behavior can impede the spiritual progress not only of the individual but also, if the individual is a church staff member, of the church itself. McShane Decl. 67-68. 152. In Scientology, harmful unethical 152. acts are referred to as “overts.” Once a person commits an overt act, he or she will often withhold from others the commission of that act. This is called a “withhold.” A person with accumulated overts and withholds is incapable of
61
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13;

Exh.

129

(Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at DISPUTED as irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 64 of 160 Page ID #:9403
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

spiritual progress, and will not benefit from auditing or training. The Scientology Scripture details how it is that harmful acts against one’s fellows bring about the loss of integrity and decrease one’s ability to handle life successfully. McShane Decl. ¶ 13. 153. The Scientology scriptures do more 153. unethical conduct. Scientology scriptures set forth techniques, (sometimes called called “Confessionals” DISPUTED as irrelevant to than simply warn of the consequences of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

“Security Checking” or “Sec Checking”), intended to eradicate the harmful effects of overts and to rehabilitate an individual’s personal integrity and ability to achieve “case gain”, i.e., spiritual progress, not only for the individual but also for the family and groups with which he or she associates, i.e., on “all dynamics”. Most of these scriptures are collected in The Technical Bulletins. One key writing is a Bulletin entitled “Confessional Procedure,” which was written by Mr. Hubbard in 1978. As
62
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 65 of 160 Page ID #:9404
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

stated in “Confessional Procedure”, the procedure is designed to “straighten[] out somebody on a moral code” by “helping the individual to face up to his responsibilities in his group and the society and putting him back into communication with his fellow man, his family, and the world at large,” thereby achieving “a great deal of Case Gain.” McShane Decl. ¶ 14. 154. There are hundreds of pages on 154. subject of Ethics and Justice, all of which is in full use and application in Churches of Scientology around the globe. Many additional Ethics. Mc Shane Decl. ¶ 21, 155. The types of discipline historically 155. DISPUTED as irrelevant to used within the Sea Organization are Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. based on scripture written by Mr. Hubbard and are within the sphere of ecclesiastical governance, ethics, justice and discipline for members of a religious
63
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

which Mr. Hubbard has written on the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

scriptural

writings

are

compiled in Introduction to Scientology

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 66 of 160 Page ID #:9405
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

order. McShane Decl. ¶ 32; Flinn Decl. ¶ 50, 51. 156. Sea Org members are held to the 156. highest ethical standards of Scientology religion. They are expected to study and comply strictly with Scientology’s system of ethics and justice. McShane Decl. ¶ 32. 157. If a Sea Org member acts outside 157. DISPUTED as irrelevant to the ethical principles, he/she may be Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. subject to ecclesiastical discipline. The form of discipline varies on a gradient in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, from a verbal warning or rebuke, to temporary loss of privileges, removal from post and assignment to a post with less responsibility, manual labor such as kitchen duty, gardening, etc., to expulsion from the group. McShane Decl. ¶ 32. 158. Serious offenses are brought before 158. DISPUTED as irrelevant to a committee of evidence consisting of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. other Sea Org members in good standing.
64
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DISPUTED as irrelevant to

the Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 67 of 160 Page ID #:9406
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

McShane Decl. ¶ 33 d. 159. As described in Introduction to 159. Evidence is a higher gradient of justice action than many others. It is defined in that work as, “A fact finding body composed of impartial persons convened by a Convening Authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its Convening Authority for his or her action.” These ecclesiastical fact finding bodies are governed by exact procedures set forth in Scientology scripture. Such a committee is required to confront the interested party with any evidence received and he may counter it with his own evidence or testimony. There are also specific procedures for recourse if the party disagrees with the committee’s findings. A Committee of Evidence is not punishment although it may recommend punishments or loss of privileges just as any ecclesiastical court in any religion might do. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Scientology Ethics, a Committee of Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

65
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 68 of 160 Page ID #:9407
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

McShane Decl. ¶ 33 d; Exh. 129 (Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at 337-347, 363. 160. If a Sea Org member is found to 160. DISPUTED have committed serious ethical violations Individuals who are told that they will that justify expulsion, he/she may be be sent to the RPF do not have the option offered the option of participation in a to refuse to participate in the RPF. Mr. program of spiritual rehabilitation, called Headley was told that he was being sent the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”). to the RPF on approximately January 3, RPF members engage in religious study 2005, and when he decided to refuse to and auditing and physical labor. After participate in the RPF and leave one “graduates” from the RPF, he/she Defendant’s facilities, he was chased, run will resume a Sea Org position. No one off the road, and told that he could not is forced to participate in the RPF; if one leave. (Declaration of Marc Headley, ¶ refuses, he/she simply will be expelled 5; Deposition of Daniel Dunigan Depo.”), 185:8-186:23, from the Sea Org and from all staff (“Dunigan of the ethical violation, perhaps the Decl.). church. Moreover, Sea Organization members are not allowed to leave and if they McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e; Exh. 130 (HCO attempt to leave, they are pursued, PL 24 June 1979, “Crime Additions”); returned, and restricted to church Exh. 12 (Declaration of Religious property under full-time security watch Commitment) at 2; Hinks Decl., Exh. A such that is logistically impossible for a (Bernard Headley Depo.) at 27:21-28:14. Sea Organization member to refuse to go to the RPF. (Norton Depo., 32:6-18; 36:4-37:13; 42:10-44:14; 48:19-50:16,
66
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

positions, and, depending on the nature attached as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 69 of 160 Page ID #:9408
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67

82:3-83:10, attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 389:18-390:5, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 79:7-17, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19, attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.; see also Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12, attached as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 926:18-949:22, attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 148:21-154:19; 155:1-17; 193:11-199:13, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl Declaration of Marty Rathbun (“Rathbun Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15). Additionally, Sea Organization members were not allowed to speak about their desire to leave, and if it was discovered that they wanted to leave and not complete a program, they would be placed on heavy manual labor, placed under security watch, separated from their spouses, interrogated, and restricted to the Gold Base property. (C. Headley Depo., 540:21-541:19, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.); (M.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 70 of 160 Page ID #:9409
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Headley Depo., 914:7-25, attached hereto as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.) . 161. Plaintiff never participated in the 161. UNDISPUTED RPF. McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e. 162. Plaintiff’s husband never 162. DISPUTED Although Mr. Headley never participated in the RPF, he was told that McShane Decl. ¶ 33 e. he was being sent to the RPF the day before he escaped from Gold Base. (M. Headley Decl., ¶ 5). 163. It sometimes occurs that a Sea Org 163. DISPUTED member wishes to terminate his Mrs. Headley testified that she was told by Shelly Miscavige that as a relationship with the religious order. participated in the RPF.

“Routing Out” is the Scientology member of RTC, she had forgone her procedure by which a Sea Org member right to leave and that if she attempted to may withdraw his vows of eternal service leave she would be returned to the and leave the Sea Org, while still property. Additionally, although Mrs. maintaining his or her relationship with Headley thought many times about the Scientology churches and religion. A leaving Gold Base, she never asked to person who has routed out becomes a leave because she knew the consequences “public” Scientology parishioner. The would process involves completing be too severe, including of a assignment to heavy labor, extensive

“leaving staff routing form” – which is interrogations, assignment of an escort to simply a series of specific steps listed on prevent her from leaving, separation from the form. It would normally include her husband, and restriction to Gold Base
68
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

participation in ethics and justice for a lengthy period of time. She also

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 71 of 160 Page ID #:9410
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

procedures, including a confessional.

believed that if she left and went to her parents to try to get away, her mother would turn her in and her step-father

McShane Decl. ¶ 34; Exh. 129; Hinks would lose his job. (C. Headley Depo., Decl., Exh. C (Warren McShane June 9, 811:4-13; 829:830:8, attached as Exhibit 2010 Depo.) at 367:13-23. “T” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also were strictly prohibited from communicating any desire to leave Gold Base. They were told that it was a major transgression to want to leave, and that if it was discovered that they thought about leaving, they would be placed on heavy manual labor and placed under security watch. Additionally, they would be from their spouses, separated

interrogated, and restricted to the Gold Base property. (C. Headley Depo. 541:25; 11-19, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Deposition of Astra Woodcraft (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:1020, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; see also Rathbun Decl., ¶¶ 11-15). 164. While participating in the process 164. DISPUTED
69
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 72 of 160 Page ID #:9411
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of routing out, a Sea Org member is

Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also strictly prohibited fro m

excused from his post, but is expected to were

continue to contribute by performing communicating any desire to leave Gold chores, such as gardening, cooking, Base. They were told that it was a major cleaning, painting, etc. Numerous Sea transgression to want to leave, and that if Org members have chosen to route out it was discovered that they thought about due to changes in their life or leaving, they would be placed on heavy c o mmi t me n t , wh i l e r e ma i n i n g manual labor and placed under security watch. Additionally, they would be from their spouses, separated McShane Decl. ¶ 34. Scientologists in good standing.

interrogated, and restricted to the Gold Base property. (C. Headley Depo. 541:25; 11-19, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Deposition of Astra Woodcraft (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:1020, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.).

165. If a Sea Org member chooses to 165. DISPUTED leave without routing out, other Sea Org At any point that a Sea Organization members may attempt to convince or member leaves without “routing out” persuade him/her to stay or to return; Defendants engage in what it referred to such efforts are a natural and inevitable as a “blow drill.” The purpose of these outgrowth of the belief among the Sea blow drills is to locate the individual who Org members that they are attempting to has left and get the person to return to achieve the salvation of the individual Gold Base. (Norton Depo., 26:17-28:17; and the clearing of the planet. Such 48:1-4, attached as Exhibit “K” to the efforts sometimes have included locating Darnell Decl.; McShane Depo., 84:2370
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 73 of 160 Page ID #:9412
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the person who left, and attempting to 85:23; 86:13-14, attached as Exhibit “G” meet and/or discuss with him/her the to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., reasons for leaving and to convince the 138:24-139:12, attached as Exhibit “H” person to return. If the person insists on to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., leaving or refuses to return, he/she may 79:4-80:23, attached as Exhibit “M” to be subject to ecclesiastical discipline, the Darnell Decl.). including, but not necessarily, being During blow drills, individuals are declared a “suppressive person”, which is pursued, and their whereabouts are the functional equivalent of being tracked by a variety of methods. These shunned or excommunicated. McShane Decl. ¶ 34, 35. 171. methods include tracking the checking, credit and financial accounts of individuals, researching their travel determine an individual’s location. Anywhere from thirty to seventy people could be dispatched to track the every move of someone who left. After an individual is located, efforts are made to “persuade” them to return to Gold Base, which sometimes involves physical coercion. (C. Headley Depo., 389:18-390:5; 495:7-496:24; 510:14-21, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 32:6-18; 36:437:13; Decl.;
71
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Introduction to Scientology Ethics) at plans, and placing phone calls to

42:10-44:14; Woodcraft

48:19-50:16, 79:7-17,

attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Depo.,

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 74 of 160 Page ID #:9413
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 72

attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19, attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.; Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12, attached as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 195:6-18, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; Declaration of Marty Rathbun, (“Rathbun Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15). On a number of occasions when Sea Organization members attempted to leave Gold Base, they were captured and returned. One of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers drove a car through the security gate at Gold Base to get out. Several of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers were physically restrained and returned to the property. Other workers were intercepted by Sea Organization members at a bus station and convinced to return to Gold Base; upon their return, they were assigned hard labor. One worker attempted to leave the Sea Organization on several occasions and was returned, each time being placed under 24-hour surveillance. Indeed, as a general rule, anyone who left Gold Base without

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 75 of 160 Page ID #:9414
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73

permission and was returned, was restricted to the property and assigned manual labor. (M. Headley Depo., 926:18-949:22, attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 148:21-154:19; 155:1-17; 193:11-199:13, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; McShane Depo., 66:3-68:17, attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 80:9-19; 169:9-19, attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 82:3-10; 82:1383:10, attached hereto as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.). Mrs. Headley observed that after her coworker, Tanja Castle, attempted to leave, she was placed on heavy manual labor, isolated from other workers, not allowed to leave Gold Base for any reason, and was assigned a permanent guard. Additionally, Mrs. Castle was locked in a room with Mike Rinder and Warren McShane, high ranking Sea Organization members, during which these men yelled and screamed at Ms. Castle and told her that she was never going to be able to see her husband again.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 76 of 160 Page ID #:9415
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mrs. Headley also was forced to try to convince Mrs. Castle to stay and to divorce her husband. (C. Headley Depo., 260:18-262:2; 264:3-265:25, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). The Sea Org Cannot Accommodate Members with Children 166. Sea Organization members may be 166. any location in the world. Thus, the churches concluded that it was both unfair to parents and children and unworkable for the Sea Org for Sea org members to bear the responsibilities of caring for and raising young children. Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members and Sea Org Orgs). DISPUTED as irrelevant to called on at a moment’s notice to serve at Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

167. In 1986, CSI promulgated a policy 167. members who wished to have children

DISPUTED as irrelevant to Moreover, this purported

that from that point forward, Sea Org Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. would be required to route out of the Sea uncontroverted fact is disputed as Org, and, if they wished, work in one of Defendants officially prohibit forced the many local churches of Scientology abortions, and make it clear that if a whose staff members were not required woman is coerced to have an abortion, to live such a rigorous and single minded such is a violation of church policy.
74
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 77 of 160 Page ID #:9416
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

lifestyle.

(McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit

Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit and Sea Org Orgs). “H” to the Darnell Decl.). Likewise, Although there was a written policy that Sea Org members would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on fulltime security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21;
75
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

751:13-760:7;

778:14-15,

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 78 of 160 Page ID #:9417
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 76

attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 168. The 1986 policy states: able to accomplish any action required, 168. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Moreover, this purported [A] Sea Org member is expected to be Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. and may be called on at a moment’s uncontroverted fact is disputed as notice to serve...at anyh location on the Defendants officially prohibit forced planet. These facts have occasionally abortions, and make it clear that if a caused hardship for Sea Org members woman is coerced to have an abortion, who are parents, and sometimes also for such is a violation of church policy. their children...The Sea Org is a tough, (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16dedicated organization which requires all 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit of its members to be fully on post – not “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., troubled with [family responsibilities]. Cartwright Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 137 (Flag and Sea Org Orgs). 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). Likewise, Although there was a would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and Order 3905, Children, Sea Org Members written policy that Sea Org members

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 79 of 160 Page ID #:9418
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 77

were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on fulltime security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 169. In April 1991 a second Flag Order 169. it, and required that a pregnant member out process in no less than 60 days. this Flag Order in 1991. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Moreover, this purported Defendants officially prohibit forced woman is coerced to have an abortion, reiterated the policy and the reasons for Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. must be permitted to complete the routing uncontroverted fact is disputed as Claire testified that she would have seen abortions, and make it clear that if a

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 80 of 160 Page ID #:9419
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) such is a violation of church policy. at 746:8-747:7; Exh. 58 (Flag Order (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:163905-1, Children, Sea Org Members and 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit Sea Org Orgs Addition). “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). Likewise, Although there was a written policy that Sea Org members would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on fulltime security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8;
78
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 81 of 160 Page ID #:9420
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79

746:3-21;

751:13-760:7;

778:14-15,

attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 170. Plaintiff was aware of the Sea Org 170. joined the Sea Org. When she was ten DISPUTED as irrelevant to Moreover, this purported

policy regarding children before she Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. years old, her mother, who was a member uncontroverted fact is disputed as of the Sea Org became pregnant. This Defendants officially prohibit forced was the period when the Sea Org was abortions, and make it clear that if a about to implement its new policy that woman is coerced to have an abortion, Sea Org members could not remain in the such is a violation of church policy. Order if they had children. (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., Depo.) at 30:22-31:4. 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). Likewise, Although there was a written policy that Sea Org members would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 82 of 160 Page ID #:9421
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 80

large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on fulltime security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 171. Plaintiff testified that her mother 171. Sea Org members to be able to remain a Sea Org member with a child. DISPUTED as irrelevant to Moreover, Defendants officially prohibit forced abortions, and make it was told that she would be one of the last Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim.

Nevertheless, her mother routed out soon clear that if a woman is coerced to have

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 83 of 160 Page ID #:9422
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

thereafter.

an abortion, such is a violation of church policy. (McShane Depo., 92:9-11;

Hill Decl., Exh. A. (Claire Headley 101:16-102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Depo.) at 31:1-4, 31:13-19. Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). 172. The Headleys married in 1992. She 172. DISPUTED had an unplanned pregnancy in 1994. No Mrs. Headley was coerced to have an one ordered her to have an abortion; one abortion in 1994, as demonstrated by the staff member, not someone senior to her, following: made a general statement concerning her options. Mrs. Headley became pregnant at She testified, “I wanted a nineteen years old while working at Gold

family. But I was in a position where I Base. She was ordered by the Medical knew that I couldn’t.” Had she and her Officer at Gold Base to have an abortion husband not decided to have an abortion, and told that she would be placed on she would have been required to leave heavy manual labor and subjected to the Sea Org and CSI within 60 days. interrogation if she did not have an abortion. She also was forbidden from Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Dep.) discussing her pregnancy with her at 65:8-10, 736:15-19, 761:3-23; husband, other than telling him that she was pregnant and that they would both be in big trouble and she would be assigned heavy manual labor if she did not have an abortion. Mrs. Headley was escorted to the abortion clinic by male staff member and was coached in detail on how to respond to the questions asked of her by
81
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Cartwright Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 58.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 84 of 160 Page ID #:9423
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 82

staff at the abortion clinic. Mrs. Headley was extremely distraught over this abortion, but feared that the consequences of not having an abortion were too great. 734:20-25; (C. Headley Depo., 737:6-738:14; 735:1-15;

739:12-740:21; 760:15-762:9; 764:81765:8; 770:10-771:7, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.). Although there was a written policy that Sea Org members would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on full-time security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 85 of 160 Page ID #:9424
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 83

actually had abortions.

(C. Headley

Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:610, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Astra Woodcraft, a former member of the Sea Organization, testified that Defendants coerce women in the Sea Organization to have abortions. In fact, she was specifically assigned the task of convincing women to have abortions when they became pregnant so that they would continue working in the Sea Organization. (Woodcraft Depo., 74:2125, 109:18-110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.). 173. Plaintiff knew she and her husband 173. DISPUTED would be required to route out of the Sea Mrs. Headley testified that although Org within 60 days if she chose to there was a written policy that Sea Org become a mother, which would require members would be sent to a Class 5 them to participate in confessionals and organization, that policy was not utilized. to contribute by performing chores, such Instead, women who became pregnant as gardening, cooking, cleaning, etc. were placed on heavy manual labor

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 86 of 160 Page ID #:9425
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

According to Plaintiff, this constituted (washing large pots and pans in the mess forcing her to have an abortion because hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) she would be required to do “manual and were interrogated to convince them labor” and participate in “interrogations.” not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) three coworkers who were placed on at 751:19-752:5, 752:16-753:11; Ex. 58. heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on full-time security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:610, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Astra Woodcraft, a former member of the Sea Organization, testified that Defendants coerce women in the Sea Organization to have abortions. In fact, she was specifically
84
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 87 of 160 Page ID #:9426
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 85

assigned the task of convincing women to have abortions when they became pregnant so that they would continue working in the Sea Organization. (Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-25, 109:18110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.). 174. Plaintiff’s first abortion was in 174. UNDISPUTED

1994, when Plaintiff was 19 years old. Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley Depo.) at 735:1-15. 175. Plaintiff had another unplanned 175. DISPUTED pregnancy and voluntary abortion in 1996. Mrs. Headley did not voluntarily have an abortion in 1996, and instead, was coerced to undergo a second abortion Hill Decl., Exh. A (Claire Headley while living away from her husband in Depo.) at 771:22-772:4. Clearwater, Florida. After Mrs. Headley discovered that she was pregnant in 1996, one of the staff members in Florida told her that she would have to undergo an abortion and that they had already arranged for one of her coworkers to loan her the money for the procedure. Mrs. Headley asked for permission to call her husband in California to discuss her

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 88 of 160 Page ID #:9427
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 86

pregnancy and the demand that she have an abortion, but this request was denied. Further, another staff member told her that she had have an abortion or else there would be severe consequences. After Mrs. Headley was coerced to have her second abortion, she was interrogated at length by a staff member to determine if she had intentionally become pregnant in an attempt to leave the Sea Mrs. Headley believed Organization.

that if it appeared in any way that she intentionally became pregnant, that she would be removed from her position, separated from her husband, and placed on heavy manual labor. (C. Headley Depo., 771:22-772:2; 772:17-778:4; , attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Mrs. Headley testified that although there was a written policy that Sea Org members would be sent to a Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 89 of 160 Page ID #:9428
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 87

weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on full-time security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:610, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). 176. There have been several Sea Org 176. order to have children. DISPUTED as irrelevant to members who have left the Sea Org in Plaintiff’s human trafficking claim. Further, Mrs. Headley testified that although there was a written policy that Hill Decl., Ex. A (Claire Headley Depo.) Sea Org members would be sent to a at 742:5-15, 742:25-744:14. Class 5 organization, that policy was not utilized. Instead, women who became

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 90 of 160 Page ID #:9429
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 88

pregnant were placed on heavy manual labor (washing large pots and pans in the mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling weeds) and were interrogated to convince them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on full-time security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-736:3; 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 110:610, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Astra Woodcraft, a former member of the Sea Organization, testified that Defendants coerce women in the Sea Organization to have abortions. In fact,

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 91 of 160 Page ID #:9430
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

she was specifically assigned the task of convincing women to have abortions when they became pregnant so that they would continue working in the Sea Organization. (Woodcraft Depo., 74:2125, 109:18-110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.).

II. 1.

PLAINTIFF’S UNDISPUTED FACTS Mrs. Headley experienced and (C. Headley Depo., 183:25-184:22;

observed instances of physical abuse at 279:6-22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Gold Base on a number of occasions. In Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 8-9C. the early to mid-1990s, one of her Headley Decl., ¶ 9; Deposition of coworkers yelled and screamed at her, Thomas Davis (“Davis Depo.”), 67:10and then shoved her. Mrs. Headley also 18, attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell recalls attending meetings where David Decl.). Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, assaulted coworkers in her presence. Mr. Miscavige’s actions included grabbing individuals from behind the neck, bashing coworkers’ heads together, and shoving staff members. Several staff members who were shoved by Mr. Miscavige actually fell down or into a table. Mrs. Headley recalls at least fifty occasions when Mr. Miscavige assaulted coworkers in her
89
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 92 of 160 Page ID #:9431
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

presence from 1996 onward.

Mrs.

Headley prepared a report in 2002 documenting numerous instances of physical abuse perpetrated by Marty Rathbun, a former high-ranking Sea Organization member. 2. Mrs. Headley’s husband similarly was (M. Headley Decl., ¶ 4; C. Headley Decl., subjected to physical abuse in the Sea ¶ 7; Deposition of Marc Headley (“M. Organization and recalls seeing similar Headley Depo.”), 598:15-600:5, attached acts of physical violence perpetrated as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.; M. against coworkers. During a meeting that Headley Depo., 916:16-917:7, attached Mr. an Mrs. Headley attended together as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.). with David Miscavige, Mr. Headley was escorted out of a meeting and interrogated after failing to “correctly” answer one of Mr. Miscavige’s questions. 3. Mrs. Headley’s former coworkers also (Deposition of Michael Norton (“Norton recall observing physical abuse at Gold Depo.”), 79:17-80:8; 80:15-81:6; 81:16Base. Michael Norton testified that he 82:4, attached as Exhibit “K” to the observed several instances of physical Darnell Decl.). (Deposition of Maureen violence and heard about other instances Bolstad (“Bolstad Depo.”), 169:9-19, of physical abuse that occurred at Gold attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Base. Likewise, Maureen Bolstad Decl.; see also M. Headley Depo., testified that on a number of occasions 933:18-935:12; 937:8-17, attached as when she attempted to leave Gold Base, Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Decl.). she was physically attacked and sustained a broken arm. 4. The Church of Scientology’s official (Davis Depo., 53:20-54:5; 54:21-55:15;
90
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 93 of 160 Page ID #:9432
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

spokesperson admitted under oath that 55:24-57:3; 77:9-78:4; 100:16-17; 102:3from the time period of 2001 to 2004, at 8, attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell least fifty instances of physical abuse Decl.; Deposition of Warren McShane occurred at Gold Base where Mrs. (“McShane Depo.”), 31:14-32:20, Headley worked. These acts of physical attached as Exhibit “G”, to the Darnell abuse were perpetrated by high-ranking Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 9); Declaration officials within the Sea Organization. of Marty Rathbun, ¶ 25)..

5. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also (Norton Depo., 106:16-108:2; 108:12were subjected to a number of degrading 109:6, attached as Exhibit “K” to the forms of verbal abuse and punishment. Gold Base was an “angry environment” where there was lots of yelling and demoralizing assignments unnecessarily given to staff members. These assignments included assigning the executive council for Golden Era Productions to clean all of the bathrooms in the manufacturing department, requiring an executive to clean the dumpsters outside the food hall, and requiring executives to live in tents on the property. Employees at Gold Base were yelled at on a daily basis and belittled; these instances of verbal abuse became so frequent that it was a “constant scenario.”
91
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Darnell Decl.).

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 94 of 160 Page ID #:9433
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6. Mrs. Headley attended a meeting with (C. Headley Decl., ¶ 5). David Miscavige in 1995. At this meeting, Mr. Miscavige commented on certain purported mistakes that Mr. Headley made during a trip to Clearwater, Florida, and told Mrs. Headley and others that he had her husband returned to Gold Base “in a body bag.” Although Mr. Headley ultimately was not returned in a body bag, he was assigned heavy manual labor upon his return to Gold Base and was in terrible shape emotionally upon his return. 7. During another meeting, David (C. Headley Depo., 184:25-185:17; Miscavige grabbed the back of Mrs. 186:3-6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Headley’s pants and made her drag him Darnell Decl.). across a room to demonstrate to her and others that they were his ball and chain. This was a humiliating and physically exhausting experience. 8. Mrs. Headley also was denied food (C. Headley Depo., 138:4-12; 141:12-15; privileges for lengthy periods of time, 141:21-142:6, attached as Exhibit “Q” to frequently was required to sleep at her the Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., work station on the Gold Base, and was 594:3-16; 665:4-8, attached as Exhibit assigned heavy manual labor. As a result “S” to the Darnell Decl. C. Headley of some of these punishments, she lost Depo.,
92
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

881:13-882:23,

attached

at

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 95 of 160 Page ID #:9434
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

significant weight and was emaciated and Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). sleep deprived by the time she finally escaped Gold Base. 9. Mrs. Headley also observed her (C. Headley Depo., 227:6:229:18; 279:6coworkers being made to divorce, clean 279:22, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the human excrement out of ponds, subjected Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 524:8to verbal abuse, restricted to Gold Base 17, attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell for months on end, required to sleep in Decl.; C. Headley Decl., ¶ 4; C. Headley sleeping bags at their work stations, and Depo., 877:25-879:6, attached at Exhibit not being allowed to leave to eat or “T” to the Darnell Decl.). shower. Indeed, Mrs. Headley was told on several occasions that she needed to divorce her husband. This was first suggested at a meeting in 2000, when David Miscavige informed staff members of a personnel policy that he was considering implementing that would require her to divorce her husband to remain an employee of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”). In 2004, this policy became official and Mrs. Headley was told that she had to divorce her husband to remain at RTC. After Mrs. Headley’s husband escaped Gold Base, she again was told that she needed to divorce him. 10. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers did (Fraser Depo., 100:11-24; 102:10-105:8;
93
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 96 of 160 Page ID #:9435
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

not have uncensored access to mail; 106:13-16; 107:24-110:10, attached as incoming and outcoming mail was Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C. censored. Additionally, personal Headley Depo., 137:11-12, attached as Depo., 842:4-10; telephone calls were monitored by a third Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; C. person, and Mrs. Headley and her H e a d l e y coworkers were required to obtain 841:25-842:10; 846:7-12; 849:19-24; permission before making personal phone 851:10-14; 852:10-24; 854:23-858:18; calls. Finally, Mrs. Headley and her 860:9-20; 861:1-862:2; 862:19-863:5; 865:14-867:12, attached as Exhibit “T” coworkers had limited access to email. members at Gold Base were required to ask and receive permission. 11. On at least one occasion, Mrs. (C. Headley Depo., 849:14-852:15; attached as Headley was pressured and threatened 854:11-22; 868:9-869:2, threatening letter to her husband to “get his act together” and get out of trouble for whatever he had done previously. Mrs. Headley knew that all of her communications were filtered by Defendants, and only included statements in her letters that she knew would be sent along to her family members. Her family did not even know where Gold Base was located, and was not allowed to know this information. 12. Mrs. Headley and her coworkers also (C. Headley Depo. 541:2-5; 11-19,
94
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

To use the internet, Sea Organization to the Darnell Decl.).

with punishment if she did not write a Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.).

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 97 of 160 Page ID #:9436
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

were

strictly

prohibited

from attached as Exhibit “R” to the Darnell

communicating any desire to leave Gold Decl.; Deposition of Astra Woodcraft Base. They were told that it was a major (“Woodcraft Depo.”), 74:10-20, attached transgression to want to leave, and that if as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.). it was discovered that they thought about leaving, they would be placed on heavy manual labor and placed under security watch. Additionally, they would be from their spouses, separated

interrogated, and restricted to the Gold Base property. 13. Sea Organization members were told (Fraser Depo., 97:15-98:10, attached as it was a “high crime” to call the police, Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; C. and Mrs. Headley believed that dire Headley Depo., 139:2-5; 139:7-140:10, consequences would result if she attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell attempted to call 911. Indeed, she feared Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 525:19-526:16; that if she called 911, she would lose all 531:4-8, attached as Exhibit “R” to the contact with her family, that she would Darnell Decl.). be put on heavy manual labor, she would be stripped of all rights, that she would be ostracized from everyone at Gold Base, that she would have no access to outside phone lines for a year or two, that she would not be allowed to leave the property without a security escort, and that she would be assigned a full-time security watch. Mrs. Headley further
95
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 98 of 160 Page ID #:9437
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

believed that if she called 911, the police would never get past the security at the property. Indeed, the corporate designee for the Church of Scientology International testified that she could not recall anytime when the police were called to Gold Base for something that occurred within the perimeter fence at Gold Base or that concerned a Sea Organization member. 14. Extensive security measures were put (Norton Depo., 59:23-61:4; 65:13-66:22; in place at Gold Base to prevent Mrs. 68:25-71:3, attached as Exhibit “K” to Headley and her coworkers from leaving. the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 31:14Gold Base is 500 acre piece of property 23, 65:6-67:22; 68:11-24; 69:18-25, surrounded by a perimeter fence. Security attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell cameras were located along the perimeter Decl.; Davis Depo., 186:12-188:12, fence. Additionally, the perimeter fence attached as Exhibit “L” to the Darnell was equipped with motion detectors, Decl. Norton Depo.,, attached as Exhibit flood lights, and “shaker” type devices “K” to the Darnell Decl.; McShane that detect whether or not the fence was Depo., 79:23-80:3, attached as Exhibit moved. Portions of the perimeter fence “G” to the Darnell Decl.). also were topped with spikes that face both inward and outward. On at least one occasion, the motion sensors on the fence sounded an alarm when a staff member attempted to climb the fence and leave; this caused security to initiate a “blow
96
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 99 of 160 Page ID #:9438
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

drill” which is discussed in greater detail later. 15. Security guards were present at Gold (Norton Depo., 74:1-13; 75:12-17; 75:22Base twenty-four hours a day during Mrs. 25; 76:14-77:8, attached as Exhibit “K” Headley’s employment. These security to the Darnell Decl.; Dunigan Depo., guards carried handcuffs, batons, and 22:4-24:18; 41:19-21; 83:3-86:15, mace. Some of the security guards also attached as Exhibit “N” to the Darnell carried firearms, and an attack dog was Decl.; Fraser Depo., 62:14-63:3; 63:6-15; assigned to the security detail at Gold 65:2; 68:18-69:5; 78:2-9; 181:13-18, Base. attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; McShane Depo. 78:24-79:5, attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.). 16. There was an observation post on the (Davis Depo., 186:12-188:12, attached as hillside near Gold Base containing Exhibit “L” to the Darnell Decl.). cameras that monitor and scan the entire Gold Base property. 17. By 2001 or 2002, a security camera (C. Headley Depo., 147:21-148:20; was installed on top of Mrs. Headley’s 160:15-161:1, attached as Exhibit “Q” to house by one of the security guards that the Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 55:9worked at Gold Base. If Mrs. Headley 21; 57:4-57:17; 110:5-23, attached as drove down the road away from her Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.). house, she easily could be detected by the security camera. Security also was present at some of the locations that Mrs. Headley lived, and if staff members at Gold Base did not arrive to work on any
97
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 100 of 160 Page ID #:9439
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

given day, security guards or other personnel were dispatched to locate these workers. 18. “Perimeter Council” meetings were (Fraser Depo., 87:17-88:4, attached as regularly held at the Gold Base property. Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton to the Darnell Decl.). During these meetings individuals who Depo., 71:10-72:14, attached as Exhibit were of “concern” were discussed, “K” including individuals who wanted to leave. In fact, security guards were instructed to keep a close eye on individuals who were believed to want to leave the Sea Organization. 19. Sea Organization members were (See Fraser Depo., 123:4-8; 123:23often not be allowed to leave Gold Base 124:9, attached as Exhibit “H” to the without an escort if they were viewed as Darnell Decl.; Norton Depo., 73:7-73:25, being at risk of leaving the Sea attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Organization. Decl.; M. Headley Depo., 582:24-585:16, attached as Exhibit “D” to the Darnell Decl.). 20. “Musters” were regularly held at (Fraser Depo., 129:1-17; 132:8-19, Gold Base to account for the attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell whereabouts of every single staff Decl.). member. 21. Defendants engage in what it (Norton Depo., 26:17-28:17; 48:1-4, referred to as a “blow drill” anytime a attached as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell member of the Sea Organization leaves Decl.; McShane Depo., 84:23-85:23; Gold Base without prior permission. The 86:13-14, attached as Exhibit “G” to the purpose of these blow drills is to locate Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 138:2498
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 101 of 160 Page ID #:9440
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the individual who has left and get the 139:12, attached as Exhibit “H” to the person to return to Gold Base. Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., 79:480:23, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.). 22. During blow drills, individuals are (C. Headley Depo., 389:18-390:5; pursued, and their whereabouts are 495:7-496:24; 510:14-21, attached as tracked by a variety of methods. These Exhibit “R” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton methods include tracking the checking, Depo., 32:6-18; 36:4-37:13; 42:10-44:14; credit and financial accounts of 48:19-50:16, attached as Exhibit “K” to individuals, researching their travel the Darnell Decl.; Woodcraft Depo., plans, and placing phone calls to 79:7-17, attached as Exhibit “M” to the determine an individual’s location. Darnell Decl.; Bolstad Depo., 169:9-19, Anywhere from thirty to seventy people attached as Exhibit “J” to the Darnell could be dispatched to track the every Decl.; Dunigan Depo., 222:8-12, attached move of someone who left. After an as Exhibit “O” to the Darnell Decl.; C. individual is located, efforts are made to Headley Depo., 195:6-18, attached as “persuade” them to return to Gold Base, Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; which sometimes involves physical Declaration of Marty Rathbun, (“Rathbun coercion. Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-15; 28). 23. On a number of occasions when Sea (M. Headley Depo., 926:18-949:22, Organization members attempted to leave attached as Exhibit “E” to the Darnell Gold Base, they were captured and Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 148:21-154:19; returned. One of Mrs. Headley’s 155:1-17; 193:11-199:13, attached as McShane Depo., 66:3-68:17, attached as coworkers drove a car through the Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.; security gate at Gold Base to get out. Several of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad were physically restrained and returned Depo., 80:9-19; 169:9-19, attached as
99
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 102 of 160 Page ID #:9441
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to the property.

Other workers were Exhibit “J” to the Darnell Decl.; Norton

intercepted by Sea Organization members Depo., 82:3-10; 82:13-83:10, attached at a bus station and convinced to return to hereto as Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Gold Base; upon their return, they were Decl.). assigned hard labor. One worker attempted to leave the Sea Organization on several occasions and was returned, each time being placed under 24-hour surveillance. Indeed, as a general rule, anyone who left Gold Base without permission and was returned, was restricted to the property and assigned manual labor. 24. Mrs. Headley observed that after her (C. Headley Depo., 260:18-262:2; 264:3coworker, Tanja Castle, attempted to 265:25, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the leave, she was placed on heavy manual Darnell Decl.). labor, isolated from other workers, not allowed to leave Gold Base for any reason, and was assigned a permanent guard. Additionally, Mrs. Castle was locked in a room with Mike Rinder and Warren McShane, high ranking Sea Organization members, during which these men yelled and screamed at Ms. Castle and told her that she was never going to be able to see her husband again. Mrs. Headley also was forced to try to
100
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 103 of 160 Page ID #:9442
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

convince Mrs. Castle to stay and to divorce her husband. 25. Many of Mrs. Headley’s coworkers (Norton Depo., 84:8-86:3, attached as at Gold Base were prevented from Exhibit “K” to the Darnell Decl.; Bolstad leaving. Michael Norton testified that he Depo., 80:9-19; 127:23-128:4; 164:10attempted to leave Gold Base in 2003, 20; 169:9-19, attached as Exhibit “J” to and that staff members at Gold Base the Darnell Decl.). attempted to physically prevent him from leaving. In fact, he was physically prevented access to his motorcycle when he attempted to leave. Maureen Bolstad also testified to being prevented from leaving, and to being restricted to a trailer on a corner of the property for a period of time. 26. As recent as April of this year, the (Davis Depo., 17:8-18:9; 22:5-9; Church of Scientology dispatched a team 194:13-1, attached as Exhibit “L” to the of four individuals to Texas to pursue a Darnell Decl.; Incident Report, 6/8:30Sea Organization member who left Gold 36; 43-46, attached as Exhibit “P” to the Base a few days earlier without Darnell Decl.). permission. To determine the whereabouts of this individual, private investigators were hired, who then tracked this individual to a motel in Texas. members Once his whereabouts were flew to Texas, arrived
101
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

determined, these four Sea Organization

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 104 of 160 Page ID #:9443
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unannounced at the individuals’s motel at 5:30 in the morning, and then attempted to persuade this individual to return to the Sea Organization. Despite the insistence of one of these four Sea Organization members that he was not “sent” by anyone at the Church to pursue the individual who had blown the Sea Organization, an Incident Report filed with the Riverside County Sheriff confirms that these four Scientology staff members were summoned and sent to “persuade” this individual to return to the Sea Organization. 27. The passports of Sea Organizations (See Fraser Depo., 78:7-8, attached as members were locked up at Gold Base, Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). preventing Sea Organization members from freely coming and going. 28. Mrs. Headley was coerced into (C. Headley Depo., 734:20-25; 735:1-15; 739:12-740:21; 764:81-765:8; The first abortion 7 6 0 : 1 5 - 7 6 2 : 9 ; having two abortions during her time the 7 3 7 : 6 - 7 3 8 : 1 4 ; Sea Organization.

occurred when Mrs. Headley was only 770:10-771:7, attached as Exhibit “S” to nineteen years old while working at Gold the Darnell Decl.). Base. She was ordered by the Medical Officer at Gold Base to have an abortion and told that she would be placed on heavy manual labor and subjected to
102
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 105 of 160 Page ID #:9444
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

interrogation if she did not have an abortion. She also was forbidden from discussing her pregnancy with her husband, other than telling him that she was pregnant and that they would both be in big trouble and she would be assigned heavy manual labor if she did not have an abortion. Mrs. Headley was escorted to the abortion clinic by male staff member and was coached in detail on how to respond to the questions asked of her by staff at the abortion clinic. Mrs. Headley was extremely distraught over this abortion, but feared that the consequences of not having an abortion were too great. 29. Mrs. Headley was coerced to (C. Headley Depo., 771:22-772:2; undergo a second abortion in 1996 while 772:17-778:4; , attached as Exhibit “S” to living away from her husband in the Darnell Decl.). Clearwater, Florida. After Mrs. Headley discovered that she was pregnant in 1996, one of the staff members in Florida told her that she would have to undergo an abortion and that they had already arranged for one of her coworkers to loan her the money for the procedure. Mrs. Headley asked for permission to call her
103
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 106 of 160 Page ID #:9445
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

husband in California to discuss her pregnancy and the demand that she have an abortion, but this request was denied. Further, another staff member told her that she had have an abortion or else there would be severe consequences. After Mrs. Headley was coerced to have her second abortion, she was interrogated at length by a staff member to determine if she had intentionally become pregnant in an attempt to leave the Sea Mrs. Headley believed Organization.

that if it appeared in any way that she intentionally became pregnant, that she would be removed from her position, separated from her husband, and placed on heavy manual labor. 30. Although there was a written policy (C. Headley Depo., 735:18-736:3; that Sea Org members would be sent to a 740:16-741:21; 743:14-744:8; 746:3-21; Class 5 organization, that policy was not 751:13-760:7; 778:14-15, attached as utilized. Instead, women who became Exhibit “S” to the Darnell Decl.; pregnant were placed on heavy manual Woodcraft Depo., 110:6-10, attached as labor (washing large pots and pans in the Exhibit “M” to the Darnell Decl.; C. mess hall, digging ditches, or pulling Headley Depo., 902:11-910:4, attached weeds) and were interrogated to convince as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). them not to leave, and instead to have abortions. Mrs. Headley recalls at least
104
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 107 of 160 Page ID #:9446
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

three coworkers who were placed on heavy manual labor after they became pregnant and refused to have abortions; at least one of these women was placed on full-time security watch. Other women were coerced to have abortions, and Mrs. Headley recalls a long list of women in the Sea Organization who actually had abortions. 31. Astra Woodcraft, a former member (Woodcraft Depo., 74:21-25, 109:18of the Sea Organization, testified that 110:13, attached as Exhibit “M” to the Defendants coerce women in the Sea Darnell Decl.). Organization to have abortions. In fact, she was specifically assigned the task of convincing women to have abortions when they became pregnant so that they would continue working in the Sea Organization. 32. Specifically, she was told by her (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13; 829:830:8, supervisor, Shelly Miscavige, that no one attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell who worked for RTC would be allowed Decl.; C. Headley Depo., 277:22-278:20, to leave, and that if they did, they would attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell be brought back to Gold Base. Additionally, although Mrs. Headley thought many times about leaving Gold Base, she never asked to leave because she knew the consequences would be too
105
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Decl.).

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 108 of 160 Page ID #:9447
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

severe, including assignment to heavy labor, extensive interrogations, assignment of an escort to prevent her from leaving, separation from her husband, and restriction to Gold Base for a lengthy period of time. She also believed that if she left and went to her parents to try to get away, her mother would turn her in and her step-father would lose his job. 33. In late January 2005, Mrs. Headley (C. Headley, 155:20-25, attached hereto determined that she could no longer bear as Exhibit “Q” to the Darnell Decl.). the conditions at Gold Base and escaped. 34. Two Sea Organization members (C. Headley Depo., 156:1-12; 156:26Darnell Decl.; C. Headley Depo.,

tracked Mrs. Headley to a bus station in 157:17, attached as Exhibit “Q” to the Las Vegas, Nevada, shortly after she left. These individuals attempted to get Mrs. 515:23-518:9, attached as Exhibit “R” to Headley to return to Gold Base with the Darnell Decl.). them, and one of the individuals threatened that he would follow her to her final destination, that her family would be barred from continuing in Scientology because she was leaving, and that she would never be able to speak with her family againThis same individual called Mrs. Headley’s husband
106
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 109 of 160 Page ID #:9448
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and told him that she had been intercepted and would not be coming to meet him. Additionally, he told Mrs. Headley that her coworkers would be in serious trouble as a result of her leaving. 35. When Mrs. Headley escaped Gold (C. Headley Depo., 594:3-16; 665:4-8, Base, she was emaciated and had been attached as Exhibit “S” to the Darnell sleep deprived for years. For several Decl.). weeks prior to escaping, she was forced to sleep on her office floor in a sleeping bag. 36. Mrs. Headley was forced to perform (Declaration of Robert V. Levine, PH.D., labor for Defendant against her will as a ¶¶1-101). result of physical, social, and psychological pressures imposed upon him by Defendant. 37. “Scientologists, as a general rule, are (Davis Depo., attached as Exhibit “L” to opposed of any human rights violation: right to choose, anything that would reduce a person’s freedom, individual[ity], and ability to think for themselves.” 38. Pursuant to Defendants’ religious (McShane Depo., 153:17-156:3; 156:4policies, all men (and women) have 17, attached as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell “inalienable rights to their own lives” and Decl.; Fraser Depo., 242:12-245:20; “inalienable rights to think freely, to talk 246:20-247:1, attached as Exhibit “H” to
107
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

the

Darnell

Decl.,

104:25-105:14)

Anything that violates an individual’s (emphasis added).

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 110 of 160 Page ID #:9449
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

freely, to write freely their own opinions the Darnell Decl.). and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions own kind.” 39. Defendants officially prohibit human (McShane Depo., 100:18-101:6, attached trafficking, forced labor, involuntary as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; servitude, and involuntary confinement. Fraser Depo., 168:20-25; 171:18-23, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). 40. Scientology officially prohibits (McShane Depo., 95:24-96:16; 162:22punishment abuse, of or detention, 163:10 attached as Exhibit “G” to the assault, Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 161:6-8; physical 174:16-176:2; 176:14-18, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). battery, or physical physical the 41. use of others,” and have “inalienable rights to the creation of their

aggravated battery, physical isolation, or 161:21-162:2; 166:3-11; 172:22-173:2; threats intimidation.

Defendants officially do not (McShane Depo., 85:17-87:2, attached as

physically force, threaten, or otherwise Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.). coerce anyone to return to the Sea Organization after they have left, including making threats that a person would never see their family members again. 42. Defendants do not officially allow (McShane Depo., 96:17-96:20, attached food or sleep deprivation. as Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., 163:14-16, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). 43. It also religious doctrine that (McShane Depo., 163:11-13, attached as
108
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 111 of 160 Page ID #:9450
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

members of the Church of Scientology Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.). must abide by the law. 44. Defendants officially prohibit forced (McShane Depo., 92:9-11; 101:16abortions, and if a woman is coerced to 102:16; 156:12-21, attached as Exhibit have an abortion, such is a violation of “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser Depo., church policy. 160:5-7; 217:10-13, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.). 45. Defendants officially do not allow a (McShane Depo., 92:11-13, attached as person to be forced or coerced to divorce Exhibit “G” to the Darnell Decl.; Fraser his or her spouse. Depo., 160:8-10, attached as Exhibit “H” to the Darnell Decl.).

III.

DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PURPORTED CONCLUSION OF DISPUTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LAW AND SUPPORTING AUTHORITY 1. The essence of a claim for “forced 1. DISPUTED labor” under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (“Section Defendants’ Purported Conclusion of 1595") is that the plaintiff is held in some Law is false for the following reasons: form of captivity and forced to perform First, 18 U.S.C. § 1595 merely labor against his or her will. Victims of provides that: “An individual who is a Trafficking and Violence Protection Act victim of a violation may bring a civil of 2000 (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1589 action against the perpetrator (or whoever (defining “forced labor”). knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this
109
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 112 of 160 Page ID #:9451
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

chapter) in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees.” This statutory section does not define “forced labor” and does not limit forced labor to only instances where there is some form of captivity or a person is forced to perform labor against his or her will. Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a) very specifically defines forced labor as follows: “Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means-(1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person; (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person; (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that
110
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 113 of 160 Page ID #:9452
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).” Third, 18 U.S.C. 1589(c)(2) defines “serious harm” as “any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm.” Based on these very specific definitions, “forced labor” does not merely occur when someone is held in “physical captivity.” Fourth, case law makes clear that this statutory section contemplated far more than mere physical captivity, and was intended to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
111
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 114 of 160 Page ID #:9453
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of
112
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 115 of 160 Page ID #:9454
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. 2. Section 1595 provides that “an 2. DISPUTED (IN PART) 18 U.S.C. § 1595 allows a victim of individual who is a victim of a violation

of forced labor statutes “may bring a civil forced labor to bring a civil suit against action” against someone who has not only the perpetrator of the crime, but “obtain[ed] the labor or services of [that] also against “whoever knowingly person by any one of, or by any benefits, financially or by receiving combination of,” designated means set anything of value from participation in a forth in the section. 18 U.S.C. § 1589. venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter.” 3. “The interplay between the First 3. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the Free Exercise creates and ministerial exception does not apply to an claims under the TVPA or to claims Clauses Amendment’s Establishment

exception to an otherwise fully applicable where there is no conflict between statute if the statute would interfere with religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. a religious organization’s employment Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 decisions regarding its ministers.” (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Report and Recommendation dated Archbishop of Seattle, 598 F.3d 668, 670 August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California (9th Cir. 2010). Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 4. This constitutionally-compelled rule, 4. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the known as the “ministerial exception,” ministerial exception does not apply to “applies as a matter of law across claims under the TVPA or to claims statutes, both state and federal, that where there is no conflict between
113
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 116 of 160 Page ID #:9455
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

would interfere with the church-minister religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. relationship.” Id. at 673. The ministerial Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 exception applies “not only to the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting selection of ministers but more broadly to Report and Recommendation dated employment actions”, including but not August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California limited to “the determination of a Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d minister’s salary, his place of assignment, 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). and the duty he is to perform in the furtherance of the religious mission of the church.” Id. at 672, 674. 5. Plaintiff Claire Headley is subject to 5. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the the ministerial exception. See Court’s ministerial exception does not apply to April 2, 2010 Order (granting claims under the TVPA or to claims religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 6. “Because the ministerial exception in 6. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the constitutionally compelled, it applies as a ministerial exception does not apply to matter of law across statutes, both state claims under the TVPA or to claims and federal, that would interfere with the where there is no conflict between church-minister relationship.” Alcazar, religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. 598 F.3d at 673. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1
114
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Partial where there is no conflict between Summary Judgment).

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 117 of 160 Page ID #:9456
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 7. “The [ministerial] exception was 7. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the created because government interference ministerial exception does not apply to with the church-minister relationship claims under the TVPA or to claims inherently burdens religion.” Id. (court’s where there is no conflict between emphasis). religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 8. Under Alcazar, “The Religion 8. DISPUTED as irrelevant because the Clauses . . . require a ‘ministerial ministerial exception does not apply to exception’ to employment statutes if the claims under the TVPA or to claims statute’s application would interfere with where there is no conflict between a religious institution’s employment religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. decisions concerning its ministers.” 598 Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 F.3d at 671-72. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
115
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 118 of 160 Page ID #:9457
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 116

Moreover, the TVPA is not an “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. August 21, 2009); see also United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). 9. Summary judgment is granted 9. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not dismissing plaintiff’s Claim under the

Victims of Trafficking and Violence apply to claims under the TVPA or to Protection Act of 200 (“TVPA”), 18 claims where there is no conflict between U.S.C. § 1589. Given Plaintiff’s religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. numerous, continuing and bountiful Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 opportunities to communicate with the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting world, to live off the premises for Golden Report and Recommendation dated Era, to travel, and to visit friends and August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California relatives, and her admissions that she Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d only left because and as a result of the 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). fact that her husband left, Plaintiff’s Moreover, the TVPA is not an claim cannot be supported on the basis “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma, that she was subject to forced labor based No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and upon physical restraint. Plaintiff’s claims Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. that she was subjected to forced labor August 21, 2009); see also United States

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 119 of 160 Page ID #:9458
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

based upon alleged emotional and v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st psychological distress and restraint Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, arising from the lifestyle restraints of a 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); Sea Org member; upon what she United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR considered to be arbitrary and harsh 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 church discipline; and upon her choice (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). not to depart the Sea Org and Golden Era Additionally, case law makes clear and RTC because she believed that if she that the TVPA contemplated far more left unilaterally without following the Sea than mere physical captivity, and was Org’s prescribed “routing out” method intended to address not only physical for departure she would effectively be harm and captivity, but also excommunicated and no longer able to psychological methods of coercion: communicate with her husband, friends “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set and family; cannot be the basis for an of provisions—the Victims of action by a minister against her church Trafficking and Violence Protection Act under TVPA or otherwise, because of the of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 application of the First Amendment, the was intended expressly to counter United ministerial exception, and the Religious States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, as more fully set forth below. 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal
117
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 120 of 160 Page ID #:9459
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

coercion.”

Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150

(citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. 10. First, the minsterial exception 10. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not generally precludes application of the of

the TVPA to the employment relationship apply to claims under the TVPA or to between a church and its ministers, and in claims where there is no conflict between particular, between Headley and CSI. To religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. determine whether Headley can maintain Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 her TVPA claim, the Court would need to (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting inquire into the means by which CSI Report and Recommendation dated acquired and kept Headley’s services, August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California
118
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 121 of 160 Page ID #:9460
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

one of its ministers. That, however, is Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d precisely what the Court cannot do under 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). the ministerial exception and the Free Moreover, the TVPA is not an Exercise and Establishment Clauses of “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma, the Constitution. Alcazar, 598 F.3d at No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and 671-72 (“The Religion Clauses . . . Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. require a ‘ministerial exception’ to August 21, 2009); see also United States employment statutes if the statute’s v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st application would interfere with a Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, religious institution’s employment 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); decisions concerning its ministers.”) United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR “Because the ministerial exception is 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 constitutionally compelled, it applies as a (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). matter of law across statutes, both state and federal, that would interfere with the church-minister relationship.” 598 F.3d at 673 (emphasis added). 11. While government may criminalize 11. DISPUTED or create civil remedies for kidnapping, Churches are not above the law and aggravated battery, or false imprisonment can be held liable for their conduct. See even by churches of their ministers, it Turner v. Unification Church (D. R.I. may not do so by means of a broad 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, 372 (“The statute whose primary purpose and focus Supreme Court has recognized that the is to regulate labor, that reaches conduct first amendment’s protection of religious not constituting forcible restraint or liberty ‘embraces two concepts – freedom violence, and by applying it to the labor to believe and freedom to act. The first is relationship between a church and its absolute but, in the nature of things, the
119
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 122 of 160 Page ID #:9461
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ministers. “The [ministerial] exception second cannot be. was created because

Conduct remains

government subject to regulation for the protection of that endanger public safety, threaten member, or drastically differ from societal norms may be regulated or prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It is fundamental to our system that each person has a right to believe as he wishes and to practice that belief according to the dictates of his conscience, so long as he does not violate the personal rights of others). The limitation sought by Defendants would completely undermine interest the in important government

interference with the church-minister society. . . . Thus, religious operations relationship inherently burdens religion.” emphasis). Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 673 (court’s disorder, endanger the health of a

preventing modern-day slavery, and Congress specifically contemplated that the TVPA would address far more than mere physical captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of
120
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

provisions—the

Victims

of

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 123 of 160 Page ID #:9462
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as
121
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 124 of 160 Page ID #:9463
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. 12. The statutory remedies for a § 1595 12. DISPUTED violation demonstrate why the statute The ministerial exception does not must be construed as subject to and apply to claims under the TVPA or to limited by the ministerial exception. 18 claims where there is no conflict between U.S.C. § 1593 states that a person who religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. proves a § 1595 claim will be entitled to Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 restitution and “the greater of the gross (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting income or value to the defendant of the Report and Recommendation dated victim’s services or labor or the value of August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California the victim’s labor as guaranteed under the Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d minimum wage and overtime guarantees 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). of the Fair Labor Standards Act.” 18 U.S.C. § 1593(b)(3). Moreover, the TVPA is not an The ministerial “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,

exception makes Defendants immune No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and from exactly this dictate to churches what Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. they should pay their ministers, under § August 21, 2009); see also United States 1593, the FLSA, or otherwise. Plaintiff v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st is simply trying to impose an Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). Moreover, minimum wage and
122
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

unconstitutional wage regulation on CSI 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); through the “back door” of the TVPA.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 125 of 160 Page ID #:9464
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

overtime is only one of a plethora of damages available under the TVPA. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3) a victim of human trafficking or forced labor is entitled to the following: [A]ny costs incurred by the victim for-(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (D) lost income; (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other costs incurred; and (F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense. Additionally, Under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, “[t]he crime of forced labor occurs when someone knowingly . . . obtains the labor or services of a person: 1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm
123
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 126 of 160 Page ID #:9465
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or physical restraint; or 3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process. . . .” Nothing in this statute suggests that a finding of forced labor is contingent on the failure to pay minimum wage or overtime or any other violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, as noted by the Shukla court, the TVPA very clearly “seeks to address the evil of human trafficking and forced labor, both of which strike directly at the core individual liberty.” Shukla, No. 07CV-29 7 2 original). 13. To interpret the TVPA 13. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not constitutionally, it must be construed not (CBA), Report and Recommendation, at *14 (emphasis in

to apply when the “labor or services” in apply to claims under the TVPA or to question are comprised of ministerial claims where there is no conflict between activities for a church. Otherwise, courts religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. will be in the untenable, and Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 unconstitutional, position of constantly (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting questioning the means by which religious Report and Recommendation dated institutions acquire and keep their August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California ministers’ and religious personnel’s’ Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d services. This would require the Court to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). examine religious practices which, as
124
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Moreover, the TVPA is not an

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 127 of 160 Page ID #:9466
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

discussed further below, are protected “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma, from state interference and would result No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and in both substantive and procedural Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. entanglement in churches’ affairs, August 21, 2009); see also United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st contrary to the Establishment Clause.

See, e.g., Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672-73. If Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, the Court were to attempt to apply the 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); TVPA to the process by which Headley’s United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR relationship to Golden Era was 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 Moreover, minimum wage and overtime is only one of a plethora of Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3) a victim of human trafficking or forced labor is entitled to the following: [A]ny costs incurred by the victim for-(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (D) lost income; (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other costs incurred; and (F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.
125
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

terminated, it inevitably would become (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). entangled in matters of religious practice, in violation of the ministerial exception. 1170 (1989).

Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, damages available under the TVPA.

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 128 of 160 Page ID #:9467
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 126

Additionally, Under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, “[t]he crime of forced labor occurs when someone knowingly . . . obtains the labor or services of a person: 1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or 3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process. . . .” Nothing in this statute suggests that a finding of forced labor is contingent on the failure to pay minimum wage or overtime or any other violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, as noted by the Shukla court, the TVPA very clearly “seeks to address the evil of human trafficking and forced labor, both of which strike directly at the core individual liberty.” Shukla, No. 07CV-29 7 2 original). (CBA), Rep o rt and Recommendation, at *14 (emphasis in

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 129 of 160 Page ID #:9468
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

14.

At minimum, the TVPA cannot be 14. DISPUTED First, the ministerial exception does

applied to a church’s relationship with its

ministers in the abasence of actual not apply to claims under the TVPA or to physical force or restraint or the threat of claims where there is no conflict between the imminent and likely use of such religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. force. A compelling analogy is to the Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 realm of political speech, also protected (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting by the First Amendment. The Supreme Report and Recommendation dated Court has recognized that speech (like August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California religious doctrine and practice) can and Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d often is intended to have a 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, churches are not above the See Turner v. Unification psychologically coercive effect. NAACP

v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886, law and can be held liable for their 911 (1982) (“The claim that the conduct. expressions were intended to exercise a Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, coercive impact on respondent does not 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized remove them from the reach of the First that the first amendment’s protection of Amendment”) (quoting Org. for a Better religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 – freedom to believe and freedom to act. (1971)). See Gitlow v. New York, 268 The first is absolute but, in the nature of U.S. 652, 673 (1925) (“every idea is an things, the second cannot be. Conduct incitement”) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, such speech, remains subject to regulation for the even protection of society. . . . Thus, religious

“advocacy of the use of force or of law operations that endanger public safety, violation,” is protected except and only to threaten disorder, endanger the health of extent that it “is directed to inciting or a member, or drastically differ from producing imminent lawless action and is societal norms may be regulated or
127
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 130 of 160 Page ID #:9469
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

likely to incite or produce such action.”

prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v.

Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927-28 Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It (quoting Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. is fundamental to our system that each 444, 447 (1968)). So, too, a church’s person has a right to believe as he wishes application of religious doctrine and and to practice that belief according to practice to its minsters must be protected the dictates of his conscience, so long as in the absence of actual physical restraint he does not violate the personal rights of or the threat of imminent restraint. Defendants’ actions with respect to mandated standard. others). Third, the limitation sought by the important government interest of preventing modern-day slavery. Congress specifically contemplated that the TVPA would address far more than mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was adopted to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf.
128
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Headley cannot meet that constitutionally Defendants would completely undermine

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 131 of 160 Page ID #:9470
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. 15. Even if the TVPA could be applied 15. DISPUTED for all of the reasons to narrow circumstances of actual or identified in Plaintiff’s section of threatened physical restraint or harm, Undisputed Facts set forth above.
129
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 132 of 160 Page ID #:9471
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff’s claim still fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff has testified that she did not take advantage of his [sic] numerous opportunities to leave Golden Era or TRC by her own unilateral actions because she feared he [sic] would be “declared” a “suppressive person” (effectively excommunicated) if she attempted to leave the Sea Org. However, a church’s implementation of a policy requiring its members to “shun” an excised former member or excommunicating that member from the religious community may not be a basis to impose civil liability upon the church or its officials. See, e.g., Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir. 1987). 16. By the same token, Plaintiff’s 16. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not claim that she did not leave because of

the restricted lifestyle of Sea Org apply to claims under the TVPA or to members fail to establish a claim under claims where there is no conflict between TVPA when made in the context present religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. here: a minister complaining about the Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 conditions of her “employment” by her (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting church. Headley’s claims that the Report and Recommendation dated
130
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 133 of 160 Page ID #:9472
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendant

churches

i m p o s e d August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California

psychological and emotional barriers that Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d prevented her from leaving her allegedly 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). forced labor, by, inter alia, restricting her Moreover, the TVPA is not an access to the outside world; requiring her “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma, to perform lowly tasks and physical No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and labor; subjecting her to a higly structured Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. work environment; depriving her of August 21, 2009); see also United States sufficient sleep; and requiring she v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st undergo confessions of transgressions for Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, which she was subject to disciplinary 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); action, all “encompass[] tangible United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR employment actions”, including but not 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 limited to “the determination of a (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). minister’s salary, his place of assignment, Additionally, the limitation sought by and the duty he is to perform in the Defendants would completely undermine furtherance of the religious mission of the important government interest of the church.” Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672, preventing modern-day slavery. 674. While TVPA’s provision that labor Congress specifically contemplated that can be “forced” by the use of certain the TVPA would address far more than forms of psychological or emotional mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. § coercion as well as by physical force is 1589 was adopted to address not only perfectly rational and constitutional in a physical harm and captivity, but also secular context, such an application in psychological methods of coercion: the religious context of the lifestyle “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set constraints that come with being a of provisions—the Victims of member of a religious order cannot be Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
131
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 134 of 160 Page ID #:9473
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

made under the First Amendment or the of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 ministerial exception. was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of
132
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 135 of 160 Page ID #:9474
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. Finally, churches are not above the law and can be held liable for their conduct. See Turner v. Unification Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the first amendment’s protection of religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. . . . Thus, religious operations that endanger public safety, threaten disorder, endanger the health of a member, or drastically differ from societal norms may be regulated or prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It is fundamental to our system that each person has a right to believe as he wishes and to practice that belief according to the dictates of his conscience, so long as he does not violate the personal rights of others).
133
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 136 of 160 Page ID #:9475
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17.

Indeed, actions that may be 17. DISPUTED as irrelevant. The ministerial exception does not

actionable as torts in the secular context context of the

cannot be the basis for a lawsuit in the apply to claims under the TVPA or to church/minister claims where there is no conflict between relationship. In Higgins v. Mayer, a religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v.

Catholic priest brought numerous tort Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 claims against his Bishop and the Church (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting for his removal from his position, Report and Recommendation dated subsequent mandated psychiatric August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California treatment, which included drugs and Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d shock therapy, and public revelation of 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). alleged private defamatory information. The court found that the complaint adequately alleged “torts of invasion of privacy, defamation, and the intentional and negligent infliction of emotion distress,” and therefore would be actionable in a secular context. 210 Cal.App.3d at 1175. The court, however, dismissed the complaint because, even if defendants had engaged in the alleged tortious conduct, “the acts so taken were part and parcel of of his the Bishop’s administration ecclesiastical

functions,” and thus were protected activity under the ministerial exception. Id. at 1175-76. Further:
134
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 137 of 160 Page ID #:9476
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the torts recited are simply too close to the peculiarly religious aspects of the transaction to be segregated and treated separately – as simple civil wrongs. The making of accusations of misconduct; the discussion of same within the order; the recommendation treatment; whether the of psychological or medical infliction, or intentionally

negligently, of emotional distress – these are all activities and results which will often, if not usually, attend the difficult process by which priestly faculties are terminated. Id. at 1176 (emphasis added). Accord, Gunn v. Mariners and Church, 167 Cal.App.4th 206, 217 (2008) following Higgins affirming summary judgment dismissing claims of dismissed church musical director for defamation and invasion of privacy against church:
135
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 138 of 160 Page ID #:9477
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“the ministerial exception applies to preclude further judicial review regardless of the otherwise tortious nature of the statements”) (emphasis added). 18. The Ninth Circuit also has 18. DISPUTED as irrelevant. The ministerial exception does not recognized that claims for emotional

distress arising out of participation in a apply to claims under the TVPA or to church (even by a mere member, let alone claims where there is no conflict between a minister) are not actionable, even where religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. they would be actionable in a secular Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 context: Intangible or (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting emotional Report and Recommendation dated harms cannot ordinarily serve August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California as a basis for maintaining a Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d tort cause of action against a 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). church for its practices – or against its members. . . .Offense to someone’ [sic] sensibilities resulting from religious conduct is simply not actionable in tort. . . . Without society’s tolerance of offenses to sensibility, the protection of religious differences mandated by the first amendment would be
136
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 139 of 160 Page ID #:9478
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

meaningless. Id. at 883 (citations and footnote omitted). Accord, Van Schaick, 535 F. Supp. at 1139; Orlando v. Alamo, 646 F.2d 1288, 1290 (8th Cir. 1981on the 19. The appropriateness of a church’s 19. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not disciplinary actions taken against a

member, particularly a minister, has apply to claims under the TVPA or to consistently been held to be beyond the claims where there is no conflict between cognizance of the civil courts. See, e.g., religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 717 (1976); (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, Report and Recommendation dated 1175 (1989); Paul, 819 F.2d at 883. In August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California this case, it is impossible to separate out Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d any claim that Plaintiff was subjected to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). forced labor by psychological or Moreover, the TVPA is not an emotional distress from Plaintiff’s “employment” statute. Shukla v. Sharma,

commitment to the Sea Org for many No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), Report and years and the difficult process by which Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. Plaintiff relinquished her position within August 21, 2009); see also United States the Church. Courts may not v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st constitutionally review the propriety of a Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, religious order’s lifestyle and the 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); discipline imposed on the order’s United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR members to insure their obedience to its 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 precepts, nor may it review the order (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003).
137
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 140 of 160 Page ID #:9479
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

member’s acceptance of that discipline.

Additionally, the limitation sought by Defendants would completely undermine the important government interest of preventing modern-day slavery. Congress specifically contemplated that the TVPA would address far more than mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was adopted to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52).
138

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 141 of 160 Page ID #:9480
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. Finally, churches are not above the law and can be held liable for their conduct. See Turner v. Unification Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the first amendment’s protection of religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the
139
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 142 of 160 Page ID #:9481
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

protection of society. . . . Thus, religious operations that endanger public safety, threaten disorder, endanger the health of a member, or drastically differ from societal norms may be regulated or prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It is fundamental to our system that each person has a right to believe as he wishes and to practice that belief according to the dictates of his conscience, so long as he does not violate the personal rights of others). 20. For these reasons, Headley’s 20. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not complaint that she did not leave CSI or

RTC because she had few or even no apply to claims under the TVPA or to family, friends or associates outside of claims where there is no conflict between the religion, no secular experiences or religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. training, and nowhere else to go or Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 nothing else to do withher life cannot be (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting a basis for a claim under TVPA or any Report and Recommendation dated other tort theory. For better or worse, August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Headley was raised as a committed Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d Scientologist and committed her life to 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). the Sea Org; indeed, as she Moreover, the TVPA is not an acknowledges, she was fully familiar “employment” statute, and instead it with the Sea Org life because her mother concerns the most fundamental and basic
140
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 143 of 160 Page ID #:9482
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

had been a Sea Org member. In this human rights upon which our society was respect, Headley is no different than founded. Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CVyoung people throughout history who, 2 9 7 2 (CBA), Report and raised in a devout religious tradition, Recommendation, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. commit themselves to a lifetime of August 21, 2009); see also United States religious service as monks, nuns, priests, v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 156-57 (1st etc, often in isolated abbeys, convents, Cir. 2004); United States v. Calimlim, and monasteries, and pursuant to vows of 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008); poverty, abstinence, abnegation, United States v. Garcia, No. 02 CR isolation, and/or even silence. All such 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 individuals are subject to the possibility (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003). that their commitment will not remain Additionally, the limitation sought by steady and firm, and that they may Defendants would completely undermine become disillusioned or disappointed by the important government interest of their church. If they change their minds, preventing modern-day slavery. they risk being cast into a secular world Congress specifically contemplated that with which they are unfamiliar, for which the TVPA would address far more than they are untrained, and in which, perhaps, mere physical captivity as 18 U.S.C. § they may be alone. Certainly a Buddhist 1589 was adopted to address not only monk or a Catholic nun who spends 20 or physical harm and captivity, but also 30 years in a monastery or convent would psychological methods of coercion: be in no better position to transform to a “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set secular life if he/she were to lose his/her of commitment than was Claire Headley. provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

Such individuals, under our system of of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 religious freedom, have a right to make was intended expressly to counter United such a choice and to assume such a risk, States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108
141
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 144 of 160 Page ID #:9483
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and all churches have a right to accept S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” and rely upon such a commitment. Thus, United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, it would seem beyond cavil that the state 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. could not enact a statute prohibiting a Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In person from seeking to join a religious Kozminski, the Supreme Court had order in which he/she agrees to the interpreted the pre-existing ban on lifestyle constraints inherent in such a ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to choice, or prohibiting a church from prohibit only conduct involving the use recruiting or accepting such people from or threatened use of physical or legal joining the order and relying upon their coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 vows of commitment, on the basis that (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-52). the state is protecting the individual from “In glossing the new statute, the making a life choice that could severely conference report said ‘serious harm’ was limit his/her lifestyle or secular social or intended to encompass not only physical economic potential in the future if he/she violence, religious commitment. is that but also more subtle of later were to walk away from such p s y c h o l o g i c a l inconceivable the methods

Equally coercion—‘such as where traffickers state threaten harm to third persons, restrain

constitutionally could enact a statute their victims without physical violence or requiring a church to provide warnings or injury, or threaten dire consequences by caveats to such prospective religious means other than overt violence.’ See initiates that they may be limiting their H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It subsequent life choices if they agree to continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as join in such a religious life but later used in this Act refers to a broad array of decide that it was a mistake to join the harms, including both physical and order. Nor, under the ministerial nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d could the state enact 150.
142
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

exception,

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 145 of 160 Page ID #:9484
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

legislation requiring a church after the

Finally, churches are not above the See Turner v. Unification

fact to compensate a nun, monk, priest, or law and can be held liable for their member of a religious order who chooses conduct. to abandon his/her religious calling after Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, years of religious service, on the basis 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized that upon such renunciation of faith, he that the first amendment’s protection of or she had nowhere else to go, nothing to religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts do, no secular friends, contacts or – freedom to believe and freedom to act. training, etc. See Alcazar, supra. The first is absolute but, in the nature of Accordingly, Headley, as with all things, the second cannot be. Conduct other Sea Org members, had a First remains subject to regulation for the Amendment right to commit her life to protection of society. . . . Thus, religious the Sea Org members, had a First operations that endanger public safety, Amendment right to commit her life to threaten disorder, endanger the health of the Sea Org, and CSI and RTC had a a member, or drastically differ from First Amendment right to accept her societal norms may be regulated or commitment. If a court were to find that prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. a person such as Headley who makes Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It such a commitment and then becomes is fundamental to our system that each disaffected and disillusioned thereafter person has a right to believe as he wishes may bring a civil lawsuit after the fact and to practice that belief according to because her secular life choices have the dictates of his conscience, so long as been substantially narrowed or he does not violate the personal rights of compromised, then the court in effect others). would be denying the right of such a person to have made such a religious commitment in the first place, and of a
143
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 146 of 160 Page ID #:9485
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

church to seek and accept it, just as surely as if the legislature had directly prohibited or regulated it. Churches would be severely chilled and restrained from encouraging or accepting people into such a religious life and religious order, and individuals seeking such a life, including the vast majority of those who would remain committed to their original choices, ultimately would be denied the ability to pursue it. As aptly stated by the New York Appellate Division in Meroni, supra, 506 N.Y.S.2d at 178 (citations and inner quotations omitted): [An individual] must have the personal and individual right to determine for himself or herself to associate with a religious group. Otherwise, in order to avoid potential liability, neither the church nor any other association could ever rely on a person’s agreement to join, and the individual’s ability to consent to join would be severely compromised.
144
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 147 of 160 Page ID #:9486
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The clear lesson of the various cases discussed above is that the First Amendment not only prohibits the state from interfering with such a religious commitment directly, but also from creating liability or punishment for it after the fact if the religious life does not work out to the satisfaction of the person who made the commitment. As with all freedoms, the freedom provided by the First Amendment does not come with its risks and potential downsides even to those it protects. Our society has made a fundamental constitutional choice on the side of such freedom. It has decided that it is more important to protect the freedom of choice of its citizens, and to require them to learn to anticipate and live with their exercise of such freedom. In short, when it comes to religious exercise and association, the state must step aside and respect those choices and decisions. 21. The Religious Freedom 21. DISPUTED The limitation sought by Defendants RFRA would completely Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq, also bars under

Plaintiff’s TVPA claim. RFRA precludes undermine the important government
145
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 148 of 160 Page ID #:9487
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

state action coercing religious adherents interest “to act contrary to their religious beliefs slavery,

in as

preventing Congress

modern-day specifically

by the threat of civil or criminal contemplated that the TVPA would sanctions.” Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest address far more than mere physical Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended 2008). RFRA, moreover, amends all to address not only physical harm and federal law, whether enacted before or captivity, but also psychological methods after RFRA itself unless a statute of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of specifically excludes its application, a broader set of provisions—the Victims which the TVPA notably does not do. 42 of Trafficking and Violence Protection U.S.C. §20000bb-3(a), (b). Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 94952). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical
146
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 149 of 160 Page ID #:9488
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

violence,

but

also

more

subtle of

psychological

methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 cannot be construed anymore narrowly than its stated form, as doing so would place basic individual liberties as risk. 22. A person whose religious practices 22. DISPUTED for all of the reasons are burdened in violation of RFRA “may identified in Plaintiff’s section of assert that violation as a claim or defense Undisputed Facts set forth above. in a judicial proceeding[.]” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 424 (2006). As the undisputed evidence establishes that Plaintiff was not physically restrained or imprisoned and had numerous opportunities to leave, application of the
147
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 150 of 160 Page ID #:9489
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TVPA

to

CSI’s

imposition

of

ecclesiastical rules and discipline with respect to its ministers and Sea Org members would violate the Free Exercise Clause. Hence, Plaintiff’s claim is barred by RFRA. 23. Accordingly, the Court grants 23. DISPUTED The Court must deny Defendants’ Mrs. Headley is a victim of human trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589. Mrs. Headley was threatened with serious harm and physical restraint as set forth in the detailed factual history under her section of Undisputed Facts. Further, Defendants clearly engaged in scheme and pattern of conduct to cause Mrs. Headley to believe that if she did not continue working for Defendants, she would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. This included the significant security measures implemented by Defendants at Gold Base, as well as Defendants’ repeated pattern of pursuing Sea Organization members who left, only to bring them back and place them under more restrictions. Notably, Defendants
148
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

defendants motion for summary judgment forced labor under TVPA.

dismissing the third cause of action for Motion for Summary Judgment because

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 151 of 160 Page ID #:9490
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

actually told Mrs. Headley that she had “forgone” her right to leave and that she would be brought back even if she attempted to leave. (C. Headley Depo., 811:4-13, attached as Exhibit “T” to the Darnell Decl.). Additionally, Mrs. Headley was subjected to other means of abuse, such as threats of loss of all communication with her family and husband, forced abortions, and attempts to force her to divorce her husband. Indeed, Defendants coerced Mrs. Headley to have an abortion so that she would continue performing labor for them. 24. In addition, and/or alternatively, the 24. DISPUTED Court summarily adjudicates that The ministerial exception does not plaintiff’s claims that she was subjected apply to claims under the TVPA or to to forced labor because of the lifestyle claims where there is no conflict between restrictions of the Sea Org, or defendants’ religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. ecclesiastical defendant rule, governance or Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 discipline, including claims that the (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting churches i m p o s e d Report and Recommendation dated psychological and emotional barriers that August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California prevent her from leaving her allegedly Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d forced labor, by, inter alia, restricting her 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999).
149
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 152 of 160 Page ID #:9491
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

access to the outside world; requiring her

Moreover, churches are not above the See Turner v. Unification

to perform lowly tasks and physical law and can be held liable for their labor; subjecting her to a highly conduct. structured work environment; depriving Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, her of sufficient sleep; requiring she 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized undergo confessions of transgressions for that the first amendment’s protection of which she was subject to disciplinary religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts action; mandating a formal procedure, – freedom to believe and freedom to act. called “routing out” for Sea Org members The first is absolute but, in the nature of who wish to revoke their vows of service things, the second cannot be. Conduct and leave the Sea Org; imposing remains subject to regulation for the disciplinary penalties, including the protection of society. . . . Thus, religious equavalent of excommunication, upon operations that endanger public safety, Sea Org members who unilaterally leave threaten disorder, endanger the health of their positions without participating in a member, or drastically differ from the routing out process, all “encompass[] societal norms may be regulated or tangible employment actions”, including prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. but not limited to “the dertmination of a Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It minster’s salary, his place of assignment, is fundamental to our system that each and the duty he is to perform in the person has a right to believe as he wishes furtherance of the religious mission of and to practice that belief according to the church” Alcazar, 598 F.3d at 672, the dictates of his conscience, so long as 674, and may not be the basis of a TVPA, he does not violate the personal rights of or any other claim, against defendants. others). The limitation sought by Defendants pursuant to RFRA would completely undermine the important government
150
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 153 of 160 Page ID #:9492
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

interest slavery,

in and

preventing Congress

modern-day specifically

contemplated that the TVPA would address far more than mere physical captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 94952). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical
151
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 154 of 160 Page ID #:9493
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

violence,

but

also

more

subtle of

psychological

methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. Moreover, Plaintiff was unable to leave Gold Base and Defendant’s employ for all of the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth above, which include physical abuse, restraint, and confinement. 25. The court further summarily 25. DISPUTED The ministerial exception does not adjudicates that only acts by which a

minister is subjected to physical force apply to claims under the TVPA or to and restraint, or the threat of imminent claims where there is no conflict between and likely use of such force and restraint, religion and the claim pursued. Shukla v. can be the subject of state interference, Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 through a forced labor statute or (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting otherwise. Report and Recommendation dated
152
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 155 of 160 Page ID #:9494
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

August 21, 2009); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). Moreover, churches are not above the law and can be held liable for their conduct. See Turner v. Unification Church (D. R.I. 1978) 473 F.Supp. 367, 372 (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the first amendment’s protection of religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. . . . Thus, religious operations that endanger public safety, threaten disorder, endanger the health of a member, or drastically differ from societal norms may be regulated or prohibited.”); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) (It is fundamental to our system that each person has a right to believe as he wishes and to practice that belief according to the dictates of his conscience, so long as he does not violate the personal rights of others).
153
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 156 of 160 Page ID #:9495
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 154

The limitation sought by Defendants pursuant to RFRA would completely undermine the important government interest slavery, in and preventing Congress modern-day specifically

contemplated that the TVPA would address far more than mere physical captivity. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 was intended to address not only physical harm and captivity, but also psychological methods of coercion: “Adopted in 2000 as part of a broader set of provisions—the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464—section 1589 was intended expressly to counter United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988).” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 100-01 (2000)). “In Kozminski, the Supreme Court had interpreted the pre-existing ban on ‘involuntary servitude’ in section 1584 to prohibit only conduct involving the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.” Bradley, 390 F.3d at 150 (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 949-

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 157 of 160 Page ID #:9496
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

52). “In glossing the new statute, the conference report said ‘serious harm’ was intended to encompass not only physical violence, but also more subtle of psychological methods

coercion—‘such as where traffickers threaten harm to third persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than overt violence.’ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101. It continued: ‘The term `serious harm' as used in this Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical and nonphysical....’ Id.” Bradley, 390 F.3d 150. Moreover, Plaintiff was unable to leave Gold Base and Defendant’s employ for all of the reasons identified in Plaintiff’s section of Undisputed Facts set forth above, which include physical abuse, restraint, and confinement. // // // // //
155
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 158 of 160 Page ID #:9497
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING AUTHORITY (CBA), at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009).

CONCLUSION OF LAW apply to claims under the TVPA.

1. The ministerial exception does not (Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972

2. 18 U.S.C. § 1589 under the TVPA (United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, was “intended to reach cases in which 156-57 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. persons are held in a condition of Calimlim, 538 F. 3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. servitude through nonviolent coercion,” 2008); United States v. Garcia, No. 02 and is “species of involuntary servitude.” CR 110S-01, 2003 WL 22956917, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003); (Shukla v. Sharma, No. 07-CV-2972 (CBA), at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation dated August 21, 2009).

3. “The crime of forced labor occurs (18. U.S.C. § 1589). when someone knowingly . . . obtains the labor or services of a person: 1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; 2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm
156
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 159 of 160 Page ID #:9498
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or physical restraint; or 3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process. . . ." 4. To assert First Amendment defense (Grove v. Mead School Dist. No. 354, pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause, 753 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir. 1985) there must be a conflict between religion (pursuant to Free Exercise Clause, “a and the conduct which a statute litigant must show that challenged state challenges. action has a coercive effect that operates against the litigant’s practice of his or her religion.”); see also Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994) (to merit protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a religious claim “must be rooted in religious belief”); see also Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 5. “[C]hurches are not – and should not (Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. Of Seventh-Day be – above the law” and [l]ike any other Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1171 (4th Cir. person or organization, they may be held 1985); see also Turner v. Unification liable for their torts. . . .” Church 473 F.Supp. 367, 371-72 (D. R.I. 1978) (“the first amendment absolutely protects the holding of any religious belief, no matter how bizarre or irrational, . . . the ‘operational activities’ of a religion, those activities that are not solely in the ideological or intellectual
157
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 242 Filed 07/12/10 Page 160 of 160 Page ID #:9499
F:\WP\Cases\9526\SUM-JUDG\Claire - Second Motion\Separate Statement Opposition.wpd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

realm, are subject to judicial review and may be regulated to achieve a sufficiently important state objective.”). DATE: July 12, 2010 METZGER LAW GROUP A Professional Law Corporation /s/ ____________________________________ KATHRYN DARNELL, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff MARC HEADLEY

158
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT