12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477) wforman@scheperkim.com DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174) dscheper@scheperkim.com MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353) pdayton@scheperkim.com 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2701 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendant, Church of Scientology International
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291) rmangels@jmbm.com MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750) mhinks@jmbm.com 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-4308 Telephone: (310) 203-8080 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567 Attorneys for Defendant, Religious Technology Center
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
VALERIE HANEY, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. 19STCV21210
ssigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Filed Concurrently with Opposition Brief; Supporting Declarations of Lynn R. Farny, Michael Sutter, Deidre Assam, William H. Forman, and Gary S. Soter; and Objections to the Declarations of Hana Whitfield and Robert W. Thompson]
Date: August 11, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 37 Comlaint Filed: June 18 2019
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/29/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER (Exhibit 5 to the Thompson Declaration)
Global Objection to the Declaration of Michael Rinder
By his own admission, Michael Rinder left the Church of Scientology 13 years ago. (Rinder Decl. ¶ 2.) Since then, Mr. Rinder has devoted his life to publicly criticizing the Church through false and malicious attacks. Indeed, Mr. Rinder makes his livelihood through vicious and unsubstantiated criticisms of the Church and the Scientology religion: he maintains a blog for the exclusive purpose of criticizing Scientology, (concurrently-filed Declaration of Lynn R. Farny (“Farny Decl.”) ¶ 9;
see also, e.g.
, concurrently-filed Declaration of William H. Forman (“Forman Decl.”) Ex. U); he was the co-host and co-executive producer of
Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath
, a show dedicated to criticizing Scientology, (Farny Decl. ¶ 6); and he has been a paid litigation “consultant” for individuals bringing lawsuits against the Church, (concurrently-filed Declaration of Gary S. Soter ¶ 6). The day of the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, Mr. Rinder even used his blog as a platform to criticize this Court, its Order, and the court system generally. Mr. Rinder commented that, in compelling arbitration, the Court “took the lazy, easy way out.” (Forman Decl. Ex. U.) He further stated on his blog, as follows: Judge Burdge is not the first to fall for the scientology ruse, and I am sure that once an Appeals Court reviews the facts, this decision will be overturned for any number of reasons. First, some observations about courts generally. Judges are overloaded with cases and
LA Superior Court is not only not an exception but perhaps a model of all that is wrong with the judicial system in this country
. Spend any time in this court and you will know what a thankless, sisyphean task it is to preside in one of those courtrooms. To relieve their loads,
Judges jump at any opportunity to move a case out from underneath them
. They encourage settlements, mediation and arbitration whenever possible. And when there is a “contract” that calls for arbitration it is the easiest thing in the world them to grant the request. . . . . . . Secondly, based on many, many years of experience,
being appointed (or in some cases elected) as a Judge does not make you smarter than the average bear. In fact, many judges got a law degree and didn’t want to or couldn’t make it as lawyers
.
Ultimately, the ones who are smarter and better tend to rise to Appellate Court level or to the Federal Court
. I have absolutely no information concerning Judge Burdge’s intelligence or ability to see through bs.
I only make this point because the word of a State Court judge is not the final word and is not always right
.
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER
(
Id.
(emphasis added).) After disparaging the Court in this manner, Mr. Rinder’s blog post continues by arguing the Court’s ruling compelling religious arbitration was incorrect, making many of the same meritless arguments presented in his declaration and in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (
Id.
) Indeed, Mr. Rinder commented that he “hope[d]” to have the “opportunity” to comment on the Church’s arbitration procedures – noting “we just have to get to that point where any testimony is allowed.” (
Id.
) While it is obvious Mr. Rinder has an axe to grind with both the Church and this Court, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate forum for Mr. Rinder to air his grievances. Even disregarding Mr. Rinder’s obvious bias and lack of credibility, his declaration is inadmissible, as set forth fully in the specific objections below. Mr. Rinder is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Plaintiff’s allegations and her counsel’s arguments. Such a declaration is inadmissible.
See Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District
, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (disregarding evidence submitted in opposition to anti-SLAPP motion that was without foundation, hearsay, argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinions, and without foundation or personal knowledge);
Gilbert v. Sykes
, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”);
see also Saldana v. Globe-Weis Sys. Co.
, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1518 (1991) (“It hardly bears mentioning that argument of counsel is neither a declaration nor admissible as evidence in court.”). Furthermore, Mr. Rinder’s declaration proffers inaccurate “facts” of which he has no personal knowledge and consists of inappropriate opinion testimony that is not based on his own personal observations. For instance, Mr. Rinder states that “Valerie Haney has been declared a ‘Suppressive Person’ by Scientology.” (Rinder Decl. ¶ 5;
see also id.
¶¶ 18, 20.) Mr. Rinder terminated his relationship with the Church thirteen years ago, (Rinder Decl. ¶ 2); he has no personal knowledge of Ms. Haney’s status in the Church. Plaintiff’s Memorandum claims that a document called the Fitness Board Turndown demonstrates that Ms. Haney had been declared a “Suppressive Person,” but the document does not state this – it states that if she takes certain actions “she is subject to
