No. B__________

IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT VALERIE HANEY,

Plaintiff and Petitioner, v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Respondent.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV21210 Honorable Richard J. Burdge, Jr. Department No. 37 Valerie T. McGinty (SBN: 250508) Robert W. Thompson (250038) valerie@plaintiffsappeals.com Thompson Law Offices Certified Appellate Specialist, State Bar 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160 Law Office of Valerie T. McGinty Burlingame, CA 94010 524 Fordham Road Telephone: (650) 513-6111 San Mateo, CA 94402 Facsimile: (650) 513-6071 Telephone: (415) 305-8253 Facsimile: (415) 373-3703 Marci Hamilton, Esq. Graham E. Berry (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) Law Office of Graham E. Berry hamilton.marci@gmail.com 3384 McLaughlin Ave. University of Pennsylvania Los Angeles, CA 90066-2005 Fox-Fels Building Telephone: (310) 745-3771 3814 Walnut Street Facsimile: (310) 745-3771 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 353-8984 Facsimile: (215) 493-1094 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Valerie Haney

 

2

 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.208, 8488) Petitioner Valerie Haney knows of no other entity of person that must be listed as an interested party under Rules 8.208 and 8.488. DATE: September 10, 2020 ______________________ Valerie T. McGinty

 

3

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 8 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE .................................................. 9 I.

 

Issues presented. ................................................................................... 9

 

(1)

 

Does a nonbeliever have the right to refuse a “religious arbitration” under the First Amendment where such “arbitration” process specifies that all “arbitrators” shall be ministers of the religion who are charged with applying that religion’s “doctrine”? .............................................................. 9

 

(2)

 

Does a court lack the power under the First Amendment to enforce an agreement for “religious arbitration”? ...................................................... 9

 

(3)

 

Does a religious institution’s practice of pressuring of an individual to hurry up and sign agreements in the presence of an armed guard while refusing to provide any copies render the agreements procedurally unconscionable? ............................................................................................ 9

 

(4)

 

Where a religious institution abuses a child from the age of 5 and  prevents her from learning about her rights, does a non-mutual “agreement” to arbitrate every possible claim and the requirement that all arbitrators be Scientology ministers who shall apply the Scientology doctrine shock the conscience so as to render the agreements substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable? ....................................................................................... 9

 

II.

 

Relief sought. .................................................................................... 10

 

III.

 

Reservation of right to request a stay. ........................................... 10

 

IV.

 

Authenticity of exhibits. .................................................................. 10

 

V.

 

The parties. ...................................................................................... 10

 

VI.

 

Factual background. ....................................................................... 11

 

A. Plaintiff was abused and trafficked. .................................................. 11 B. Plaintiff was moved to Scientology’s Headquarters, known as “Gold Base,” where she was forced to sign a “billion year contract,” pledging a