UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMP A DIVISION LUIS
A
GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA Plaintiffs, Vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC d/b/a MAJESTIC CRUISE LINES; lAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC,; U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST. Defendants CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM
_
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE
TO
DEFENDANTS FSO AND FSSO'S RESPONSE
TO THE
ORDER
FOR
EXISTING WRITTEN ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
THAT
GOVERN SCIENTOLOGY ARBITRATION
Plaintiffs Luis
A
Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia respectfully submit this response in opposition to Defendants' Response to the
Comt s
Order seeking existing, written arbitration procedures that govern Scientology arbitration. [D.E. 89]
Sumnuuy
of Argument
The sh01t answer to the Court's Order
is
simple: There are none. In fact,
no
Scientology arbitration bas ever been conducted. FSO and FSSO's response cannot obfuscate these undeniable truths.
The
Committee
of
Evidence Is
Not
An
Arbitration
Panel The EnTailment Agreements
of
FSO and FSSO are the only documents containing a reference to arbitration. There are
o
documents that govern the arbitration proceeding.
1
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2008
Despite their advocacy,
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics,
2007 ed., never once references "arbitration. "
The Committee
of
Evidence, a long standing principle
in
Scientology, is fundamentally different than arbitration, a relatively
new
concept. In essence, an accused individual is
ca/1ed
before a Committee
of
Evidence
to
answer
to
a complaint or offense, while an aggrieved pa1ty
must
request
arbitration.
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
at 341;
See also
Emollment Agreements, Composite Exhibit 7
of
D.E. 31-1)
A
Committee
of
Evidence is convened on the
subject
of
a kno\vn Crime or High Crime," which includes suppressive acts.
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
at 302-307 and at 308-315) Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Garcia has ever been
summoned before a Committee
of
Evidence
in
com1cction with any conduct relative to return
of
funds, nor have Defendants ever asserted commission
of
any such conduct when moving to
compel arbitration
in
this case. Further, despite Defendants' claims that both mechanisms are complimentary, there are
critical inconsistencies between the structures and functions
of
a Committee
of
Evidence and arbitration.
FICTION
#1: Arbitration and the Committee
of
Evidence are complimentary
in
policy and practice.
FACT:
The fundamental fimction
of
the Committee
of
Evidence and the arbitral panel are different.
A
committee
of
evidence ... as it has come to be looked on (and is) a
trial by
jwy
there being a charge."
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
at 349,
emphasis added))
Arbitration, as defined by legal practice and
in
the Enrollment Agreements, consists
of
an arbitral panel, not a charge or a
jury.
(Enrollment Agreements;
See also
Rinder Dec .
t~
8) li'ICTION #2: A 1963 policy letter "specifically states that a
Committee
of
Evidence is used to resolve disputes ... including
specifically questions
of'refimds. '
(Defendants' Response at 2)
FACT:
The vague reference to an unspecified "1963 policy
letter," which is not attached to Defendants' Response, is
contradicted
by
the very book Defendants assert describes the
fimctions
of
a Conunittee
of
Evidence. According to the
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics,
"[a] Commitlee may hear any
civil or criminal matter or dispute within the realm
of
1
Relevant portions
of
Introduction to Scientology Ethics,
2007 ed., are attached as Exhibit I
to
the
Declaration
of
Mike Rinder,
November 6, 2013, which
is
appended hereto as Exhibit
A
2
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2009
Scientology ... libel, estranging marital partners, dismissals, debt,
theft, mayhem, violations
of
codes, deprivation
of
income or any dispute or harmful improper action
of
any kind may
be
heard.
(Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
at 345) Such matters do not include any reference to return
of
monies
fi
·om the church.
FICTION
#3: The members
of
the arbitral panel, like the members
of
a Committee
of
Evidence, are convened by the Convening Authority. (Defendants' Response at 2)
FACT
The arbitral panel is not specially named by any one
entity, including a Convening Authority. Each party
to
the arbitration is permitted to designate one arbiter each, and those
selected two, designate the third. (Enrollment Agreements)
FICTION
#4: The arbitration process consists
of
a Chairman and a Secretary. (Defendants' Response
t~
3-4)
FACT
These duties and roles were not contemplated by the
Church in connection with arbitration, and neither
of
these terms appear anywhere in the Enrollment Agreement, nor
do
they appear
in
the
Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
in connection to arbitration. Further, a Committee
of
Evidence is composed
of
a Chairman, Secretary
and
two to five Committee members appointed by the Convening Authority
(Introduction
t
Scientology Ethics
at 346). While the arbitral panel is limited to 3 members,
the Cmmnittee
of
Evidence may contain anywhere from 4 to 7
members,
of
which the Secretary and Chairman are separate and apmt from the Conunittee Members.
FICTION
#5: After selection
of
the first t\vo arbiters, the third, is the chairman
of
the arbitration panel [and] is appointed at the
discretion
of
the convening authority appointing the committee.
(Defendants' Response at
13
FACT
The third arbiter is selected by the other two arbiters.
(Enrollment Agreements) Despite Defendants' intentional m.isrepresentations regarding the Committee
of
Evidence and the Arbitration Process,
Defendants own documentation and admissions
conflict with such representations, and present the two processes as separate and distinct mechanisms:
Any dispute, claim or controversy which still remains umesolved
after review by the IJC shall be submitted to binding religious
3
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 2010