Comments on: Laura Decrescenzo v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al.

By: Anon!

Anon! — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:56:35 +0000

Please continue to address this in a manner that we the non-lawyers can understand. I have a better grasp of the matter and appreciate the time you took to make it so.

Grazie.

By: tikk

tikk — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:02:44 +0000

BLiP: It’s on the burner. Problem is it’s a busy stove at the moment.

Xenubarb: Scientology is always in great company.

Shankara: Thanks

By: BLiP

BLiP — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:16:17 +0000

Thanks Tikk. Now, where’s the analysis of Sparrow’s case ; )

By: xenubarb

xenubarb — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:38:28 +0000

What I liked was the discussion section where former cases are cited, a useful collection of links to various decisions. The court’s decision rests on DeCrescenzo’s experiences within Scientology from age 9; where a child or vulnerable adult is dependent upon a group or individual for information, in this case, she was convinced she had no legal recourse because the Scientologists told her she didn’t.

Thus, the statute of limitations begins when the individual “wakes up” and realizes they are being victimized.
Amusingly, these laws are primarily invoked when the sexual abuse of a child is involved. However, it does apply when a person is enslaved and given false information from a young age.

By: Shankara

Shankara — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:47:15 +0000

This is a powerfully lucid articulation of both Laura’s story and the legal issues involved. Extremely helpful for us who not adept in the law.

It will be very useful for journalists, and I am going to send out to those I in touch with.

Thanks for the link to Jonny Jacobsen’s Infinite Complacency. He is one of the finest journalists currently writing on Scientology.

Kudos to both of you!