Comments on: Laura DeCrescenzo’s Motion to Compel Scientology & The Priest-Penitent Privilege

By: jensting

jensting — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:33:00 +0000

“But should it really surprise anyone that Scientology would take the
legal position that a Scientologist’s PC folders are not really theirs,
but Scientology’s?” Not a bit. When Alain Stoffen obtained his “ethics folder” – the good stuff, far better than the PC folder – through a screw-up on the part of the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology, he made a photocopy and returned the original. A criminal complaint for theft was made against him by the Co$.

By: Jgg

Jgg — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:09:17 +0000

In fact, Narconon says the same thing (auditing) is secular and aids drug withdrawal.

By: Scott Pilutik

Scott Pilutik — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:41:21 +0000

Yep. It’s often the case with them that they’ll pontificate for days in briefs and affidavits about a particular point for the sole purpose of distracting the reader from the fact that they’ve failed to address some extremely fundamental point that works against them. This was the case only recently in the Garcia case, where they cited case after inapplicable case where dismissal was warranted because this was a religious dispute, even though the reason the Garcias are asking for their money back has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Scientology gets too cute by half when they try to explain how everything is religious because they say it’s religious, even if it too often works.

By: Scott Pilutik

Scott Pilutik — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:31:50 +0000

Thank you. I think Canon law holds that the privilege belongs to the priest, so perhaps some jurisdictions are paying homage to the Catholic tradition. I believe there’s an old case where this came to a head, where a priest was found in contempt for refusing to divulge a communication with a criminal defendant who waived the privilege, hoping the priest would corroborate his version of events. The priest’s basis for refusal was Canon law–that it forbade him from divulging regardless that the defendant had waived. I think the name of the case was Kane something.

That’s basically the same justification Scientology is offering–everything needs to be secret because LRH said so, and we don’t need to explain our religious justification any further than that tautology. Now, even if you credit that instance as a justified basis to extend the privilege to the priest/church, we’re still looking at very different circumstances here, where the church is using Laura’s communications to defend themselves against her. This is perhaps the most perverse use of the privilege imaginable. And further indicative of how Scientology views its own parishioners as existing to further Scientology’s goals as opposed to their own.

EDIT to add case referenced above, Commonwealth v. Kane, 388 Mass. 128 (1983).

By: Jgg

Jgg — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:53:03 +0000

Yes, the court is will probably distinguish between religious communications and secular ones, and admit the latter.

By: Jgg

Jgg — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:51:17 +0000

Your “blathers on” description of Scientology’s brief reminds me of an old law school saying:

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

By: wannabeclear

wannabeclear — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:20:18 +0000

So glad to discover you have a blog that adds to what Tony is writing at the Underground Bunker. As the child of a lawyer (and an avid Co$ watcher), would love to read more of your analysis about their legal shenanigans.

I’m fascinated (and sort of infuriated) by the idea that the “priest” can assert privilege even when the “penitent” has waived it. I guess it explains why this wasn’t used as an argument in Laura’s filings, but I can’t for the life of me think of any instance in which there’s a sensible reason why this would be the case. Do you know of any legal precedent where a court (in CA or elsewhere) has struck down or upheld the “priest” side of this privilege? It just seems counter-intuitive to the whole purpose of this privilege in the first place.

By: Damian DeWitt

Damian DeWitt — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:15:38 +0000

“The body of priest-penitent case law doesn’t make much sense when you try to apply it to Scientology”

This is absolutely correct, and the reason is that the core Scientology practice is psychotherapy i.e. “auditing” as Chuck Beatty has tirelessly pointed out over the last few years.

From the beginning with Dianetics auditing has been promoted first as an alternative to standard psychotherapy and then as its replacement.

It is in nowise similar to auricular confession as practiced in the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican churches.

Once this is grasped everything falls into place and is confirmed by the fact that Scientology has a system of case supervision and an army of case supervisors just as psychotherapists do.

By: Scott Pilutik

Scott Pilutik — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:12:27 +0000

There is no criminal statute prohibiting the counseling of someone to have an abortion. There are civil common law torts, such as coercion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which would naturally apply.

By: Scott Pilutik

Scott Pilutik — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:46:48 +0000

I understand your point but realize that the courts are ill fit to engage in line-by-line examinations of content to determine religious or nonreligious content, especially when they can more easily review on a categorical basis by simply determining whether the type of communication is religious in nature and decide whether or not everything made in that setting falls within the ambit of priest-penitent.