Comments for realitybasedcommunity.net

Comment on Diskeeper loses on Summary Judgment motion by No Disleeper

No Disleeper — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:53:40 +0000

What never came out or at least not until now was how Diskeeper systematiclaly removed non scientolgist from the payroll leading up to the settlement of their case with these two. A search of the courts will show there are many new cases pending against this company most all stemming from dismisals during the final phase of their original settlement. Stay tuned to learn more about Diskeepers employment practices as these caes surface.

Comment on Diskeeper loses on Summary Judgment motion by Alison

Alison — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:45:39 +0000

I worked in the Uk for these people. I was dismissed after visiting Saint Hill and refusing to spend my money on courses.

When I made it clear I would be taking legal action they tried to say I was made redundant. Although they had given no warning,notice or pay in lieu of notice. However they gave a Scientologist my exact role, job title/description/salary the lot within 24 hours.

My legal action was short lived as I had worked for the company less than 18 months, the one and only reason they got away with it!

These guys are telling the truth, I was small fry in comparison.

I have only just come across this link whilst providing detail on a job application.

Comment on Eviction Night for #OWS by Firsthand account of OWS eviction night | Citizen Blogger

Firsthand account of OWS eviction night | Citizen Blogger — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:48:43 +0000

[...] >> Read the Full Story [...]

Comment on Will Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC Give Hope to the Headleys? by Scott Pilutik

Scott Pilutik — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:06:08 +0000

That’s a great question and one I honestly hadn’t thought much about. I haven’t seen much in the way of documents in the Montalvo case so I’m not in much of a position to render a useful opinion. My limited understanding is that Daniel Montalvo has the functional education of an 8th grader [see Jonny Jacobson on this], although I’m not sure what that literally means–whether he completed the eighth grade or whether that represents a guesstimate of the sum total of educational experience coming in drips and drabs while at Bridge Publications. The complaint suggests that while he attended school, he did so once a week. I don’t believe the complaint noted which school, but it’s notable that the public school system wasn’t named a party, nor was any other school or school district, so we may never know.

To answer your question in the most general form, though, school attendance laws are neutral laws and not subject to religious exceptions or accommodations. The way around this for religious adherents is to homeschool, but there’s never been any suggestion that Scientology has even attempted to homeschool its underage SO members. And why should they when they’re the only ones bothering to save the planet? Plenty of time for those younger meat bodies to learn in subsequent lifetimes.

Comment on Will Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC Give Hope to the Headleys? by me with a question

me with a question — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:38:01 +0000

Thanks Tikk.

I always appreciate your analysis and links.

Reading through some of the briefs got me wondering about the Daniel Montalvo case.
Will the secular laws requiring teachers to report truancy and abuse to protect minors take presidence above religious protections?

Comment on Will Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC Give Hope to the Headleys? by AnonLover

AnonLover — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:13:14 +0000

Thanks Tikk, as always – this was extremely helpful!

Comment on Delorme McKee-Stovall and Santa Clara County – Defamation or False Light against Scientology protesters? by Michael thomas

Michael thomas — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:52:15 +0000

I am one of the exes discussed here. I stopped protesting soon after this because people were starting to make comments to me that were uncomfortable. Thanks for putting this together – I had no idea I had any recourse for this

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

Comment on Laura Decrescenzo v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al. by BLiP

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

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

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