garcia v. scientology: plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to file 1963 hco policy

8/11/2019 Garcia v. Scientology: Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's motion to file 1963 HCO Policy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/garcia-v-scientology-plaintiffs-response-to-defendants-motion-to 1/4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ and wife, MARIA DEL Case No. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHURCH O SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS

TRUST, et al.;

Defendants.

~ /

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE AUTHENTICATED COPY OF COMPLETE 1963 HCO POLICY LETTER

Plaintiffs, LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ and MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, y

and through their undersigned attorneys , file this response to Defendants ' Motion for Leave to

File Authenticated Copy of Complete 1963 HCO Policy Letter [D.E. 127] and state:

1

Plaintiffs are reluctant to object to the introduction of the authenticated copy of the

complete 1963 HCO policy letter because even a cursory review

of

it shows that the so-called

Rules

of

Committee of Evidence has zero to do with arbitration, which is not even mentioned in

the letter.

In fact, the procedure for a Committee

of

Evidence couldn' t possibly be used in

arbitration.

• The Committee is convened by a convening authority, not the parties.

• The subject matter of the jurisdiction of the Committee is punishment, not

fraudulent donations.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 128 Filed 09/24/14 of 4 PageID 2927



• It is composed

of

an appointed chainnan, appointed secretary and 2 - 5 members

all appointed by the convening authority, not three Scientologists in good standing

chosen y the parties.

• Its findings can e altered

or

nullified by the convening authority who approves,

mitigates or disapproves the findings and may, at any time, simply disband the

Committee (Page 3).

• The ultimate authority for reviewing the findings of a Committee of Evidence is

L

Ron Hubbard who has been dead for 28 years (Page 7).

It is, in fact, exquisite

proof

of the absence

of

arbitration rules and

is

understandably

never mentioned in the Arbitration Agreement.

2 The problem with allowing the Defendants to put in this letter after hearing additional

evidence is:

• It is too late to add evidence.

• The hearing was nonevidentiary.

• It invites further argument.

• Plaintiffs attempted to place this letter and affidavits concerning it at the time the

Defendants responded to this Court's Order of October 18, 2013 [D.E # 89] and

Defendants successfully objected and moved to strike that evidence which

resulted in this Court' s Order [D.E.# 98] of November 13, 2013, striking the very

same information.

• This Court already ruled at the hearing that this letter was inadmissible at a

nonevidentary hearing.




• f admitted, in fairness, Plaintiffs affidavits and exhibits stricken at Defendants

requests should be admitted in rebuttal.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants Motion to

file an authenticated copy of the complete 1963 HCO policy letter.

Dated: September 3 ,2014

Respectfully submitted,

~ ~ ~

~

Florida Bar No: 091146

Babbitt Johnson Osborne LeClainche, P.A.

1641

Worthington Road, Suite 100

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Phone: 561-684-2500

Fax: 561-684-6308

tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson-com

-and-

Ronald

P

Weil, Esq.


Amanda

M

McGovern


Weil Quaranta McGovern, P A.

Southeast Financial Center, Suite 900

200 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131

Phone: 305-372-5352

Fax: 305-372-5355

RPW@weillaw net

[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiffs Luis

A

Garcia Saz and

Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia




CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

We hereby certify that, on S e p t e m b e r ~ 2014, we electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

We

also certify that the foregoing

document

is

being served this day on all counsel or pro se parties identified below in the manner

specified, either via transmission

of

Notices

of

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in

some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive

electronically Notices ofElectronic F ~ i g ~

eodore Babbitt

F. Wallace Pope, Jr. , Esq.

FBN 124449

Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel

Bums, LLP

911

Chestnut Street

Clearwater, FL 33757

Phone: (727) 461-1818

Fax: (727) 462-0365

E-mail: [email protected]

Counsel for Flag Church Ship

Church

fCounsel:

Eric Lieberman

Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky

Lieberman, P.C.

Suite 1700

45 Broadway

New York, NY 10006

(212) 254-1111

Marie Tomassi, Esq.

FBN 772062

Trenam Kember Scharf Barkin Frye

O Neill Mullis, P.A.

Bank of America Building

200 Central A venue, Suite 1600

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Phone: (727) 820-3952

Fax: (727) 820-3972

E-mail: mtomas

si

@trenam.com

Counsel for lAS Administrations, Inc.

And U.S. lAS Members Trust

Nathan M. Berman, Esq.

FBN 329230


Lee Fugate, Esq.

FBN 170928


Jack

E.

Fernandez, Esq.

FBN 843751


Mamie V. Wise, Esq.

FBN 65570


Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP

101 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200

Tampa, FL 33602

Phone: (813) 221-1010

Fax: (813) 223-7961

Counsel for Church

of

Scientology

Religious Trust


garcia v. scientology: plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to file 1963 hco policy

Documents