| 羅拉·德格辰卓（Laura DeCrescenzo）中 |
羅拉·德格辰卓（Laura DeCrescenzo）2009年控告山達基教會，在1996年，她17歲時，海洋機構強迫她墮胎等罪，初審時因爲訴訟時效已過，高等法院法官索賀崗（Sohigian）同意羅拉應該在2004年離開海洋機構後四年內提告，判羅拉敗訴。她以一直受教會控制的理由上訴，2004年離開海洋機構後，直至2008年中還是教會會員，但是開始懷疑教會，才發現父母已經離教，她在2009年脫離教會並成爲批評者，接着控告教會。
羅拉上訴成功，上訴庭要求法官索賀崗考慮訴訟時效，而羅拉要求教會把她的未清新檔案交出，作爲一直受教會控制的證據。教會以向神職人員懺悔要保密爲理由不肯交出，一直鬧上最高法院才被迫交出。
法官索賀崗最後認爲羅拉不能否定一直受山達基影響，因而遲了提控，所以判訴訟時效未過，現在（提告後4年）可以開審。這已經是羅拉的大勝，如果贏不了官司，也好讓世人知道她的故事，而山達基一向的戰術是越贏不了的官司，越是用盡辦法阻止，拖延時間。
羅拉的未清新檔案，你可以想像是一本一般母親很用心做的寶寶長大相簿和紀念冊，但是做的不是母親而是奴隸主人，而內容全是令人流淚、震驚、恐怖的，從七歲開始。
臺灣人請記着，是可以找山達基教會算舊賬的，教會不敢不交出未清新檔案，而教會的未清新檔案誰說是假的？與教會打官司是沒有「和解」的，如果教會同意庭外解決只是因爲教會是輸定了，避免有罪的判決，還可以從中減少失敗，例如不讓醜聞傳出去。羅恩·賀伯特說進攻是最好的防守，他們可以找你的老婆說謊，沒有什麼是不道德的，如果你不盡全力，如果你聽他們的條件，與他們談判，日後輸定了。每一句與他們說的話，他們的律師會用來對付你。除此之外，山達基有很多輸官司的例子。
法官索賀崗是熟讀了羅拉的未清新檔案，以下是他判案後的講話，由東尼·奧特伽（Tony Ortega）記錄。要留意的是，他也是這將開審案的法官。
摘要：羅拉六、七歲時已經開始山達基生涯，曾經在這同一間高等法院門外與其它山達基人抗議！12歲離開家庭加入海洋機構（家人好像是反對的），還簽了十億年合約。
她的郵件會被檢查，與家人見面時有海洋機構人員在場，防止她說機構壞話。
12歲起不時受盤問，所謂保安檢查（有沒有逃走叛教的意向），包括有沒有同性戀行爲。
海洋機構內沒有學校， 工作時間長，RPF更長，法官向記錄員解析RPF代表康復計劃部隊，那麼長的工作時間使他聯想起自己服兵役的時候。
沒有錢，沒有護照，24小時被看管，時常受盤問，等於被監禁。
她自小知道批評教會便成爲叛逆者，會被大大處罰，逃走時會觸發一場保安演練，遲早被一隊保安人員找回來。她是喝漂白劑，假裝自殺才能離開。
她知道如果批評教會，會被罰千百萬元。她自12歲的白吃喝賬單很大，她爲山達基僱主工作，乖乖地不斷還債。教會時常打電話給她，等於不斷監控。可以說她還是怕教會。
直到2008年全球反山達基示威，她才開始醒來，才發覺父母早已離開教會！她瀏覽反山達基論壇， 惹來山達基人探訪，還留下一紙怎樣處理她的步驟。
法官索賀崗說有義務在疑點讓上讓羅拉得益，訴訟時效未過，可以開審。
There is a foundation in this record in which there are triable issues of material fact concerning… plaintiff was, in effect, a child in this Scientology. She started out by volunteering at only six or seven years old — and there may be question whether that’s really volunteering when she’s so young. She got involved at 12 in Sea Org, she moved away from her family. She lived in the Scientology facility in Los Angeles. This Sea Org is evidently a kind of a missionary activity or an office for a propagation for the faith, or something like that. This leaving and going with this organization, at that time she was just about beginning junior high school student. What they got her to do was sign some kind of a paper saying she would work for them basically indefinitely. There’s a number on the paper, a billion years. And that’s when she was 12. When she was 25 she left. When she went into that organization, she didn’t communicate in the standard way with her parents and other family members. Her mail was opened. There was someone present when she communicated with her family members. They did this evidently to make sure she didn’t say anything negative about the organization. She has given testimony that she was apprehensive about whether she was going to be punished. Part of the training was that she wouldn’t say anything negative about the Sea Org or Scientology, and if she did do that, she’d be declared treasonous. Then she’d be given base duties, extra duty. She was also told that she had to report anything that came out of the family, statements or behaviors, that was contrary to Scientology…
So here you have a 12-year-old youngster who didn’t regularly interact with her family. And she would have to undergo a “check,” apparently a set of interrogations. (He’s talking about a “sec-check.”) And there’s evidence that you sort of had to pass this test to be able to leave. And the persons that give this test have to be sure that you’re not going to leave permanently. So in this time, middle and late adolescence, there is evidence to show that she went a couple of years without seeing her parents. And this period of time elapsed because she wasn’t let out.
(Clearly, the judge was deeply impressed by Laura’s description of her life in the Sea Org. He’s trying to sound neutral about it, but he was evidently impressed by what she described and how the evidence supported her story.)
When she was in this Sea Org, she had to make out a questionnaire — a life history questionnaire. He goes through some questions…
Sohigian is bringing up specifically the question about asking the Sea Org member to admit to homosexual acts and detail them. Yeah, great questionnaire, Scientology.
Now he’s talking about her incredible hours. And even when she wasn’t on the clock, she had to stay around the Scientology facilities, or go with an escort.
In 2001, she went to the RPF. He explains to the court reporter that it stands for “Rehabilitation Project Force.” Damn right, judge.
How her hours got even worse then, with lights out at 10:30. He’s relating it to his own days in the service! Wow.
Sohigian talking about Laura’s sleep deprivation, and little time for hygiene or changing clothes.
Paid only 10 to 50 dollars a week. And during this time no formal schooling. She did take a high school proficiency exam. But didn’t get any other schooling.
She could not freely come and go.
Sohigian: She observed when people would escape, they would do a “drill” (a “blow drill”) that would rely on credit card records, etc. So if she tried to leave, she would be tracked down and brought back involuntarily.
Well, she did try to leave and was in essence detained. Then was watched 24 hours. Interrogated. And not just interrogation, but that she was told what to say.
During RPF, about three or four years, she left the facility fewer than 20 times. She did not have access to her identification or money. Never allowed to have more than 20 dollars on her. Her passport was locked up.
Sohigian back in the courtroom. He now is talking about Laura finally leaving the RPF and the Sea Org. She was upset, she was unstable. But she was counselled that she should stay. She was afraid that if she left, bad things would happen. So in April 2004, she wanted to get out of RPF, but SO put her on hard labor ten hours a day. So she drank some bleach as quasi-suicidal behavior.
Now he’s referring to an affidavit she signed when she left the Sea Org, saying at the time that she benefited from the SO.
He points out that when Laura was seven years old, she picketed this courtroom! “Picketing a courthouse doesn’t usually affect judges, but I think it’s meant to affect the public,” he says.
Sohigian: Laura believed that the penalties for speaking out against the church would cost her millions of dollars. And she was asked to periodically sign forms about her loyalty to the church. This was an act of surveillance, she says. She also claimed that she was trained to report anybody who took a negative action against the church. So she claims that she was trying to weave her way through this thicket of fears and apprehensions. And this disabled her from acting more promptly, and that all of this was the fault of the defendants.
She claims she remained active in this organization (Scientology) and she was doing that because she was scared, that she would be cut off from her family, declared a “suppressive person.” Her apprehension was that the Scientology organization and its members would smear her. And that she’d seen that happen to other people. She did get a freeloader bill of 0,000, she got calls about it, and she actually paid ,000. This led her to believe that the organization was keeping its eyes on her. She actually went to work for a Scientologist-owned business in order to pay her freeloader bill. You could say this was an indication that she was not as scared as she says she was, but there’s another potential implication, that it’s circumstantial evidence that she was under continuing surveillance.
Sohigian saying that Laura, between 2004 to 2008, continued to get calls from church members, which indicated to her that she was being observed and snooped on.
It was in 2008 that she first began to consult information critical of Scientology. She thought if she gave her identity, Scientology would send someone to “handle” her — keep her from speaking out. But in autumn of 2008, she contacted another former Sea Org member, and started to talk about a lawsuit. Then she was visited in January 2009 by church members asking her about ESMB. This was indication in her mind that Scientology was monitoring her online communications. After they left, she found a piece of paper with instructions on how to “handle” her.
She was contacted by a lawyer and then filed a lawsuit in 2009. So my view is, this creates a triable issue of material fact concerning the time-bar defense. It is not conclusive in either direction. I think that under the circumstances I have an obligation to deny the motion for summary judgment in all respects.
LIVE FROM LOS ANGELES: Summary Judgment Hearing in DeCrescenzo Forced-Abortion Lawsuit � The Underground Bunker
沒有留言:
張貼留言