There is an interesting case brewing between Scientology and one of the many former members alleging abuse by the church. While not attracting much attention in the main stream press, Anti-scientology sites have been following an important case out of California where an appellate court has turned down a claim of the church that it can refuse discovery under clergy-penitent privilege. The church is using the privilege to deny a demand for a “pc folder” containing notes from interrogations of Laura DeCrescenzo by church officials. The case is important not only in the understanding of the privilege but a potential breakthrough for alleged victims of the church who accuse Scientology of being a cult or criminal organization.
The case involves an alleged forced abortion of Laura DeCrescenzo. She filed a complaint against Scientology in April 2009 alleging that she began working for Scientology at the age of nine. By ten, she said that she was working full time and then left her family to move to another state to work for the Church for less than minimum wage (a common complaint in lawsuits against the Church). She alleged that she married a co-worker at the age of sixteen and became pregnant. She says that church officials forced her to have an abortion at the age of seventeen. She says that she was made a member of the Sea Org which is often accused of abuses of members who must sign a contract for “the next billion years.”
The claim of Scientology is interesting because the subject of the sessions is the one seeking the folder. These folders are key pieces of evidence in church litigation but Scientology insists that they are like confessions or other religious rites. Yet, it is the Church that is being accused of the abuse. Scientology has until May 6th to turn over the documents and has decided to appeal. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian has agreed to create a new production date in light of the appeal.
In its opposition, Scientology insists that confidentiality is key to its religion. The record in the case, and the second motion to compel, is an insight into the Scientology’s reputation for scorched earth litigation.
California codified the privilege in
Section 1032 defines “penitential communication” as “a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.” To invoke this privilege, the Church must show the penitential communication (1) was intended to be in confidence; (2) was made to a member of the clergy who in the course of his or her religious discipline or practice is authorized or accustomed to hear such communications; and (3) the member of the clergy “has a duty under the discipline or tenets of the church, religious denomination or organization to keep such communications secret.” People v. Edwards 203 Cal. App. 3d 1358, 1362–1363 (1988).
In Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), the Supreme Court held that “The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return.”
That would seem to describe this type of session, though this is being sought by one of the two people in the “penitential communication” who is accusing the other party and the Church of abuse. The Church has previously sought to deny discovery on the basis of the privilege. It was unsuccessful in People v. Thompson, 133 Cal. App. 3d 419 (1982), the California Court of Appeal upheld the admission of internal communications on the basis that it found that the Church member was not ordained as an “auditor” or minister of the Church of Scientology and there was no expectation of confidentiality.
These cases present difficult challenges when the session itself is part of the allegation of abusive and coercive acts in the lawsuit.
What do you think?
Kudos: Michael Barger
I am in favor of adopting the name: Church of Canine Faithfull. BarkinDog is off in Europe somewhere with his Pal. The dogpac is scheming while he is away.
The dogpac here is discussing our formation of a formal religion. You may think that when you bare your soul to your dog that it goes in one ear and out the other but you are wrong. If our human pal is a Catolic then we dont get clergy privilege when the opCays want to know what we know. We are thinking of calling it Ninth Day Dogtology. The basic premise of our religion is that on the 9th Day God created Dog to watch over humans. Now some of us argue that it was on the 8th Day. But 8th or 9th doesnt matter. The dog will of course be Clergy and the communications between Dog and Pal will be privileged in courts. Obama is in favor of this because all that Beaux knows. So is Midland Bush. KennyBunkport Bush is on the fence. We do not know how the Catolic Church will come out on this. They sort of quietly opposed Scientology. We have far more credibility than Scientology. My choice for a name is Dogeterians. BarkinDog wants Church of The Later Day Labradors but that is too confining to one breed. Tell us what ya tink. Inquiring dogs want to know.
Gosh, I wonder if Punk Puss Tsarnaif went to Confession at the Mosque after the bombings? Do they have confessions at mosques? I guess the privilege can be denied if the Imam is telling Punk Puss to go bomb the marathon runners. Scientology is on a higher level than Catolics or Muslims because it is grounded in Science and toned down with tology.
travelinglimey: I have read both Hubbard’s science fiction (a lot of cardboard characters and strained dialogue, as I recall) and some of his writing on Dianetics. What is helpful in the latter is not original, and what is original is just made up BS, it is not science, and is not supported by any science. It isn’t testable. In some of it he appropriated the words from somebody’s real scientific brain or mind research and gave it his own meanings. Kind of like the charlatans that talk about “crystal resonance” (yes, crystals really do resonate, but in the physical sense, not any spiritual sense) or “quantum water” (yes, there really are quantum effects in water, it is a physical substance after all, but there are also quantum effects in cooked spaghetti, and nobody is paying $50 an ounce for “quantum crystal resonance enhanced spaghetti”.)
Believing that Hubbard knew “how the mind really works” is the equivalent of believing Christ walked on water or flew away into the sky. Hubbard only knew enough about how the mind worked to con laymen that know nothing into thinking he knew it all. Scientology teaches its sheep to distrust psychiatry (or any scientists that disagree with them) for the same reason prophylactic reason Christians and Muslims teach their sheep to distrust atheists and infidels: They know who can debunk their lies, if they are given any quarter.
travelinglimey,
Sometimes WP (actually Akismet) flags a comment for reasons unknown, yours was of this variety. Don’t take it personally.
Hubbard could write as many words as found in the Library of Congress, but that still does not make him a good writer. Or even an average one.
LRH was a salesman, not a shaman.
Well I hope my comment gets on the air soon. There is not a single swear word or abbreviation for the same, so it should not be awaiting moderation. It may be the first pro Scientology comment. This would not be much of a discussion group if my comment were excluded so I will note that it was going to get posted before 2pm after Mike S, Tony C & Otteray S, and is around 40 lines. Hopefully it will be up there momentarily.
There is a lot of bias here, mostly from the comments but a little from Johnathan Turley himself, though I can see he’s also trying not to be. Consider that the real enemies of this church are the anti-freedom, big government, big pharma, the illuminati (or whatever you like to call it), big bankers, psychiatry (a government tool of suppression & nothing more; don’t be fooled by this), other large corporations that make money from government intervention, & antisocial personalities in general (about 2.5% of any population). You all could be dissing your best friend! ( this particularly applies to L Ron Hubbard himself; everything Scientology should have come from the old man himself, though there could be some differences in management policy if it wasn’t firmly laid down before his death, or a new situation not covered) Many of you know me as a Scientologist & have already bitched & moaned at me for it. Not yet have many of you understood that Scientology means knowing how to know. Along with Hubbard discoveries like Study Technology, its a useful tool for anything! Even that little nonreligious booklet The Way To Happiness was penned by Hubbard; it gave Columbia back to the people recently & has saved & improved millions of lives.
Not every Scientologist is totally behind the ‘no children’ policy for Sea Org members that has been extant this century, after Hubbard moved on. But I can see why it may have been implemented & Ron is not here to comment or advise. During his time on the planet SO members could & did have children. These guys & girls are very devoted & very able at getting things done. Even if I hadn’t been disqualified from joining the SO by taking LSD forty years ago, just before I ran into Dianetics & Scientology in the Yukon, I probably would not have joined; but I respect those that do. I doubt if this girl was forced to get an abortion. She may have been told she could not keep the baby & stay in the Sea Org. Many Scientologists, probably most, are against abortion. I am myself, if the mother’s life is not in danger, especially in this country where adopters are plentiful.
We will probably see a lot of nonsense about money & how ‘rich’ the C of S is. Its all nonsense as every dollar made is ploughed back in to expansion & dissemination, including the $30 or so a week for SO pay. They are just trying to save the planet & the beings on it, before its too late. Unless you are an antisocial personality yourself (More than 97% are NOT, though 20% may be too closely influenced by the 2.5% to think logically on this & other subjects), these guys & gals are definitely your friend!
By the way, Hubbard has written & had more words recorded than anyone else in the world ever! This is by about ten to 100 times so its not in question. Sure, he wrote more science fiction books than many writers did too, but its a drop in the bucket. Lots of fiction but way, way, more fact, including how the mind really works & how the spirit works too. Its not a scam & never has been. To suggest otherwise indicates gullibility or evil mindedness. Take your pick. If you want to look it up, get the official website or read Hubbard himself. To do otherwise would be like reading Mein Kampf to find out about the Jewish psyche. Rants & raves will be ignored.
Privilege is owned by the patient/client/penitent. No one else.
The court could put the defendant Scientologists on notice that adverse inference will be made regarding contents of the files if they are not produced.
blhlls: The other side of the conversation is (or easily can be) already disclosed and known to the court. Scientology does not have to disclose what she said. The lawsuit is over what they said.
As a religion, they would have the right to keep secret what she told them. I could also argue they have the right to keep any advice they gave her a secret.
However, she claims they coerced her or bullied her into having an abortion, which would involve some sort of threat, and a threat by a priest to take some sort of real world retaliatory action if the parishioner does not do as they are told is, in my mind, beyond the realm of religious “advice.”
It sounds like Guido’s advice, “My advice to you is you don’t want to spend the summer in a body cast. But that’s your decision to make.”
“These folders are key pieces of evidence in church litigation but Scientology insists that they are like confessions or other religious rites. Yet, it is the Church that is being accused of the abuse.”
You’ve really got to hand it to these charlatans. When L. Ron developed his tax dodging scheme it seems he brought on board other sophisticates who copied the trappings of established religions in order to wrap themselves in a cloak of impenetrability. Scientology represents among the most clever group of scam artists in the world.
Tony C: I expect the argument would be that you can’t explore what they said to her without disclosing, at least in part, the other side of the communication. According to the opposition they filed (taken, I grant you, with whole oceans full of grains of salt), they are claiming the privilege as to her communications to them, and documents “concerning or discussing” her communications to them.
To me the distinction is in the direction of the communication: What the parishioner told the church in confidence can be kept in confidence; like hearing a confession.
IMO whatever orders Scientology gave the parishioner are not privileged information. Did they or did they not tell her she had to have an abortion? Did they coerce her, say by threatening her with employment or excommunication consequences if she refused?
If it was “three Hail Mary’s and make amends to those you have wronged,” fine. We do not need to know what she told them; she can testify to that directly. We need to know what they said to HER.
Get ready folks, you Attorneys especially won’t like this….
Concealing the factually known truth by privileges, destruction, dismissal or failing to bring it to light whatever – NO MATTER WHO DOES IT – serves nothing better than to it does to again victimize, by dis-honestly thwarting true justice.
Under the specific statute, the privilege is also held by “a member of the clergy” unlike the physician patient privilege which is held only by the patient (though the physician is statutorily obliged to claim it on behalf of the patient). California’s statutory privileges are set out in the Evidence Code with the general rule followed by statutory exceptions. There is a statutory exception to both the marital privilege not to testify and marital communications privilege where a crime is committed by one spouse against another or a child of either. Although most privileges in the code have at least some statutory exceptions in the Evidence Code, the priest-penitent privilege does not have any.
Our state does not cover spousal privilege for domestic violence victims so I don’t see how this would be any different. I also don’t see how the $¢i€nto₤og¥ church can claim the Clergy is covered by the privilege when the parishoner has waived it.
Here is our state law.
RCW 5.60.060
Who is disqualified — Privileged communications.
(1) A spouse or domestic partner shall not be examined for or against his or her spouse or domestic partner, without the consent of the spouse or domestic partner; nor can either during marriage or during the domestic partnership or afterward, be without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage or the domestic partnership. But this exception shall not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other, nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other, nor to a criminal action or proceeding against a spouse or domestic partner if the marriage or the domestic partnership occurred subsequent to the filing of formal charges against the defendant, nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by said spouse or domestic partner against any child of whom said spouse or domestic partner is the parent or guardian, nor to a proceeding under chapter 70.96A, 70.96B, 71.05, or 71.09 RCW: PROVIDED, That the spouse or the domestic partner of a person sought to be detained under chapter 70.96A, 70.96B, 71.05, or 71.09 RCW may not be compelled to testify and shall be so informed by the court prior to being called as a witness.
(3) A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner listed in the Christian Science Journal, or a priest shall not, without the consent of a person making the confession or sacred confidence, be examined as to any confession or sacred confidence made to him or her in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs.
AY,
This privilege was not meant to protect the church, but to protect the privacy of the church member. I do not think any real church has to worry if this request for privilege is denied.
I would consider the source. The Church of Scientology is dirty and this privilege is being requested for the mere purpose of avoiding adverse litigation.
Am I missing something, because it would seem the privilege would be Ms. DeCrescenzo’s to waive?
I think the pentient one holds the privilege…. Not the church…..or its members of its so called clergy….I think this is going to rip a new one for many churches though…. especially the Catholics…..