NM @ 27 dali 28 Seay te KENDALL BRILL & KELLY, LLP Bert H. Deixler (70614) Nicholas F. Daum (236155) 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725 so COS Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310.556.2700 Facsimile: 310.556.2705 AUG 0772015 Sher ust RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, ie Dap KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN (pro hac vice) 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 ‘New York, NY 10006 Telephone: 212.254.1111 Facsimile: 212.674.4614 Attomeys for DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291) MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750) 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.203.8080 Facsimile: 310.203.0567 Attorneys for DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS. TECHNOLOGY CENTER, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, CASE NO. BC411018 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon, Rolf M. Treu, Dept. 58 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY. JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY Defendants. ADJUDICATION Filed concurrently with Motion, Separate Statement, and Declarations of Nicholas F. Daum, Allan Cartwright, Warren McShane, Jesse DeCrescenzo, Benjamin J. Hubbard Dept: 58 Date: October 22, 2015 Time: 8:30 AM. Trial Date: December 7, 2015 2s0ss9.2 "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘ANDSUMMARY ADIUDICATION1 2 3 || INTRODUCTION... . | UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS. : 1, Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and Practices....nnssme 2. Undisputed Facts Concerning Plaintiff's Religious Background and 6 Religious Positions with the Church 7 3. Undisputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's “Forced Abortion” Claims (First and Second Causes of Action) . 4, Undisputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's False Imprisonment Claims 9 |] ARGUMENT....... eae 10 1. THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES, AND THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” WHICH DERIVES FROM THEM, n PROHIBIT JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH MATTERS OF ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE, FAITH, INTERNAL 12 ORGANIZATION, RULE, CUSTOM, OR LAW... wld 13 I PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION THAT SHE WAS COERCED TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND PARTICIPATE IN SCIENTOLOGY 4 RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, INCLUDING THE RPF, AS THE 15 RESULT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION AND “MIND CONTROL” MUST BE REJECTED UNDER THE RELIGION 16 CLAUSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. . os Ill. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR FORCED ABORTION HAVE NO i FACTUAL OR LEGAL MERIT se sree 29 18 A. The Undisputed Record Shows That Plaintiff Was Convinced To Have An Abortion For Religious and Personal Reasons _ That Cannot Create Tort Liability Under The First 20 Amendment... . =29 B. There Is No Recognized Constitutional or Common-Law ai Privacy Tort of “Forced Abortion” ..... ee 30 oe — PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARISING FROM HER ASSIGNMENT e 3B TO THE RPF ALSO ARE WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS AND = on MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW... é V. _ PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF G % EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A ~ 96 MATTER OF FACT AND LAW... 35 VI. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 27 CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS ARE PRECLUDED BY a ‘THE FIRST AMENDMENT .. se peor 39 a 2508592 i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCONCLUSION... 2039 2508592 ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION10 nt 12 13 14 utd 16 un 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 25 26 2 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Alcazar v, Corp. of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, 627 F.3d 1288, 1290-91 (9" Cir. 2010) (en banc) 15, 17, 18, 39 Alcazar v, Corp. of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, 598 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2010)... wn 16, 39 Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003) 18 Anderson v. Watchtower Bible &Tract Society of New York, Inc., 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan, 19, 2007) ..rnne 26 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) vn. Bollard v. The CA Province of The Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 1999). 16 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 USS. 444 (1968)... Brown v, Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564.US.__, 131 S.Ct. 2729 (2011) serrnnmnennne Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp., 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151, 4 Cal. App. 4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist, 1992)... Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health Servs., 83 Cal. App. 4th 809 (2000).. 33 |New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 US. 125 (1977). 14 Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. 4th 527 (2004)... Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1982)... 36 Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 2010 WL 3184389 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .snnesnnersnnneen 2,17, 30 Cochran v. Cochran, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540 (1998 5536 2508592 iii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADIUDICATION72a ee ee aan 10 12 13 14 thd 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 ced 26 2 28 Ctr, v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn., 26 Cal. 4th 1013... Degrassi v. Cook, 29 Cal.4th 333 (2002)... 32 Ess v. Eskaton Props., Ine., 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240, 97 Cal. App. 4th 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 34 Dist, 2002) ...nncnnmnnnnnn 36 Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268 (1978)... 35 Giraldo v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 168 Cal. App. 4th 231 (2008)...snn 32,33 Gunn v. Mariners Church, 167 Cal. App. 4th 206 (2008) 17, 34,38 Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012) ...scecsossestessetsctsetssetisetsetsetssseeee seceetsetseeeees passim Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal. App. 34 1168 (1989).. 17, 34, 37, 38 Hill v, Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994). seve 31, 32 Hope Int'l Univ. v. Superior Court, 119 Cal, App. 4th 719 (2004)... 8 Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, 565 US, _, 132 $.Ct. 694 (2012) vrccsstntnsnnninntnntnnintses 14, 15, 17, 18 Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 US. $57 (1995)... 227 Hurpia v. Universal Church, 2005 Extra Lexis 85 (L.A. Sup. 2005)... 17,18 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 USS. 46 (1986) rrsnse 27, 38, 39 Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc., 214 Cal. App. 4th 808 (2013).....0s1snnnsnnnc 31 Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal, 4th 329 (1998)... 34 Katz v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App.3d 952, 141 Cal.Rptr. 234 (1973)... see 23, 24 2508592 iv ‘MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCer aueon 10 WL 12 1B “4 15 16 7 19 20 21 Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002).n:nnseen Kedroffv. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 USS. 94 (1952)... 14 Lewis v. Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity, 589 F.Supp. 10 (D. Mass. 1982) .. Manford v. Memil Singh, 40 Cal. App. 700 (1919) nner 34 Mare Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 2010 WL 3157064 (C.D. Cal. 2010).......... Maxwell v. Brougher (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 824... MeClure v, Salvation Army, 460 F.2d $53 (Sth Cir. 1972)...nnnnnnnennnnenn eee eG McCullen v, Coakley, _US. _, 134 S.Ct. 2518 2014)... 30 Meroni v, Holy Spirit Association, 506 N.Y.S.2d 174 (A.D.2d 1986)... 24, 28, 30, 36 |Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 $.Ct. 1235 (2012) 132 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)... oral Millender v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, CV 05-2298 DDP RZX, 2007 WL 7589200 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2007)... 32 People v. Murphy, 98 Misc.2d 235, 242 N.Y.S.2d 540 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1977)........ Murphy v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of New England, Inc., 409 Mass, 842, 571 N.E.2d 340 (1991) «nnn 137 NAACP vy. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) snr 27 Org, for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). 27 Orlando v. Alamo, 646 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1981). 23,37 2508592 v MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADIUDICATIONSew xa aw MN 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 n 23 mu 25 26 27 28 Paul v, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987) 23, 26, 27, 37 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)... Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008) Presbyterian Church v, Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 USS. 440 (1969).. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US. 158 (1944) (concurring)... Rayburn v, General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985) 18 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 131 Cal. App. 4th 417 (2005)... 15, 25 EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, 213 F.3d 795 (4th Cit. 2000)... oS Ross v. Metro. Church of God, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2007)... Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2008)... «15,17 Sands v. Living World Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001), 26 Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008). 17,39 Schmoll v. Chapman Univ., 70 Cal. App. 4th 1434 (1999) 15, 17, 18 Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 US. 696 (1976) crn ..14, 15, 16, 30 Shatiehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washinton, 363 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2004)... 39 Shulman v. Grp. W Prods., Inc., 18 Cal, 4th 200, 955 P.2d 469 (1998) 31 Silo v. CHW Med. Found, 27 Cal. 4th 1097 (2002) 15 2508592 vi ‘MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONSnyder v. Phelps, 362 U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US. 508 (1969). eee Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass. 1982) Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871) .cnnnrnnnsnnnnesnne Weimer v. Cnty. of Kern, 1:06-CV-007350WWDLB, 2006 WL 3834237 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2006)... Werft v. Desert Sw. Annual Conference, 377 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004)... Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US. 205 (1968)... Statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-1595. Business and Professions Code § 17200.... Other Authorities Anne Fletcher, Rules of Rehab: Arbitrary or. for Good Reason (September 30, 2014), www.rehabs.com. A 34 Treatises Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652A-652E Constitutional Provisions 1849 Constitution... 34 California Constitution, Article I Section I. 31, 32, 34, 35 Section 7.. 31,35 Section 13 34 First Amendment, Constitution of United States passim 2508592 vii ‘MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 au 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION! Plaintiff was, at all times relevant for this motion, a practicing Scientologist, a religious staff member of the Church, and a full-time member of Scientology’s religious order, the “Sea Organization” or “Sea Org.” She has now renounced her affiliation with the Church, the Sea Org, and her former religion, in which she was deeply invested for her entire life ‘The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed on February 2, 2010, asserts seven claims; two for “forced abortion,” in violation of the California Constitution and common law; one for “deprivation of liberty” in violation of the California Constitution, and a related claim for false imprisonment, both deriving from allegations regarding plaintiff's assignment to the “Rehabilitation Project Force” or “RPF” (a voluntary program for the spiritual “rehabilitation” of Sea Org members); one claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; one for violation of labor law, specifically minimum wage and maximum hour violations; and a catch-all claim for violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, which plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed. This action in essence seeks a religious inquisition. The undisputed facts demonstrate beyond cavil that plaintiff never was forced to become a member of the religious order, to have an abortion, to accept her spiritual rehabilitation assignment, to participate in Scientology religious practices and confessionals, or to remain in the Sea Org. She volunteered for some, and agreed to the remainder for religious reasons, indeed precisely so she could continue to pursue her lifelong, religious commitment to her faith, as well as for personal reasons. She now claims that none of her choices were voluntary because her very lifelong participation in the Scientology religion constituted “mind contro!” and coercive persuasion, and that therefore the defendant churches must ‘be liable for “forcing” her to do what she agreed to do. She accordingly asks this court to undertake a trial of Scientology belief, practices, discipline, rules, and organization. This is not the only recent case to follow this pattern. ‘The same lawyers (with one exception) who filed and have litigated this case also filed and litigated two virtually identical cases against the same defendants on behalf of former Sea Org members Claire and Mare Headley The defendants removed all three cases to federal court because the complaints included claims under ' By order dated June 3, 2015, the Court ordered that Defendants could file a joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of this motion, not to exceed 40 pages. 2 Like plaintiff here, the Headleys joined the religious order when teenagers, married in the Sea Org, participated in the lifestyle constraints and discipline of the Sea Org, and chose to have abortions because Scientology rules prohibited persons to remain in the Sea Org while parenting young children. 2508592 1 ‘MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONa aueon 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 the federal human trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-1595. Chief Judge George King dismissed the federal claim on statute of limitations grounds and remanded the case to state court, In the Headley cases, Judge Dale Fischer considered the cases on the merits and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment under the First Amendment and the ministerial exception, a First Amendment doctrine discussed in detail, post. Marc Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 2010 WL 3157064 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl,, 2010 WL 3184389 (C.D. Cal. 2010). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the Headley cases, holding that the Headleys” claims to have been forced to work in the Sea Org and to undergo an abortion were not supported because the acts were not coerced, despite the Headleys’ claims of psychological and social coercion. Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012). ‘The same result is mandated here. The First Amendment prohibits the judiciary from becoming entangled in questions of ecclesiastical rule, custom, law or discipline, lest it find itself investigating and adjudicating religious questions and imposing judgment based upon religious beliefs and practices. Th s especially true because plaintiff here, like the Headleys, was a minister within the meaning of the mit sterial exception, UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ‘The facts set forth are uncontroverted. They are based primarily upon the testimony of plaintiff herself, or of her family members. Defendants also have submitted and rely upon the Declaration of Warren McShane, the President of defendant Religious Technology Center and a senior Scientology minister, which discusses the religious beliefs and practices of the Scientology religion, and of Professor Benjamin J. Hubbard, a distinguished scholar and professor of comparative religion, who discusses the nature of the Sea Org and compares it to religious orders in other religions. 1. Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and Practices The Scientology religion is based upon the research, writings and lectures of its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, which are the sole source of the beliefs, practices, rituals and policies of the Scientology faith. The doctrine and practices of the religion are known as Scientology’s religious “technology” and constitute the Scripture of the religion. [SMF 1, 51, 101, 167, 232, 314]. The basic tenet of Scientology is that man is an immortal spiritual being, called a “thetan,” who has lived many lifetimes and has the potential of infinite survival. A thetan’s various bodies 2508592 2 ‘MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONitt 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 hhave died, but his or her life experience never stops. Over the ages, and as a result of becoming, enmeshed with the material universe, thetans have lost their spiritual identity and most of their native ability. Only through exploration of his or her past can a thetan overcome the negative experiences that are affecting and reducing his or her inherent spiritual ability. [SMF 2, 52, 102, 168, 233, 315] Scientology posits the existence of the “reactive mind.” Scientologists believe that during ‘moments of pain and partial or full unconsciousness, the reactive mind makes a full “mental image picture” of everything taking place. These are called “engrams.” While the reactive mind retains these engrams, the thetan is not aware of them. ‘These engrams, however, affect one’s behavior, are the source of irrationality, fear and psychosomatic illness, and impede spiritual enlightenment. [SMF 3, 53, 103, 169, 234, 316). Scientology seeks to remove the effects of engrams through the practice of auditing, described below. When one has eliminated the reactive mind, he or she is called “Clear.” Beyond that, one must travel the path to full spiritual ability and freedom, called “Operating Thetan” or “OT”. This path in Scientology is detailed in the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart known as The Bridge to Total Freedom (“The Bridge”). When enough people have attained the state of “Clear” and above, the entire planet will be cleared and the ultimate Scientology goal of “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war ...” will be achieved. This concept is called “Clearing the Planet”. [SMF 4, 54, 104, 170, 235, 317]. Scientologists believe that the dynamic principle of existence is to “Survive!” This dynamic principle is compartmented into eight parts, all integral to life. Scientology refers to these as the “eight dynamics,” which plaintiff identified as self, family; one’s group or groups; mankind in general; all living things; material things including “matter, energy, space and time”; spirituality; and infinity [SMF 5, 55, 105, 171, 236, 318], which, in plaintiff's words, is “considered the God dynamic.” [SMF 6, 56, 106, 172, 237, 319]. A thetan’s spiritual advance in Scientology is represented as one’s expansion across all of these dynamics, addressing every facet of a thetan’s existence as a necessary component to achieving spiritual salvation. [SMF 7, 57, 107, 173, 238, 320]. A Scientologist is expected to act in a manner that achieves “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics;” this is a core belief of the religion which plaintiff always tried to follow. [SMF 8, 58, 108, 174, 239, 321} Scientology’s central religious services are “training” and “auditing.” Training involves the study of the Scripture. Auditing is ministered in confidential one-on-one sessions between a 250859.2 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRE ate ul 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 specially trained individual called an auditor and a parishioner. Auditing uses “processes”: exact sets of questions asked or directions given by an auditor to help a person locate areas of spiritual distress. In auditing, the minister uses a device called an “E-Meter” to assist in locating and removing barriers to spiritual progress. Auditing addresses such barriers from a person’s past lives as well as one’s current physical life. [SMF 9, 59, 109, 175, 240, 322). Ethics is Scientology's religious moral code. Past or current unethical acts interfere with one’s spiritual progress. [SMF 10, 60, 110, 176, 241, 323]. Scientology ethics counseling includes confessionals through which a parishioner confronts his ethical transgressions, not only in his current life but in “past lives,” thereby overcoming that barrier to spiritual progress. [SMF 11, 61, 111, 177, 242, 324; SMF 12, 62, 112, 178, 243, 325]. Some of these confessionals are called “sec checks.” Jd. They are an essential part of the religious practices of Scientology. [SMF 12, 62, 112, 178, 243, 325]. As plaintiff wrote in one of her religious ti Ethics is a very key part of getting staff and public up the Bridge. ... Ifa person is invoived in out-ethics himself he will not make case g: {spiritual progress] and thus will not move up the Bridge. You can use the tech of ethics (ie, sec checking, . . .) o get a person’s ethics in and then he will be able to progress up the Bridge. [SMF 13, 63, 113, 179, 244, 326). A few Scientologists choose to devote their lives to work for their religion full time, in the ing courses: same manner as monks, nuns, priests, and other clergy. They do so by committing to join Scientology's religious order, the Sea Org [SMF 14, 64, 114, 180, 245, 327]? To join the Sea Org, ‘a Scientologist must undertake extensive training and study, pass a fitness examination, and receive certification. Sea Org members sign a symbolic commitment of one billion years, reflecting their dedication to service in furtherance of the religion and the salvation of humanity and their » Defendants have submitted the declaration of Dr. Benjamin J. Hubbard, Emeritus Professor of Comparative Religion at California State University at Fullerton and former Chairman, for fifteen years, of the Department of Comparative Religion, describing the Sea Org and comparing it to religious orders in other religions. After summarizing the activities and attributes of the Sea Org, Dr. Hubbard concludes that “The Sea Organization in many respects resembles the structure and rules of a traditional Roman Catholic religious order such as the Jesuits, the Franciscans or the Benedictines. It also is quite comparable to Buddhist religious orders.” Hubbard Dec., 5. See also id, 9. The United States Department of Homeland Security has found “that the Sea Org qualifies as a religious order under written federal guidelines], and that its members practice a religious vocation,” thereby permitting Sea Org members to enter the country under that rubric, The Inland Revenue Department of the United Kingdom likewise has found that the Sea Org is a religious order and that “members of the Sea Organization are not workers as defined by [applicable British statutes] and that the National Minimum Wage Act does not appear to apply” to Sea Org members. [SMF 15, 65, 115, 181, 246, 328] 2508592 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADIUDICATIONul 12 13 4 = 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 B 4 28 26 27 28 awareness of themselves as immortal spiritual beings. It is exclusively from the Sea Org that the senior leadership of Scientology is drawn. I Before joining the Sea Org, potential members are told that they will be required to work long, hours, that they will be subject to lifestyle and disciplinary restrictions on their movements and contacts, and that they may be assigned anywhere in the world to further the goals of the religion. [SMF 16, 66, 116, 182, 247, 329]. See Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1174-75 (“The Sea Org’s lifestyle constraints include strict policies on outside communications, marriage, and children. Sea Org members’ mail is censored and phone calls are monitored as part of ministry discipline and policy”). Sea Org members serve without expectation of compensation. [d, They share tradition and lifestyle. They wear uniforms when on duty and have a merit-based maritime rank and rating system and etiquette, Sea Org members live communally and eat in common dining halls. The specific church to which they are assigned, such as CSI, provides them with all living necessities and a small weekly allowance for personal incidentals. 1d Sea Org members are held to the highest ethical standards of the Scientology religion, and agree to submit to the discipline of the Sea Org. [SMF 17, 67, 117, 183, 248, 330]; see Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1175 (“Sea Org members learn that strict discipline is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology’s ministry. If a member fails to meet Scientology’s ethical standards, he may be disciplined”). They are expected to study and comply strictly with Scientology's system of ethics and justice. Id. If a Sea Org member acts outside the ethical principles, he/she may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. The form of discipline varies in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, from a verbal waming or rebuike, to temporary loss of privileges, removal from post and assignment to a post with less responsibility, manual labor such as kitchen duty, ‘gardening, etc, to expulsion from the group. Serious offenses are brought before a Committee of Evidence consisting of other Sea Org members in good standing, Jd. Ifa Sea Org member is found to have committed serious ethical violations that justify expulsion, he/she may be asked to participate in a program of spiritual rehabilitation, called the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”). [SMF 118, 184, 249}. In accepting participation in the RPF, Sea Org members agree to undergo close supervision of their activities, to remain in relative isolation from other Sea Org ‘members, and to have limited contact with others while undergoing their spiritual rehabilitation. (SMF 119, 185, 250}. They engage in religious study and auditing and physical labor. [SMF 118, 184, 249]. After one “graduates” from the RPF, he/she will resume a Sea Org position. If'a Sea Org member 2508592 5 "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘AND SUMMARY ADIUDICATION