Haney v. Scientology: Opposition To Hana Whitfield

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/29/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk
1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)
2 wforman@scheperkim.com
DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)
3 dscheper@scheperkim.com
MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
4 pdayton@scheperkim.com
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90017-2701
Telephone: (213) 613-4655
6 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
7 Attorneys for Defendant,

Church of Scientology International
8
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
9 ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
rmangels@jmbm.com
10 MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
mhinks@jmbm.com
11 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
12 Telephone: (310) 203-8080
Facsimile: (310) 203-0567
13
Attorneys for Defendant,
14 Religious Technology Center
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
17 VALERIE HANEY, CASE NO. 19STCV21210

Assigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.
18 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
19 v. SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
20 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS OF HANA WHITFIELD IN SUPPORT OF
21 TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25, RECONSIDERATION
22
Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Opposition Brief;
23 Supporting Declarations of Deidre Assam,
Lynn R. Farny, William H. Forman, Gary S.
24 Soter, and Michael Sutter; and Objections to
the Declarations of Robert W. Thompson and
25 Michael Rinder]
26 Date: August 11, 2020

Time: 1:30 p.m.
27 Dept: 37
28 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF HANA WHITFIELD

1 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF HANA WHITFIELD (Exhibit 6 to the
Thompson Declaration)
2
Global Objection to the Declaration of Hana Whitfield
3
The Whitfield Declaration is entirely inadmissible and should be disregarded for multiple
4
reasons.
5
First, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5, declarations signed outside of
6
California must state that they were made “under the laws of the State of California.” Kulshrestha
7
v. First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal. 4th 601, 606 (2004) (citing Civ. Proc. Code § 2015.5).
8
“[S]uch language is necessary for validity and admissibility purposes.” Id. at 618. Therefore,
9
declarations signed outside of California that do not reference the laws of California are
10
inadmissible and cannot be considered as evidence. Id. at 606, 608. In Kulshrestha, the trial court
11
sustained an objection to the plaintiff’s declaration which stated “I declare under penalty of
12
perjury that the above is true and correct, executed this 8th day of August 2001 at Columbus,
13
Ohio.” Kulshrestha, 33 Cal. 4th at 607. After sustaining the objection to the declaration in its
14
entirety, the court granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, finding no admissible or
15
substantial evidence to support plaintiff’s claims. Id. The California Supreme Court affirmed the
16
result. Id.
17
Here, the Whitfield Declaration states “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
18
is true and correct. Executed this 3rd day of March, 2020 in Cape Coral, Florida.” (Whitfield
19
Decl. at p. 6.) Because the Whitfield Declaration does not state that it was made under the laws of
20
California, it violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5, and is completely inadmissible.
21
Kulshrestha, 33 Cal.4th at 607, 608.
22
Second, the Whitfield Declaration, like the Rinder Declaration, is nothing more than a
23
mouthpiece for Plaintiff’s allegations and her counsel’s arguments. Such a declaration is
24
inadmissible. See Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App.
25
4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (disregarding evidence submitted in opposition to anti-SLAPP motion that
26
was without foundation, hearsay, argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinions, and without
27
foundation or personal knowledge); Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007)
28
2
1 (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative,
2 impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); see also Saldana v. Globe-
3 Weis Sys. Co., 233 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1518 (1991) (“It hardly bears mentioning that argument of
4 counsel is neither a declaration nor admissible as evidence in court.”).
6 Third, Ms. Whitfield’s statements concerning Scientology religious arbitration completely
7 lack foundation and are entirely inaccurate. Without citing any basis for her statement, Ms.
8 Whitfield claims “[i]n Scientology parlance, the terms ‘arbitration’ and ‘religious arbitration’
9 mean nothing more than a ‘Committee of Evidence’ which is outlined in the official Scientology
10 publication Introduction to Scientology Ethics.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.) Ms. Whitfield left the
11 Church of Scientology thirty-six years ago, in March 1984. (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 3.) Ms. Whitfield
12 claims that “the term ‘religious arbitration’ was not in use” until after 1986 – after she had already
13 departed the Church. Therefore, based on her own statements, Ms. Whitfield has no personal
14 knowledge of Scientology religious arbitration, (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7), and her testimony is
15 inadmissible. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702(a). Similarly, Ms. Whitfield claims that Scientology
16 arbitration is a “Committee of Evidence,” and then devotes paragraphs of her declaration to
17 describing her version of a Committee of Evidence. (Whitfield Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Ms. Whitfield has
18 never participated in a Scientology religious arbitration and has no personal knowledge of the
19 procedures governing Scientology religious arbitration. In addition, Ms. Whitfield is incorrect in
20 his description of how Scientology arbitration works. Scientology arbitration may utilize certain
21 evidentiary procedures from Scientology Ethics and Justice system, such as are found in
22 Committees of Evidence, but the substantive framework for the arbitration (such as selection of
23 the arbitrators, qualifications of the arbitrators, and the binding authority of the arbitrators), is as
24 set out in the Agreements themselves. Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc., No.
25 8:13-cv-10844160, 2015 WL 10844160, at *6-*8, *9 n.11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2015)). Therefore,
26 Paragraphs 7-9 of Ms. Whitfield’s declaration describing certain procedures not used in
27 Scientology arbitration are also irrelevant.
28 Fourth, the entire Whitfield Declaration is irrelevant. All of the “evidence” and arguments
3
1 in the Whitfield Declaration could have been presented to the Court in the original briefing on the
2 Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration had Plaintiff and her counsel exercised diligence;
3 therefore, it cannot be considered on a motion for reconsideration and is irrelevant. Garcia v.
4 Hejmadi, 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 689 (1997); see also CSI’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For
5 Reconsideration, generally.
6 Finally, Ms. Whitfield has a proven track record of bringing unsupported allegations
7 against Defendants. In 1986, Ms. Whitfield and other plaintiffs made various allegations of fraud
8 and extortion against the Church and other defendants, suing for $1 billion in damages as well as
9 seeking to freeze the Church’s assets. The trial court sustained six demurrers to Ms. Whitfield’s
10 complaints, ultimately with prejudice. At one point, the trial court imposed sanctions, finding that
11 Ms. Whitfield’s and other plaintiffs’ action in filing an amended complaint was “taken in bad faith
12 and was frivolous.” Stansfield v. Starkey, 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 65 n. 3. Following another
13 demurrer, the trial court found, “The fraud asserted to have been practiced by these particular
14 defendants is still not specifically alleged and the court must conclude that there are no facts
15 constituting fraud by them that can be truthfully alleged.” Id., at 66, n. 8 (emphasis added). The
16 Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining without leave to amend Ms. Whitfield’s
17 sixth attempt to plead her billion dollar case against the Church. Id., at 63.
18 Specific Objections to the Declaration of Hana Whitfield
19 OBJECTION 1:
20 Material objected to: “According to the church, a ‘Suppressive Person’ is ‘one that actively
21 seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. (See a true and
22 correct copy of HCO Policy Letter 7 of March 1965RB attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’).
23 Specifically, ‘suppressive acts are calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist’
24 and are also called Crimes and High Crimes. (See attached Exhibit ‘A’).” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 5.)
25 Grounds for objection: Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§
26 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on the doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the
27 Scientology religion)); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the
28 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of Exhibit A, a written document, is
4
1 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal
2 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Hearsay
3 (Evid. Code § 1200); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352).
4 OBJECTION 2:
5 Material objected to: “Examples of Crimes and High Crimes include speaking with the
6 media about Scientology in a ‘negative’ light, publicly departing the Church of Scientology,
7 spreading ‘disaffection,’ refusing to comply with the orders of the organization even at the risk of
8 personal physical harm, accusing a Scientologist in good standing of criminal offenses, or
9 reporting such criminal offenses to law enforcement. (See attached Exhibit ‘A’).” (Whitfield Decl.
10 ¶ 5.)
16 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
17 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352).
18 OBJECTION 3:
19 Material objected to: “A Suppressive Person is considered an enemy of Scientology and,
20 per Scientology Fair Game policy, can be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed. Anyone declared a
21 ‘Suppressive Person’ is expelled from Scientology and shunned (or ‘disconnected’) by all
22 Scientologists, including their friends and family. (See attached Exhibit ‘A’).” (Whitfield Decl. ¶
23 5.)
5
1 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
2 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352).
3 OBJECTION 4:
4 Material objected to: “Anyone who does not disconnect from a suppressive Person or who
5 refuses to disconnect from a declared Suppressive Person will themselves be declared a
6 Suppressive Person. The treatment of Suppressive Persons outlined above is a basic tenet of
7 Scientology, deeply rooted in the policies and practices of the church and is utterly inviolate. I saw
8 these same policies put into practice on countless occasions.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 5.)
11 Scientology religion)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of
12 foundation (Evid. Code § 403).
13 OBJECTION 5:
14 Material objected to: “During my time in Scientology, policies related to Suppressive
15 Persons and the treatment of Suppressive Persons were published and/or repeatedly re-circulated
16 to Scientologists. All Scientologists and Sea Organization members with parental, familial, and/or
17 spousal alienation issues, including those caused by Scientology’s biased and dishonest policies
18 and practices, were required to study and re-study Scientology policies and practices on
19 Suppressive Persons and the treatment of Suppressive Persons.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 6.)
23 foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13,
24 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative,
25 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the
26 evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert, 147
27 Cal. App. 4th at 27)).
28
6
1 OBJECTION 6:
2 Material objected to: “Scientology did not and still does not permit its members to think
3 individually and independently. To remain a ‘Scientologist in good standing,’ one must think and
4 act only according to Scientology’s policies and practices, including the policy (See attached
5 Exhibit ‘A’) stating that:
6 a. ‘Suppressive Persons or groups relinquish their rights as Scientologists by their very
7 actions and may not receive, the benefit of the Codes of the Church.’
8 b. ‘Civil court action against [Suppressive Persons] to effect collection of monies owed
9 may be resorted to, as they are not entitled to Scientology ethics procedures.’” (Whitfield Decl. ¶
10 6.)
18 Cal. App. 4th at 27); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the
20 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)).
21 OBJECTION 7:
22 Material objected to: “I am familiar with what the church refers to as ‘arbitration’ and/or
23 ‘religious arbitration.’” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)
24 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of
25 foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes,
26 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that
27 are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be
28 disregarded”).
7
1 OBJECTION 8:
2 Material objected to: “In fact, the term ‘religious arbitration’ was not in use while the
3 Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, was alive. It did not appear in any form in his writings and
4 taped lectures. ‘Religious arbitration’ is a non-Scientology term that was introduced after
5 Hubbard’s 1986 death by current Scientology principals and lawyers in an attempt to create a
6 façade of legitimacy for the Church of Scientology.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)
7 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));
8 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v.
9 Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge,
10 or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be
11 disregarded”); Improper argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. at 27); Misstates the evidence
12 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800,
13 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on the doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology
14 religion)).
15 OBJECTION 9:
16 Material objected to: “Within Scientology, the term ‘religious arbitration’ does not mean
17 what it means outside Scientology because it is tainted by the bias of Scientology policy and
18 practice. In Scientology parlance, the terms ‘arbitration’ and ‘religious arbitration’ mean nothing
19 more than a ‘Committee of Evidence’ which is outlined in the official Scientology publication
20 Introduction to Scientology Ethics.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)
22 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert v.
23 Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge,
24 or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be
25 disregarded”); Improper argument (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. at 27); Improper legal opinion
26 (Evid. Code § 310; Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977);
27 Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1181, 1184 (1999)); Misstates the evidence
28 (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352 (the procedures described are not part of Scientology arbitration, as set
8
1 out in the Agreements themselves. See Global Objection to Rinder Declaration; Global Objection
2 to Whitfield Declaration)); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§
4 Scientology religion)).
5 OBJECTION 10:
6 Material objected to: “The rules related to a Committee of Evidence dictate that a
7 ‘Convening Authority,’ brings forward a ‘Bill of Particulars’ which charges certain offenses
8 against an ‘Interested Party,’ or the accused. The ‘Convening Authority’ designates a three-person
9 panel of Scientologists in good standing to judge the ‘Interested Party.’ The ‘Interested Party’ has
10 no say in the selection of panel members. The panel is comprised of a ‘Chairman,’ ‘Secretary,’
11 and ‘Member.’ The panel ultimately submits ‘Findings and Recommendations’ to the ‘Convening
12 Authority’ (who authorized the charges in the first place). In the event that the ‘Convening
13 Authority’ believes that the panel is not diligent in its work, the ‘Convening Authority’ may call a
14 new Committee of Evidence and have the former panel investigated and themselves subjected to a
15 Committee of Evidence only now as ‘Interested Parties.’” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)
16 Grounds for objection: Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the declarant is not
17 qualified to opine on the doctrine, beliefs, or policies of the Scientology religion or of Scientology
18 arbitration)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of
21 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher
22 Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003));
23 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352); Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§
24 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (the declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of
25 multiple, written documents is not admissible to prove the content of the document)); Irrelevant
26 (Evid. Code § 350 (the procedures described are not part of Scientology arbitration, as set out in
27 the Agreements themselves. See Global Objection to Rinder Declaration; Global Objection to
28 Whitfield Declaration)).
9
1 OBJECTION 11:
2 Material objected to: “Any ‘Convening Authority’ or a Committee of Evidence—which
3 includes what the church refers to as ‘religious arbitration’—is ultimately subject to the
4 International Justice Chief. The International Justice Chief is a paid, full-time employee of the
5 Church of Scientology International, Inc. who is contracted to Scientology and obligated to follow
6 and apply all Scientology Ethics and Justice policies and procedures as mentioned herein and in
7 attachments without question.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 8.)
9 Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403); Improper opinion (Evid. Code §§ 800, 801 (the
10 declarant is not qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration)); Conclusory and unsupported by
11 facts (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations that lack foundation or
12 personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or
13 conclusory are to be disregarded”); Irrelevant (Evid. Code § 350 (the procedures described are
14 not part of Scientology arbitration, as set out in the Agreements themselves. See Global Objection
15 to Rinder Declaration; Global Objection to Whitfield Declaration)).
16 OBJECTION 12:
17 Material objected to: “During my time in Scientology, I have participated in many
18 Committees of Evidence and I have been a ‘Convening Authority’ and an ‘Interested Party.’ I
19 have also served as a panel-member sitting in judgment of another Scientologist. Based upon my
20 intimate and extensive knowledge of the organizational policies and practices of the Church of
21 Scientology as well as my personal experiences, no declared Suppressive Person who is suing
22 Scientology in a Court of Law can ever receive a fair or unbiased Religious Arbitration before a
23 Scientology board of ‘Scientologists in good standing.’ The reasons are embedded in the doctrine
24 of Scientology.
25 a. Anyone suing Scientology in a Court of Law must by Scientology policy be declared a
26 Suppressive Person.
27 b. According to Scientology’s Fair Game policies, Suppressive Persons can be tricked,
28 sued, lie to, and destroyed. They are not treated fairly or justly.
10
1 c. Furthermore, no ‘Scientologist in good standing’ who wishes to remain a Scientologist
2 in good standing will ‘arbitrate’ a dispute with a non-Scientologist, including and especially one
3 declared a Suppressive Person, in a fair and impartial manner. To do so will result in the
4 Scientologist also being declared a Suppressive Person.
5 d. Any ‘Scientologist in good standing’ sitting on the board of a Committee of Evidence
6 convened against a declared Suppressive Person could only ever find against the Suppressive
7 Person and in favor of the church. To do otherwise would result in them being declared a
8 Suppressive Person and lead to their expulsion and excommunication from the church.
9 e. The same doctrine applies in the case of Scientology ‘Religious Arbitration.’ No
10 Scientologist in good standing will ever find for a declared Suppressive Person who is seeking
11 justice in Scientology convened Religious Arbitration. It is simply not possible.” (Whitfield Decl.
12 ¶ 9.)
14 800, 801 (the declarant is not qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration procedures); Lack of
15 personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code §
16 403); Improper argument (See Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27 (2007) (“declarations
17 that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible
18 opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§
19 350, 352); Conclusory and unsupported by facts (See Gilbert, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 27);
20 Secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520, 1521, 1523(a), (d) (to the extent the declarant is
21 claiming to describe written documents and policies, the declarant’s description and
22 characterization is not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Irrelevant (Evid. Code
23 § 350 (the procedures described are not part of Scientology arbitration, as set out in the
24 Agreements themselves. See Global Objection to Rinder Declaration; Global Objection to
25 Whitfield Declaration)).
26 OBJECTION 13:
27 Material objected to: “The Scientology rank and file has limited knowledge of these Ethics
28 and Justice policies and procedures, and their true intent—to keep Scientologists and non-
11
1 Scientologists, especially Supressive [sic] Persons, apart. They have little to no understanding of
2 the extreme lengths Scientology goes to keep it this way through its Office of Special Affairs
3 (OSA), formerly known as the Guardian Office (GO).” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 10.)
11 Cal. App. 4th at 27).
12 OBJECTION 14:
13 Material objected to: Exhibit A to the Whitfield Declaration. (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.)
14 Grounds for objection: Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 1401; Tuchscher Dev. Enter.,
15 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1238 (2003) (not considering
16 documents submitted without proper foundation)).
17
18 DATED: June 25, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

WILLIAM H. FORMAN
19 DAVID C. SCHEPER
20 MARGARET E. DAYTON
21
22 By:
William H. Forman
23
Attorneys for Defendant, Church of Scientology
24 International
25
26
27
28
12
1 DATED: June 25, 2020 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
2 MATTHEW D. HINKS
3
4
By:
5 Matthew D. Hinks
Attorneys for Defendant, RELIGIOUS
6 TECHNOLOGY CENTER
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1900 Avenue
4 of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308.
5 On June 25, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
6 DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF
7 HANA WHITFIELD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
8
as follows:
9
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10
BY PERSONAL SERVICE VIA FIRSTLEGAL: I personally arranged for a FirstLegal
11 messenger to deliver the document(s) to the person at the addresses listed in the Service List.
Delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an
12 envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an
individual in charge of the office.
13
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
14 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
15 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
16 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The
17 envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
18 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s) to be

sent from e-mail address vr1@jmbm.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the
19 Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed on June 25, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
Victoria Robles
25
26
27
28
67676487v1
1 SERVICE LIST
2
3 SERVED VIA PERSONAL SERVICE AND Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
E-MAIL
4 Robert W. Thompson
Kristen A. Vierhaus
5 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
6 Burlingame, CA 94010
8
ATTORNEY NOT ADMITTED TO THE
9 CALIFORNIA BAR – SERVED VIA MAIL
AS A COURTESY
10
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
11 Lea P. Bucciero
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
12 One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
13 Miami, FL 33131
rmartinez-cid@podhurst.com
14 lbucciero@podhurst.com
15
Brian D. Kent Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
16 Guy D’Andrea
M. Stewart Ryan
17 Lauren E. Stram
LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
18 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19102
19 bkent@lbk-law.com
20 Jeffrey P. Fritz Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney

Lauren Goodfellow
21 SOLOFF & ZERVANOS, P.C.
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
22 Philadelphia, PA 19102
jfritz@lawsz.com
23
Marci Hamilton Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney
24 University of Pennsylvania
Fox-Fels Building
25 3814 Walnut Street
26 Philadelphia, PA 19104
hamilton.marci@gmail.com
27
28
67676487v1
1 SERVED VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Attorneys for Defendant Church of Scientology
International
2 William H. Forman
David C. Scheper
3 Margaret E. Dayton
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
4 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90017

wforman@scheperkim.com
6 dscheper@scheperkim.com
pdayton@scheperkim.com
7
8 SERVED VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant
David Miscavige
9 Jeffrey K. Riffer
ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
10 GARTSIDE LLP
10345 W. Olympic Blvd
11 Los Angeles, CA 90064
jriffer@elkinskalt.com
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
67676487v1

Haney v. Scientology: Opposition To Hana Whitfield

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Haney v. Scientology: Opposition To Hana Whitfield

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/29/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

7 Attorneys for Defendant,

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

17 VALERIE HANEY, CASE NO. 19STCV21210

26 Date: August 11, 2020

28 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF HANA WHITFIELD

4 counsel is neither a declaration nor admissible as evidence in court.”).

6 Third, Ms. Whitfield’s statements concerning Scientology religious arbitration completely

16 arbitration is a “Committee of Evidence,” and then devotes paragraphs of her declaration to

19 procedures governing Scientology religious arbitration. In addition, Ms. Whitfield is incorrect in

27 Scientology arbitration are also irrelevant.

3 therefore, it cannot be considered on a motion for reconsideration and is irrelevant. Garcia v.

18 Specific Objections to the Declaration of Hana Whitfield

23 Specifically, ‘suppressive acts are calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist’

28 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of Exhibit A, a written document, is

8 personal physical harm, accusing a Scientologist in good standing of criminal offenses, or

14 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of Exhibit A, a written document, is

15 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal

16 knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of foundation (Evid. Code § 403);

17 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352).

19 Material objected to: “A Suppressive Person is considered an enemy of Scientology and,

27 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of Exhibit A, a written document, is

28 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)); Lack of personal

2 Misstates the evidence (Evid. Code §§ 350, 352).

5 refuses to disconnect from a declared Suppressive Person will themselves be declared a

11 Scientology religion)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

12 foundation (Evid. Code § 403).

14 Material objected to: “During my time in Scientology, policies related to Suppressive

22 Scientology religion)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

25 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the

27 Cal. App. 4th at 27)).

5 Exhibit ‘A’) stating that:

6 a. ‘Suppressive Persons or groups relinquish their rights as Scientologists by their very

13 Scientology religion)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

16 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”)); Misstates the

19 declarant’s description and characterization of the contents of Exhibit A, a written document, is

20 not admissible to prove the content of the documents)).

23 ‘religious arbitration.’” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)

27 are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

6 façade of legitimacy for the Church of Scientology.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)

7 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

10 or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

20 Introduction to Scientology Ethics.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)

21 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

24 or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be

15 Committee of Evidence only now as ‘Interested Parties.’” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 7.)

18 arbitration)); Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a)); Lack of

21 speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded”); Tuchscher

2 Material objected to: “Any ‘Convening Authority’ or a Committee of Evidence—which

7 attachments without question.” (Whitfield Decl. ¶ 8.)

8 Grounds for objection: Lack of personal knowledge/Speculation (Evid. Code § 702(a));

10 declarant is not qualified to opine on Scientology arbitration)); Conclusory and unsupported by

12 personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, hearsay, or

15 to Rinder Declaration; Global Objection to Whitfield Declaration)).

17 Material objected to: “During my time in Scientology, I have participated in many

21 Scientology as well as my personal experiences, no declared Suppressive Person who is suing

25 a. Anyone suing Scientology in a Court of Law must by Scientology policy be declared a

27 b. According to Scientology’s Fair Game policies, Suppressive Persons can be tricked,

4 Scientologist also being declared a Suppressive Person.