Reaching For the Tipping Point

Scientology Information => Atlanta, Georgia area => Scientology on a Local Level => Sandy Springs Zoning Opposition => Topic started by: mefree on January 14, 2010, 17:07

Title: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 14, 2010, 17:07
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14191570 (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14191570)

Church of Scientology sues Ga. city
The Associated Press
Posted: 01/14/2010 10:25:18 AM PST
Updated: 01/14/2010 10:25:18 AM PST

ATLANTA—A federal judge may soon decide the fate of the Church of Scientology's bid to turn a building in an Atlanta suburb into the group's Georgia headquarters.

The Church of Scientology filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming that Sandy Springs discriminated against the religious group. The lawsuit comes a month after the city council voted to allow the church to move to the office building, but rejected its bid to add a fourth floor to the building.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to reject the building's zoning limits. It also seeks lawyers fees.

Split, and edited to change subject --ec
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Raven on January 14, 2010, 17:15
good catch and comment section is open
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 17:22
Ah, I wondered why I couldn't find it in the Georgia court system.  Of course they would be filing Federally.

Well, I'd been thinking about signing up for PACER for a while.  Guess this will be the impetus.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Raven on January 14, 2010, 17:26
  Guess this will be the impetus.

it will be what? 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 17:28
 Counsel can twist his words all he wants in this matter. 10 months of UNEDITED video does NOT lie.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo

 The ONLY individual to bring religion into the picture here, is one Woodson Galloway of Dillard and Galloway, the law firm representing the Church of Scientology of Georgia in this zoning matter.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 17:36
Counsel can twist his words all he wants in this matter. 10 months of UNEDITED video does NOT lie.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo

 The ONLY individual to bring religion into the picture here, is one Woodson Galloway of Dillard and Galloway, the law firm representing the Church of Scientology of Georgia in this zoning matter.
Damn. The local news paper (Atlanta Journal and Constitution) does not have an open comment section. :'(

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 17:37
I've downloaded the dox so far.  I got a few paragraphs into the Complaint and just wanted to throw things.

There's one document that was marked as *Restricted* and I couldn't get to.  Hmmmmm.

Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP, for future reference.

I'll be checking back and keeping an eye on it.  Also looking for a place to upload the dox so it only has to be paid for once.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 17:39
If you want to send it to me, I can upload it to my website.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 17:40
Damn. The local news paper (Atlanta Journal and Constitution) does not have an open comment section. :'(

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo

Do they have an article?  Link?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 17:41
Topic split into its own thead, and stickied.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 17:44
Topic split into its own thead, and stickied.
Can mod change name of thread??? Re: Church of Scient.... may get lost in the shuffle. How about, Law suit filed, as the tag?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 17:47
Yes, how about "RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia"?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 17:49
Just sent 'em to ya.  I suppose I'll need to have a sit down and analyze them properly, but I think I need dinner and possibly a drink or two first.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 17:56
Yes, how about "RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia"?
Doooo eet
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 17:58
Dox are at:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-1.pdf (53 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-2.pdf (18 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-4.pdf (2 pages)

1-3.pdf was marked as *Restricted*.  Is that allowed in lawsuits of this nature?

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 17:59
Damn. The local news paper (Atlanta Journal and Constitution) does not have an open comment section. :'(

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo

Do they have an article?  Link?
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/church-of-scientology-sues-275301.html
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 18:02
Local AJC writer NEEDS video link ;D

Federal judge NEEDS video link ;)

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reach4TheTippingPt#p/u/0/2t_hhXu_aqo
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 18:06
Dox are at:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-1.pdf (53 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-2.pdf (18 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-4.pdf (2 pages)

1-3.pdf was marked as *Restricted*.  Is that allowed in lawsuits of this nature?

Awesome.  Thank you.  Is it okay to point WWP folks to the dox there?

I wouldn't get too paranoid about the missing #3 doc.  From what I'm reading of the docket, it might simply be that #3 was botched somehow and #4 is the corrected version.

C&P of docket:

Quote
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00082-CAP
Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs,
Georgia et al
Assigned to: Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 01/13/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.
a Georgia Corporation represented byAndrea Cantrell Jones
Dillard & Galloway
3500 Lenox Road, NE
Suite 760
Atlanta , GA 30326
404-965-3680
Email: andrea@dandglaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Douglas Dillard
Dillard & Galloway
3500 Lenox Road, NE
Suite 760
Atlanta , GA 30326
404-965-3680
Email: dotty@dandglaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren MacLeod Hansford
Dillard & Galloway
3500 Lenox Road, NE
Suite 760
Atlanta , GA 30326
404-965-3668
Email: Lhansford@dandglaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
City of Sandy Springs, Georgia
a Municipal Corporation of the State of
Georgia
Defendant
City Council of the City of Sandy
Springs, Georgia
Defendant
Eva Galambos
Mayor of the City of Sandy Springs,
Georgia
Defendant
John Paulson
Defendant
Dianne Fries
Defendant
William Coppedge Collins, Jr.
Defendant
Ashley Jenkins
Defendant
Tiberio DeJulio
Defendant
Karen Meinzen McEnerny
individually and in their official capacities
as members of the City Council of the City
of Sandy Springs, Georgia
Date Filed # Docket Text
01/13/2010 1 COMPLAINT, filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.; and Summon(s) issued.
Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. (
Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 20229.) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil
Cover Sheet)(eop) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain
Pretrial Instructions. (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2010: # 3 Correct PDF -
Civil Cover Sheet) (eop). (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/13/2010 2 Certificate of Interested Persons by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.. (eop)
(Entered: 01/14/2010)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 18:18
Dox are at:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-1.pdf (53 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-2.pdf (18 pages)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1-4.pdf (2 pages)

1-3.pdf was marked as *Restricted*.  Is that allowed in lawsuits of this nature?

Awesome.  Thank you.  Is it okay to point WWP folks to the dox there?

Sure.  And for anyone reading over here, here are the links to the threads over there:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/26-think-tank/zoning-meeting-scieno-property-what-do-42181/12/#post1125052
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/cult-files-suit-georgia-59732/
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/scientology-files-federal-baaaaawsuit-against-sandy-springs-59733/

(Edit: looks like ST beat you to it.)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 18:24
Plus one more.  :p

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/scientology-files-federal-baaaaawsuit-against-sandy-springs-59733/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 14, 2010, 18:25
Found that one while you were posting.   :D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on January 14, 2010, 18:33
I've said it before, but I think this is an outrageous abuse of the court system.

They were asking for SPECIAL PRIVILEGES / exceptions to the existing zoning guidelines to be made for them.  It is NOT "religious discrimination" to deny ANY entity special favours.

THEY were the ones bringing religion into the zoning meetings, not the activists or concerned neighbors. It is NOT "religious discrimination" if YOU are the only one making religion an issue at all.

Though this is a peripheral objection, I note, from watching the videos, that the Scientologists' lawyer and their reps did not address many of the concerns brought up by the residents and representatives of same on the council; instead they could not come up with straightforward data / figures (bending them to suit whatever point they wanted to try to win at the time) concerning the size of the property, number of Scientologists in the area, etc. They also spent a lot of time telling the council and neighbors about the expensive reno done to the INSIDE of the building, ignoring the fact that the primary concerns were about the shabby condition of the exterior (which is falling apart, just like most other Sci-owned properties WORLDWIDE), and the parking (also on the exterior) and the traffic flow, and so on. NO ONE CARED about the flippin' wood panels and HDTVs; they were completely and utterly irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

They people are off their rockers, and perhaps should have been more careful to purchase a building that suited their needs in the first place, rather than assuming they could bully the neighbors and city council into bending the zoning rules that EVERYONE ELSE has to follow just for them. Such arrogance. I am appalled.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 18:34
Found that one while you were posting.   :D
Who is Andrea Cantrell Jones?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 18:53
This was what I posted in the WWP thread:

Quote
Okay, I read the Complaint. See if I can put together a tl;dr version for ya.

Basically, they're trying to get the zoning retried in Federal Court, on the basis that giving them anything less than what they insist they need for their "religious practice" is discrimination under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In short, "you have to let us do anything we want, no matter what the impact on the neighborhood might be, because you're a religious bigot if you don't."

They go for several paragraphs on why they need so much space, but spare only one vague paragraph of explanation as to why they bought a building that was too small in the first place, which seems to come to "we didn't think it would be a problem back in 2005."

"Sure, you can use the building, you just can't expand it" doesn't exactly strike me as religious discrimination.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 14, 2010, 18:59
Moar info on RLUIPA:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act)

Some good lings found there.

The AJC states two suits, one in U.S. District Court and one in Fulton County Superior Court:

Scientologists sue over Sandy Springs vote

April Hunt

http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/scientologists-sue-over-sandy-275582.html (http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/scientologists-sue-over-sandy-275582.html)

Quote
Both suits contend that the city infringed on the church’s religious rights in the City Council's vote Dec. 15 that approved the rezoning of the building at Roswell Road and Glenridge Drive but denied the church’s request to add a fourth floor by enclosing a basement parking garage, saying there wasn’t enough parking.

“Their own staff said if you put a cap on occupancy, which we proposed, the parking is sufficient,” said William Woodson Galloway, the church’s attorney. “There are many, many ways they could have addressed the quote, ‘public safety issue,’ and they didn’t.”

Mayor Eva Galambos and six council members -- including two new members who did not participate in the December vote -- are named in the suits.

Galambos cast the tie-breaking vote on the issue.

“We dealt with parking and traffic, period,” Galambos said Thursday, declining to comment further because of the pending litigation.

Galloway appealed under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act as well as the state constitution.

In four appearances before the City Council, Galloway warned that the additional space was required because of the nature of Scientology worship, which focuses more on individual classroom study than traditional congregational-style churches.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Raven on January 14, 2010, 19:03
how much money are they going to waste on this?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 14, 2010, 19:10
Quote
Who is Andrea Cantrell Jones?

http://www.dillardgallowaylaw.com/Attorneys/Andrea-C-Jones.shtml (http://www.dillardgallowaylaw.com/Attorneys/Andrea-C-Jones.shtml)

Andrea Cantrell Jones is a partner at Dillard and Galloway:
Location:
Atlanta, Georgia
Phone:
(404) 965-3680
(866) 903-1760
Fax:
(404) 965-3670

Ms. Jones practices in the area of zoning and land use litigation, including eminent domain and other real property litigation. She has co-authored articles with G. Douglas Dillard, which have been presented to the Georgia State Bar Institute for Continuing Education, on land use topics, such as administrative hearings, evidentiary and procedural requirements, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, growth management strategies through local regulation and exclusionary zoning. Recently Ms. Jones presented a paper at the 2009 Georgia State Bar Eminent Domain Section Seminar, entitled Assessors Hearings.
Areas of Practice

    * Zoning litigation, zoning appeals, variance/permit appeals
    * Condemnation
    * Boundaryline disputes
    * Other land use disputes
    * Inverse condemnation


http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inverse-condemnation/ (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inverse-condemnation/)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on January 14, 2010, 19:12
Ah, just found the Superior Court case as well.

Quote
In the SUPERIOR COURT
    Fulton County, Georgia
    Case No. 2010CV180058
    
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION VS. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, EVA GALAMBOS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRING, GEORGIA AND JOHN PAULSON, DIANNE FRIES, WILLIA COPPEDGE
    
Filed on 01/14/2010
    Case Type: APPEAL
    Judge: Wendy L. Shoob
    Current Status: Filed

Defendant   
Defendant Attorneys
City Of Sandy Springs   
The City Council Of The City Of Sandy Springs   
Galambos, Eva   
Paulson, John   
Fries, Dianne
S   
Collins, William Coppedge   
Jenkins, Ashley   
Dejulio, Tiberio   
Mcenerny, Karen Meinzen   

Plaintiff   
Plaintiff Attorneys
Church Of Scientology Of Georgia Inc   Dillard, G. Douglas
3500 LENOX ROAD NE
SUITE 760
Atlanta, GA 30326

Events and Orders of the Court
01/14/2010   CASE INITIATION FORM
01/14/2010   PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

No hearings scheduled yet.  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 14, 2010, 19:38
how much money are they going to waste on this?

Good question. Me thinks the cult will attempt to have Sandy Springs foot the bill.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Alp on January 14, 2010, 20:47
Can the public attend hearings for these cases?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 14, 2010, 21:02
Could someone post the "Restricted" part of the law suit. I mean, just the statement that that part is NOT available for public viewing?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on January 14, 2010, 22:38
Interesting that they do not want a jury trial.

You can insert your own punch line here:


 ;)

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 15, 2010, 13:39
Sad to see the Sandy Springs Reporter news paper not mentioning the lastest news about their city being sued. :-\
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 15, 2010, 14:09
Can the public attend hearings for these cases?
Depends on the case. This is all in the very early stages of development. Legal for plaintiff has petitioned both the Federal court and Fulton County superior court. Defendant has X amount of time to respond. Varies depending on the time/date for response.

 Court then deems merit of case. Will or will not go forward. Filing a case does not mean it will be heard. Matter could be settled in judges chambers. Could have a date set for hearing. To many variables @ this time. On that note, here is a media link for the Fulton county superior court.

http://www.fultoncourt.org/sca200807/for-media.html One must fill out RULE#22 form to audio/video record if allowed.


Public link.

http://www.fultoncourt.org/sca200807/

Federal north ga district link

http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/general/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Alp on January 18, 2010, 16:45
Thanks for the info, ST. I will be watching this matter closely.

I may not be around much more IRL, but please let me know if there is some research I can be doing. I'll be glad to help if I get the time!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 18, 2010, 17:30
Sad to see the Sandy Springs Reporter news paper not mentioning the lastest news about their city being sued. :-\

I believe elsewhere, I saw that she would be away and traveling.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 18, 2010, 18:11
More dox:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-1st.amended.complaint.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-CertificateOfInterestedParties.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 18, 2010, 19:41

 Interesting to see "Church of scientology International" has some vested interest ( Financial ?) in this case.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-CertificateOfInterestedParties.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on January 19, 2010, 12:34
Of possible interest:

A WWP post collecting three quotes re: the CofS using lawsuits to harass and intimidate (with reference links).

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/279-asia-pacific/assaults-sydney-16th-january-2010-a-59539/26/#post1129977
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 19, 2010, 19:52
At the moment, at least until the city makes its move (whatever that will be), I think it's probably best to follow the advice of muldrake (http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/cult-files-suit-georgia-59732/5/#post1130268) when he says:

Quote
While I agree with you that there would be little practical benefit in critics immediately getting involved in this case or trying to influence it, and that attempts to do this would probably backfire, there is a strong critical interest in the outcome of this case. It is fairly common for critics of Scientology to accuse the cult of committing crimes. While this is true, the bulk of the cult's lawbreaking is not of criminal laws, but of more minor, "flying under the radar" administrative offenses, such as ignoring zoning regulations, violating fire codes, and the like. Scientology may be attempting to win a judgment that the bulk of their lawbreaking is protected under federal law, so they can continue doing what they've always done with impunity.

In fact, I am hanging on every word said by tikk and muldrake in that same thread* - tikk is a lawyer, and muldrake is pursuing a legal education, if he hasn't finished and passed the bar already (which I don't know), so I think their educations outweigh anything we can come up with at the moment.  We (legally) uneducated critics could screw this up royally in the early stages if we're not careful - and I know we want Sandy Springs to prevail.

I don't think it hurts to consider possible ways to help, as long as we hold off with actions until the correct path becomes clearer.  I think tikk is probably right (http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/cult-files-suit-georgia-59732/6/#post1130452) when he says:

Quote
I don't think the matter is going to hinge on actual or implied discrimination, but to the extent it becomes pertinent, Scientology will proffer letters to the editor from critics in the GA area which discuss xenu, disconnection, etc. their point being that regardless of what the zoning board says, they hate Scientology. To the extent that the letters can avoid that and focus on Scientology's conduct with regard to issues specifically in play here, it'll help.

I am thankful our previous letters to SS stuck largely with the zoning issues at hand, in a mature and respectful way, instead of screaming "Xenu Xenu Xenu," and "it's a cult! ZOMG!"

* Referring to this thread: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/cult-files-suit-georgia-59732/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on January 19, 2010, 20:50

 Interesting to see "Church of scientology International" has some vested interest ( Financial ?) in this case.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-CertificateOfInterestedParties.pdf

Aren't all the idle orgs turned over to the mother^\^\^\^\ org as soon as the local  stores finish paying for them? The whole point is that the locals pay, but Shrimpy McMiscavige owns. When the cult collapses, whose name do you suppose will end up on the titles for all these expensive properties?

Yeah, that's how it is...

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 20, 2010, 12:03

 Interesting to see "Church of scientology International" has some vested interest ( Financial ?) in this case.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-CertificateOfInterestedParties.pdf

Aren't all the idle orgs turned over to the mother^\^\^\^\ org as soon as the local  stores finish paying for them? The whole point is that the locals pay, but Shrimpy McMiscavige owns. When the cult collapses, whose name do you suppose will end up on the titles for all these expensive properties?

Yeah, that's how it is...

'til next time;
wynot
It would be of benefit, IMO if the local citizenry knew who actually holds the deed to the property.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Alp on January 20, 2010, 13:30
I think the best thing that WE can do is to calmly hand off those videos that ST recorded throughout last year. IMO those opinions make the defense incredibly strong. Anything else may backfire, like the lawyers said.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 20, 2010, 13:50
^^^
this
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on January 20, 2010, 21:08
Lets wait until the city responds to the plaintiffs claim.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 26, 2010, 20:37
It would be of benefit, IMO if the local citizenry knew who actually holds the deed to the property.

If I'm remembering correctly, CSI (Church of Scientology International) was mentioned in the zoning application.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 11, 2010, 20:14
Seems a reply must have been filed, if a judge has been appointed (?):
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-gandce/case_no-1:2010cv00082/case_id-164119/

Quote
Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs, Georgia et al
Plaintiff:   Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.
Defendant:   City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries, William Coppedge Collins, Jr., Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio and Karen Meinzen McEnerny
 
Case Number:   1:2010cv00082
Filed:   January 13, 2010
 
Court:   Georgia Northern District Court
Office:   Atlanta Office [ Court Info ]
County:   Fulton
Presiding Judge:   Pannell Jr
 
Nature of Suit:   Other Statutes - Other Civil Rights
Cause:   42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction:   Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:   None
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Ultrapoet on March 05, 2010, 18:45
Answer was filed yesterday.  I've loaded down the dox from PACER and emailed them to Ethercat.

From my quick look at it, it's a straight denial with no other arguments.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 06, 2010, 00:36
Thank you, Ultrapoet.  The files are here:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-answer.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-noticeofappearance.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.leaveofabsence.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-service.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 24, 2010, 17:58
New filings are here, courtesy of Ultrapoet.  We have:

Initial Disclosures (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-InitialDisclosures.pdf)
Certificates of Service for Defendant's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-Service1stInterr.pdf)
Defendant's First Requests for Admission to Plaintiff (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-ServiceRequestsAdmission.pdf)
Defendant's First Request of Production of Documents to Plaintiff (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-ServiceProduction.pdf)

Thank you, Ultra!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on March 24, 2010, 19:13
"Straight denial" means...what? A judge told the CofS to GTFO with their frivolous suit? Or SS denied any wrongdoing and it is still going to Fed Court? Sorry, my brain is baked from running errands in schizophrenic weather today
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 24, 2010, 19:31
"Straight denial" means...what? A judge told the CofS to GTFO with their frivolous suit? Or SS denied any wrongdoing and it is still going to Fed Court? Sorry, my brain is baked from running errands in schizophrenic weather today

The 1st response was basically "no, we didn't discriminate" along with a few "irrelevants" and a "we have no way of knowing that" or two.  A denial of any wrongdoing. 

This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on March 24, 2010, 19:59
Gotcha.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on March 25, 2010, 08:25
The new filings say it very clearly; the city employees and elected representatives are immune protected from lawsuits by state statutes, and the rest of the torts claimed by the cult are non-existent. The Federal suit is moot because the cult has made no attempt to seek redress through the state court. first.

There's more, but I will let you look at it yourself. It is impressively free of legalese, and easy to read.

The cult really has no leg to stand on in this suit. It will be interesting to see how their lawyers twist the facts to keep it going.

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on March 25, 2010, 09:32
To me, it all boils down to:

CULT: We want special favours.
SS: No.
CULT: But we WANT them!
SS: No.
CULT: WANT WANT WANT BAAAAW
SS: Really? ...NO.
CULT: RELIGIOUS BIGOTS!
SS: LOLWUT
CULT: WE GONNA SUE
SS: Whatevs
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 25, 2010, 18:08
To me, it all boils down to:

CULT: We want special favours.
SS: No.
CULT: But we WANT them!
SS: No.
CULT: WANT WANT WANT BAAAAW
SS: Really? ...NO.
CULT: RELIGIOUS BIGOTS!
SS: LOLWUT
CULT: WE GONNA SUE
SS: Whatevs

Bwhahaha!  Exactly.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 25, 2010, 18:27
WWP discussion of the latest filings starts here: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/cult-files-suit-georgia-59732/8/#post1204619

Edit: fixed link.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on May 10, 2010, 13:43
New documents:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc..(Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-cert.service.plantiff.interrogatories.pdf

Initial Disclosures by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc..(Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-initial disclosures.pdf (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-initial disclosures.pdf)

Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.. (Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-joint.preliminary.report.and.discovery.plan.pdf

SCHEDULING ORDER approving [14] Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, except as herein modified: Daubert motions with regard to expert testimony shall be filed no later than 30 days after close of discovery. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 4/7/2010. (adg) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-scheduling.order.joint.discovery.pdf

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' First Continuing Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and First Requests for Admissions by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc..(Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-cert.service.plaintiffs.responses.1st.interr.pdf

NOTICE of Appearance by Wendell K. Willard on behalf of William Coppedge Collins, Jr, Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio, Karen Meinzen McEnerny, City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries (Willard, Wendell) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.of.appearance.willard.pdf

NOTICE to Take Deposition of Deb Danos filed by William Coppedge Collins, Jr, Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio, Karen Meinzen McEnerny, City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.deposition.deb.danos.pdf

NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bob Wright filed by William Coppedge Collins, Jr, Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio, Karen Meinzen McEnerny, City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.deposition.bob.wright.pdf

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories by William Coppedge Collins, Jr, Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio, Karen Meinzen McEnerny, City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries.(Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-cert.service.def.response.1st.interr.pdf

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Documents and Notice to Produce to Defendants by William Coppedge Collins, Jr, Ashley Jenkins, Tiberio DeJulio, Karen Meinzen McEnerny, City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, Eva Galambos, John Paulson, Dianne Fries. (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-cert.service.def.response.1st.request.docs.pdf


Continuing thanks to UltraPoet for the dox.   :)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on May 10, 2010, 15:10
404 error at 2nd linky.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on May 10, 2010, 17:07
404 error at 2nd linky.

Thanks.  It's fixed now.   
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on May 10, 2010, 17:48

Deb Danos is scheduled to be deposed on May 19, 2010 at 10:00 am at the Dillard & Galloway offices, at 3500 Lenox Drive, Suite 760, Atlanta, Ga. 30326.

Bob Wright is scheduled to be deposed on June 3, 2010 at 10:00 am at the Dillard & Galloway offices, same address.

Here's the link to the Fulton County Superior Court information, which is referred to on page 13 of 22) in the 3rd document (Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN):
http://www.fcclkjudicialsearch.org/Scripts/UVlink.isa/tsgdb1/WEBSERV/PUBCivilSearch?action%253Dview%26track%253D673658

Quote
   In the SUPERIOR COURT
    Fulton County, Georgia
    Case No. 2010CV180058
    
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION VS. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, EVA GALAMBOS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRING, GEORGIA AND JOHN PAULSON, DIANNE FRIES, WILLIA COPPEDGE
    
Filed on 01/14/2010
    Case Type: APPEAL
    Judge: Wendy L. Shoob
    Current Status: Filed

Defendant   
Defendant Attorneys
City Of Sandy Springs   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
The City Council Of The City Of Sandy Springs   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Galambos, Eva   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Paulson, John   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Fries, Dianne
S   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Collins, William Coppedge   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Jenkins, Ashley   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Dejulio, Tiberio   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Mcenerny, Karen Meinzen   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030

Plaintiff   
Plaintiff Attorneys
Church Of Scientology Of Georgia Inc   Dillard, G. Douglas
3500 LENOX ROAD NE
SUITE 760
Atlanta, GA 30326

Hearings
03/09/2010   Tuesday   9:30am   CIVIL NON JURY

Events and Orders of the Court
04/05/2010   MICROFILMED FILE
03/05/2010   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
03/02/2010   ORDER ON MOTION
03/02/2010   ORDER
02/25/2010   MOTION
02/11/2010   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
01/29/2010   Acknowledgement of Service
01/19/2010   AMENDMENT
01/14/2010   CASE INITIATION FORM
01/14/2010   PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on May 15, 2010, 22:50
Articles and opinions on RLUIPA

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS: LESSONS FROM RLUIPA

By Ostrow, Ashira Pelman
Publication: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
Date: Tuesday, April 1 2008

Quote
This Article questions whether traditional judicial deference to local land use regulators is justified in light of the highly discretionary, and often corrupt, modern system of land use regulation. In 2000, Congress determined, first, that unlike other forms of economic legislation, land use regulation lacks objective, generally applicable standards, leaving zoning officials with unlimited discretion in granting or denying zoning applications, and second, that this unlimited discretion lends itself to religious discrimination. Congress therefore enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires courts to apply strict scrutiny review to land use decisions that impact religious land uses.

Since its enactment, the constitutionality of RLUIPA has been debated extensively. Many scholars maintain that the statute is an overly broad exemption that creates a privileged class of land users and allows religious institutions to avoid a community's reasonable land use concerns. In contrast, this Article argues that in enacting RLUIPA, Congress identified a global flaw in land use regulation that impacts all land users, but limited its remedy to religious land users. While RLUIPA's strict scrutiny review is clearly inappropriate for land use cases that involve neither fundamental rights nor suspect classes, traditional judicial deference is equally inappropriate in light of the discretionary nature of modern zoning. Fortunately, the Supreme Court established the appropriate standard of review in its earliest zoning cases. This Article thus maintains that RLUIPA is significant because it highlights a fundamental flaw in local land use regulation, and because its bifurcated approach to judicial review of zoning decisions revives an early facial/as-applied dichotomy in land use jurisprudence and encourages more meaningful judicial review of all as-applied land use decisions.

found at http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use/10635776-1.html

A Non-Fatal Collision: Interpreting RLUIPA Where Religious Land Uses and Community Interests Meet


Adam MacLeod, Faulkner University
Abstract

Quote
This paper grapples with the difficult question how best to interpret the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which creates a prophylactic remedy in favor of religious land users burdened by local land use regulations. Where the burden on religious exercise is substantial, RLUIPA subjects the regulation to strict scrutiny review. Several scholars object to RLUIPA on the grounds that it violates principles of federalism and equality between religious and non-religious landowners. Other scholars make the case for an expansive RLUIPA on the ground that the First Amendment privileges religious exercise over other types of land use.

This article first attempts to narrow the debate about RLUIPA. It suggests that scholars are arguing about what this article calls the RLUIPA interest gap, the space between religious discrimination hidden behind facially-neutral land use regulations, on one hand, and regulations that are narrowly tailored to compelling state interests, on the other. After reviewing the federal courts’ constructions of RLUIPA’s key terms, this article concludes that the RLUIPA interest gap is narrower than most scholars suppose. Focusing on the RLUIPA interest gap and the implications of that gap for communities grappling with the implications of regulating religious land use should clarify what is and what is not at stake in the debate over RLUIPA’s scope. This article affirms the claim of Natural Law philosophers and religious scholars that religion is a basic human good, which deserves the protection of law. However, it denies that the fundamental value of religion is a reason to give religious land users an exemption from land use regulation that non-religious land users do not enjoy.

Next, this article challenges the common assumption that RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny review is necessarily fatal. It attempts to identify some compelling state interests on the basis of which local governing authorities may burden religious land uses. The thesis of this latter part of the argument is that interests in direct protection of basic (underived, ultimate) human goods are compelling, for purposes of strict scrutiny analysis. If this thesis is correct, courts and scholars can more productively focus on the second prong of the strict scrutiny standard: narrow tailoring. A close connection between a community’s compelling interest and the land use decision chosen to protect that interest is a strong indication that the local government has not engaged in religious discrimination.
abstract found at http://works.bepress.com/adam_macleod/8/

additional resources and opinions:
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate/a/RLUIPAindex.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200401/ai_n9379400/
http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/rluipa_religious_land_use/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on July 02, 2010, 22:00
New Information about the RLUIPA suit:

05/17/2010   22 NOTICE to Take Deposition of MARK MOORE filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. (Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.deposition.mark.moore.pdf (1203384 bytes)

05/17/2010   23 NOTICE to Take Deposition of DAVID ADAMS filed by Church of  Scientology of Georgia, Inc. (Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.deposition.david.adams.pdf  (1204263 bytes)

05/17/2010   24 NOTICE to Take Deposition of NANCY LEATHERS filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. (Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-notice.deposition.nancy.leathers.pdf (1195169 bytes)

06/22/2010   25 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-motion.extend.discovery.pdf (1600598 bytes)

06/23/2010   26 ORDER that the 25 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is extended to 10/1/2010 and all subsequent dates scheduled in the Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan previously filed with the Court are extended to reflect the 60 day extension of discovery period. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr
on 6/23/2010. (ank) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-order.extend.discovery.pdf (783329 bytes)

Thank you , Ultrapoet.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on July 02, 2010, 22:57
Oh, cult. So desperate.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on July 03, 2010, 00:48
Who is being deposed by Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.?

Mark Moore is the Sandy Springs Transportation Planning Engineer/Manager: http://sandyspringsga.org/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2006/Sandy-Springs-Takes-Measures-to-Ensure-High-Standa

David Adams, Fire Protection Engineer:
http://sandyspringsga.org/Emergency-Services/Fire-Rescue-Department/Meet-the-Staff
Quote
Fire Protection Engineer

David Adams has 10 years of experience overseeing the regulatory review and jurisdictional responsibilities for 16,000 state of Georgia owned buildings. He is an ICC Certified Fire Code Official and is a Chief Fire Officer, (CFOD) from the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. David has served as a licensed architect in the private sector for 10 years. Adams is a graduate of the University of Florida and Ohio State University.

Nancy Leathers is the Community Development Director:
http://sandyspringsga.org/City-Departments/Community-Development/Staff/Nancy-Leathers
Quote
Nancy Leathers, AICP

Community Development Director
Nancy Leathers, AICP

Nancy Leathers has been involved in community development throughout the Greater Atlanta area for the past 30 years. Her career follows a path from private consultant planner to public service in Fulton County, where she contributed to many areas, serving as deputy director, chief of operations and eventually becoming the director of the Fulton County Department of Environment and Community Development. Leathers received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota and her master’s degree from the University of Chicago. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association and the Council for New Urbanism.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on July 03, 2010, 08:26
Okay, the 'Transportation Planning Engineer/Manager' makes some kind of sense, since traffic problems were addressed by witnesses at the Zoning Board meetings. And 'Community Development Director', too. But 'Fire Protection Engineer'? I don't remember anything being said about fire problems with the building. Hmmm... You don't suppose their plan is to...?

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on July 03, 2010, 11:12
Fire Protection Engineer determines the number of people allowed in the building.  Still, parking requirements (determined by zoning) are aside from the occupancy of the building.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on July 03, 2010, 11:45
Seems like they are determined to drag everyone possible into their bid to get special privileges that no one, not even another church (or "church"), would or should get, and which inconvenience, annoy, distract and/or endanger the residents and drivers in the area.

The bottom line is that the organization made an expensive mistake, and has already been caught GROSSLY neglecting the property in question and disregarding / inconveniencing the neighbors and the neighborhood with large, noisy gatherings, unwanted overflow parking problems, engaging in peddling and other distractions in the parking lot area and contributing to greatly increased traffic congestion more than once.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Sarcasm Pirate on July 03, 2010, 15:03
They are seeking further discovery time to approach out of state and expert witnesses? lol I am curious as to who qualifies as an expert witness for them and who they are pulling out of state for this. -coughBobAdams?cough-
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on July 03, 2010, 16:36
Since both plaintiff and defendant jointly requested the extension, either or both could be approaching expert witnesses out of state.  We might see some major or minor celebrities from scientology criticdom in the courtroom, and ditto for major or minor celebrities from the evil corporate empire. 

Only if they're complete and utter fools would the plaintiffs bring Bob Adams back.   <--:D-->

oh, wait...
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on July 05, 2010, 03:12
Bob Adams is comparing fares on Travelocity and Priceline and clearing his calendar right now, you know.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on July 05, 2010, 09:17
Bob has been busy speaking to high school football players.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Church-of-Scientology/Bob_Adams/prweb4188344.htm
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on August 13, 2010, 17:16
Francois Koutchouk of RLUIPA.info talks with Tom Smith on The Edge and discusses the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a U.S. federal law that gives any organization that calls itself "religious" special zoning privileges, in contravention to the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

This aired earlier today.

An mp3 is available for download here:
http://www.theedgewithtomsmith.com/pgms/indexpg.html

additional info at http://www.rluipa.info/index.html
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on August 14, 2010, 10:46
^^^
Great information and many good links on the rluipa.info site.

One example:

Quote
Abstract: a) Rich frat boys discover religion to throw noisy parties forbidden by local zoning laws. b) Becket fund blackmails and inflames community to get a courtroom notch on its belt c) Where declaring a Laundromat as “religious” provides exemption from regulatory oversight.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20061130.html
more at http://www.rluipa.info/links.html
 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on August 18, 2010, 19:13
One more document trickles out:

Supplement to plaintiff's initial disclosures-081110 (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-Supplement_to_plaintiffs_initial_disclosures-081110.pdf)

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on August 18, 2010, 20:23
One more document trickles out:

Supplement to plaintiff's initial disclosures-081110 (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-Supplement_to_plaintiffs_initial_disclosures-081110.pdf)

Links to information on cases referenced in supplement:

MICHELLE BETENBAUGH KENNEY AROCHA v. NEEDVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1531060.html

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY COLORADO
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1524278.html

WISCONSIN v. YODER
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=406&invol=205
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

FAYETTE COUNTY v. SEAGRAVES
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4726045464566576977&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on August 24, 2010, 21:46
Francois Koutchouk of RLUIPA.info talks with Tom Smith on The Edge and discusses the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a U.S. federal law that gives any organization that calls itself "religious" special zoning privileges, in contravention to the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

This aired earlier today.

An mp3 is available for download here:
http://www.theedgewithtomsmith.com/pgms/indexpg.html

additional info at http://www.rluipa.info/index.html

The mp3 is no longer there, but can be heard here now: http://www.rluipa.info/news.html

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on August 25, 2010, 09:18
This may be pertinent to some Idle Org interests:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/08/church-not-entitled-to-tax-exemption.html

FIFY
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Guy Fawkes on November 21, 2010, 16:21
I've downloaded the dox so far.  I got a few paragraphs into the Complaint and just wanted to throw things.

There's one document that was marked as *Restricted* and I couldn't get to.  Hmmmmm.

Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP, for future reference.

I'll be checking back and keeping an eye on it.  Also looking for a place to upload the dox so it only has to be paid for once.

What you might wish to consider, at least for future use, is a Firefox plugin called RECAP. What this does is to mirror a copy of documents you retrieve from PACER to a publically-available archive, where the documents can be retrieved for free.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on November 21, 2010, 16:28
Thanks for the tip, Guy.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on November 22, 2010, 11:14
What you might wish to consider, at least for future use, is a Firefox plugin called RECAP. What this does is to mirror a copy of documents you retrieve from PACER to a publically-available archive, where the documents can be retrieved for free.

Welcome to Reaching for the Tipping Point, Guy. 

Looks like a worthwhile plugin.  The FAQ is here: https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/

Thanks.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 24, 2010, 22:40
Edit: I am adding the descriptions below the filenames for to make it easier to decide what to read (and to keep up with what I've read).  If anyone else would like to contribute brief descriptions and/or interesting tidbits, I'll edit them into the main post.  Discussion should stay as separate posts. 

Edit 2: Also reorganizing to put more in order.  Scroll down.

New documents in the RLUIPA case against the City of Sandy Springs:
Original list:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/08-11-2010_Supplement_Plaintiff_Init_Disclosures.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/09-02-2010_Certificate_of_Service.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/09-21-2010_Certificate_of_Service.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010-Brief_37-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-2-Brief_Part_2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-3_COS_Theory_of_Recovery.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-4_COS_Statement_of_Material_Facts.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37_COS_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-1_Affidavit_of_Allan_Cartwright.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-2_Affidavit_of_Deb_Danos.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-3_Affidavit_of_Robert_Wright.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-4_Affidavit_of_Nancy_Leathers.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-Copy.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-1_Exhibit_G3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-2_Exhibit_G4.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-3_Exhibit_G5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-4_Exhibit_G6.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-5_Exhibit_H.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-38.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_39.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_40.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_F_39-3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G1-39-5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G2-39-6.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G_39-4.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-10.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-6.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-7.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-8.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-9.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A10.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A11.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A12.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A13.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A14.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A15.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A16.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A17.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A18.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A19.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A20.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A21.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A22.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A23.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A4.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A6.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A7.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A8.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A9.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-4.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_45_Notice_of_Manual_Filing.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_46-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_46.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_47-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_47.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_48-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_48.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_49-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_49.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_50-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_50.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_51-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_51.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_52-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_52.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_54.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_55.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_56.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement-43-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement-43.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Statement_of_Material_Facts_Not_in_Dispute-43-2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Statement_of_Material_Facts_Not_in_Dispute-43-3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-22-2010_53-1.pdf

Reorganized list with descriptions:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/08-11-2010_Supplement_Plaintiff_Init_Disclosures.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/09-02-2010_Certificate_of_Service.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/09-21-2010_Certificate_of_Service.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010-Brief_37-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-2-Brief_Part_2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-3_COS_Theory_of_Recovery.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-4_COS_Statement_of_Material_Facts.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37_COS_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-Copy.pdf
(Duplicate of below)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-38.pdf
(Administrivia - This is the Notice of Filing Exhibits.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-1_Affidavit_of_Allan_Cartwright.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-2_Affidavit_of_Deb_Danos.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-3_Affidavit_of_Robert_Wright.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-4_Affidavit_of_Nancy_Leathers.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-5.pdf
(Zoning Ordinance 18.2.1)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-6.pdf
(Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-7.pdf
(Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-8.pdf
(Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets discussing the parking study)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-9.pdf
(Alternate conditions proposed at the Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2009)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-10.pdf
(Alternate conditions proposed at the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 20, 2009)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_39.pdf
(Administrivia)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-1.pdf
(Kimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 1)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-2.pdf
(Kimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 2)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_F_39-3.pdf
(Kimley-Horn Traffic Study Addendum for Buffalo, NY)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G_39-4.pdf
(Exhibit "G", October 14, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nancy Leathers, Pages 173, 174, 179-185, 199-201)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G1-39-5.pdf
(Exhibit "G-1", Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Second Discovery Requests)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_G2-39-6.pdf
(Exhibit "G-2", Deposition Exhibit No. 28, Part of the Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance concerning Off Street Parking and Loading)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_40.pdf
(Administrivia)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-1_Exhibit_G3.pdf
(This is the rezoning packet for Kadampa Meditation Center which is referred to in other documents.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-2_Exhibit_G4.pdf
(This refers to the rezoning for Lutheran Church of the Apostles.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-3_Exhibit_G5.pdf
(Congregation Beth Tiffilah)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-4_Exhibit_G6.pdf
(Zainabia Islamic Education Center)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-5_Exhibit_H.pdf
(Exhibit 16 to Deposition of Robert Wright: Scientology Classification Gradation & Awareness Chart)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A4.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A5.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A6.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A7.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A8.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A9.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A10.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A11.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A12.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A13.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A14.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A15.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A16.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A17.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A18.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A19.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A20.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A21.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A22.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-41-A23.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42-A3.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-16-2010_Deposition_Nancy_Leathers-42.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement-43.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement-43-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Statement_of_Material_Facts_Not_in_Dispute-43-2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Statement_of_Material_Facts_Not_in_Dispute-43-3.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR FILING ORIGINAL DISCOVERY)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-1.pdf
(Deposition of Deb Danos, DSA CoS-Ga., May 19, 2010)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-2.pdf
(Deposition of Bob Wright, in charge of construction of the Ideal Orgs, August 6, 2010.  Kendrick Moxon was also present at the request of deponent.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-3.pdf
(Deposition of Mark Moore on behalf of plaintiff, May 27, 2010.  Mark Moore is the traffic engineer for Sandy Springs.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-4.pdf
(Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-5.pdf
(Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce to Defendants)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_45_Notice_of_Manual_Filing.pdf
(COME NOW the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, and its named elected officials, Defendants in the above-styled action, and notify the Court that sealed original copies of the following documents were filed conventionally because they contain oversized, graphic exhibits that Defendants did not have the capacity to convert to digital format and upload to the CM/ECF system: A. Deposition of Deborah Quinn Danos taken May 19, 2010. B. Deposition of Robert Michael Wright taken August 6, 2010. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December, 2010.)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_46.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_46-1.pdf
(Transcription of Audio CD in Re: Sandy Springs, Georgia Planning Commission RZ09-001/CV09-006 November 19, 2009.  Note: This meeting can be viewed in 7 parts, starting here: http://www.youtube.com/Reach4theTippingPt#p/u/36/2t_hhXu_aqo )

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_47.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_47-1.pdf
(Transcription of Audio CD in Re: 19 Sandy Springs, Georgia City Council 20  RZ09-001/CV09-006 December 15, 2009.  Note: This meeting can be viewed in 10 parts, starting here: http://www.youtube.com/Reach4theTippingPt#p/u/29/O5Xy_Xs3wiw )

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_48.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_48-1.pdf
(Meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City of Sandy Springs City Council held Tuesday, October 20, 2009 and Meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City of Sandy Springs City Council held Tuesday, December 15, 2009)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_49.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_49-1.pdf
(City of Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_50.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_50-1.pdf
(More of the City of Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_51.pdf
(DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_51-1.pdf
(More of the City of Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_52.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_52-1.pdf
(Yet more Zoning Ordinance)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-22-2010_53-1.pdf
(Consent Order to extend Defendant's Response time to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_54.pdf
(DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_55.pdf
(Filing by BENNETT REPORTING, INC. regarding Deborah Quinn Danos deposition)

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_56.pdf
(Filing by BENNETT REPORTING, INC. regarding Robert Michael Wright deposition)


How nice of them to give us something to read over the Christmas holidays.   cU#__

Certainly some of these make for interesting reading.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 25, 2010, 00:47
 :o~! You sure have been busy!! Have to set aside and hour tomorrow nite to read them!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 25, 2010, 20:39
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010-Brief_37-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-2-Brief_Part_2.pdf

Finally, this is admitted openly:
Quote
The Church proposes locating the chapel in the basement of the building because the existing building is not engineered and constructed to allow a conventrated assembly of people on any other floor of the building.  Denying the Church the ability to utilize the basement would require the Church to revise its existing renovations plans (civil plans have been completed) and re-engineer the structural support of the building, which would be prohibitively expensive.

More expensive than the RLUIPA lawsuit?

Note that, in all fairness, I have no idea how much structural re-engineering would cost , nor any idea of how much the RLUIPA lawsuit is costing.  But then, I would have picked a building that was already structurally sound enough to do what I wanted to do with it to begin with.  I would have done my research first, instead of chanting the "make it go right" mantra which seems quite ineffectual in the real world.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 25, 2010, 22:08
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-4_COS_Statement_of_Material_Facts.pdf

Quote
28.
Scientology churches also hold congregational services on Sundays, religious holidays, and certain other occasions.

Galloway had said during the rezoning meetings that they didn't hold a congregational service on Sunday, that they were a non-traditional church.

Quote
29.
Scientologists believe that the expansion and dissemination of the religion is necessary to salvage human civilization.

So we can conclude that if the "Church" is successful in doing this, they will need more parking spaces.  And because humans would still be living in caves and killing each other with sharpened sticks, if not for scientology.

Quote
30.
All Scientology churches have a religious obligation to reach out to their community to spread the word of Scientology so that new members may pursue the path to spiritual enlightenment.

Hence, front groups.

Quote
31.
Scientology churches, therefore, are mandated to include large Public Display areas, including audio-visual presentations on the religion and its social betterment campaigns such as for human rights, drug and alcohol addiction prevention, literacy and scholastic improvement.

The Church of Scientology is a modern and technology-oriented "church" (read as: needs lots of money). 

Human rights: CCHR - taking away your human right to choose to take psychiatric medication if you need and/or desire.  (because scientologists "are the authorities on the mind", right Tom?)

Drug and alcohol addiction prevention: Narconon - Trying to get you off drugs or alcohol and hook you on scientology instead, if they don't kill you or seriously damage your health first.

Literacy: The World Literacy Crusade, Hollywood Education and Literacy Project (HELP) - You have to be able to read to do scientology, you'll also have to be able to pay for the massive amount of texts that Hubbard wrote or babbled into a tape recorder to be transcribed into books the "parishioners" must pay for. (So you might also need World Institute of Scientology Enterprises aka WISE to make that money.)

Scholastic improvement: Applied Scholastics - Trying to grab some government dollars/pounds/pesos/yen/etc. by putting scientology into the school system, based on the principle that if you get 'em young, they're easier to teach how to think, the scientology way.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 25, 2010, 22:27
:o~! You sure have been busy!! Have to set aside and hour tomorrow nite to read them!

'Twasn't me who filed all this stuff with the court, thank goodness!

An hour?!   (OoO)  It's gonna take me 10 times that.  Maybe I should get some Study Tech?   :P
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 25, 2010, 22:41
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-3_Affidavit_of_Robert_Wright.pdf

Quote
4.
Based on my study of CSI's files and my general knowledge of my position, I am informed and believe that beginning in 2003, CSI embarked on a program to create what we call Ideal Central Organizations or "Ideal Orgs."  (For decades, Scientology churches have been referred to colloquially as "Orgs," short for organizations.)  An Ideal Class V Organization holds and houses all of the functions required for a Class V Church, according to the Scientology Scriptures, and is able to actually deliver all of those functions and services.  Even many today, an estimated 90% or more) of our existing Church buildings are not of the correct size to house all the functions.  For that reason, for the last five (5) or six (6) years, Scientology churches around the world have been purchasing new buildings so that they can provide all the needed programs and functions of the church.

Quote
7.
In 2003, CSI determined that from that point forward, all future Scientology churches would be designed and built as Ideal Church Organizations.  At first, there were no standards in place.  We were trying out different concepts and evolving those concepts as we went along.  The first pilot Ideal Church was in Tampa.

So this was all dictated by CSI and not Hubbard?  What a surprise.   ::)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 25, 2010, 23:16
Making some notes about which of these are interesting or not.

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-4_Affidavit_of_Nancy_Leathers.pdf
This consists of several pages from Nancy Leathers' deposition, might as well read the whole deposition.

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-1_Exhibit_G3.pdf
This is the rezoning packet for Kadampa Meditation Center which is referred to in other documents.

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-2_Exhibit_G4.pdf
This refers to the rezoning for Lutheran Church of the Apostles.

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-3_Exhibit_G5.pdf
Congregation Beth Tiffilah

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-4_Exhibit_G6.pdf
Zainabia Islamic Education Center

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-5_Exhibit_H.pdf
Exhibit 16 to Deposition of Robert Wright: Scientology Classification Gradation & Awareness Chart

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-38.pdf
Administrivia

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_39.pdf
Administrivia

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_40.pdf
Administrivia

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-1.pdf
Kimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 1

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-2.pdf
Kimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 2
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 25, 2010, 23:57
Thanks for the notes on the pdfs and the Ideal Org origin comments! It sure looks like a Miscavige creation from the sounds of it.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on December 26, 2010, 08:31
 Within Allan Cartwrights affidavit, and his explanation of the tenets of scientology, nowhere do I see mention use of the E-Meter in the auditing process. Is not the E-Meter the foundation in which a scientologist gains knowledge of one self? I wonder why Mr Cartwright failed to make reference to this oh so holiest of holy devices?

 If one were to draw vague religious parallels here, would not the E-Meter be the rock on which the CULT built its alleged church?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 12:05
Within Allan Cartwrights affidavit, and his explanation of the tenets of scientology, nowhere do I see mention use of the E-Meter in the auditing process. Is not the E-Meter the foundation in which a scientologist gains knowledge of one self? I wonder why Mr Cartwright failed to make reference to this oh so holiest of holy devices?

I guess he didn't consider it relevant to parking issues or religious discrimination.  I would probably agree with him there.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 12:19
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-5.pdf
Zoning Ordinance 18.2.1

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-6.pdf
Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-7.pdf
Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-8.pdf
Some pages from the rezoning meeting packets discussing the parking study

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-9.pdf
Alternate conditions proposed at the Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2009

Quote
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-10.pdf
Alternate conditions proposed at the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 20, 2009

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on December 26, 2010, 13:00
Some very interesting reading starting with 44-1

INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS
2 DEBORAH QUINN DANOS PAGE
3 Examination by Ms. Henderson................. 4
4
5
6
7 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS
8 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
9 1 Limited Warranty Deed 28
10 2 Property and Boundary Survey 28
11 3 Plans (full size) 52
12 4 Floor Plans 53
13 5 Certificate of Zoning 85
14 6 Parking Evaluation 89
15 7 7/15/09 Letter from J. Walker to W. 92
16 Galloway with attachments
17 8 Academy/Div 6 and Staff Roll Sheets 118
18 9 Events Call-In 118
19
20
21 (Defendants' Exhibit No. 3 was retained by Ms.
22 Henderson.)
23
24
25

Just a snippet:
Quote
All right. What are your current duties with the Scientology Church of Georgia? First of all, what 16 is your title?
A: My title is director of special affairs, which is essentially a community liaison role.
Q: Okay. And specifically what are your duties?
A: Specifically I oversee the social betterment programs, the community programs, and I am the media contact person. So public relations. I am the legal liaison. And that's essentially everything.
Q: Those are very diverse areas.
A: They are indeed. Essentially I handle everything that goes on outside of the church.
Q:Okay.
A: I mean, that's kind of how it's designated.
Q: You're the face of the church to the outside world in the Georgia community?
A: Essentially, yes.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 15:48
I thought this was funny:
Quote
20 A Did I finish all my thoughts? Was I in the
21 middle of something?

***:|

Quote
25 Q Okay. Are there rites or rituals for
1 officially becoming part of a Scientology organization?

Yeah!  Paying money!   :D 

Quote
23 Q Okay. Is there an annual fee for belonging to
24 the International Association of Scientologists?

25 A There is not. There is not. One would be
1 asked to renew at the end of their, say, six-month
2 membership, one would be asked to purchase an annual
3 membership
. It's totally up to you if you want to do
4 that or not.
5 Q Okay.
6 A If you do, you maintain the privileges of that
7 membership which is, of course, discounted rates on
8 books and services and the magazine and all the stuff.
9 And if you don't, fine.
10 Q And if you don't, you can still obtain those
11 materials; you just don't obtain them at a discounted
12 price?
13 A Correct.

There is not an annual fee, but when the 6 months free membership is up, "one would be asked to purchase an annual membership"?  And you don't purchase it for an annual fee?  If not for an annual fee, what, pray tell, would one purchase an annual membership with?    /x$$x/

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 15:52
From the first part of the Deb Danos deposition (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_44-1.pdf):

Quote
8 Q Okay. All right. And then when you say 100
9 active, tell me a little bit more about what that means.
10 A I mean 100 of people who have recently -- and
11 I say recently, like, say, within the last year -- are
12 participating in services at the organization. So that
13 would be course work, extension courses, or courses in
14 the Academy or counseling or in some way involved in our
15 community service programs
, you know, people who are
16 actively doing something.

Would that include people working for Narconon who are not otherwise attending services?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 16:06
This may be helpful in someone's lawsuit somewhere, concerning David Miscavige's degree of control and the levels of the corporate structure:

Quote
5 Q The Church of Scientology International, where
6 is that based?
7 A Los Angeles.
8 Q And how is it organized to the best of your
9 understanding?
10 A I don't know that I can actually answer that
11 question.
12 Q All right. Who controls that organization?
13 A David Miscavige is the chairman of the board
14 of the Religious Technology Center. Now, there is an
15 affiliation between the RTC and the Church of
16 Scientology International, but I am not 100 percent
17 aware of the corporate structure of those groups.
18 I can tell you that David Miscavige is the
19 ecclesiastic leader of the church and a good bit of the
20 church direction comes from him.
21 Q You mentioned the initials RTC. Tell me again
22 what that stands for.
23 A Religious Technology Center.
24 Q And you're saying that's different than CSI?
25 A It is different than CSI, yes. The RTC is the
1 holder of the works of L. Ron Hubbard.
2 Q What is the Georgia church's relation to CSI,
3 if any?
4 A Well, essentially we are hierarchical in
5 structure. And CSI is the body -- really the governing
6 body of, you know, ecclesiastically speaking, of the
7 churches around the world.
8 Q All right. Is there any intermediate level
9 going from CSI to the Georgia church? Are there
10 churches that would be in the middle of that hierarchy?
11 A There is. There's a Continental -- what's
12 called a Continental Liaison Organization, one on the
13 east coast and one on the west coast. And that is the
14 intermediary governing body.
15 Q I assume because we're in Atlanta that you
16 would go through the east coast Continental Liaison.
17 Where is that located?
18 A New York.
19 Q Okay. And is that the next step down under
20 CSI?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. And then is there a further step down
23 from the Continental Liaison body to the Georgia church?
24 A No.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 18:31
Something of interest to anyone researching the Ideal Orgs and how they're purchased:
Quote
16 Q '7. All right. We're at 2007. And then it's
17 been two years since the Sandy Springs property was
18 purchased. Is that property vacant and available at
19 that point?
20 A It was vacant, yes.
21 Q And why did the Georgia church choose not to
22 try to move toward use of the Sandy Springs property at
23 that time?
24 A At that time we were involved in repaying a
25 loan that was made by CSI to purchase the building.
1 Q Okay.
2 A Fundraising to repay that loan and to further
3 handle the renovations that were needed on the building.
4 Q Okay. So the Roswell Road building was
5 purchased with money from CSI?
6 A Originally.
7 Q Which then had to be repaid?
8 A Correct.
9 Q And has that purchase price been repaid in its
10 entirety?
11 A Yes, it has.
12 Q So the Georgia church now owns the Roswell
13 Road building free and clear?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q Okay. Did CSI also advance money for
16 renovation of the Roswell Road building?
17 A No.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 18:34
LOL!
Quote
5 Q Understandably so. At the current time would
6 you describe for me -- we're going to work on describing
7 the Dunwoody facility.
8 A Okay.
9 Q I understand that that building is in an
10 office park; is that correct?
11 A Correct.
12 Q And how large is the space square footage wise
13 that the Dunwoody facility currently occupies?
14 A Approximately 11,000 square feet.
15 Q How much space is available for classes in
16 that facility at the present time?
17 A Gosh, square footage wise or percentage wise?
18 Q How about number of courses. How many courses
19 can be offered at once in the Dunwoody facility?
20 A Well, that --
21 Q As it's set up. Is that easier?
22 A That doesn't help.
23 Q That doesn't help.
24 A Because what we have at the Dunwoody facility
25 is one large course room that has a temporary dividing
1 wall in it and another alcove. So it's a bit of a
2 makeshift into three separate areas -- four, actually.
3 Q And the four areas that that classroom is
4 divided into, does that account for the group portion of
5 the class meeting as well as the individual meeting
6 portions?
7 A It accounts for only on the group study.
8 Yeah. The individual -- we have an area that is divided
9 off to handle the one-on-one activity.
10 Q Okay. And is there an area that's also
11 available for counseling activity in the Dunwoody
12 facility?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And how large, how many offices are available
15 for counseling in the Dunwoody facility?
16 A Three.
17 Q So getting back to my question, which I don't
18 mean to be difficult, but we're still trying to figure
19 how to talk to one another.

Oh, yeah, that Scientology Communication course really does a lot of good!  Try one from the local college next time.  College works and it helps people.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 18:43
Quote
9 Q And how many additional volunteers does the
10 Georgia Scientology Church utilize on, say, on a weekly
11 basis?
12 A We probably have 10 or 12 volunteers who will
13 come in on a weekly basis, but they vary widely.
14 Q What kinds of activities would those
15 volunteers be allowed to do?
16 A They would help typically on our social
17 betterment campaigns, drug-free world, youth for human
18 rights, the way to happiness, volunteer ministers, or
19 they could come in and participate in any number of
20 projects that we have ongoing that are going to prepare
21 us to move into an ideal org situation. One of which is
22 getting our student and parishioner files in order.

Does that include access to the allegedly secret "auditing folders"?

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 19:06
Thanks for the notes on the pdfs and the Ideal Org origin comments! It sure looks like a Miscavige creation from the sounds of it.

More on the Ideal Org origin from Deb Danos:
Quote
11 Q All right. Are you familiar with the concept
12 of ideal organizations?
13 A Yes.
14 Q How long has that concept of ideal
15 organizations been in effect within the Scientology
16 community?
17 A I think Hubbard did some writing on it quite a
18 number of years ago in a bit of an abstract fashion, you
19 know, in direct naming this is what an ideal org should
20 be. It doesn't define space. But it talks about what
21 products one will get and what would be the environment
22 and, you know, kind of like the general feel and that --
23 it's a bit more abstract.
24 However, the ideal org evolution as we refer
25 to it did not really come into our purview here locally
1 until 2005 with the release of what we call the basic
2 books. Then we became notified that there had been a
3 project that had been ongoing researching the writings
4 and references and lectures and all of the material of
5 Hubbard to go over and pick out the points that referred
6 to specific requirements of space of an ideal org
7 setting and that this had now culminated into what would
8 be henceforth the template for every church.

Quote
13 Q What information, if any, has CSI provided to
14 Georgia Scientology in terms of what it requires in
15 development of the Roswell Road site?
16 A What we have been given were essentially a set
17 of plans, renderings and plans that were developed by
18 Gensler, which is an engineering design company,
19 architectural, and we were sent a set of renderings and
20 floor plans that were developed for our ideal
21 organization.

Quote
1 Q All right. I'm sorry. International
2 organization. And is it accurate to say that Georgia
3 Scientology is required to develop its facility in
4 accordance with plans that are going to be approved by
5 the international organization?
6 A Yes.
7 Q In other words, Georgia Scientology doesn't
8 have the ability to say "I think we can do this better a
9 different way" and then go off on its own and do
10 something differently?
11 A Well, not without some agreement. We could
12 suggest that.
13 Q Right. On the other hand, if it's not
14 feasible to build according to the first set of plans
15 received from the international organization, then any
16 revision would have to receive approval from the
17 international organization; is that correct?
18 A That is correct.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 19:45
LOL!  This thing is just full of odd little comments.

Ms. Jones is Andrea Cantrell Jones of Dillard & Galloway.

Quote
1 Q And then on the bridge there's an ethics
2 office. What is that about?
3 A That is where someone would go to receive some
4 suggested study in an area of deficiency in their life
5 where they have a hard time maintaining their integrity.
6 Q Okay.
7 A Was that well spoken?
8 MS. JONES: Yeah.
9 Q (By Ms. Henderson) All right.
10 MS. JONES: Don't want to go to the
11 ethics office.
12 MS. HENDERSON: You sound like you've
13 been there.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, haven't we all in
15 some fashion.

Quote
22 Q What about the larger course room that's in
23 the bottom of that central portion?
24 A Yeah. That would be what's called TRs and
25 objectives. And that is a -- that is a practice room.
1 It's typically very noisy. ...

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 21:42
Something current members might want to think about before starting on "the bridge":

Quote
1 Q Is there a point in time in which a bridge can
2 be completed?
3 A There is. Currently we have a specific
4 portion of the bridge that is available, yet there are
5 additional courses of study that have yet to be
6 released, and there are some requisite conditions that
7 have been outlined by the founder before they can be
8 released. And getting the ideal organizations all
9 established is one of those prerequisites.

10 Q So at this point in time the bridge cannot be
11 completed because all of the components have not yet
12 been released?
13 A That is correct.

Is this a Miscavige prerequisite, or a Hubbard one?  Can anyone point to where Hubbard said this?

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 26, 2010, 22:05
I think Ms. Henderson gets it.   ;)

Quote
14 I mean, it's just so -- it just
15 vacillates so very much. But Hubbard demands that
16 you have the space there and available on demand so
17 that if you had two people who walked in to the
18 church and on this day there was no Dianetic
19 seminar scheduled and they wanted that Dianetic
20 seminar, that the guy who's responsible for
21 delivering that would show up in there and deliver
22 that seminar to those two people. It's an on
23 demand kind of religion.

24 Q (By Ms. Henderson) There aren't many of those
25 around.

Q: An on demand kind of religion? 
A: Yeah, we demand money, they pay it.

Lol, we need to put together a Deb Danos priceless quotes post.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on December 27, 2010, 09:36
Within Allan Cartwrights affidavit, and his explanation of the tenets of scientology, nowhere do I see mention use of the E-Meter in the auditing process. Is not the E-Meter the foundation in which a scientologist gains knowledge of one self? I wonder why Mr Cartwright failed to make reference to this oh so holiest of holy devices?

I guess he didn't consider it relevant to parking issues or religious discrimination.  I would probably agree with him there.
  Mr Allan Cartwrights affidavit did not speak of or on religious discrimination or parking issues. As I reread the document, training,auditing and delivery of services per LRH were the bullet points. I still question why he would go into what a "Thetan" is, then how important auditing is, without fully explaining how the auditing process is accomplished within an idle org per LRH or DM's interpretation of LRH,s writings.

 I took the AC affidavit as an explanation or attempted explanation of what scientology is and how it is practiced. As I read more of the documents, it is becoming clear to me why C of S of Ga had not attempted to move into its 2005 purchased property in Sandy Springs. David Miscaviges manipulation of the works of LRH led to the rerelease of the "Basic's".

 This redefined what an "Ideal Org" was to be, both size and service delivery wise. RTC/CSI through David Miscavige and his need to meddle with what LRH meant for his so-called church has caused the local scientologists in Georgia to "NOT MEET" the so-called mother churches "NEW" definition of what constitutes an "Ideal Org".

 The local scientology community was screwed from day one with their purchase of the Sandy Springs property. David Miscavige was the cause. The RLUIPA law suit is the effect.

 I now understand why the building was never occupied after the 2005 purchase. SP David Miscavige has seen to that.

 Altered Basic's release via David Miscavige + 2005 Georgia scientologists Sandy Springs property purchase= Perfect fail storm.

 In a weird way I kinda feel sorry for the local culties. They appear to be following the old man (L Ron Hubbard) yet have been screwed by their sociopathic current leader, David Miscavige.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Lorelei on December 27, 2010, 20:58
Very interesting, and I appreciate the quoted bits.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 27, 2010, 22:34
Funny how so few people attend Sunday Service - and that only 7 of 600 supposed members are ministers, lol Funny too how Debbie admits that she had not attended service for at least 6 months, lol. Some "church member". This says alot about the service... and the membership

Defendant's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COME NOW the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, and its named elected officials, Defendants in the above-styled action and file this their Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the Church of Scientology of Georgia, is a religious organization that operates a church in Dunwoody, Georgia serving a state-wide congregation of 600 members, 100 of whom are currently active. Complaint ¶¶ 1, 17, 19. Plaintiff is the only Church of Scientology in the state and is classified within the religion as a “Class Five Organization.”1 Deposition

1 Scientology facilities are classified in one of four ways - as groups, missions, Class Five organizations, or advanced organizations. Wright Dep. p. 10-12. This classification is based on the size of the facilities, membership, and the types of services provided at the facility. Id. at 8-14.
1
Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP Document 43-1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 28
of Deborah Danos, p. 40, hereinafter “Danos Dep.”; Deposition of Robert Wright, p. 10-12, hereinafter “Wright Dep.”
In 2005, to accommodate future growth, Plaintiff sought to purchase a new facility. Complaint ¶ 20. The Church of Scientology International (CSI)2 mandated that all new church facilities conform to the template of a “Class Five Ideal Organization.” Complaint ¶ 35; Danos Dep. p. 50-51. While CSI had established some guidelines on the types of services to be provided in a “Class Five Ideal Organization,” as of 2005 it had yet to complete its study of the minimum space requirements necessary to house those services. Wright Dep. p. 44-46.

Despite this lack of guidance, in mid-2005 Plaintiff purchased an office building at 5395 Roswell Road, Sandy Springs, Georgia (the “Subject Property”). Complaint ¶¶ 37, 38; Doc. 42-2 p. 12. Situated on 1.78 acres, the Subject Property contains 32,053 square feet of improved office space in three finished stories as well as an 11,193 square foot basement parking garage. Complaint ¶¶ 37, 38; Declaration of Nancy J. Leathers ¶ 5, hereinafter “Leathers Decl.” The site is served by a total of 111 parking spaces – 51 on-site surface spaces, 30 on-site garage spaces, and 30 spaces provided for by an easement on the neighboring post office property. Complaint ¶ 48, Doc.

2 This is the senior ecclesiastical management church for the Scientology religion. Complaint ¶ 34.2

Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP Document 43-1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 28
42-2 p. 22. There is no other available off-site or public parking within the vicinity of the Subject Property to handle potential overflow. Leathers Decl. ¶ 5.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-21-2010_Defendents_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement-43-1.pdf

12 Q How many ministers are associated with Georgia
13 Scientology?
14 A Well, let's see. I can tell you how many are
15 on staff. Beyond that, I just have no idea.
16 Q That's a better question. How many are on
17 staff?
18 A Currently on staff -- let me make a quick
19 count here. Seven, I believe, roughly. This might not
20 be exact, but I believe seven are ministers.
21 Q And does Georgia Scientology hold Sunday
22 services at the present time?
23 A Yes, we do.
24 Q What is the average attendance at a Sunday
25 service?
Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP Document 44-1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 45 of 128
46
1 A I can only tell you from my personal
2 observation which has not been recent. But the last
3 time I was in the Sunday service or looked in on the
4 Sunday service there were eight to ten people there.
5 Q Okay. And how long ago was that?
6 A Probably six months ago.
7 Q How long does that Sunday service last?
8 A It's an hour.
9 Q Okay. Does Georgia Scientology offer course
10 work and auditing at the same time as the Sunday service
11 is happening?
12 A They could. It could. But typically you will
13 have people who are welcome to leave the course room and
14 attend the Sunday service. So sometimes everyone in the
15 course room goes and sometimes only two or three people
16 will go. If you are in a counseling session, then there
17 is no interruption.
18 Q Okay.
19 A So you could conceivably be appointmented to
20 counseling while Sunday service is going on.
21 Q How long do counseling appointments last?
22 A They vary greatly from individual to
23 individual. So the length of time is a judgment call
24 essentially on the part of the minister.
25 Q Is there a range that you can give me as to an

Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP Document 44-1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 46 of 128
47
1 average range?
2 A Anywhere from 15 minutes to three or four
3 hours.
4 Q Okay. Well, that's a range. So on any given
5 Sunday there will be a Sunday service of approximately
6 an hour's duration?
7 A Mm-hmm.
8 Q There will be training programs going on,
9 participants of which may or may not leave to attend the
10 Sunday service?
11 A Mm-hmm.
12 Q And there may be auditing going on at the same
13 time; is that correct?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on December 27, 2010, 22:39
Mary. To your knowledge, has Deb Danos ever appeared in other court cases? Has she ever been deposed?

 Quoted from Deborah Quinn Danos deposition

Quote
23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on December 28, 2010, 00:08
Mary. To your knowledge, has Deb Danos ever appeared in other court cases? Has she ever been deposed?

Quoted from Deborah Quinn Danos deposition

Quote
23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.

To my knowledge, no. But she is being sued by CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES INC in Dekalb Co Court and is a defendent with C of S in the lease breach of contract lawsuit in that county.

DANOS  DEBORAH   DEFENDANT  10M92513  Magistrate Civil Suits  Magistrate
Citifinancial Services Inc Vs Deborah Danos  22-NOV-2010  OPEN Case: 10M92513 (Open) CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES INC VS DEBORAH DANOS
Filing Date: 11/22/2010 Type: Magistrate Civil Suits
Judge: Berryl A. Anderson Magistrate Court
Secondary: General Civil Other
Tertiary:
 Docket Entries           
Description Filing Date Text Assoc. Party?
 SERVICE, PERSONAL  24-NOV-2010  JCW  Yes
 FILING FEE  22-NOV-2010  AO-25.00 SER CK#1046344553  No
 PAYMENT  22-NOV-2010  A Payment of -$76.50 was made on receipt MCMA204214.
 
and

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC.  DEFENDANT  10CV13242  Superior General Civil  Superior  Waterford Park Vs. Church Of Scientology (Tb) 
23-NOV-2010  OPEN 
Case Information           
Case: 10CV13242 (Open) WATERFORD PARK VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (TB) Filing Date: 11/23/2010 Type: Superior General Civil
Judge: GAIL C. FLAKE Superior Court
Secondary: Breach Of Contract
   
    Parties           
Party Type
WATERFORD PARK LLC Plaintiff
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
PS ENERGY GROUP INC Plaintiff
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
J K COMPLEX LLC Assignee Of
    GOLOMB, JEFFREY Attorney
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC. Defendant  
   Docket Entries           
Description Filing Date Text Assoc. Party?
 NO SERVICE  03-DEC-2010  DEFENDANT DEBORAH DANOS MOVED, VACANT SUITE. (WS)  No
 
MISCELLANEOUS  24-NOV-2010  SHERIFF SERVICE SENT. (WS)  No
 
COMPLAINT FILED  23-NOV-2010  FOR BREACH OF COMMERCIAL LEASE, WITH EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS. RECEIPT #661 AMOU...more  No
 
REQUEST  23-NOV-2010  FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS (NW)  No
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on December 29, 2010, 13:38
 Having read Deborah Quinn Danos deposition several times, I come to the conclusion something is very amiss in many of her responses. I think Deb Danos is not telling the truth in that deposition. This is just my personal opinion.

 Why or how do I come by this opinion? Well, a simple Google search revealed a wealth of online public information on Deborah Danos, Former DSA out of Denver/Boulder Colorado. For someone who acts as though she does not or claims to not know the inner working of her so called religious organization, I will let you the reader come to your own conclusion on why she could be so vague about several things asked in the Sandy Springs deposition, yet seems to be the go to girl as DSA back in the mid 1990'S in Colorado.

 For clarification, please reread Deborah Quinn Danos Sandy Springs deposition, then read the links and information I have added to this thread.

 http://mektek.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t109872-50.html

Quote
Hello, Last week this email below was sent to you. This week Our Org received notice that a group called "Anonymous"will be picketing the Org on 10 feb.2008. That is next sunday. Please check your email often this coming week,because we want everyone there for support, to be on course, to man the VM tent and perhaps some other actions as well. You will be receiving an email from our DSA Deb Danos mid-week. Now is the time to support the Org!


SIGNS of SUCCESS


"Whenever we're really winning, the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel.

They howl or make trouble when we're winning.

Spectacular success can quadruple the number of complaints. Tell the complainees: "Come in,

get Clear." Otherwise skip it.

To understand a squirrel,consider the reaction of somebody who could not run the fifth leg of Help, "How could another person help another person." The thought of this drives some people spinny. That's

a squirrel. They can't view other people helping others without going berserk.

There's nothing personal in having squirrels. Even heroes can have lice."

L. Ron Hubbard HCOB of 1 MAY 1958


Have you noticed that there are a few squirrels gathering 'round? Above is the LRH answer for dealing with squirrels. With an Ideal Org in Georgia we can keep more squirrels in the trees where they belong.

Please Donate today for OUR IDEAL ORG


ORG PHONE 770-522-8983

� 2007 CSGA. All rights reserved. SCIENTOLOGY and LRH, are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center and are used with its permission. Services relating to Scientology religious philosophy are delivered throughout the world exclusively by licensees of the Church of Scientology International and with the permission of Religious Technology Center, holder of the SCIENTOLOGY and DIANETICS trademarks.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/6c4713c07f4c6dd8/14d28739143eaa78?hl

Quote
The dumbest move of the picket was
when DSA of Denver, Deb Danos had the sign saying "Wollersheim used
Penny."   

http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci544.htm

Quote
cut to Deb Danos speaking to the crowd who has gathered
around to listen-

http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf11.html


http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32898&p=381863&hilit=Deb+Danos#p381863

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Bob_Penny/Marshals_raid_homes_of_former_Scientologists.txt
Quote
Deborah Danos, director of special affairs for the church, said the
information Penny put on the Internet is not readily available to the
public. It can be obtained only as each member advances to the next step
of "spiritual enlightenment."

"There is freedom of speech, but not freedom to break copyrights," Danos
said at Penny's home on Tuesday. "He's making a mockery of it ...
spreading (material) around the world and saying 'Look how ridiculous this
is.' " The church became aware of the sit uation when one of its members
found the information about Scientology on the Internet.

Danos said the church will not allow it to continue.
Quote
From The Boulder Daily Camera Aug 23 1995 Font Page


HEADLINE: Marshals raid homes of former Scientologists

SUB HEADER: ACLU lawyer sees appalling lack of due process

By DOUG COSPER
Camera Staff Writer


Delegations of Scientologists searched two Boulder County homes Tuesday
under the protection of federal marshals, seizing thousands of dollars in
computer equipment and data they claim were used to violate copyrights on
"sacred scriptures."

Directors of FACTNet, an Internet bulletin board dedicated largely to
criticizing the church of Scientology, said after the simultaneous raids
that the Scientologists also got a bonus: a list of thousands of their
enemies.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer at one raid in Boulder called the
action "appalling."

"With my own eyes, I witnessed a member of Scientology going through
drawers and closets," said Denver attorney David Lane. "What kind of a
country is this when your sworn enemy can go into your house and rummage
through your drawers at the point of a fed eral marshal's gun?"

The Church of Scientology, founded 40 years ago by science fiction writer
L. Ron Hubbard, teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve
human problems. It can cost thousands of dollars for initiates to progress
through the church's teachings and counseling. Church spokeswoman Karin
Pouw said the organization has 8 million members worldwide.

Beginning about 9 a.m., parties of federal marshals and Scientology
members entered the homes of Lawrence Wollersheim in Boulder and Bob Penny
in Niwot. Both men are former Scientologists who turned against the church
after being excommunicated.

(See HOMES, Page 2A)

HEADLINE: Homes of ex-Scientologists raided (From Page 1A)

Denver copyright lawyer Todd Blakely, who was at the Wollersheim raid to
represent the church, said the marshals were enforcing a federal seizure
warrant for Scientology "religious text" protected by federal copyright
and trade secret laws. Pouw, who flew with colleagues from Los Angeles for
the actions, said the men had posted protected "religious secrets" on the
Internet newsgroup "alt.religion.scientology" and threatened to continue.

The church "scriptures" are guarded under lock and key at six locations
across the globe, said Blakely, who is not a church member. Pouw said that
because only members who had "reached a certain level in the church" had
access to them, a church member must have stolen them.

"It's our constitutional right to have religious secrets," Pouw said.
"(Wollersheim) is on a hate campaign against Scientology, and he's chosen
the wrong target."

Wollersheim, who said he was a part-time computer consultant, said FACTNet
is a nonprofit archive "dedicated to exposing information on dangerous
cults and mind control." He called Scientology "the largest secret satanic
cult in the world."

Wollersheim, 46, who was a Scientologist from age 18 to 29, said he won a
$30 million verdict against the church in a previous lawsuit. Pouw said
Wollersheim has not collected any of the $2.5 million reduced award.
Wollersheim also is helping Time magazin e defend against a $470 million
libel suit the church filed following a 1991 news story about the church.
The raids were not the first by the church against critics who would
publish what the church calls protected material. Acting on a similar
federal warrant, the church a few weeks ago seized former Scientologist
minister Dennis Erlich's computer diskettes and files from his Glendale,
Calif., home.

On Aug. 12, a raid shut down Virginia critic Arnaldo Lerma, a 44year-old
former member.

"This raid is not about copyrighted documents, it's about the church
beating up on its adversaries," Wollersheim said.

U.S. Marshal Chief Deputy Larry Homenick said the federal marshals were
enforcing a private civil seizure brought by the church and ordered by a
federal court in Denver.

"Our only role is to provide a law enforcement presence and execute the
order of the court. We allow the plaintiff (the church) to seize the
property: We don't have the expertise to identify the objects. We
inventory it and hand it over to them pending further litigation,"
Homenick said.

Along with the seized computer hardware and software, data storage devices
and paper documents, the Scientologists took a mailing list of 8,50d
"donors and former church members" who support FACTNet and "who are very
afraid of Scientology," Wollersheim sa id.

Attorney Lane said: "There are names of persons in these files who have
escaped Scientology and changed their names, started new lives.: They're
now in the hands of Scientologists."

Pouw said the church would do nothing with the list.

"Experts are going through the material looking for key words of
copyrighted material. Everything not copyrighted will be returned," she
said.

Two federal judges denied Lane's request Tuesday for a hearing in which
Wollersheim and Penny could have presented their cases against handing
over the seized materials to the church, Lane said.:

"This country is founded on principles of due process, and this is as far
from due process as you can get," he said.

But regardless of the outcome of the federal civil suits behind the raids,
many of the church texts have been downloaded into hard drives across the
country already, said Penny, the retired founder of the Boulder software
company Small Systems Design Inc.

"They're already everywhere; they'll be popping up on the net. Certainly
not from us, but that no longer matters," he said.

From The Longmont Daily Times Call Aug 22 1995 Front Page
HEADLINE: Marshals raid homes in county

Pam Regensberg and B.J. Plasket The Daily Times-Call

NIWOT-U S. Marshals raided Niwot and Boulder homes today seizing computer
software, hardware and other electronic gear to halt what the Church of
Scientology claims is copyright infringement.

Church officials claim Bob Penny of Niwot and Larry Wollersheim of
Boulder, who were both reportedly excommunicated from the church, placed
copyrighted Scientology material on the Internet.

However, Penny, speaking through a friend over the telephone today, said
the material that was placed on the Internet was legally obtained
information from court documents. The material placed on the electronic
bulletin board was information taken from a California case in which
Steven Fishman sued the church and won over a similar copyright case.

At noon today, marshals were boxing up Penny's be

See RAID/A9

RAID: Continued from page A1
longings.

According to a press release issued by a church spokesperson, today's
search and seizure follows a similar raid 10 days ago on a colleague of
Wollersheim's and Penny's in Virginia.

"The courts take these matters very seriously," said the plaintiff's
Denver lawyer, Todd Blakely. "The law is clear-if you are going to violate
copyrights, you will have to answer for it in court."

Gail Armstrong, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Los
Angeles; scoffed at claims the materials were in the public domain because
they were contained in a public court record.

"The fact that copyrighted material is contained in a court record does
not at all mean the copyright can be violated," she said. "Anything filed
in court does not become public domain if it is copyrighted."

Helena Kobrin, cited by the church as an intellectual property law expert,
also discounted the argument that Wollersheim and Penny's right to free
speech allows them to place the copyrighted material on the Internet.

"Violators of copyright and trade secret laws traditionally try to hide
behind free speech claims," she said. "The church is a strong advocate of
free speech, however free speech does not mean free theft and no one has
the right to cloak themselves in the First Amendment to break the law."

Tina Rowe, the head of the U.S. Marshal's office in Denver, was
unavailable for comment on the raid at press time this afternoon.


From the Longmont Daily times Call Aug 23 1995 Front Page
HEADLINE: SPEECH VS. RELIGION

SUBHEAD: Ex-Scientologist says church duped judge into issuing warrant

Pam Regensberg and B.J. Plasket The Daily Times-Call

NIWOT-Bob Penny continues to deny the Church of Scientology's allegations
that he violated United States copyright laws, despite a court order to
hand over items believed to contain secret church information.

The 53-year-old ex-Scientologist said church officials somehow duped a
judge into issuing a search and seizure order.

Three church members along with their photographers and U.S. marshals
showed up at Penny's Niwot home Tuesday at 9 a.m. with the order in hand.

"It's the sort of thing the Church of Scientology does all the time,"
Penny said.

The church has accused Penny and Larry Wollersheim of Boulder of placing
private church information on an electronic bulletin

 See PENNY/All
PENNY:
Continued from Page A1
board they established.

The information includes steps to "spiritual enlightenment."

Penny denies that, but admits to placing information about cults on the
Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network (FACTNet Inc.,), that was run from
Penny's home.

In a brochure supplied by FACTNet, the board of directors - Penny,
Wollersheim and Jon Atack-describe themselves at "victims of coercive mind
control."

Penny claims the Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult that is
responsible for 300 suicides or attempted suicides. The organization is
the brainchild of L. Ron Hubbard, author of Dianetics. Penny was a member
for 13 years before he left.

Deborah Danos, director of special affairs for the church, said the
information Penny put on the Internet is not readily available to the
public. It can be obtained only as each member advances to the next step
of "spiritual enlightenment."

"There is freedom of speech, but not freedom to break copyrights," Danos
said at Penny's home on Tuesday. "He's making a mockery of it ...
spreading (material) around the world and saying 'Look how ridiculous this
is.' " The church became aware of the sit uation when one of its members
found the information about Scientology on the Internet.

Danos said the church will not allow it to continue.

Tina Rowe, who heads the U.S. Marshal's Office in Denver, said the seizure
was a routine execution of a federal court order. Computer software,
hardware, a fax machine and several files were taken from Penny's home. In
Boulder, a similar operation took pl ace at Wollersheim's home.

"This was not at all an unusual thing," Rowe said Tuesday. "We got an
order from the federal court and are carrying it out. "It is still in
progress and is going along smoothly. It has been a situation without
incident."

Rowe said she is not familiar with the details of the case-only the order
to seize certain items from the homes.

Wollersheim claims he is being denied due process. The marshals just
showed up and began taking items.

Ann Weber, Penny's friend who was with him during the seizure, said Penny
was not surprised when the marshals arrived.

He called her and told her, "Now you will believe when I told you this is
what they do."

A federal judge is now reviewing the search and seizure order. But, for
now, Penny and Wollersheim are out of business.




 Now how on earth has this women not ever given a court deposition in the past????

 Quote taken from Deborah Quinn Danos recent Sandy Springs Ga deposition.

Quote
23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.

 I find it interesting that an individual so involved with US MARSHAL'S in a lawsuit AND an onsite search and seizure has never be deposed in the past. Or during divorce proceedings? Quess thats just me thinking out load here.

 Then as I Google a little further, I fall out of my chair over Deborah Quinn Danos past DSA actions as a Boulder Colorado counter protester.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci413.htm
Quote
(3) I asked Deb Danos if she thought a post containing six lines from
    OTVII could be cancelled by the cult.  She said "yes".  Deb also
    mentioned that the cancellations has been brought up in court Friday,
    but she didn't mention any details.
Quote
(6) Gender:  At the Boulder picket, there were two male scientologists when
    we started:  Anderson and Bob.  The other three pickets, Deb, and the
    rest (Until Rex Fowler and the clear showed up) were all females.  Do
    you think this was intentional?

 Now where have I heard the name REX FOWLER before??? Rex Fowler was a fellow counter protester with Deb Danos in Boulder Colorado. William Rex Fowler is a HIGH LEVEL public scientologist. An OT-7 if I am correct. Well it seems Mr Fowler may have done something horrible to a father and former employee. Please read below.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/rex-fowler-scientology-co_n_440371.html

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14853655
Quote
No bail for accused murderer Rex Fowler
Quote
BRIGHTON — An Adams County District Court judge today ordered William Rex Fowler, 58, to face first-degree murder charges in the Dec. 31, 2009 shooting of Tom Ciancio.

Judge Francis Wasserman also denied bail for Fowler.

Fowler is accused of shooting Ciancio, 42, three times in the head with a 9mm Glock handgun when Ciancio came to Fowler Software in unincorporated Adams County to collect $9,900 in severance pay. Ciancio, who was Fowler Software's chief operating officer, resigned Nov. 23 in a dispute over the way the company was being managed.

Prosecutors said during a preliminary hearing today that Fowler lured Ciancio to his office to commit a murder suicide.

Investigators say Fowler shot Ciancio three times in the head and then shot himself under the chin in attempt to end his own life.

Prosecutors said they found notes written by Fowler to his wife, and also a living will they say indicated he was going to commit suicide after taking Ciancio's life.

"Fowler took care of his own business before he took care of his own suicide," the prosecutor said.

Fowler's attorney said at worst, her client should face second-degree murder charges.

"This was a professional dispute and it was not based on first-degree murder," defense attorney Sarah Quinn said.

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?t=William+Rex+Fowler

 IF I were say legal counsel, which I am not, I would vet the above information, then think long and hard about some of the responses made by Deborah Quinn Danos within her deposition to the attorney questioning her on behalf of the City of Sandy Springs Georgia in this current RLUIPA case.


















Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 29, 2010, 17:39
This post will likely be of interest to anyone following the RLUIPA case: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6309.msg15136.html#msg15136

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on December 29, 2010, 21:08
Now how on earth has this women not ever given a court deposition in the past????
...
 IF I were say legal counsel, which I am not, I would vet the above information, then think long and hard about some of the responses made by Deborah Quinn Danos within her deposition to the attorney questioning her on behalf of the City of Sandy Springs Georgia in this current RLUIPA case.

It is possible to be involved in a lawsuit without being deposed.  I'm not saying this is the case with Deb Danos, but the court must deal in known facts, not speculation.   ;)

I'm sure Ms. Henderson is aware that sometimes people lie, even in depositions. 

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on January 17, 2011, 08:26
I'm not sure whether this was mentioned elsewhere or not, but apparently the church has filed two lawsuits (Deposition of Deb Danos), one in federal court and the other in state court. If so, it would have been filed in Fulton County (probably a land use appeal).

While no one can predict what a judge will do, the federal case does not appear to have much merit.

On a lighter note, the church's law firm (Dillard and Galloway), does not list them on its website as one of their representative clients.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 17, 2011, 08:55
Quote
On a lighter note, the church's law firm (Dillard and Galloway), does not list them on its website as one of their representative clients.
  :D
LOL

We were aware of the other case. I don't believe much of anything has been posted about it. Your assessment of the federal case is appreciated.


Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 17, 2011, 11:30
skydog has done some much appreciated analysis on the Federal case over at ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=19468
(Y'all just ignore all that off-topic stuff going on in that thread, ok?  ;) )

Thanks, skydog.   L-O-:

On a lighter note, the church's law firm (Dillard and Galloway), does not list them on its website as one of their representative clients.

Why am I not surprised?   8-^*
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 17, 2011, 20:37
Just curious if you can tell us, skydog, after all these declarations, depositions and the motion for summary judgement, what's next? 

How does a case like this usually continue?  I mean, what is the legal procedure, what will get filed next, and when is it likely to go to court?

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on January 19, 2011, 13:53
A motion for summary judgment can be filed in a civil (not criminal) case by either (sometimes by both) the plaintiff or the defendant. It essentially says there are no facts in dispute and the issue to be resolved is a question of law. The judge will now look at all the affidavits, depositions, and stipulations of facts, etc. filed by the parties to determine whether there are any disputed facts that need to be decided by a magistrate or jury. If the court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to any  "material facts", the court will review the law and decide the case on the facts presented. A material fact is a fact that will affect the outcome of the case. For example, in the Headley labor case, the trial court concluded as a matter of law (wrongly in my opinion) that Marc and Claire were religious volunteers rather than employees. If the court determines there are disputed facts that will affect its decision, it will schedule a hearing either before a jury or magistrate to decide those facts.

The next step in the process is that court will schedule oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment and it may be several months after that before a decision is made. Since the city of Sandy Springs filed the motion, if granted, the court will enter judgment for them. If the court denies the motion, it means that there will be a trial.






Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 22, 2011, 16:02
Thanks once more, skydog.  I appreciate your patience with the questions.

So if the judge decides to accept the summary judgement, it would be over?  That is, once he decides whether the city is entitled to costs of the lawsuit or now?

Is it then possible for the "church" to appeal the decision?  And is this a precident-setting type of case?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 30, 2011, 19:07
New documents incoming:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/53-0_12-22-2010_Joint_Mot_to_Extend_Deadlines_for_Resp_to_Sum_Judg_Mot.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/58-0_2011-01-12_Defendants_Memo_of_Law_Opposing_Plaintiffs_motion.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/60-0_2011-01-12_Defendants_response_to_plaintiffs_statement_of_undisputed.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/61-0_2011-01-12_Def_Mot_to_Strike.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/61-1_2011-01-12_Def_Memo_of_Law_in_Supp_of_Their_Mot_to_Strike.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/62_2011-01-12_Joint_Mot_to_Extend_Deadline_for_Resp_to_Def_Sum_Jud_Mot.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/63_2011-01-18_Consent_Order.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/64_2011-01-26_Pl_Opposition_to_Mot_to_Strike.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/65_2011-01-26_Pl_ReplytoDef_Resp_to_Pl_StateMaterial.pdf

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/66_2011-01-26_Pl_ReplytoDef_Resp_to_Pl_Motion.pdf

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on January 30, 2011, 21:13
Do you have any idea when will the judge rule on these? Most likely the motion to strike will come first - but I'm curious when it will all be ruled on.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 31, 2011, 18:40
I have no idea myself, but skydog said it might be several months.  I guess it's true what they say abut "the wheels of justice."

I have to wonder what they're spending on lawyer's fees for this - it could have gone to pay the rent at their N. Shallowford location, or for upkeep and renovations on the building itself.  I hope Attorney Galloway didn't make any kinds of deals with them like "I'll get the rezoning approved, or your RLUIPA case is free."   :D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 02, 2011, 21:25
Sorry for the length of this post;

Case Summary
The CoS filed a Fourteen Count Complaint in Federal Court against the City of Sandy Springs and various individuals seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees.  Each of the fourteen counts is a separate cause of action meaning that the church can win the lawsuit if it prevails on any one of these counts. Most of the counts are related and can be broken down as follows: 1) Freedom of religion claims; 2) Equal protection claims; 3) Freedom of speech and assembly claims; and 4) State and federal condemnation claims. The freedom of religion claims include the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Georgia Constitution has similar guarantees including freedom of conscience and religion.
In a nutshell, the church claims that they cannot practice their religion unless they have at least a 40,000 square foot building. With respect to the issue of parking, they claim that the proposed facility provides ample parking (111 spaces) and the city’s insistence on more (130 spaces) is the result of discriminatory application of the zoning regulations and results in the denial of a plethora of constitutional rights. Consequently, they are asking the court to issue a ruling forcing the city to grant their application and pay them for their trouble.

Civil Procedure in General

Pleadings are the formal documents filed with the court by the respective parties stating their claims and defenses. The plaintiff will begin a lawsuit by filing a complaint; the defendant responds by filing an answer. The defendant may also file a counter-claim. If a counter-claim is filed, the defendant becomes the plaintiff in the counter-claim; the plaintiff (defendant in counter-claim) then files an answer. Taken together, these documents define and narrow the issues the court must decide. Once the pleadings have closed-the defendant has answered the complaint-the case is set down for a trial.

In most cases, either party may be entitled to have the disputed factual issues resolved by a jury. In some cases, there is no right to a jury trial. The parties are not entitled to a jury trial in cases seeking injunctive relief or declaratory judgment-remedies sought in this case. These are equitable remedies and there is no right to a jury trial; the judge, after hearing the evidence, will resolve any disputed facts. However, because there are fourteen counts, the parties may be entitled to a jury trial on some of those counts.



Summary Judgment

Before trial, either or both parties may file a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motions says there are no disputed facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding this motion the court looks at the pleadings filed by the parties, the discovery material (interrogatories and depositions), and any other exhibits filed in support of or opposition to the motion.

The court has three options; it may grant the motion; it may deny the motion; or may grant the motion in part and deny it in part. Unless the motion is granted, the decision is not final and may not be appealed by either party. The court has simply said there are disputed facts that need to be resolved with a trial and no judgment can be entered until a judge or jury resolves these facts.

If the motion is granted-there are no genuine issues of fact-the court will then enter judgment for the moving party. If the motion is granted, it is a final judgment that can be appealed by the losing party. Again, since there are fourteen counts in the complaint, the court may grant summary judgment on some of the counts and not on others. The losing party may be required to appeal those decisions but some jurisdictions allow the parties to wait until all counts have been decided.

In this case, both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The church has moved for partial summary judgment on its religious discrimination claims. If granted, the court would then have a trial on the remaining issues-the appropriate remedy to be applied. The city has also moved for summary judgment on all counts. If granted, the church would lose and probably file an appeal.

Merits of the case

While no one can predict what a court will decide, it is my opinion that there is not much merit to the church’s claims. The church’s principle contention is that the parking requirements should be governed by the zoning regulations pertaining to “churches and other places of worship”. If that regulation were applied, the plan submitted by the church would provide for three times that required under that section of the regulation. If that were the only fact looked at, it would indeed appear that something was remiss in the application process.

Unfortunately for the church, its argument is seriously undermined by the facts of record. Pride is considered the most serious of the deadly sins in every religion but scientology; there it is considered a virtue. Their complaint is a self-serving testament to the wonders of scientology and the superiority of its beliefs and practices. (See, Complaint, ¶¶ 17-36) It is a religion of such technological advancement that its scriptures accurately dictate the exact amount of square footage required to provide optimal spiritual advancement.

At every stage of the proceedings they went to great lengths to demonstrate that they were not like “churches and other places of worship” but now complain because the city took them at their word. One of the ironies of this case is had they been truthful, they need far fewer than 111 parking spaces. They currently need less than 40 spaces at their existing facility; they have no more than 100 active members in the greater Atlanta area. This number has remained fairly constant for the last ten years and probably longer. Despite the claims of church management, the traffic studies of Nashville and Buffalo are evidence of a religion with few adherents. Yet Deb Danos, in all her vainglory glibly states that there will be 100 staff members in the building on a daily basis and the public will beat down the doors to receive training and auditing.

The statutory and case law does not support the church. They must demonstrate that the city’s action imposed a substantial burden on the practice of their religion. Case law in the 11th circuit (include Georgia) is clear that they must show more than an inconvenience. There is case law that holds that insufficient space does not amount to a “substantial burden”. There is no evidence that the church could not sell the property and move to a larger location. While this might be inconvenient for the church, it does not impose a substantial burden as that term is defined.





Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 02, 2011, 21:33
Thanks skydog! 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 02, 2011, 21:40
Sorry for the length of this post;

No need to apologize, skydog; we love it!   TYVM!

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 02, 2011, 21:51
Do you have any idea when will the judge rule on these? Most likely the motion to strike will come first - but I'm curious when it will all be ruled on.

The matter will be set down for oral argument on the cross motions for summary judgement. My guess is the court will probably hear argument on the motions to strike at that time. It is anyone's guess when he/she will make a decision but the local rules may require a decision within a certain amount of time. Even if there is, that deadline can be extended with the agreement of the parties. 

As far at the merits of those motions, the city appears to have the legal edge and have provided citations to legal authority that appears dispositive. The church, on the other hand, cites no cases in support of the admissibility Lawrence's testimony. With respect to Danos' testimony stating the lack of space was a substantial burden, that appears to be a legal conclusion rather than a statement of fact. The church cites a lower court decision from California that held that inadequate space creates a substantial burden. However, there are other lower court decisions from other jurisdictions that hold that lack of space does not create a substantial burden.

This may be an example of a disputed fact that needs to be litigated. From my read of the depositions, it would be a lot of fun to cross examine the church officials on that point.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 04, 2011, 23:49
I just have to wonder what the people involved who were unaware of Scientology until this started are thinking about it now.  (Laurel Henderson, Nancy Leathers, even Woodie Galloway, for instance.)  I mean, it must look pretty peculiar to them, that the square footage of a building is so important to the strange rituals of moving from one room to another for this "religion".

Of course, they can't say anything like this, in the legal surroundings, but I'd love to hear what tell their families when they go home. 

 :-D^\^\

The responses in the depositions make Scientology look even weirder than it already did to those of us who know something about it.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on February 22, 2011, 12:04
Looking forward to any updates, especially any court reportings if someone gets the chance to sit in :)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 02, 2011, 21:46
Here are some updates:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.0.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_68.0.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_69.0.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14.70.0.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.0.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-main.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-1_exhibit.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-2_exhibit.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_73_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_74_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_75_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_76_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_77_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_78_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_79_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_80_w_exhibits.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_81.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf

Haven't had the chance to look at these, so if anyone else wants to summarize which files are what, be my guest.   :)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 02, 2011, 22:30
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.2.pdf

I would just like to point out this information in relation to the statements in the above documents from 2004:

Quote
http://www.fultonassessor.org/Main/Home.aspx
PARID: 17 006900010514   
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC   5395 ROSWELL RD
Sales
Sale Date   Sale Price   Grantee                                  Grantor
17-NOV-05   $5,600,000   CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF                 HAMMOND PROPERTY INVESTORS
06-JUN-05   $4,600,000   HAMMOND PROPERTY INVESTORS               KIRBO PROPERTY SERVICES LLC
06-JUN-05   $3,550,000   KIRBO PROPERTY SERVICES LLC              JPMORGAN CHASE BANK
03-FEB-04   $0           JPMORGAN CHASE BANK                      REALMARK VII LP

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on March 03, 2011, 09:58
A quick read of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf), shows that Deb Danos lied under oath when testifying about their lease of the Shallowford Rd. space. A brief excerpt:

Quote
Contrary to the sworn deposition testimony of Deborah Danos, the lease for the North Shallowford Road property was for a three (3) year and seven (7) month term ending on April 15, 2011, subject to an earlier termination provided certain conditions were met. Compare Exh. 2, p. 3, 17 with Doc. 44-1, p. 34-35. The lease demonstrates that, absent termination which could not have immediately occurred due to necessary construction at the new facility, Plaintiff was obligated to pay this rent irrespective of the City’s zoning decision.

I'm pretty sure that most judges disapprove of perjurers! {=lies=}

And I'll bet the other documents listed above will prove equally entertaining!

'til next time!
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on March 03, 2011, 10:29
 Another brief excerpt, this time from http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_80_w_exhibits.pdf (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_80_w_exhibits.pdf):

Quote
10.
The church paid approximately $500,000.00 to Gensler, the
architecture firm that created the space plans for the building
to be developed as a 43,916 square foot worship facility. Id. ¶
10.
RESPONSE: Undisputed.
11.
As a result of the City’s denial, the Gensler plans cannot
be used in their current form and would need to be substantially
revised. Id. ¶ 11.
RESPONSE: Disputed. The existing O-I zoning on the property
limited the use to 32,053 square feet of offices. Exh. 3, p. 2,
10-11. Nothing about the City’s decision to maintain the square
footage limitation already on the property rendered these plans
unusable. Id. Gensler’s space plans have never been usable based
on the pre-existing limitations on the property that Plaintiff
chose to ignore. Id.

I love that last sentence; it neatly encapsulates the denial of reality required of scientologists! _/?%

'ti next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 05, 2011, 13:16
These are the same files listed above, with notations as to what they contain.  I hope this will make reading more pleasant for everyone.

Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.0.pdf

Plaintiff's Exhibit I - Completed Staff Work, Situation: Atlanta Org requires larger quarters in order to create an Ideal Org and an island of sanity in the Southeast, October 7, 2004
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_67.2.pdf

Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc.'s Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts in Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_68.0.pdf

Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_01_31_69.0.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW REPLYING TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14.70.0.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.0.pdf

Dillard & Galloway, LLC, Church offer to compromise
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_71.1.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-main.pdf

Certified copy of civil proceedings in Case Number 10CV13242-4, Waterford Park, LLC and PS Energy Group, Inc.  Assignees of JK Complex, LLC vs. Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. A Georgia Corporation                         
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-1_exhibit.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_72-2_exhibit.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_73_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_74_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_75_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_76_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_77_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_78_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_79_w_exhibits.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_14_80_w_exhibits.pdf

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - William Charles Hayes and enters an appearance as additional counsel on behalf of all Defendants in the above-styled action. Laurel E. Henderson remains lead counsel in the case. 
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_81.pdf

DEFENDANTS’ AMENDMENT TO THEIR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011_02_16_82.pdf

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on March 07, 2011, 13:35
It is unfortunate that so many innocent trees be killed are killed in the name of due process. I was actually impressed with the church's brief until I read the city's response: "Defying all logic and reason, Plaintiff maintains that 41 parking spaces are adequate to serve a 43,215 square foot facility purposefully located next to major highways and one of the busiest intersections in Atlanta so as “to be accessible by ... local Scientologists and those coming from surrounding states.” Doc. 67-1 pp. 1-2 (emphasis added); Doc 67-2 p. 1; Doc. 69 pp. 6, 10, 13. Defendants, however, are not required to accept Plaintiff’s delusions."Emphasis mine.

These documents are all being filed to narrow the issues. At some point the court will decide this motion for summary judgment; in the meantime, the church is being sued for unpaid rent on one former location and allowing the new property to fall into disrepair.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 07, 2011, 18:13
It is unfortunate that so many innocent trees be killed are killed in the name of due process. I was actually impressed with the church's brief until I read the city's response: "Defying all logic and reason, Plaintiff maintains that 41 parking spaces are adequate to serve a 43,215 square foot facility purposefully located next to major highways and one of the busiest intersections in Atlanta so as “to be accessible by ... local Scientologists and those coming from surrounding states.” Doc. 67-1 pp. 1-2 (emphasis added); Doc 67-2 p. 1; Doc. 69 pp. 6, 10, 13. Defendants, however, are not required to accept Plaintiff’s delusions."Emphasis mine.

I liked that part a lot too.   C{{O}}

Quote
These documents are all being filed to narrow the issues. At some point the court will decide this motion for summary judgment; in the meantime, the church is being sued for unpaid rent on one former location and allowing the new property to fall into disrepair.

And all the while spending who knows how much on the RLUIPA suit. 

Thanks for your input, skydog.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 08, 2011, 20:52
Quote
Case Reassigned to Judge Amy Totenberg. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr no longer assigned to case. NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Judge designation in the civil action number assigned to this case has been changed to 1:10-cv-82-AT. Please make note of this change in order to facilitate the docketing of pleadings in this case. (adg) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 08, 2011, 21:14
Quote
Federal judicial career

In February 2009, Totenberg submitted a resume and letter of interest for a United States district judgeship vacancy. After an interview by a committee appointed by the Georgia Democratic Congressional Delegation, Totenberg was among the applicants whose names were submitted to the White House.

On March 17, 2010, President Obama nominated Totenberg to fill the judicial vacancy on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that had been created by the decision by Judge Jack Tarpley Camp Jr. to assume senior status at the end of 2008.

Totenberg was unanimously approved on December 1, 2010 by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary with a voice vote.

Senators returned Totenberg's nomination to President Obama at the end of the 111th Congress and he resubmitted the nomination on January 5, 2011.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Totenberg in a voice vote on February 28, 2011. She received her commission March 1, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Totenberg
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Stutroup on March 08, 2011, 22:48
Out of curiosity (and knowing it's not so common for cases to be reassigned without good reason), is there any reason given for the change in judge?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 08, 2011, 23:22
Out of curiosity (and knowing it's not so common for cases to be reassigned without good reason), is there any reason given for the change in judge?

 (/^I^\)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 09, 2011, 06:26
Out of curiosity (and knowing it's not so common for cases to be reassigned without good reason), is there any reason given for the change in judge?

I don't know if papers giving the reason will be filed or not, but it caused a raised eyebrow on my part.  It may amount to nothing.  The new judge has a lot to get up to speed on before making a ruling for summary judgment or not.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on March 10, 2011, 18:38
The only reason there would be any paper trail explaining the change is if one of the parties moved to disqualify the judge-there would have to be a motion. Most lawyers don't like doing that because they feel, if denied, any animosity the judge had would be compounded. Beyond that, there could be any number of reasons for a change-some sinister, other innocuous.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 10, 2011, 19:03
The only reason there would be any paper trail explaining the change is if one of the parties moved to disqualify the judge-there would have to be a motion. Most lawyers don't like doing that because they feel, if denied, any animosity the judge had would be compounded. Beyond that, there could be any number of reasons for a change-some sinister, other innocuous.

I'm hoping for the innocuous instead of a strange coincidence. 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on March 11, 2011, 02:27
Yes, what Skydog said. In doing all that research last year or so on the bankruptcy cases where Scientology and front groups were involved or required to pay back the trustee of a case, I saw quite a few reassignments, none nefarious or documented as an issue.

From what I can tell, the actual Fed court hearings in a given case are few  compared to the paperwork filings, which are many. Usually motions or requests. Seems that these judges have a large roster of cases going on at any time and since each case has scheduled hearing way ahead of time while the paperwork is shuffled back and forth to the clerk for the judge to consider and add new hearings to, calendar time can conflict with other cases and vacation times. Hence, changing judges is common in that arena from what I saw.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 11, 2011, 08:04
Quote
Seems that these judges have a large roster of cases going on at any time and since each case has scheduled hearing way ahead of time while the paperwork is shuffled back and forth to the clerk for the judge to consider and add new hearings to, calendar time can conflict with other cases and vacation times. Hence, changing judges is common in that arena from what I saw.

That seems reasonable. TY
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 13, 2011, 12:33
Thank you both, skydog and Mary, for clarifying.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on May 21, 2011, 21:25
Not much in the way of updates on this case other than attorney LOA dates.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on August 06, 2011, 09:19
According to this article: http://hunterwalker.tumblr.com/post/4959126086 (http://hunterwalker.tumblr.com/post/4959126086), the "church" of scientology has purchased approximately 484 square feet of real estate for each member.

Quote
In 2007, Scientology claimed (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17738/kansas-city-scientology) to have 10 million followers around the world with 3.5 million here in the U.S. However, according to a major national religious survey (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33574688/ns/us_news-faith/), the group had just 25,000 American members in 2008 down from 55,000 in 2001. If that figure is accurate, it means the group had purchased at least 484 square feet of real estate for each believer as of 2010.

This is congruent with what the local "church" in Atlanta has purchased: 44,000 sq. ft. / 100 active members = 440 sq. ft. per member.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on August 15, 2011, 22:30
Hunter Walker wrote that after writing this good article for the Daily, lol
Xenu Demands Churches
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/04/25/042511-gossip-scientology-1-2/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 05, 2011, 19:14
There has been a ruling in this case that the City properly administered its parking ordinance.  At first, I thought this meant the City won the case, but an article in the AJC clarified that there is still a matter to be decided - whether the City violated the "Church" of the holy lawsuit Scientology's free exercise of their "religion".  Here's hoping the judge will rule in favor of the City on that as well.

http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/10/05/sandy-springs-prevails-in-scientology-lawsuit/
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/judge-backs-city-in-1195105.html
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 05, 2011, 20:17
Good catch! Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on October 05, 2011, 21:00
Yeah, this is terrific news! I also thought from the first article that they won the whole case but from the Atlanta Constitutional article, it was clear that there is yet another hurdle. I suspecyt, based upon the first ruling, that the second complaint will be ruled in favor of Sandy Springs.

Hey EC, Sorry I called you about the good news before I saw that you had commented an hour earlier on the first article, lol
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on October 05, 2011, 21:03
BTW, the church deserved to be shot down. They went and bought $ 5 million dollar building without  doing advance evaluation of their needs. Tough luck, lol!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 05, 2011, 21:34
No problem about the call, Mary.  I guess the locals are just doing what little Davy screams for - according to the depositions, it was after they bought the building that "CSI" decided that buildings HAD to be over 40,000 sq. ft.  Of course, they didn't even need the 32,000 when they bought it, and I imagine they need it even less now.

They did deserve to be shot down, however, just because of the way they've let the building deteriorate over the years.  It's in absolutely terrible shape now, with squirrels running in and out of the roof, lol.
http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6449.msg17808.html#msg17808
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 05, 2011, 23:16
They did deserve to be shot down, however, just because of the way they've let the building deteriorate over the years.  It's in absolutely terrible shape now, with squirrels running in and out of the roof, lol.
http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6449.msg17808.html#msg17808

This is what I truly do not understand. The building has been basically left to rot. Are they stretched too thin physically and financially to maintain this costly building? What a complete waste of their money.

Quote
BTW, the church deserved to be shot down. They went and bought $ 5 million dollar building without  doing advance evaluation of their needs. Tough luck, lol!

Mary - I don't disagree, but what a shame these folks poured their personal funds and probably many loans into this catastrophe. All for DM's stupid Idle Org program.  8o8O8o8

Rant over!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Sarcasm Pirate on October 05, 2011, 23:42
Tiny steps of progress are always exciting no matter how inconsequential they may seem! :D Awesome news.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on October 06, 2011, 08:55
Super-duper news! I can't imagine the court will not find in favor of the City of Sandy Springs on the 'religious discrimination' part of the suit, can you?

One more tap of the stonemason's hammer!

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 06, 2011, 17:30
From the federal case docket:

Quote
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; DENYING Defendants' Motion to Strike portions of the Deposition of Nancy Leathers and portions of the Affidavit of Deborah Danos; and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Counts II, III, Count IX, and Counts XI-XIII; the motion is DENIED as to Counts I and Counts V-VIII. The Parties are DIRECTED to submit briefing, not to exceed 15 pages, on whether Plaintiff's claims are ripe no later than 10/21/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 9/30/2011. (acm) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 07, 2011, 08:37
The following email from Sandy Springs Councilman Chip Collins was forwarded to me.  Even though the case is not completely over, it indicates the city is upbeat about the ruling. 

Many thanks to all of the people who worked together to raise awareness in the Sandy Springs community.  Occasionally, our work is rewarded.   L-O-:

Quote
From: Collins, William "Chip"
To: Collins, William "Chip"
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:28 PM
Subject: USDC ruling on Church of Scientology v. City of Sandy Springs lawsuit

Friends:

For those of you who follow zoning issues in our city, you might be interested in a recent ruling in the Scientology case against Sandy Springs arising out of the 2009 zoning application for their property on Roswell Road at Glenridge.  Because the litigation is ongoing, I'll limit my comments to the City's official statement on the ruling, copied below:



U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg has ruled that the City of Sandy Springs properly administered its Parking Ordinance in considering a zoning application filed by the Church of Scientology. In the ruling filed September 30, 2011, Judge Totenberg noted that the City of Sandy Springs acted in an objective manner in enforcing its Parking Ordinance.

“We are pleased that the Judge recognized that the City’s staff acted in accordance to City ordinance procedures and chose to dismiss that claim against the City,” said Sandy Springs City Attorney Wendell K. Willard.

The Church of Scientology filed an application to convert a 32,053 square foot office building into an estimated 44,000 square foot Church. The City approved the use of the property for a church, but limited the size of the building to the existing space based on a lack of sufficient on-site parking.  The Church of Scientology filed the federal lawsuit in January claiming that the City discriminated against the religious organization.

Judge Totenberg held over for trial the Church’s assertion that the City violated the Church’s free exercise rights on the basis that she could not, on summary judgment, make a fact determination as to the validity of the Church’s position that it needed the full 44,000 square feet to adequately meet its religious obligations.



Chip Collins
Sandy Springs City Council, District 3

I imagine the trial will contain many of the same assertions from the "church" about the space requirements that we heard in the zoning meetings.  Based on the info from the docket that Free posted, I guess we will know more around the end of the month.

If anyone would like to see the zoning meetings, you can find a list of them here: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,198.msg938.html#msg938

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 08, 2011, 00:34
Scientology Raided, Smacked Down in Court, and Accused of Killing Trees -- a Thursday Roundup (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/scientology_rai_1.php)
By Tony Ortega Thu., Oct. 6 2011 at 1:03 PM

Story #2: Expansion plans smacked down


Despite its dwindling numbers (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/scientologists_1.php), Scientology can't seem to cure its real estate fever.

In Sandy Springs, Georgia, however, that urge to expand has been put in check (http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/judge-backs-city-in-1195105.html). A judge there denied Scientology's request to add an extra floor to its church there.

Scientology, naturally, is crying about its freedom of religion being violated, but at least somewhere -- in a suburb of Atlanta, at least -- some government officials aren't bending over for an organization that never saw a local rule it didn't intend to break.

Thursday's Stats: Upstat or Downstat? This seems a pretty clear downstat situation for the church. Stories about them fighting the city to expand a building will only get the locals reading into what Scientology is all about, and that never ends well.

more at http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/scientology_rai_1.php
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 08, 2011, 00:42
Judge rules for Ga. city in church size dispute - Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/10/judge-rules-ga-city-church-size-dispute
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on October 08, 2011, 10:44
 From day one the city of Sandy Springs presented itself in a proper fashion in regard to its well established parking ordinances. This is actually very big news! The judge in this case weighed the merits of the cities parking ordinances and ruled accordingly. Per this ruling I would imagine any further RLUIPA discussion from a legal perspective is moot.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 08, 2011, 21:30
Pleasure to see you around again, ST.

From day one the city of Sandy Springs presented itself in a proper fashion in regard to its well established parking ordinances. This is actually very big news! The judge in this case weighed the merits of the cities parking ordinances and ruled accordingly. Per this ruling I would imagine any further RLUIPA discussion from a legal perspective is moot.

Yes, people were disappointed when Sandy Springs did not outright deny CoS the ability to operate a church from the building, but they played their cards exactly as they should have to avoid the appearance of religious discrimination.  While the neighbors could be as biased against the "church" as they wanted to be, the City of SS had to operate in an upstanding manner because it would be them who would be held responsible for the outcome. 

I believe this is big news not only for the local opponents of the "church" but for the RLUIPA law as well.  All of the legal opinions I've heard about the RLUIPA law agree that it is a badly written law, and only one part of it has been tested in the courts as I understand it - the Institutionalized Persons part - the Land Use portion has not been tested, until now.

I wonder if the judge rules for the City at the trial, will the CoS appeal it?  Can they appeal it, and if so, would a higher court hear it?

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on October 09, 2011, 18:05
...
I wonder if the judge rules for the City at the trial, will the CoS appeal it?  Can they appeal it, and if so, would a higher court hear it?

I imagine they will have to appeal after they lose, to justify the piles of money they have already shoveled into this white-elephant. When they do, the next highest court will have to at least listen to it, but it seems very unlikely they would overturn the lower court's ruling.

I hate to get ahead of events, but it really does look like a major defeat of the forces-of-evil, doesn't it? C{{O}}2 :::-O-::: C{{O}} o=R=o :888-O

'til next time!
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on October 09, 2011, 20:31
I agree, Wynot    L-O-:
Title: Yea
Post by: skydog on October 10, 2011, 19:48
  ;D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 28, 2011, 12:18
Here are some new docs in this case. 

The judges order on the Motions for Summary Judgement, which hit the news and was discussed last month (this contains some statements which I found highly amusing - I may pull them out and laugh publicly later on, but feel free to point out any you think are noteworthy in the meantime):
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-09-30_JudgesOrder.pdf

And the memos that were filed in response to the Judges Order:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-10-21_DefendantsMemo.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-10-21_PlaintiffsMemo.pdf

edit: fixed link
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on October 28, 2011, 15:04
Both parties agree that the issues remaining for trial are "ripe" for review. The court will not decide an issue if  another tribunal has the authority to grant the relief requested. In this case, the court was concerned that the church could re-apply for a variance which, if granted, would make the current lawsuit moot. I like the city's attorney who, in a five page brief, succinctly stated that the commission's decision was final and thus, ripe for review.  It took the church's attorneys, apparently being paid by the word, seven pages to answer that simple question and another seven pages to explain why.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on October 29, 2011, 09:23
It took the church's attorneys, apparently being paid by the word, seven pages to answer that simple question and another seven pages to explain why.

 :D  Following in the old man's footsteps, are they?

It has been a long-standing tradition of the "church" to try to bury the opponent and the court with paperwork.  The judge was apparently wise to that tactic, whether from this case or from their reputation, and ordered the memos to be no more than 15 pages.

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on October 29, 2011, 09:45
It took the church's attorneys, apparently being paid by the word, seven pages to answer that simple question and another seven pages to explain why.

 :D  Following in the old man's footsteps, are they?

It has been a long-standing tradition of the "church" to try to bury the opponent and the court with paperwork.  The judge was apparently wise to that tactic, whether from this case or from their reputation, and ordered the memos to be no more than 15 pages.

I guess it took at least 7 pages to whine about the "moving target" of "ever-changing" parking space requirements.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on November 01, 2011, 19:31
Recent coverage on wsb-tv in Atlanta

Church Of Scientology Controversy In Sandy Springs

Updated: 4:03 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/church-of-scientology-controversy-in-sandy-springs/vCRT3/

Scientology church suing Sandy Springs

Updated: 6:44 p.m. Monday, Oct. 31, 2011
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/scientology-church-suing-sandy-springs/vD3kR/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on November 06, 2011, 14:26
A new Motion by the "church":

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-10-28_MotionForReconsideration.pdf

They baww about Rusty Paul's questions about the practice of their "religion" and say that his questions constitute discrimination.  Therefore, they are asking the judge to reconsider their Motion for Summary Judgment.

I believe Rusty Paul has just been labeled a "religious bigot" (but not in those words, of course). 

Edit: link fixed.  Doh.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on November 06, 2011, 19:21
A new Motion by the "church":

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA\2011-10-28_MotionForReconsideration.pdf

Document not found.

I think I found the problem. Try this: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-10-28_MotionForReconsideration.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on November 07, 2011, 09:21
 Woodson Galloway needs to prove ANTHRAX threats have been made against the so-called church. One would think a supposed "educated" man such as attorney Woodson Galloway would vet an oh so serious claim. Sounds like show boating by Mr Galloway for effect in my humble opinion!

 Another "claim" made by attorney Woodson Galloway while in the employ of the church of scientology of Georgia revolves around growth and that growth predicating a move to a larger facility.

 I would imagine hired by scientology attorney Woodson Galloway knows about the current lawsuit by the owners of the past location the so-called church of scientology occupied. Then let us go and visit how well this so-called growing church is doing @ its current location. It appears to be functioning in fine fashion with the space not only chosen by its adherents,the parking appears to be more than adequate.

 As "I" am not a member of the city council, I CAN express my knowledgeable distain for this so-called religion. Having worked for and experienced this cult first hand, I CAN offer a far better argument as to WHY the citizenry should be informed as to why this group of people should not be allowed to ply their sordid trade within the community.

 Mr Galloway and Mr Dillard have the right to whore themselves for financial gain. That is their choice. We the citizenry do not want to reap the results of their actions if we so choose!

 One only need to look @ the continued criminality perpetrated by those in the so called church. Debra Danos, currently being sued. Mary Rieser,currently being sued. Don Delgado,currently being sued. Maria Delgado, currently being sued. This list goes on and on. Deaths have occurred. If the government will not step up to the plate and seek justice, you can be guaranteed the citizen will.

 This muzzling of the citizen and our public officials to speak their mind has to stop. Fear of the status quo and the bowing to political correctness does not add to the health and well being of our communities. To do so betrays whom and what we are.

 Scientology from top to bottom is corrupt, Adding nothing of value be it spiritual or financial to our communities. It only drains our communities of resources and preys on the uninformed!

 Just watching the likes of the law firm of Dillard and Galloway pandering to this so called church is to say the least a small look into what is currently wrong with our social structure. The law firm of Dillard and Galloway gets paid while the rest of us are left with the damage they leave within our communities. Dillard and Galloway reap the profits be they win or lose.

 I dearly hope Dillard and Galloway enjoy the money heaped upon them via this so-called church. Have they no honor? I think not!

 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on November 12, 2011, 09:16
Sandy Springs' response to the latest baww:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-11-09_DefendantsResponseToPlaintiffsMotionForReconsideration.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-11-09_Exhibit-WilsonVBBTMortgage.pdf

Here are a few highlights (highlights for me, but of course, I'm biased) from the Response:

Quote
Merely disagreeing with a court’s decision is not a basis for relief.

Quote
Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear errors of law and fact. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a single error of law or fact, much less one requiring correction.  Plaintiff’s blatant repackaging of its summary judgment arguments cannot support its motion for reconsideration.

Quote
Plaintiff chose to submit an incomplete parking study that did not reflect the anticipated parking demand for its facility operating at full capacity.

Quote
Plaintiff continues to “quibble” over the definition of a “church” in the Zoning Ordinance, repeating its arguments from summary judgment almost verbatim.

Quote
The Court, however, found that there was no evidence – direct or circumstantial – that permitted even an inference of discrimination on the part of the City.  Plaintiff’s reiteration of its arguments from summary judgment do not support its motion for reconsideration.


And the best one of all:

Quote
No hostile or discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff’s religion lurks in the shadows of the City’s decision. The City approved Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Property as a church.   Plaintiff’s attempts to impute a hostility into the quoted line questioning from Councilmember Paul at the December 15, 2011 hearing only demonstrate Plaintiff’s extreme paranoia.

         ;D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on November 13, 2011, 11:08
Nothing like twisting the facts to justify one's position....The church's lawyers would make good scientologists, lol.

Looking forward to the court's decision.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on November 14, 2011, 06:16
Nothing like twisting the facts to justify one's position....The church's lawyers would make good scientologists, lol.

Looking forward to the court's decision.

I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that Moxon was at one of the depostions (the others present are listed on the first page of each depo), and if correct, it's quite possible the "church" is micromanaging Dillard and Galloway. 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 01, 2012, 10:29
Judge Amy Totenburg has issued these Guidelines to Parties and Counsel:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-12-19_GuidelinesToPartiesAndCounsel.pdf

I wonder if this means this case is about to start wrapping up in court?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on January 03, 2012, 01:31
Judge Amy Totenburg has issued these Guidelines to Parties and Counsel:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-12-19_GuidelinesToPartiesAndCounsel.pdf

I wonder if this means this case is about to start wrapping up in court?

I may be wrong but that document from the judge is standard fare when a judge is assigned to a case.

I think was it really means in this case is that the court assigned another judge because they are about to go to trial on the remaining part of the case, as mentioned in the last series of articles updating us on the case. You refer to them in this post.

There has been a ruling in this case that the City properly administered its parking ordinance.  At first, I thought this meant the City won the case, but an article in the AJC clarified that there is still a matter to be decided - whether the City violated the "Church" of the holy lawsuit Scientology's free exercise of their "religion".  Here's hoping the judge will rule in favor of the City on that as well.

http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/10/05/sandy-springs-prevails-in-scientology-lawsuit/
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/judge-backs-city-in-1195105.html

If someone can get a copy of the recent case docket ( starting around Nov date of  those articles ) copying it by using a print-to-pdf  program like pdf995,   then we can see from there what is going on in the case. Fed dockets are very informative. Doing it this way is better than paying for docs unnecessarilly. Our 'inhouse' legal eagles can then tell us what to get and not to get.  \--O--/

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 04, 2012, 22:37
Federal case docket
http://ia700407.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.gand.164119/gov.uscourts.gand.164119.docket.html

Fulton county case

In the SUPERIOR COURT
    Fulton County, Georgia
    Case No. 2010CV180058
    
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION VS. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, EVA GALAMBOS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRING, GEORGIA AND JOHN PAULSON, DIANNE FRIES, WILLIA COPPEDGE
    
Filed on 01/14/2010
    Case Type: APPEAL
    Judge: Wendy L. Shoob
    Current Status: Filed

Defendant   
Defendant Attorneys
City Of Sandy Springs   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
The City Council Of The City Of Sandy Springs   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Galambos, Eva   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Paulson, John   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Fries, Dianne
S   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Collins, William Coppedge   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Jenkins, Ashley   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Dejulio, Tiberio   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030
Mcenerny, Karen Meinzen   Henderson, Laurel Elaine
160 CLAIREMONT AVENUE
SUITE 430
DECATUR, GA 30030

Plaintiff   
Plaintiff Attorneys
Church Of Scientology Of Georgia Inc   Dillard, G. Douglas
3500 LENOX ROAD NE
SUITE 760
Atlanta, GA 30326

Hearings
03/09/2010   Tuesday   9:30am   CIVIL NON JURY

Events and Orders of the Court
07/15/2011   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
02/18/2011   ENTRY/NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
08/10/2010   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
04/05/2010   MICROFILMED FILE
03/05/2010   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
03/02/2010   ORDER ON MOTION
03/02/2010   ORDER
02/25/2010   MOTION
02/11/2010   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
01/29/2010   Acknowledgement of Service
01/19/2010   AMENDMENT
01/14/2010   CASE INITIATION FORM
01/14/2010   PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

Fulton County Court Clerk of Superior Court
http://www.fcclkjudicialsearch.org/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on January 26, 2012, 00:03
Not sure if this was posted elsewhere:

Fed. Dist. Court Dismisses Most of RLUIPA Claims by Church of Scientology but Allows Substantial Burden and First Amendment Claims to Proceed (http://livabilitylaw.com/archives/3574)
On October 30, 2011, in Current Caselaw, Land Use, Law of the Land, RLUIPA, by Patty Salkin

The Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. (herein after the Church, Plaintiff) sued the City of Sandy Springs (herein after the City), alleging that the City had violated the Church’s statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Church bought a 32,053 square foot building that was zoned in an Office and Institutional district. The Church sought to rezone the building  to convert the 11,863 square foot basement/garage in accordance with the Church of Scientology doctrine that the Church required a building that was at least 40,000 square feet. However, doing so would eliminate 30 parking spaces. The City’s relevant parking ordinance provides that parking requirements be calculated based on the proportion that each use contributes to the total. Because the Church focuses more on individualized study rather than congregational gatherings, the City used a multi-use formula rather than the formula typically used for churches to determine how many parking spaces were needed. Based on the multi-use formula, the City determined the conversion of the basement/garage would leave the Church with inadequate parking and denied the Church’s application for expansion though the application for rezoning was approved. The Church later filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment.

The Church alleged that the City’s denial of their proposed conversion substantially burdened its religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA because it encroached on its use of the building in accordance with Scientology scripture. However, the Court stated that not being able to operate a church on the scale desired is not a substantial burden.  A government may regulate the number of parking spaces required for a church facility or restrict the size of assemblies or institutions, and as long as such restrictions are unrelated to the religious characterization of the property, RLUIPA is not implicated. Moreover, where a religious organization fails to show that its property carries religious significance, the inability to relocate a religious facility is not a substantial burden under RLUIPA.

Here, the Church does not assert that the City’s actions have coerced or forced it into foregoing practicing the religious precepts of Scientology. The Church also failed to assert that the subject property had any religious significance. The court found that the Church did not suffer a substantial burden. However, the Court did find that the City’s application of the parking ordinance was based on consideration of the Church’s individual case. Thus, the court denied summary judgment on that issue.

more at http://livabilitylaw.com/archives/3574
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 27, 2012, 09:48
This whole thing just shows how little "the church" understands religion as most people see it. 

Lesson: if you're going to pretend to be something, at least fully understand what it is that you're claiming to be.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: thetanbuster on January 28, 2012, 19:14
Most clear thinking people/businesses/organizations get their zoning handled PRIOR TO spending the kind of money that building cost. I am using the word "clear" in the pejorative.  That is because I am mean-spirited.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on January 28, 2012, 21:14
I guess maybe they thought they had the "fix" in with Fulton County - and then Sandy Springs went and formed its own city.   :D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 12, 2012, 13:35
AMENDED ORDER granting Plaintiff's 89 (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.164119/gov.uscourts.gand.164119.89.0.pdf) Motion for Reconsideration and VACATING the Court's 86 (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.164119/gov.uscourts.gand.164119.86.0.pdf) Order issued September 30,2011. Plaintiff's 37 (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.164119/gov.uscourts.gand.164119.37.0.pdf) Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Count II (equal terms and exclusions and limitations claims), Counts III, and Counts XI -XIII is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to counts Counts I, II (nondiscrimination claim), IV, and Counts V-IX is DENIED because triable issues of fact remain. Defendants' 61 Motion to Strike portions of the Deposition of Nancy Leathers and portions of the Affidavit of Deborah Danos is DENIED. The parties are DIRECTED to engage in mediation of this matter. The parties may mutually agree upon a private mediator or if unable to reach an agreement, the Court will appoint a private mediator from a list of three mediators to be provided to the parties. The parties should notify the Court no later than February 22, 2012, if they are unable to agree upon a mediator. The parties are DIRECTED to explore whether a shared parking arrangement, both on-site and off-site, based on the actual projected growth of the Church's staff and membership, can be agreed upon to allow Plaintiff's requested expansion and modification of the basement area for church use. The mediation in this matter must be completed by April 2, 2012, absent the Court's approval of an extension. The parties are DIRECTED to file their Consolidated Pretrial Order no later than March 16, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 02/10/2012. (rvb) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 13, 2012, 09:10
The court is tired of the bullshit. It will be interesting to see if any agreement can be made. But while waiting, some thoughts to ponder: do they have the money and membership to continue with this project? I am curious whether the court's comment about an agreement on parking spaces that would accommodate their anticipated expansion is not a subtle slam on the fact that, like dinosaurs, they will soon be extinct.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 13, 2012, 19:42
From the federal case docket:

Quote
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; DENYING Defendants' Motion to Strike portions of the Deposition of Nancy Leathers and portions of the Affidavit of Deborah Danos; and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Counts II, III, Count IX, and Counts XI-XIII; the motion is DENIED as to Counts I and Counts V-VIII. The Parties are DIRECTED to submit briefing, not to exceed 15 pages, on whether Plaintiff's claims are ripe no later than 10/21/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 9/30/2011. (acm) (Entered: 10/03/2011)

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment:
I:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

II:
Then: Granted 
Now: Granted for equal terms and exclusions and limitations claims, Denied for nondiscrimination claim

III:
Then: Granted 
Now: Granted

IV:
Then: no ruling
Now: Denied

V:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

VI:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

VII:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

VIII:
Then: Denied 
Now: Denied

IX:
Then: Granted 
Now: Denied

X:
Then: no ruling   
Now: no ruling

XI:
Then: Granted 
Now: Granted

XII:
Then: Granted 
Now: Granted

XIII:
Then: Granted 
Now: Granted

Not a whole lot of difference, is there?   :D

The court is tired of the bullshit. It will be interesting to see if any agreement can be made. But while waiting, some thoughts to ponder: do they have the money and membership to continue with this project?

Realistically speaking, no. 

They ran out on their last lease without paying, although they have made many other excuses as to why that was. 

The building they are currently in is in a not-so-nice area. 

The building this whole dispute is about is deteriorating before our eyes, with nothing being done as to upkeep.  A while back, there were workers there hauling out wet insulation and old batteries (? presumably for the inoperable elevators?), and running huge airing out equipment (presumably because of mold?).  Unfortunately, the photos aren't online anymore.  Maybe if the photographer reads this, he will put them back online.  Please?

Some of the staff members have judgments against them for minor credit card debt, which will probably result in garnishments, if history is anything to go by.

Long time existing members tapped out their savings, retirement, and credit lines to donate in the first place.  And the economy is worse now.  Although, since the bldg. was bought in 2005, it is nearing the 7 year period that will wipe their credit records clean.

Quote
I am curious whether the court's comment about an agreement on parking spaces that would accommodate their anticipated expansion is not a subtle slam on the fact that, like dinosaurs, they will soon be extinct.

Their postulated expansion?  Or anticipated expansion as a regular person would anticipate?

Are judges allowed to look around for info about the subjects of their cases?  I know jurors are not supposed to, but does that apply to judges also?


http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2011-09-30_JudgesOrder.pdf
Pages 3 and 4:
Quote
The Church serves a state-wide congregation of 600 members, 100 of whom are currently active. It has a staff of 20 volunteer and paid employees.

Pages 16 and 17 footnote 10:
Quote
It is undisputed that the property was purchased with the express purpose of facilitating the growth of the organization. Itwas clearly the expectation of both the Plaintiff and the City that the membership of the Church would grow beyond its current active enrollment of 100 parishioners. It is not clear how the Parking Studies related to that anticipated growth or to address the undisputed fact that, as an Ideal Org, Plaintiff expected to have 100 staff members on site at all times.

It seems they expect to grow by 5x (is that the 5.4x expansion, St. Hill size scieno-meme kicking in?).

20/100/600 --> 100/500/3000

That would be a LOT of people even in that building.  100 staff on site at all times would take the majority of the available spaces - she may just be pointing out to them that if they grow the way they postulate anticipate, there will not be enough parking. 

I love it when they get caught out by their lies.   ;D

I wonder if Dillard and Galloway are getting tired of them.   ;)

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 14, 2012, 10:19
Are judges allowed to look around for info about the subjects of their cases?  I know jurors are not supposed to, but does that apply to judges also?

Judges are only supposed to look at properly admitted evidence and the facts that have been stipulated to by the parties. They may also take judicial notice of other facts which covers a wide variety of matters-pending cases, laws of other jurisdictions, etc. Each judge has his or her own world view which affects how they process and filter this evidence. For example, because of our belief that the church of $cientology is an abusive cult, we tend to believe people like Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Debbie Cook, and others when they speak out about their experiences. But if you watch the videos of Mike Rinder from his days as church spokesperson, his denials of the same type of behavior are very credible.

The point I am making is that they are all liars in some way, shape, or form. Which version do you want to believe? One of my biggest complaints about this organization is that they begin the "dead agent" pack as soon a person walks through the door. Sea Org members provide a detailed history of every transgression they have ever committed (or thought about committing) and they are careful to get video of the person telling how wonderful the church is before leaving. By doing so, they create in their dissidents "witness incredibility" in anticipation of future litigation. This practice is in itself a form of "consciousness of guilt" on the part of the institution as they are beginning to find out.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 14, 2012, 19:56

For example, because of our belief that the church of $cientology is an abusive cult, we tend to believe people like Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Debbie Cook, and others when they speak out about their experiences. But if you watch the videos of Mike Rinder from his days as church spokesperson, his denials of the same type of behavior are very credible.

Except for that bit about Lisa McPherson in the last 10 seconds of this video:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2029146/mike_rinder_squirms_over_the_death_of_lisa_mcpherson/

Quote
The point I am making is that they are all liars in some way, shape, or form. Which version do you want to believe?
  {=lies=}

Quote
One of my biggest complaints about this organization is that they begin the "dead agent" pack as soon a person walks through the door. Sea Org members provide a detailed history of every transgression they have ever committed (or thought about committing) and they are careful to get video of the person telling how wonderful the church is before leaving. By doing so, they create in their dissidents "witness incredibility" in anticipation of future litigation. This practice is in itself a form of "consciousness of guilt" on the part of the institution as they are beginning to find out.

What a trap!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 15, 2012, 07:00
Except for that bit about Lisa McPherson in the last 10 seconds of this video:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2029146/mike_rinder_squirms_over_the_death_of_lisa_mcpherson/


Good find. They train so hard to answer the unanswerable. Notice the counter-attack on Ken Dandar. Complete flunk on Rinder at the end. I have to say that I like Mike Rinder.  He is mostly calm, articulate and polished with that Aussie accent. I am glad he is standing up against the organization today. He was the successor to Vaughn Young, who was also an incredible spokesperson for the church until he blew. At the end of his life, he was also an outspoken critic. (I am detecting a pattern here).

All that changed with Tommy Davis-clearly a little boy dressed in a man's clothing and unqualified for the post. I notice that Karen Pouw limits her responses to written denials and attacks. There are so many attacks now, that Pouw doesn't have the time to drill TR-Lie to the end phenomena. The little Dutch boy (Miscavige) is learning that there are too many holes in the dikes for his fingers to plug.

Sorry, don't mean to divert the thread.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 15, 2012, 07:30
Quote
The little Dutch boy (Miscavige) is learning that there are too many holes in the dikes for his fingers to plug.

He does seem to have his hands full, ATM.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 15, 2012, 17:46
Judges are only supposed to look at properly admitted evidence and the facts that have been stipulated to by the parties. They may also take judicial notice of other facts which covers a wide variety of matters-pending cases, laws of other jurisdictions, etc. Each judge has his or her own world view which affects how they process and filter this evidence.

Thanks, skydog.  I was just wondering how much Judge Totenberg might know, beyond what has been included in this case.  Of course, just this case by itself, and the related transcripts from the zoning meetings, are enough to give her a fairly accurate picture of their behavior and expectations.

Woody Galloway for the church in the zoning meetings: They're not a traditional church; they don't have traditional services on Sunday.

Nancy Leathers in deposition: They're not a traditional church, so we applied a different formula to the parking requirements.

Scientology: Bawww!  They said we weren't a traditional church; they're discriminating!


No problem on diverting the thread.  I'm sure it will swing back around to on-topic when we have new developments in the case.  Meanwhile, it's nice chatting with you.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 19, 2012, 10:33
Just caught some local coverage on WSBtv. Andrea Cantrell Jones and a few of the Sandy Springs residents were interviewed.

Andrea Cantrell Jones: (paraphrasing) Sandy Springs approved the occupancy of the building. but limited the usable space due to parking constraints.

Neighbors: Voiced their concerns related to high volume traffic situation on Roswell Rd and the dangerous intersection at Glenridge where Idle Org is located and small amount of parking available at church.

Reporter: (again, paraphrasing) Judge Totenberg has ordered both parties to mediation and granted the church's motion for reconsideration of summary judgement. (http://ia700407.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.gand.164119/gov.uscourts.gand.164119.89.0.pdf)

Will post video when and if it becomes available.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 19, 2012, 12:15
I can't understand why the neighbors would worry about accidents-scientologists are the only ones that can help in those situations. ;D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 22, 2012, 17:57
skydog, they're probably afraid Tom Cruise will show up, along with a bunch of media people, and his best friend, DM.

Here's an article I saw posted to WWP:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2012/02/court-says-now-scientology-church-can.html

Quote
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Court Says Now Scientology Church Can Pursue Discrimination In Zoning Claim

In Church of Scientology of Georgia v. City of Sandy Springs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19087 (ND GA, Feb. 10. 2012), a Georgia federal district court granted a motion for reconsideration of its earlier zoning decision (see prior posting). The earlier decision held that triable issues of fact remain on plaintiff's First Amendment claims and its RLUIPA claim that the city's action posed a substantial burden on its religious exercise, but dismissed its RLUIPA discrimination, equal terms and exclusion claims. In its new opinion, the court held that it now believes a question of fact exists as to whether Sandy Springs discriminated against the Church of Scientology on the basis of its religious denomination when, in granting conditional approval of its rezoning application, it refused to allow expansion of the church's existing building based on a lack of sufficient on-site parking. In an amended opinion, the court said:

    Based on the entirety of the evidence in the record as more clearly demonstrated by Plaintiff in its motion for reconsideration, in conjunction with new, unchallenged evidence provided in the briefing on ripeness that Plaintiff originally sought a parking variance but was informed by a member of the City's planning staff that no variance was needed because the Church met the City's minimum parking requirement, the Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently demonstrated evidence from which a possible inference of discrimination could be made.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: tikk on February 23, 2012, 12:32
[Reposted from WWP]

Okay, I masochistically slugged my way through the 97-page decision, the result of which is testimony to what overlawyering the living shit out of a RLUIPA case can get you. Judge Amy Totenberg (sister of NPR's Nina Totenberg, btw) found "triable issues of fact" after having apparently been presented with an exhaustive survey of prior decisions by the same zoning board involving other churches, which survey sought to show that Church X and Y were treated more favorably than Scientology.

The court found two instances in particular as raising issues of fact regarding disparate treatment. The board had permitted both Beth Tefillah and Lutheran Church of the Apostles a variance to utilize a shared-parking arrangement--even though, and this is why this finding is maddening, Scientology never requested a shared-parking arrangement (please correct me if I'm wrong Ethercat)--which the board did not also extend to Scientology. The decision pores over the differences of each case, and the board's application of bases for its actions (e.g., decision to base parking requirements on square footage or fixed seating, whether seating is actually "fixed," etc.) and even admits that such distinctions may ultimately be "marginal or meaningless" but are nevertheless triable.

I don't know enough to suggest that these distinctions are in fact "marginal and meaningless" but they're at least of the type to be described as razor thin; cases finding discriminatory intent usually have much more to build on. But this is as much RLUIPA's fault as anyone's, as it stacks the deck for religious entities so favorably that there are bound to be inferences lying around the numerous on-the-record board hearings with which to make a federal case.

And as Muldrake rightly suggested on the other Sandy Springs thread [on WWP], cities are just out-armed in these disputes; if a plaintiff is going to spend endlessly to litigate over some parking spaces, at some point it becomes economically unfeasible for cities to go toe-to-toe, especially when the law starts with the presumption that a religion is being discriminated against when you don't give it everything it wants.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 23, 2012, 13:06
Thanks for posting, tikk.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: tikk on February 23, 2012, 16:13
I have a general non-legal question about this case, because the more I think about what's going on here, the less I understand it. Most US orgs are struggling to get by, struggling to send money uplines on a weekly basis, per most insider accounts, and yet the Sandy Springs org has deep enough pockets to engage in fairly costly litigation. So I'm curious if anyone 'on the ground' there, so to speak, can offer their opinion as to why so much time, energy, and money has been invested into obtaining this particular variance. I can't think of a single instance where parking has been a problem for a Scientology org, ever; so I'm assuming that parking is only the stated reason. I acknowledge that Scientology often acts on postulated traffic--how else to explain Clearwater's massive and soon-to-remain-empty SuperPower Building? But this is just an org, so I'm real curious if anyone can offer an opinion as to why this org in particular needs to expand, and possibly where the money is coming from to make this all happen. It's not as if every org across the country is abusing RLUIPA to expand.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 23, 2012, 18:09
We have wondered the same things you are wondering, and I have a few ideas about it - no real insider knowledge, however.  First, let me say a little about the parking, since I have gathered some info about it, and later this evening, I will return to speculate about the things you wonder about.

There were two applications, an initial and then an amended application.  The intial application is here: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/InitialApplication.pdf and a slightly larger file containing a bit more is here: http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/InitialApplication2.pdf .

In the initial application, there was no mention of adding a floor.  The existing 1st floor was to be used as the chapel/sanctuary, but there was a little problem.  The floor load rating was not what was required. 

The initial variance requests filed on March 2, 2009 were:
Setback violations of existing eastern boundary with USPS property
Acceptance of existing offsite parking area on the east side
Acceptance of existing quantity of exterior parking spaces
Acceptance of existing quantity of parking lot landscape islands
Acceptance of existing location of storm retention pond & brick wall
Acceptance of location of existing exterior brick sign
Acceptance of existing 1st floor structural loading
Allowance for assembly function use

Page 6 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/InitialApplication.pdf states more specifically what they would like to do in the way of renovation.  "The scope of renovation will include a new roof, minor exterior repairs, and new interior fit out of the 43,916 square feet.  The site work will be limited to minor patching and repairs, landscape cleanup, and jurisdictional requirements over the 1.78 acre site."

It then goes on to discuss the other variances being requested, and emphasizes that they want to avoid excessive rework and unnecessary expense.

It addresses the floor load issue this way:
"Finally, the First Floor entry area has a live load capacity of 75 pounds per square foot versus a code required loading of 100 pounds per square foot.  Subject to approval, the area could be posted with signs indicating a reduced live load capacity in lieu of the substantial renovation required to further reinforce the slab."

This packet also includes documentation on a parking easement granted by the US  Post Office, their neighbor to the east. 

Page 4 of http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/InitialApplication2.pdf has the Environmental Site Analysis and states:

"The property is 1.78 acres.  It ends about 5 feet from the eastern side of the Building.  The remaining eastern portion of the CSI site, approximately 65 feet wide by 400 feet long, is owned by the United States Postal Service.  An existing easement permits the usage of approximate .6 acre that is east of the building and is owned by the USPS."

There are 31 spaces in this easement. 

It also phrases the part quoted from the initial application in a slightly different way: "The Project includes the renovation and rehabilitation of an existing building of approximately 43,916 square feet on four levels."  It then goes on to repeat the verbiage from the application.

The basement level is an underground parking garage, open to the elements on one side.  Neither of these state plainly that they are requesting to close in the parking garage and include it in the interior renovations.  There are 30 parking spaces in the basement parking garage.  In addition to the easement parking and the garage parking, there are 50 spaces.

By the 2nd or 3rd meeting, apparently an amended application had been filed, which placed the sanctuary on the to-be-enclosed basement floor instead of the structurally unsuitable first floor.  I don't immediately see a copy of that on my site or my hard drive; perhaps I have it somewhere, perhaps not - at this point, I don't see the value in looking for it.  At any rate, I don't see enclosing a basement garage as a "minor exterior repair" and I doubt Sandy Springs did either.

During the meetings, Galloway proposed that they lease offsite parking for when they held events, and otherwise the building occupancy would be limited to some number of people.  Sandy Springs did not want the chore of monitoring how many people were in the building at any given time, nor did they want to impose that chore on the local citizens who were in a position to see the building.  They also (to the best of my memory) did not want to have to keep up with monitoring the offsite lease, making sure it was renewed and not canceled, etc.

The shared parking arrangement with the PO, the easement, was never at issue.  It was always included in calculations.  Without it, and without the underground parking spaces, there were only 50 spaces.  There were a total of 111: 50 on-site surface spaces, 31 PO easement spaces, and 30 underground garage spaces.

I also recall Galloway saying something about being told by someone at the planning office that they didn't need to ask for a variance on something - I don't recall if it was parking or not.  Galloway said a lot of conflicting things during the numerous meetings, of which there were only supposed to be 4, and generally seemed to be making it up as he went along (and this was 3 years ago, so my memory of some things is fuzzy).  Of course, the possibility exists that he was being micromanaged by the "church" and that he is not really a natural liar or incompetent lawyer.  He does seem to be highly regarded in the metro Atlanta area. 

I hope somewhere in there is enough clarification about parking...   I will be back later to offer my opinions and speculations about your general non-legal question. 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 23, 2012, 22:35
I have a general non-legal question about this case, because the more I think about what's going on here, the less I understand it. Most US orgs are struggling to get by, struggling to send money uplines on a weekly basis, per most insider accounts, and yet the Sandy Springs org has deep enough pockets to engage in fairly costly litigation. So I'm curious if anyone 'on the ground' there, so to speak, can offer their opinion as to why so much time, energy, and money has been invested into obtaining this particular variance. I can't think of a single instance where parking has been a problem for a Scientology org, ever; so I'm assuming that parking is only the stated reason. I acknowledge that Scientology often acts on postulated traffic--how else to explain Clearwater's massive and soon-to-remain-empty SuperPower Building? But this is just an org, so I'm real curious if anyone can offer an opinion as to why this org in particular needs to expand, and possibly where the money is coming from to make this all happen. It's not as if every org across the country is abusing RLUIPA to expand.

As I mentioned earlier, this is something we've wondered about also.  I don't think this org is different from the others in struggling to send money uplines, nor do I think the local members are doing any better financially than those of other orgs. 

There are currently 3 large cases working their way through the courts here: this RLUIPA case, Waterford Park vs. CoS of Ga. (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6309.0.html), and Desmond vs. Narconon (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,8408.0.html).  One relatively small one, Hanchett vs. Narconon (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,7825.0.html).  There also are or have recently been individual cases against some of the members: CitiFinancial Services, Inc. vs. Deborah Danos (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10M92513-000.pdf), Discover Bank vs. Douglas D. Mackay (http://www.ojs.dekalbga.org/servlet/page?_pageid=65,289&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dcms.case_id=11M02909&dcms.ent_code=COURTS&dcms.pstart=0&dcms.sstart=0) (case #11M02909, if the link doesn't work), some garnishments, and a Homeowner's Association foreclosure for Mary Rieser (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,4355.0.html).  And those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head.

The members with businesses basically keep each other's businesses alive - dentists, chiropractors, accountants, marketing and PR, etc., all doing business round robin, with just enough cash flow from the outside world to keep from going under, kind of like a small town that's isolated from the larger cities.  Just my opinion, of course.

I believe your suspicions are correct about parking just being the stated reason.  I believe the real issue is having a sanctuary.  As shown in my previous post, the sanctuary cannot be on the first floor, and must be in the basement.  The basement must be enclosed if it is to contain a sanctuary.  Why is a sanctuary so important to a church that does not worship?  The IRS.  One of the IRS's weightier conditions for "church" status is that the church must hold regular, real world, assemblies.  If they do not have the sanctuary, they cannot have "church services" and, therefore, potentially jeopardize their church status.

Condensed version: http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/article/0,,id=155746,00.html
Complete guide: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

http://www.christian-attorney.net/what_is_a_church_irs_501c3.html
Quote
...in many cases, the key factor in whether or not an organization is classified as a church is the presence or absence of a congregation.  In other words, is the organization's membership a coherent group of individuals or families that regularly join together (primarily in person rather than by television or radio) to accomplish religious purposes or shared beliefs?

Why is this one org so important?  I think it's the only Class V org in the Southeast.  Nashville has a Celebrity Centre but not an org.  There may be a mission in one of the Carolinas, but it may have closed.  Nothing in Alabama, I don't think there's an org or mission in Mississippi, there may a mission in Louisiana; I do not think there's an org.  Virginia?  I don't think so.  There are orgs in Florida, but Florida is not really considered a part of the (capital S) South.

And where's the money coming from?  I think it's coming from CSI.  It just about has to be.

There also may be something hinky with the purchase of the building, though I have no actual proof of that, just a gut feeling: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,313.msg1981.html#msg1981

What I find curious is that while they're spending all this money on a RLUIPA case, the building rots as the case drags on.  In the end, will the building even be worth renovating?  Or is that the plan, to let the building rot, so it has to be rebuilt from the ground up, with new donations?

Of course, it may be all David Miscavige's ego - he can't stand to let the "wogs" win.   :D
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: tikk on February 24, 2012, 09:31
Thanks Ethercat for the thoughtful thoughts.

With regard to the IRS, I don't think that's a real consideration of theirs. I think you're probably reading a bit much into the IRS guidelines. For one thing, that ship has sailed; the IRS has zero interest in scrutinizing the religiosity of the mother ship(s) much less individual orgs, regardless of their stature in the organization. One could see this reluctance in the Sklar trial where the IRS so fiercely protected the secrecy of their settlement agreement with Scientology (regardless of it having been ostensibly published by the WSJ, it was a matter of being admissible evidence or not).

Besides the lack of political will, the guidelines you cite aren't applicable to the question of how a church loses the 501(c)(3) status it has already gained, but rather to the initial Form 1023 question of identifying an entity as a "church" (which are presumptively tax exempt, unlike non-profits which must undergo a more diligent inquiry) at the outset. The risk of losing already-gained exempt status hinges rather on the organization exhibiting a "non-tax-exempt purpose" (e.g., inurement, political activity, public policy-violating activity). The IRS would lose any subsequent litigation where it revoked the exempt status of a "church" because the church failed to meet that listed cosmetic, non-inclusive criteria.

Scientology goes to great lengths to cloak itself in recognizable religious trappings but that has everything to do with its sales pitch and very little to do with keeping the IRS at bay.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 24, 2012, 11:26
Scientology goes to great lengths to cloak itself in recognizable religious trappings but that has everything to do with its sales pitch and very little to do with keeping the IRS at bay.

You may be right about the IRS, but for whatever reason, the whole motivation for this RLUIPA suit seems to be focused around having the sanctuary.  They could occupy the building as it is now, if they didn't feel so strongly about having the additional floor - and the only reason for that seems to be the sanctuary, and the invented required size for an Ideal Org.  Well, let me qualify that - they could occupy the building now if it weren't in such a state of deterioration. 

They have made statements about the expense of having the plans redone for 3 floors instead of 4, yet with the expense of the RLUIPA suit, it would probably be more cost effective to redo the plans.

For whatever reason, the sanctuary seems very important to them, but it may be something as simple as that people in this area expect churches to have sanctuaries, which would be a sales factor as you mentioned.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 25, 2012, 08:25
I hate to be cynical but my thought is that this lawsuit has nothing to do with religion. From the city's standpoint, the issue has to do with parking; from the church's standpoint, it is about bullying someone that dare defy it. As Tikk suggests, these types of suits (RLUIPA) do little more than generate billable hours over which lawyers are more than happy to fight over as until the dollars dry up. The reconsideration was, in my opinion, a clear indication that the magistrate/judge wants these parties to come to the table and hammer out an agreement.

Due process requires this, but it wastes everyone's time and money.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 25, 2012, 08:51
I hate to be cynical but my thought is that this lawsuit has nothing to do with religion. From the city's standpoint, the issue has to do with parking; from the church's standpoint, it is about bullying someone that dare defy it.

My take, as well. Reading through many of the court documents posted on this forum and other sites, one begins to observe a trend of arrogance, attitude and denial when thwarted by legal opponents and the courts. Of course, this includes much whining when they don't get their way - pages and pages of it.   

More docs to come soon in a different case.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 25, 2012, 09:00
There are currently 3 large cases working their way through the courts here: this RLUIPA case, Waterford Park vs. CoS of Ga. (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,6309.0.html), and Desmond vs. Narconon (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,8408.0.html).  One relatively small one, Hanchett vs. Narconon (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,7825.0.html).  There also are or have recently been individual cases against some of the members: CitiFinancial Services, Inc. vs. Deborah Danos (http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/10M92513-000.pdf), Discover Bank vs. Douglas D. Mackay (http://www.ojs.dekalbga.org/servlet/page?_pageid=65,289&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dcms.case_id=11M02909&dcms.ent_code=COURTS&dcms.pstart=0&dcms.sstart=0) (case #11M02909, if the link doesn't work), some garnishments, and a Homeowner's Association foreclosure for Mary Rieser (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,4355.0.html).  And those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head.

Don't forget about this one! (http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,8424.0.html)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on February 25, 2012, 13:26
 ooo}
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 29, 2012, 07:01
Neighborhoods concerned about Scientology mediation - Reporter Newspapers (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNE2mucBHMxKwoot3Ui6BB1shNqvUw&url=http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/02/29/neighborhoods-concerned-about-scientology-mediation/)
29 February 2012, 12:09 am
By Dan Whisenhunt on February 29, 2012.

The Sandy Springs City Council can’t talk about the latest developments in an ongoing lawsuit filed against it by the Church of Scientology. But the city’s residents are talking, and they don’t like where things are headed.

At its Feb. 21 meeting City Attorney Wendell Willard said the lawsuit, filed in federal court, is headed to court-ordered mediation. The City Council in 2009 approved the church’s application to open at 5395 Roswell Road, but did not allow the church to expand space at the building because of limited parking, sparking a lawsuit that alleged the city violated the church’s religious freedom.

Hundreds of residents in the city’s neighborhoods opposed the 2009 zoning application, and that sentiment hasn’t faded with time. At the High Point Civic Association’s Feb. 28 meeting, the association’s outgoing zoning Chairwoman Jane Kelley conducted an informal poll of members....

Video: http://youtu.be/V2R8CTXsHcE

....City resident Robin Beechey, who has been a vocal opponent of the church’s application, said the council will face pressure from the public to stick to its guns. The council in 2009 split 3-3 on the zoning application, with Galambos casting the tie-breaking vote.

“I just want to put down a marker to indicate that there are many hundreds of local citizens who will be watching carefully to ensure that an unsatisfactory compromise does not emerge,” he told the City Council on Feb. 21.

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/02/29/neighborhoods-concerned-about-scientology-mediation/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on February 29, 2012, 07:16
Go, Sandy Springs citizens!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on February 29, 2012, 18:41
I have to hand it to the citizens for their involvement in their community - something seen too seldom.   C{{O}}2

It was nice to see some familiar Sandy Springs names again.  I like those people.

My comment:
Quote
ethercat
February 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Anyone who says that scientology is no worse than any other religion (Robert Turner and Hire_A_Veteran, I’m looking at you two) doesn’t know enough about scientology.

But the issue is not the “religious” teachings of scientology; the issue is whether the owner of the building at 5395 Roswell Rd. should be allowed to enclose the underground parking garage, thus reducing the already too small number of parking spaces.

The building has been left to deteriorate for 6 years. While the Church of Scientology apparently has the money to try to bully the City of Sandy Springs in Federal Court to get their way, they aren’t inclined to use any of their money to maintain the building they own and could use now, if they were willing to compromise on 3 floors instead of insisting on 4.

One might wonder exactly who is footing the bill for the RLUIPA lawsuit, and why, since the declining structural integrity of the building seems to matter naught.

Obviously, I'm still thinking of our recent discussion here.   ;)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 03, 2012, 07:17
Additional docket entries for 3/2/2012:
Quote
MINUTE ORDER. Whereas page 92 of the Court's 92 Order of February 10, 2012, contains a scrivener's error, the first paragraph on page 92 is corrected to read as follows:

"Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Count II (equal terms), Counts III, and Counts XI - XIII is GRANTED. Because triable issues of fact remain as to Counts I, II (nondiscrimination claim), IV, and Counts V - IX, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to these counts is DENIED."

Entered by Judge Amy Totenberg on 3/2/2012. (acm) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
03/02/2012        

MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the Parties' 97 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Pretrial Order. The date for submission of the pretrial order is extended to April 16, 2012, in order to allow the mediation to occur prior to filing a pretrial order. Entered by Judge Amy Totenberg on 3/2/2012. (acm) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

Documents to follow.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 06, 2012, 23:55
Documents to follow.

Here they are:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-02-22_NoticeOfLOA.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-02-22_NoticeOfSubstitutionOfCounsel.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-02-23_NoticeOfLOA.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-01_JointMotionToExtendTime-1.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-01_JointMotionToExtendTime-2.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-01_NoticeOfAppearanceOfCounsel.pdf

Of interest is that apparently the law firm of Dillard and Galloway is no longer.  The two have split, and the Scientologists are now represented by Andrea Cantrell Jones and Lauren M. Hansford of The Galloway Law Group, LLC.  No idea what the story behind this development is, but I sure would like to know if this case had anything to do with it.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on March 07, 2012, 09:15
It looks like the same lawyers are both still representing the church. The law offices are apparently on different floors of the same address-Mr. Dillard taking up residence on a lower floor with a different firm; Cantrel-Jones staying with Mr. Galloway. There is no reason why two law firms should not be financially compensated for wasting time-especially when the Co$ is footing the bill. Law firms break up all the time so, who knows . . .?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 10, 2012, 23:29
03/09/2012|100 ORDER granting 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public. The Court EXTENDS the deadline for the parties' submission of their proposed consolidated pretrial order to April 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 03/09/2012. (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/08/2012|99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amy Totenberg: Telephone Conference held on 3/8/2012. The Court held a telephone conference with counsel re the 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation; written order to follow. The proposed consolidated pretrial order is due April 30, 2012. (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/07/2012|98 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public and Consent Order by City of Sandy Springs, Georgia. (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 10, 2012, 23:43
03/09/2012|100 ORDER granting 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public. The Court EXTENDS the deadline for the parties' submission of their proposed consolidated pretrial order to April 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 03/09/2012. (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/08/2012|99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amy Totenberg: Telephone Conference held on 3/8/2012. The Court held a telephone conference with counsel re the 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation; written order to follow. The proposed consolidated pretrial order is due April 30, 2012. (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/07/2012|98 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public and Consent Order by City of Sandy Springs, Georgia. (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

I guess they didn't want anyone to watch...  I wonder how the Sandy Springs residents feel about it...
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on March 17, 2012, 15:37
03/09/2012|100 ORDER granting 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public. The Court EXTENDS the deadline for the parties' submission of their proposed consolidated pretrial order to April 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 03/09/2012. (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/08/2012|99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amy Totenberg: Telephone Conference held on 3/8/2012. The Court held a telephone conference with counsel re the 98 Joint Motion to Close Mediation; written order to follow. The proposed consolidated pretrial order is due April 30, 2012. (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/07/2012|98 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to Close Mediation to the Public and Consent Order by City of Sandy Springs, Georgia. (Henderson, Laurel) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

Here are the filings for this part of the docket:

http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-07_JointMotiontoCloseMediationtoPublic.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-08_MinuteEntry.pdf
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-09_OrderGrantingMotiontoCloseMediation.pdf

It seems they had a dilemma -


And apparently, the parties do not feel comfortable discussing any potential settlement where outsiders (i.e., the Council's constituents) can listen in.

So...  They are going to have a closed mediation with the Mayor and City Council on March 26. 

Then...  They will have a properly noticed open public meeting where the City Council of Sandy Springs will review and vote on any proposed settlement.

And...  The court has ordered the deadline for the parties’ submission of their proposed consolidated pretrial order to April 30, 2012.

No idea if any public input will be allowed at the public meeting (if there is a proposed settlement), or if, based on that input (if it occurs), there can be any change between a proposed settlement (if there is one) from the closed meeting and the open meeting - or if it's all only about going through the motions. 

Also, no idea where the closed mediation or the open meeting will take place.  I guess if the meeting must be noticed (residents given notice), the place of the open meeting will be made public before it happens.

I am opinionated (as usual) but I'll let our panel of legal analysts comment before I go into rant mode.  That is, assuming we still have our panel of legal analysts.   ;)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: skydog on March 20, 2012, 06:59
It sounds to me that if the mediators are able to broker an agreement, it will have to be voted upon by the city council. It makes sense to close the mediation to the public as it will allow each party to speak without fear of the media taking certain things out of context. A hearing to discuss and vote on the settlement protects the public. No need to rant just yet.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on March 20, 2012, 20:53
It sounds to me that if the mediators are able to broker an agreement, it will have to be voted upon by the city council. It makes sense to close the mediation to the public as it will allow each party to speak without fear of the media taking certain things out of context. A hearing to discuss and vote on the settlement protects the public. No need to rant just yet.

Good to know. Thanks for your comments.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on April 03, 2012, 20:46
Case 1:10-cv-00082-AT Document 101 Filed 03/30/12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA, INC., a Georgia Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, et. al Defendants.
CONSENT ORDER

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 1:10-cv-0082-AT

By Amended Order of February 10, 2012, the Parties were ordered to mediation no later than April 2, 2012. On March 26, 2012 the Parties mediated the parking dispute on which remaining claims are based before the Hon. Stanley Burch.

While it appears that no agreement was finalized in mediation, the Parties have agreed to consideration of a revised parking arrangement on the Subject Property which will require 30 to 45 days of review time by City staff. Should a revised parking arrangement be acceptable to the City, Plaintiff seeks modification of existing zoning conditions which would further require public notice at least 15 days in advance of a new public hearing. Absent such notice and public hearing, the existing conditions of zoning may not modified.

The Court has established a deadline of April 30 for submission of a Proposed Consolidated Pre-Trial Order in this case.

Extension of that deadline will permit the Parties to continue to explore potential settlement by completing review of a revised parking plan, meeting to clarify any remaining issues, and, if successful, noticing and holding the required public hearing and vote.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for submission of a Proposed Consolidated Pre-Trial Order in the above style case is hereby extended until June 15, 2012 to facilitate the continuation of settlement efforts and adoption of any changed conditions to zoning necessitated to resolve this matter.

So Ordered, this 30th day of March, 2012.
Hon. Amy Totenberg, Judge
US District Court, Nortern District of Georgia

Full document to follow.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on April 04, 2012, 12:47
Thanks, mefree. I read something about this in the news the other day but this is more specific. Look forward to the doc.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on April 15, 2012, 19:49
 Within the next day or so the city attorney for Sandy Springs GA will have a package containing the Desmond vs NarCONon of Ga case. As Maria and Don Delgado housed NarCONon clients within the city limits of Sandy Springs I thought the city attorney should be made aware of this fact.

 Best to know what your new members of the community have been up to! The pictures of Mary Rieser and Maria Delgado @ the Sept 09 zoning meeting speak volumes!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on April 15, 2012, 23:22
 C{{O}}2
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on April 16, 2012, 13:19
Case 1:10-cv-00082-AT Document 101 Filed 03/30/12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA, INC., a Georgia Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, et. al Defendants.
CONSENT ORDER

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 1:10-cv-0082-AT

...snip...

Full document to follow.



Here's a link to the order:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/2012-03-30_ConsentOrder.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on April 16, 2012, 17:21
 :-thanks-:
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on May 17, 2012, 17:31
Sandy Springs nearing resolution on Scientology case  (http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/15/sandy-springs-nearing-resolution-on-scientology-case/)
By Dan Whisenhunt on May 15, 2012.

...According to federal court records, the two parties met in a mediation session on March 26.

The consent order filed on March 30 says the church and the city didn’t finalize an agreement during that session but says both sides are willing to consider a revised parking plan. The consent order says city staff needed 30 to 45 days to review the plan, and said any zoning changes would require public notice 15 days in advance of a public hearing. The order also extends the deadline to submit a “proposed consolidated pretrial order” to June 15.

City Attorney Wendell Willard confirmed the consent order, but declined further comment.

“We’re in the process of evaluating that,” Willard said. “It’s not completed.”

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/15/sandy-springs-nearing-resolution-on-scientology-case/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: Mary_McConnell on May 17, 2012, 19:10
This thread "Read 13840 times" Cool
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on May 25, 2012, 22:07
Sandy Springs nearing resolution on Scientology case  (http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/15/sandy-springs-nearing-resolution-on-scientology-case/)
By Dan Whisenhunt on May 15, 2012.

...According to federal court records, the two parties met in a mediation session on March 26.

The consent order filed on March 30 says the church and the city didn’t finalize an agreement during that session but says both sides are willing to consider a revised parking plan. The consent order says city staff needed 30 to 45 days to review the plan, and said any zoning changes would require public notice 15 days in advance of a public hearing. The order also extends the deadline to submit a “proposed consolidated pretrial order” to June 15.

City Attorney Wendell Willard confirmed the consent order, but declined further comment.

“We’re in the process of evaluating that,” Willard said. “It’s not completed.”

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/15/sandy-springs-nearing-resolution-on-scientology-case/

 The dots. Connect them. ;)
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on June 14, 2012, 19:03
Sandy Springs to hold public hearing on resolution of Scientology suit  (http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/14/sandy-springs-to-hold-public-hearing-on-resolution-of-scientology-suit/)
By Dan Whisenhunt on June 14, 2012

The saga of the Church of Scientology vs. the City of Sandy Springs may finally be drawing to a close.

According to a public notice, there will be a hearing about the case on the June 19 City Council meeting at 6 p.m. at Sandy Springs City Hall, located at 7840 Roswell Road, Building 500.

Information about how the church and the city resolved the lawsuit is not yet available.

According to federal court records, the two parties met in a mediation session on March 26.

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/14/sandy-springs-to-hold-public-hearing-on-resolution-of-scientology-suit/

Judge Totenberg has signed a consent order extending time:
Quote
Consent Order

Amended Order of February 10, 2012, The Parties were ordered to mediation no later than April 2, 2012. On March 26, 2012 the Parties mediated before the Hon. Stanley Burch the issue of whether an acceptable parking arrangement could be agreed upon to allow Plaintiff's requested expansion and modification of the basement for church use.

While it appears that no agreement was finalized in mediation, the Parties agreed to consideration of a revised parking arrangement on the Subject Property. Should a revised parking arrangement be acceptable to the City, Plaintiff seeks modification of existing zoning conditions which would further require public notice at least 15 days in advance of a new public hearing. Absent such notice and public hearing, the existing conditions of zoning may not be modified.

The Court previously established a deadline of June 15, 2012 for submission of a Proposed Consolidated Pre-Trial Order in this case by its Order of March 9, 2012. While that deadline had been previously extended, review of the proposed site plan took longer than anticipated. That review has now been completed and the public hearing on the revised plan has been noticed and is scheduled for June 19, 2012. One final extension of the deadline for filing the Pre-Trial Order will permit the Parties to conclude their settlement efforts by holding the public hearing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for submission of a Proposed Consolidated Pre-Trial Order in the above style case is hereby extended until June 30, 2012 to facilitate the continuation of settlement efforts and adoption of any changed conditions to zoning necessary to resolve this matter.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on June 14, 2012, 21:32

 I would think a printed handout to those citizens in attendance during the meeting is in order. Share with the citizens the long list of lawsuits,lien,s and other factual actions this so called religion has unleashed on our communities.

 
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: BigBeard on June 15, 2012, 10:14
Also include the long list of lies about "expansion" to get there way that ended up with empty, blighted buildings.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on June 16, 2012, 21:50
Well, a proposed compromise has been posted:
http://www.sandyspringsga.gov/City-Government/City-Council/City-Council-Meetings/2012/MCC2012-06-19

Here's a direct link to the information packet: http://www.sandyspringsga.gov/SandySprings/media/Agendas/MCC/2012/0619/REG/9-Agenda-Item-No--12-158.pdf

From the drawing at the end (page 5), it looks like the parts in yellow are greenspace that will be be converted to parking spaces, and the orange are existing parking that will be restriped. 

If the "church" paid property taxes, the city could at least hit them for more because of impervious space, but they don't, so they can't (respectively).

I imagine public input will be taken at the meeting Tuesday, but wonder if it will have any bearing on a decision at this stage of the game.  It looks like scientology may have worn down another opponent with abuse of the legal system, until the opponent just gives in... 

Now, what I want to know is, who's paying for all this?
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on June 19, 2012, 22:39
Sandy Springs City Council defers settlement of Scientology lawsuit - Reporter Newspapers (blog) (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNFUSnzmFhoGy6-A6yFA18Ke8eTNJQ&url=http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/19/sandy-springs-city-council-defers-settlement-of-scientology-lawsuit/)
19 June 2012, 8:08 pm
By Dan Whisenhunt

The Sandy Springs City Council has deferred approving a zoning change that would settle the Church of Scientology’s lengthy religious discrimination lawsuit against the city.

The council at its June 19 meeting voted 4-2 to defer the zoning change until its July 17 meeting, rejecting the advice of its attorney. The council wanted to give residents objecting to the application more notice than they received.

Council members John Paulson and Dianne Fries voted against the motion, saying the city should follow the advice of its attorney, Laurel Henderson, who is representing the city in the case.

The city ran a public notice about the proposed settlement in the Sandy Springs Neighbor newspaper but did not run a notice in the Sandy Springs Reporter newspaper. Robin Beechey, a resident who has been vocal against the application since it was introduced in 2009, said many in the community living in the Perimeter inside I-285  do not receive The Sandy Springs Neighbor.

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/19/sandy-springs-city-council-defers-settlement-of-scientology-lawsuit/


Sandy Springs delays vote on church expansion (AJC)

http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/sandy-springs-delays-vote-1460913.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/sandy-springs-delays-vote-1461316.html

Video and additional comments will be posted later.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on June 19, 2012, 23:25

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/19/sandy-springs-city-council-defers-settlement-of-scientology-lawsuit/

Comments are open on the above link. Let the Sandy Springs citizenry know what apparently cannot be spoken about @ public meetings I.E The TRUTH!
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on June 21, 2012, 21:01
Linking videos thread here: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,198.msg23828/topicseen.html#new
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on June 21, 2012, 21:59
From before the meeting:
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/18828888/sandy-springs-city-council-to-vote-on-church-of-scientology-expansion

Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on June 21, 2012, 22:06
From before the meeting:
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/18828888/sandy-springs-city-council-to-vote-on-church-of-scientology-expansion

Robin Beechey was very eloquent at the meeting.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on June 22, 2012, 12:11
Robin Beechey was very eloquent at the meeting.

Why do I find that unsurprising? And you gotta love that accent!

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on June 22, 2012, 12:44
^^^
Definitely!  ;D

One more article:

City council delays Scientology vote - NeighborNewspapers.com (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHdTZ6vB6RWdC0MjSghbO6vERb7NA&url=http://neighbornewspapers.com/bookmark/19079282-City-council-delays-Scientology-vote)
22 June 2012, 2:47 pm
by Noreen Lewis Cochran

The Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology received a setback in its application to renovate 5395 Roswell Road at the corner of Glenridge Drive when the Sandy Springs City Council at its regular meeting Tuesday at City Hall voted 4-2 to defer the vote until its July 17 meeting.

more at http://neighbornewspapers.com/bookmark/19079282-City-council-delays-Scientology-vote
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: ethercat on July 11, 2012, 20:07
The neighbors are still opposed:

http://neighbornewspapers.com/view/full_story/19268493/article-LETTER-TO-THE
Quote
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Residents object to Scientology rezoning
July 11, 2012 02:14 PM

EDITOR:

We represent several hundred homeowners who live in the immediate vicinity of 5395 Roswell Road. We objected to the original rezoning in 2009 and now object strongly to a further proposed expansion of the use as a church, by conversion of the basement parking garage.

We believe...

Read the rest at the link above.
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on July 13, 2012, 22:11
Sandy Springs to consider Scientology church's expansion plans - Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHMCpEQcwO-x0MAvYclTj9HQFjxTw&url=http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/sandy-springs-to-consider-1477714.html)
13 July 2012, 5:04 pm
By Pat Fox

Opponents of an expansion at the Church of Scientology in Sandy Springs say they hope to defeat the proposal Tuesday when it goes before the City Council.

Church leaders have waited three years for permission to add 12,000 square feet to their building near Roswell Road and Glendridge Drive. The proposal was defeated in 2009, and the church filed suit.

Last year, a federal judge upheld the city's decision to limit the size of the church based on its on-site parking, but church leaders say they have corrected the deficiency.

The City Council appeared poised to approve the rezoning last month, but more than 50 opponents showed up and argued they had not been given enough notice to prepare their case. They said they oppose the expansion based on its effect on one of the city's busiest intersections.

The council voted 5-2 to delay a decision until this month.

"I think that some on the council might be peddling the view that this has all been settled," said Robin Beechey, who represents the Willow Glen Condominium Association. "That is not the case. It's perfectly open to the council to turn this application down."

more at http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/sandy-springs-to-consider-1477714.html
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on July 13, 2012, 22:15
City changes liability insurance - Sandy Springs Reporter (http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/28/city-changes-liability-insurance/)
By Dan Whisenhunt

As Sandy Springs wraps up its ongoing lawsuit with the Church of Scientology, the city is moving its liability insurance policy out of a insurance pool that has paid the city’s legal costs.

City leaders say the move will save money while providing the same level of coverage.

Records show the switch to a private insurer will save the city nearly $200,000 this year. The Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency, known has GIRMA, has been the city’s liability insurer since 2005. GIRMA is a shared-risk insurance pool offered to cities, which are typically too costly for private insurers to cover.

George Van Leuven, manager of risk management for GIRMA, said the insurance pool has spent $84,000 to date defending the city in the Scientology suit, which has dragged through the courts since 2009. The city was also billed for a $10,000 deductible on the claim.

more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/28/city-changes-liability-insurance/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on July 17, 2012, 21:50
http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/07/17/breaking-sandy-springs-city-council-votes-to-settle-scientology-suit/
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on July 17, 2012, 22:14
Vote expected on Church of Scientology - WGCL Atlanta (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEMgjEE1CWuc5uoJ9Cg0CtWDfbcqw&url=http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/19045059/vote-expected-on-church-of-sciento)
17 July 2012, 1:10 pm

Quote
....Woody Galloway, an attorney for the church, told CBS Atlanta that the church will use land at the adjacent post office to secure an additional 50 parking spots and comply with city ordinances.

"This is a desperate attempt to try to prevent the church from going forward," Galloway said. "They will not be successful."

Galloway said that a 44,000-square-foot church facility will generate less traffic than the offices the building once housed.

"There is no reason for this case to be denied," Galloway said.

The council voted to allow the church to continue with its plans, but some neighbors said their fight isn't over - they're considering a lawsuit against the Sandy Springs next.

"We won the argument but lost the case," Beechey said.

Video: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/19045059/vote-expected-on-church-of-sciento

Copyright 2012 WGCL-TV (Meredith Corporation).  All rights reserved

Sandy Springs grants church expansion - ajc (http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/sandy-springs-grants-church-1479764.html)
By Pat Fox
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Quote
With a packed house looking on Tuesday night, the Sandy Springs City Council approved a request by the Church of Scientology to expand its facility near the corner of Roswell Road and Glendridge Drive.

The 5-1 vote ended a three-year battle the church has waged to add 12,000 square feet to a former office building it has occupied since 2009.

"It's been a long struggle," said attorney William Woodson Galloway, who represented the church. "We think the City Council did the right thing in approving the settlement."

A crowd of about 50 church members were on hand to speak in support of the expansion.

more at http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/sandy-springs-grants-church-1479764.html
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: wynot on July 17, 2012, 23:32
One has to wonder how the hell they are going to come up with the money to finish such a project, considering they have had the building for years now, and have not improved it in any noticeable way...

Serious regging action on the horizon, I do believe! Poor (and getting poorer) little clams...

'til next time;
wynot
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: SocialTransparency on July 18, 2012, 10:04

 Some may find this of interest.

http://www.sandyspringsga.org/City-Departments/Community-Development/Permit-Program

http://www.sandyspringsga.org/SandySprings/media/Documents/Community%20Development/Land%20Development%20and%20Environmental%20Protection/Art8-TreeConservOrd.pdf

http://www.sandyspringsga.org/SandySprings/media/Documents/Community%20Development/TreeRemovalPermitInfo.pdf
Title: Re: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia
Post by: mefree on July 18, 2012, 17:10
One more article...

City Makes Way for Church of Scientology Expansion, Approves Zoning - Patch.com (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGmfRN0ihrdM3DhfZNK1S4MY4rPVg&url=http://sandysprings.patch.com/articles/city-settles-lawsuit-making-way-for-church-of-scientology-expansion)
18 July 2012, 6:26 am

(http://nt1.ggpht.com/news/tbn/BZ5MPmCGWiNzhM/6.jpg)

The Church of Scientology received the go-ahead from the City of Sandy Springs to convert an office building into a church space, Tuesday night.

In a 5-1 vote, City Council approved zoning modification conditions to expand the office building, located at Glenridge Drive and Roswell Road.

“Right now the city is at about $90,000 in damages,” said Laurel Henderson, legal counsel for the city."

It was a standing room crowd.

    The Lawsuit


The Church of Scientology sued the City of Sandy Springs in state and Federal District Court for discrimination, in 2009. Their request for modification included converting an underground parking deck into finished usable space. Although converting the building was approved, the city denied conversion of the parking deck saying 130 total parking spaces were required.

In February 2012, a Federal District Court judge sent the case to mediation. As a result, the church came up with a plan that meets the city requirements and allows the building to expand from 32,053 to 43,916 square feet.

During the previous City Council meeting, in June, members decided to delay a decision to grant expansion and settle the lawsuit, against legal counsel's advice.


    "If It's About Parking..."

“If that’s true [and it is about parking] then we’ve got the solution,” said Church of Scientology attorney, Woody Galloway. “If it’s about keeping the Church of Scientology out of Sandy Springs, then we can’t address that because the church has a right to be here.”

Parking spaces were at the heart of Church of Scientology’s discrimination suit against the city.

Sandy Springs attorney Laurel Henderson explained two past instances in which City Council members approved variances for under-parked facilities. In one case, the city initially required Beth Teffilah synagogue to have 105 parking spaces when it sought to build a school and other facilities, on the property, Henderson said. The synagogue only had 71 spaces, but a permit for expansion was granted after they presented a letter stating that a school nearby would allow use of its parking lot.

In similar fashion, City Council later approved variances with another church, Henderson said.

Along with adding parking spaces required by the city, the Church of Scientology has the use of parking spaces at a post office easement. The easement was also provided to the previous occupants of the Scientology building.

more at http://sandysprings.patch.com/articles/city-settles-lawsuit-making-way-for-church-of-scientology-expansion