Guess this will be the impetus.
Counsel can twist his words all he wants in this matter. 10 months of UNEDITED video does NOT lie.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
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
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?
Yes, how about "RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia"?Doooo eet
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/church-of-scientology-sues-275301.htmlDamn. 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?
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?
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)
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?
Found that one while you were posting. :DWho is Andrea Cantrell Jones?
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."
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.
Who is Andrea Cantrell Jones?
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
how much money are they going to waste on this?
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.
Sad to see the Sandy Springs Reporter news paper not mentioning the lastest news about their city being sued. :-\
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.
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.
Interesting to see "Church of scientology International" has some vested interest ( Financial ?) in this case.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA-CertificateOfInterestedParties.pdf
It would be of benefit, IMO if the local citizenry knew who actually holds the deed to the property.
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.
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
"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
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
404 error at 2nd linky.
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
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.
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.abstract found at http://works.bepress.com/adam_macleod/8/
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.
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, 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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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
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.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_37-4_COS_Statement_of_Material_Facts.pdf
28.
Scientology churches also hold congregational services on Sundays, religious holidays, and certain other occasions.
29.
Scientologists believe that the expansion and dissemination of the religion is necessary to salvage human civilization.
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.
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.
:o~! You sure have been busy!! Have to set aside and hour tomorrow nite to read them!
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-3_Affidavit_of_Robert_Wright.pdf
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.
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.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_38-4_Affidavit_of_Nancy_Leathers.pdfThis consists of several pages from Nancy Leathers' deposition, might as well read the whole deposition.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-1_Exhibit_G3.pdfThis 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.pdfThis refers to the rezoning for Lutheran Church of the Apostles.
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-3_Exhibit_G5.pdfCongregation Beth Tiffilah
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-4_Exhibit_G6.pdfZainabia Islamic Education Center
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_40-5_Exhibit_H.pdfExhibit 16 to Deposition of Robert Wright: Scientology Classification Gradation & Awareness Chart
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits-38.pdfAdministrivia
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_39.pdfAdministrivia
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_40.pdfAdministrivia
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-1.pdfKimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 1
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_E-39-2.pdfKimley-Horn Traffic Study Part 2
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?
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-5.pdfZoning Ordinance 18.2.1
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-6.pdfSome pages from the rezoning meeting packets
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-7.pdfSome pages from the rezoning meeting packets
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-8.pdfSome pages from the rezoning meeting packets discussing the parking study
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-9.pdfAlternate conditions proposed at the Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2009
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA/12-15-2010_Sandy_Springs_Zoning_38-10.pdfAlternate conditions proposed at the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 20, 2009
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.
20 A Did I finish all my thoughts? Was I in the
21 middle of something?
25 Q Okay. Are there rites or rituals for
1 officially becoming part of a Scientology organization?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...
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.
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.
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.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.
23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.
Mary. To your knowledge, has Deb Danos ever appeared in other court cases? Has she ever been deposed?
Quoted from Deborah Quinn Danos depositionQuote23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.
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.
The dumbest move of the picket was
when DSA of Denver, Deb Danos had the sign saying "Wollersheim used
Penny."
cut to Deb Danos speaking to the crowd who has gathered
around to listen-
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.
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.
23 Q (By Ms. Henderson) Have you ever been deposed
24 before?
25 A No.
(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.
(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?
No bail for accused murderer Rex Fowler
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.
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.
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
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.
Sorry for the length of this post;
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.
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://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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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)
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
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.
...
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?
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.
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.
A new Motion by the "church":
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/RLUIPA\2011-10-28_MotionForReconsideration.pdf
Merely disagreeing with a court’s decision is not a basis for relief.
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.
Plaintiff chose to submit an incomplete parking study that did not reflect the anticipated parking demand for its facility operating at full capacity.
Plaintiff continues to “quibble” over the definition of a “church” in the Zoning Ordinance, repeating its arguments from summary judgment almost verbatim.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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" ofthe holy lawsuitScientology'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
From the federal case docket:QuoteORDER 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)
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.
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.
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.
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?{=lies=}
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.
The little Dutch boy (Miscavige) is learning that there are too many holes in the dikes for his fingers to plug.
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.
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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/
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.
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!
more at http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/19/sandy-springs-city-council-defers-settlement-of-scientology-lawsuit/
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.
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...
....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
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.