STOP-WISE.BIZ > Ursula Milde vs. The Housing Authority of the town of Greenwich

Ursula Milde vs. The Housing Authority of the town of Greenwich; The Housing Authority of the town of Greenwich Board of Commissioners; and Benjamin Little, CEO, September 9, 2002

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination motion
From: Kristi Wachter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:43:23 -0400
Pardon the formatting - I wanted to get this up quickly.
It's available from the court clerk of the US District Court for the 
District of Connecticut.
URSULA MILDE,                       :
Plaintiff,                  CIVIL ACTION NO.
:       3:00 CV 2423 (AVC)
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE                    :
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE                    :
COMMISSIONERS; and BENJAMIN                     :
LITTLE, CEO,                            September 9, 2002
Defendants.         :
The Plaintiff, Ursula Milde hereby submits this Memorandum of Law 
in support of her Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Endorsement 
dated August 28, 2002, denying her relief to file her Sixth Amended 
Complaint to include religious discrimination based on Scientology, 
pursuant Title VII, 42 U.S.C. S 2000e.
The Plaintiff, Ursula Milde ("Plaintiff") brought this action for damages 
by Complaint dated December 20, 2000, alleging six causes of action, 
including gender discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, first 
amendment violations, and associated state law tort and contract claims.  
Thereafter, the complaint was twice amended, once so that the Plaintiff 
could allege additional facts in support of her claims, and once to 
withdraw a state law contract claim.  The Plaintiff thus filed a Second 
Amended Complaint on July 16, 2001 [Doc.#22], and a revised Second Amended 
Complaint on October 1, 2001 [Doc.# 35].
The Court endorsed the Parties' Planning Report on August 3, 2001. Up this 
point, no discovery could commence in this case, pursuant to the Local 
Civil Rules.
Thereafter, on January 25, 2002, this Court ruled on a Motion to Dismiss 
and Strike directed to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.  The 
Court ruled that the Plaintiff was to file another amended complaint that 
set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim."  The Order did not 
provide additional guidance as to a "short and plain statement of the 
claims." The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on February 13, 
2002, which fully complied with the Court's January 25, 2002 Order.
Despite the Plaintiff's compliance, on March 21, 2002, the 
Defendants again moved to strike the Third Amended Complaint on the ground 
that, as drafted, it fails to comply with F.R.C.P. 8 because it is not a 
"short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 
entitled to relief." [Doc.#50].  Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth 
Amended Complaint on April 12, 2002. [Doc.#52].  On the same date, She 
also filed a motion to extend discovery until July 1, 2002. [Doc.#53], 
which was Endorsed on April 16, 2002.  On April 26, 2002, the Defendants 
filed yet another motion to strike. [Doc.56], which was Endorsed on June 
13, 2002.  On May 30, 2002, the parties filed a joint motion to extend 
discovery [Doc.#59], which was Endorsed on May 31, 2002. On June 10, 2002, 
Plaintiff sought leave to file Fifth Amended Complaint. [Doc.#61], which 
was Endorsed on June 13, 2002.  
On July 8, 2002, Plaintiff sought leave to file her Sixth Amended 
Complaint pursuant to the Court's Order dated June 13, 2002. The Sixth 
Amended Complaint sought to include Plaintiff's religious discrimination 
claim based on Scientology.  On July 29, 2002, the parties filed another 
joint motion to extend discovery, with no definite dates provided, which 
was Endorsed on August 1, 2002 and setting the discovery cutoff date as 
November 1, 2002. Also on August 1, 2002, the Court Endorsed Plaintiff's 
motion to file the Sixth Amended Complaint.  However, the Defendants filed 
their respective Motion to Dismiss and Strike as to the Sixth Amended 
Complaint. [Doc.#75]  The Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider the 
Court's August 1, 2002 Endorsement granting leave to file the Sixth 
Amended Complaint. [Doc.#76], which was Endorsed on August 27, 2002 and 
again on August 28, 2002. Although requested by motion [Doc.#79], 
Plaintiff was never given an opportunity to file and be heard on a 
Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and their 
Motion for Reconsideration.  Had Plaintiff been allowed to file such 
objections, then this would have alleviated the need to file the instant 
Motion for Reconsideration.
1.	Plaintiff Should be Allowed to Amend her Complaint Asserting a 
Claim for 
Religious Discrimination and Receive a Hearing on the Merits
A.  Plaintiff Requests that the Court Reconsider the Denial of Motion to 
Amend the Complaint.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its 
August 28, 2002 decision denying her the right to amend her complaint to 
including religious discrimination pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. S 
2000e and granting the Defendants Motion to Dismiss.  
In the following argument, Plaintiff will detail the events that 
led up to the filing of the Sixth Amended Complaint and the religious 
discrimination claim.  She will further explain the alleged delay in 
bringing the claim and why this Court should reconsider the merits of her 
claim.  She will explain in detail what Scientology is all about and how 
it played a substantial role in the Defendants discrimination against her, 
which eventually led up to her wrongful termination.  She will explain 
that neither she nor her counsel had the evidentiary basis to file the 
religious discrimination claim until July 8, 2002.  Finally, she will 
explain why her claim relates back to her original complaint and why the 
Defendants are not prejudiced by litigating the claim.
A.  The Existence of Scientology Discrimination by Defendants Against 
Plaintiff: An Extraordinary Case of Employment Discrimination.
This is not a standard Title VII religious discrimination case.  Defendant 
Little's actions were allegedly benign management practices used to help 
employees communicate more effectively. However, once you peel back the 
pages of his so called "management practices" you discover a remarkable 
plan of infiltration and control over the Housing Authority and its 
employees.  You will also uncover the motive behind Defendant Little's 
action to wrongfully terminate Plaintiff.  Plaintiff respectfully requests 
that the Court comprehend what Scientology is really all about, in order 
to understand the basis of her claim and why she should be entitled to a 
hearing on the merits.
The Church of Scientology was created by the late L. Ron Hubbard in the 
1950's, the author of Dianetics.  In 1993, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed 
that Scientology is a religion for all intent and purposes:
We need not reiterate this background because the district court found 
that no genuine factual issues existed to dispute Scientology's claim of 
being a bona fide religion. See 756 F.Supp. at 1502-04. The district court 
granted partial summary judgment to Scientology on that issue. Id. at 
1532; accord Founding Church of Scientology, 409 F.2d at 1160; 
Christofferson, 644 P.2d at 600-01. As the City has neither appealed from 
that order nor argued that Scientology is not entitled to protection under 
the religion clauses of the First Amendment, we must assume that the 
district court was correct. In addition, without deciding the question 
ourselves, we note that research has not uncovered any holdings that 
Scientology is not a religion for First Amendment purposes. But cf. Church 
of Scientology v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d at 1316-18 (upholding Tax Court 
determination that Church of Scientology was not entitled to religious tax 
exemption under 26 U.S.C. S 501(c)(3) for certain years because its 
revenues inured to the benefit of individuals and non-religious entities). 
Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. v. City of 
Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1993); See also, Founding Church of 
Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. U.S., 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. 
The United States Supreme Court described what is Scientology:
It is propagated today by a 'mother church' in California and by numerous 
branch churches around the world. The mother Church instructs laity, 
trains and ordains ministers, and creates new congregations. Branch 
churches, known as 'franchises' or 'missions,' provide Scientology 
services at the local level, under the supervision of the mother Church. 
(citation omitted) Scientologists believe that an immortal spiritual being 
exists in every person. A person becomes aware of this spiritual dimension 
through a process known as 'auditing'[FN2] Auditing involves a one-to-one 
encounter between a participant (known as an 'auditor'). An electronic 
device, the E-meter, helps the auditor identify the preclear's areas of 
spiritual difficulty by measuring skin responses during a question and 
answer session. Although auditing sessions are conducted one on one, the 
content of each session is not individually tailored. The preclear gains 
spiritual awareness by progressing in short blocks of time known as 
'intensives.' (citation omitted) The Church also offers members doctrinal 
courses known as 'training.' Participants in these sessions study the 
tenets of Scientology and seek to attain the qualifications necessary to 
serve as auditors. Training courses, like auditing sessions, are provided 
in sequential levels. Scientologists are taught that spiritual gains 
result from participation in such courses. (citation omitted)
Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 684-685, 109 
S.Ct. 2136 (1989). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Little also demanded 
that she submit to an "audit" by an individual of his choosing.  In a 
declaration submitted in support of the instant motion, Plaintiff states 
the following in pertinent part:
I recall that sometime in the late Spring of 2000 Mr. Little informed me 
that he would audit Parsonage Cottage and my activities and I was to 
submit to an auditor of his choosing. At the time I assumed that this 
referred to a fiscal audit, and since PCSR was audited by various state 
agencies and always had to be ready for any surprise state survey, this 
did not cause me any concern. Now, understanding that the term 'audit' 
holds a very different meaning in the Scientology system, I realize that 
he was applying Scientology principles in influencing and managing me.
[part 2 to come]
Kristi Wachter
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)
If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are.
- James Baldwin
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See for more.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination, 2 of 5 From: Kristi Wachter <> NNTP-Posting-Host: Message-ID: <3d8804e7$> Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:45:27 -0400 (Exhibit F Declaration of Ursula Milde dated September 6, 2002, at P 9) The United States Court of Claims provided further clarity about the alleged purpose behind Scientology: Scientology hopes to achieve this goal through its sacrament of 'auditing.' Through this process the person or 'pre-clear' is 'cleared' of problems and behaviors caused by his 'reactive mind.' The reactive mind is the term used by Scientologists to describe a force that causes a person to act irrationally or against his own best interest. Scientology seeks to allow a person to overcome his unknowing obedience to the reactive mind, help him clear himself of its influence, and make him responsible for his actions. When a person becomes clear, he achieves freedom from unwanted burdens, and becomes certain of immortality. The concept of immortality and previous lives is behind Scientologists' desire to preserve the words of LRH for billions of years. Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., 26 Cl.Ct. 713, 715 (U.S. Court of Claims 1992). According to L.Ron Hubbard's "Scientology: the Fundamentals of Thought", "Scientology is a route, a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge. . .It is an exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences." (Exhibit I Scientology: the Fundamentals of Thought, L. Ron Hubbard, p.8-9). "Scientology is based on a belief that man is an immortal spirit who has lived through previous lifetimes." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., 26 Cl.Ct. 713, 715 (U.S. Court of Claims 1992). Currently Scientology offers numerous courses to its members at a variety of locations. Members can take lower level courses at local Scientology organizations (called "missions"), while they must go to larger Scientology facilities to take more "advanced" material. Together these courses and related training programs constitute what Scientology calls "The Bridge to Total Freedom" or simply, "The Bridge." The Supreme Court in Hernandez also stated, The Church charges a 'fixed donation,' also known as a 'price' or a 'fixed contribution,' for participants to gain access to auditing and training sessions. These charges are set forth in schedules, and prices vary with a session's length and level of sophistication. . . This system of mandatory fixed charges is based on a central tenet of Scientology known as the 'doctrine of exchange,' according to which any time a person receives something he must pay something back. (citation omitted) In so doing, a Scientologist maintains 'inflow' and 'outflow' and avoids spiritual decline.(citation omitted) The proceeds generated from auditing and training sessions are the Church's primary source of income. The Church promotes these sessions not only through newspaper, magazine, and radio advertisements, but also through free lectures, free personality tests, and leaflets. The Church also encourages, and indeed rewards with a 5% discount, advance payment for these sessions. (citation omitted). . . In the instant case, Defendant Little required all employees in 1998 (conducted by Scientologist John Wheatley), and again in August 2002 (conducted by the infamous Scientologist Arte Maren), to attend a Scientology training session entitled Improving Business Through Communication, Based on the Works of L. Ron Hubbard. (Exhibit B) The aforementioned training document was published by the Hubbard College of Administration International. (Exhibit G) which is closely connected to Bridge Publications, Inc. "Bridge Publications, Inc. ('BPI') is: . . . a California for profit corporation. BPI publishes and distributes the Scientology Scriptures (including books and recorded tapes), manufactures, repairs and distributes E-meters, and publishes and distributes fiction works written by L. Ron Hubbard." Church of Spiritual Technology, 26 Cl.Ct. at 724. Defendant Little paid substantial fees with federal monies to Mr. Wheatley and Mr. Maren to perform such training sessions over several days. Deponent Kemp estimated that the amount of the 1998 training costs an estimated $10,000. Plaintiff has been informed by witnesses that the August 2002 training session cost even more. Defendant Little continues to use these Scientology training courses to further eradicate any other opponents and complete the infiltration of the Housing Authority. Regardless of the size of the facility that offers these courses and related training, it is organized according to an "organizing board" (or simply "org board"). Moreover, businesses such as the Greenwich Housing Authority that utilize Scientology principles, concepts, and doctrines also use the same org board, with only slight variations to it in order to accommodate the nature of the products or services being offered. The organization board is comprised on numerous divisions that cover every thing from marketing, communications, administration, finance and recruitment. The former executive director for the Defendants Thomas Crawford testified as to Mr. Little's efforts to establish a new Scientology management organization inside the Housing Authority, Q: Did Mr. Little suggest new methods of management to you that had their origin in Scientology? A: Well, he suggested some management things, creating some different divisions. And there was quite a few. I mean, you know, without actually looking at it now, but it was quite a few. I think it was close to 20 maybe different--it took things and you spread them out so that you created all these different divisions, but the divisions themselves were kind of -some of them would cross--apply to more than one, an individual job. It was a fairly complex system. We talked about it and I think we even went to - we were going to try and see about implementing some of that. I don't know that that was a Scientology thing, per se, I just knew it was something Ben wanted to do, and color code things, you know. But I think for the size of the organization, it was probably--it was a lot more complex that what is necessary for the Housing Authority. (Exhibit C: Deposition Transcript Thomas Crawford at pp.180-181, June 27, 2002.) As will be discussed infra, deponent Crawford's testimony confirmed that the existence of an "infiltration" by Defendant Little's Church of Scientology had occurred at the Town of Greenwich Housing Authority. Plaintiff had no independent evidentiary support prior to deponent Crawford's testimony, that Scientology management controls were attempted by Defendant Little. At this time, no discovery has revealed whether Defendant Little continued to infiltrate the Housing Authority with Scientology religious management practices after the resignation of deponent Crawford. However, Plaintiff's asserts that Defendant Little, as recently as August 2002, paid with federally provided finances to have additional Scientology training seminars conducted for all Housing Authority personnel. At least two witnesses have confirmed that these training sessions did take place in August 2002, and were conducted by Mr. Arte Maren, a world renowned Scientology "Auditor." (Exhibit M: Personal Website of Arte Maren). However, due to the extreme fear of retribution, these two witnesses have asked that their names not be mentioned. Each witness has since left their employment with the Housing Authority. "In addition to writing policy letters, L. Ron Hubbard also wrote executive directives called L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directives (LRH Eds)." Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381, 402 (U.S. Tax Court 1984). Plaintiff asserts that one of those Executive Directives was one of the primary forces behind Plaintiff's termination. L. Ron Hubbard authored Executive Directive "ED 1040" which provides for the infiltration of an organization such as the Greenwich Housing Authority and terminate all those employees whom oppose the controlling Scientologists' directives. Executive Directive 1040 states: A plan for setting up Scientology in businesses and taking responsibility for this area. (1) Take a business that is already doing fairly well on the basis that you reward the up-stat. (2) Approach the highest executive and disseminate Scientology to him. Offer to make his business make more money for him at no cost to him. Your two demands: (a) Total Control of the business during the time you're operating within the organization. (b) 50 per cent of the additional profit your actions will produce. (3) Next action is to put in Ethics. Locate the SP's in the org and fire them. (4) Audit the Execs . . . show them what its all about. This will then start the cycle of getting in tech0 in the organization. Execs will push their junior and other staff to have auditing. Start in the organization would be interested anyway as a result of suppressives out of the way thereby making the environment a safer place to work in . . . seeing Scientologists in operation. . . and also seeing the case gains on their seniors. (5) Admin: Set up Central org board and get organization worked out on this system. Comm. System, comm. Stations, hat write ups. Result of above will be that organization will get smaller staff-wise as putting in the org board will show up what posts etc. are dev-t and can be disbanded. Also any additional SP's or PTS's1 will have blown off staff as a result of ethics, tech and admin going in. All this - much increased production - expansion - Gross income increase. You would approach the executive of the organization with a copy of some of our production graphs as evidence etc. You would do this alone. When moving into the organization to set it up, you would take as many people as needed, depending upon the size of the org, to set this up. Naturally each person would be thoroughly expertised on the area he was handling. (Exhibit A: Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology, "ED 1040", Report by Sir. John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P., Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971. Due to the secretive nature of some of the scripture (writings of L. Ron Hubbard) of the Church of Scientology, the public cannot easily obtain documents like "ED 1040" and must rely upon secondary sources for the information. In this case, Plaintiff recently discovered this copyrighted material by L. Ron Hubbard set forth in Exhibit A. The reason documents like "ED 1040" are not made public is because they reveal the truest of intentions of the Church of Scientology, i.e. suppress all possible trouble sources and protect the profit motives of the organization. In the instant case, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Little, through his authority as the Chief Executive Officer of the Town of Greenwich Housing Authority and as a member of the Church of Scientology, fired Plaintiff because she was a "suppressive person" who allegedly refused to follow Defendant Little's Executive Directives. Defendant Little also used the same tactic to fire his Director of Finance Russel Kemp. Apparently, Mr. Kemp failed to have Plaintiff "sign in" when she visited the Housing Authority on just one occasion. The Defendant Little had radically transformed the Housing Authority offices into a highly secured military operation. The high security was in conformity with the scripture of "ED 1040." Mr. Kemp was also the subject of Defendant Little's private investigator inquiry by Doranto Saccente. However, no negative performance issues were ever found, except for Kemp's failure to sign Plaintiff in. It is now quite obvious, after conducting discovery focused at this issue, that Defendant Little followed the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard's scripture, pursuant to ED 1040, and fired Plaintiff because she was a "suppressive person"(SP) and a "potential trouble source" (PTS). Defendant Little even admitted during the Unemployment Appeals Hearing that one of the most important principles of Scientology is "carrying out directives," and that was the reason he terminated Plaintiff's employment. (Exhibit K: State of Connecticut Unemployment Appeals Division, June 7, 2001, Transcript at p. 109, Direct Examination of Benjamin W. Little). Throughout the ongoing dispute that led up to Plaintiff's termination, Defendant Little repeatedly accused her of not following his "directives." This is akin to being a "suppressive person" in the scripture of L. Ron Hubbard. Plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint to include religious discrimination, conduct discovery on this issue and have a hearing on the merits of her newly discovered claim. -- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me) If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See for more. KSW:

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination, part 3 of 5 From: Kristi Wachter <> NNTP-Posting-Host: Message-ID: <> Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:47:47 -0400 C. There Was No Undue Delay, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 Prevented Plaintiff from Bringing Religious Discrimination Claim Until After Further Investigation, Production Requests and Deposition Testimony. Plaintiff asserts that she was prohibited from bringing a claim of religious discrimination until the recent Sixth Amended Complaint because neither she and nor her counsel had sufficient evidentiary proof pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. However, discovery and deposition testimony in this case now reveals that there is sufficient evidence to support her claim of religious discrimination. During a State of Connecticut Unemployment Appeals hearing, Defendant Little testified for the first time that he was a Scientologist: Q: Okay. Before I ask whether there are others, where does ARC2, A-R-C, come from? A: A-R-C comes from L. Ron Hubbard's training. Q: Okay. A: On management. Yes. Q: And what's that? A: Scientology management. Q: Okay. And I'm unfamiliar with that. Can you describe what Scientology is? A: Well, it's a principle of management that I utilize of making sure that people know what they're doing. It's very structured. And it works very well. (Exhibit K: State of Connecticut Unemployment Appeals Division, June 7, 2001, Transcript at pp.108-109, Direct Examination of Benjamin W. Little). After receiving the transcript of Defendant Little's testimony in the June 7, 2001 Unemployment Appeals Hearing, Plaintiff filed her charge of religious discrimination, pursuant to Title VII, with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 17, 2001. The Plaintiff was diligent in bringing her claim through the administrative process. She did investigate all available resources, both factual and legal, to determine whether religious discrimination occurred, but she found nothing. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on July 18, 2001. It is important to note that Rule 11 does not control the EEOC charge filing process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 states in pertinent part as follows: (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (1) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support, or if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; . . . Plaintiff asserts that neither she and nor her counsel had sufficient evidentiary support, pursuant to Rule 11, to commence a suit on religious discrimination grounds. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel had any idea what Scientology was. (See Exhibit F [Declaration of Ursula Milde] and L [Declaration of Attorney Mark P. Carey]). No reasonable person would have been able to comprehend that Scientology played an active role in the discrimination thwarted against the Plaintiff. The Advisory Committee's Note to the 1993 Amendment of Rule 11 further provide in pertinent part: "[t]he rule continues to require litigants to 'stop-and-think' before initially making legal or factual contentions. (emphasis added) It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor . . . The certification with respect to allegations and other factual contentions is revised in recognition that sometimes a litigant may have good reason to believe that a fact is true or false but may need discovery, formal or informal, from opposing parties or third persons to gather and confirm the evidentiary basis for the allegation. Tolerance of factual contentions in initial pleadings by plaintiffs or defendants when specifically identified as made on information and belief does not relieve litigants from the obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation into the facts that is reasonable under the circumstances; it is not a license to join parties, make claims, or present defenses without any factual basis or justification. Moreover, if evidentiary support is not obtained after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, the party has a duty under the rule not to persist with that contention. . .The certification is that there is (or likely will be) 'evidentiary support' for the allegation, not that the party will prevail with respect to its contention regarding the fact. Although Defendant Little testified that he was a Scientologist, Plaintiff's counsel had to first "stop-and-think" before bringing a claim for religious discrimination. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Plaintiff's counsel was prohibited from filing suit on the religious discrimination claim because Defendant Little's June 7, 2001 sworn testimony did not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the claim. Defendant Little never came out directly and stated that Plaintiff was fired because she protested against Scientology. Plaintiff was even prohibited from bringing the claim based on "information and belief." Plaintiff's counsel conducted a thorough investigation, however he found no legal or factual support to bring the claim. Plaintiff's counsel found only one reported decision involving religious employment discrimination based on Scientology.3 No third party witnesses ever came forward and provided information that Defendant Little discriminated against Plaintiff based on her "suppressive" behavior (opposition) to his Scientology practices. Further investigation and discovery was necessary to support Plaintiff's religious discrimination claim. (Exhibit L Declaration of Attorney Mark P. Carey). In State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp, the plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint four months after learning of additional facts through deposition and added new claims against the defendants. The district court denied plaintiff's leave to amend. The Second Circuit reversed on the grounds of an abuse of discretion. The court held, "although State Teachers' amendment may result in delay, it will not unduly prejudice the defendant. The amended claim was obviously one of the objects of discovery and related closely to the original claim of non-disclosure of the SASOL project. The delay in order to depose Etter was justified in light of State Teachers' need to verify what information was made public by Fluor. Clearly, this involved information better known to the defendants that to the plaintiffs." 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir.1981) As discussed supra, Scientology is an allegedly benign religion. There was absolutely no way for Plaintiff, nor her counsel, to discover the religious discrimination at the Housing Authority until after receipt of production requests [served on August 30, 2001] on August 9, 2002 (See Exhibit B) and deposition testimony (See Exhibits C (Deposition Trans. Thomas Crawford dated June 27, 2002) and D (Deposition Trans. Russel Kemp dated June 19, 2002). In Plaintiff's August 30, 2001 Request for Production No. 64, she requested the following documents: Please provide a copy of all "ARC" management training materials, also called L. Ron Hubbard's Training Materials, (as testified to be Defendant Little during the Unemployment Appeals Hearing, dated June 7, 2001, page 105-110) used by the Defendants, including Defendant Little, for staff training during Plaintiff's tenure of employment to the present. (Exhibit J: Plaintiff's Request for Production dated August 30, 2001, No. 64). Ironically, the Defendants did not produce the requested documents until one year later on August 9, 2002. (Exhibit B: Letter from Attorney Seth Eisenberg dated August 9, 2002, responding to Discovery Request No.'s 64 containing Scientology training materials "Improving Business Through Communication, by L. Ron Hubbard). The Defendants discovery response was served "after" its' July 31, 2002 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant deliberately waited close to one year before it provided the requested documents and after Plaintiff filed her Sixth Amended Complaint alleging religious discrimination. More important, Plaintiff had sent numerous letters subsequent to the discovery request to obtain not only the training materials, but other documents that still have not been produced.4 Now in view of the arguments contained herein, Plaintiff asserts that it is almost too obvious that the Defendants never wanted her religious discrimination claim to see the light of day. (emphasis added). A party cannot perfect a claim of religious discrimination, if she is repeatedly denied access to pertinent documents, such as Scientology training course materials. Plaintiff's delay in bringing her religious discrimination claim on July 8, 2002 was "caused" by the Defendants obfuscation, i.e "we're still looking for the requested document". In order to further perfect her claim and conduct a good faith investigation pursuant to Rule 11, Plaintiff conducted two depositions of Russel Kemp, the former Director of Finance for the Defendants, and Thomas Crawford, the former Executive Director of the Defendants. Deponent Russel Kemp, the former Finance Director for the Defendants testified as follows: Q: Okay. Are you aware of Mr. Little's religious affiliation? A: Mr. Little and I - I don't ever think we ever talked about his religious affiliation but, in general, I've heard that he is a scientologist. Q: Did you ever attend a meeting that was hosted by a colleague of Mr. Little for the Housing Authority employees where there were L. Ron Hubbard scientology principles being taught? A: Yes. Q: When did that occur, sir? A: I don't know exactly, but I think it was 1998. Q: And how many meetings did you attend? A: Oh, gee, we must have had five or six sessions with those people or that man. Q: Mr. Wheatley? A: Mr. Wheatley, correct. . . A: The training seemed ridiculous for me so I didn't take it very seriously. I didn't listen probably to what Mr. Wheatley had to say. I knew it was required training in the Housing Authority so I sat through and thought about other things most of the time and I really didn't absorb much of these things. So if he used the word ARC a lot in his presentation, I just probably didn't take it in. . . Q: Did you receive any documentation from Mr. Wheatley during these meetings? A: Yes, we did receive some materials that appeared to be authored by Ron Hubbard. . . A: I perceived the meeting to be required, yes. . . Q: Was there a bill or bills received by Mr. Wheatley's organization for these services he rendered to the Housing Authority? A: Yes. Q: And what was the amount of those bills? A: I don't recollect exactly and there were more than one, obviously, and there were bills for materials and I think--I think it was on the order of $10,000, but I don't know exactly. (Exhibit D: Deposition Transcript of Russel Kemp at pp.191-201, June 19, 2002). It is interesting to note that as former managerial employee of the Housing Authority, deponent Kemp confirmed that the Defendants maintained possession of the Scientology training materials as far back as 1998. Why then the delay in providing it to the Plaintiff pursuant to a request for production? -- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me) If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See for more. KSW:

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination 4 of 5 From: Kristi Wachter <> NNTP-Posting-Host: Message-ID: <3d8805db$> Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:49:31 -0400 According to the Scientology website for the Connecticut branch of the Scientology Church, located at 909 Whalley Avenue, in New Haven, Connecticut 06515, Mr. Wheatley is listed as a member of the organization. (Exhibit E: Connecticut Scientology Website list of members) Interestingly enough, Mr. Little's common law wife Juliana Crane is also listed as a Scientology Church member. (Exhibit E: Connecticut Scientology Website list of members) Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Crane is an "auditor" for the Scientology Church here in Connecticut, and until recently had a website devoted to Scientology activities. The deponent Mr. Thomas Crawford, the former Executive Director, and a non-Scientologist, testified as follows: Q: Are you aware of any employees of the Housing Authority, during the time you were the executive director, who were part of the Church of Scientology? A: I'm aware that Ben Little is a member of the Church of Scientology. Q: Are you a member of that same church? A: No. Q: What is your religion? A: Catholic. Q: Were there any other employees that you were aware of that were Scientologists at the Housing Authority? A: Not to my knowledge. Q: Describe for me Mr. Little's efforts to have Mr. Wheatley do presentations for the Housing Authority employees. A: Ben introduced me to John Wheatley, I believe that's his name, to try and deal with communication issue relating to the staff. And I think to try and develop communication skills between the staff and individually to bring up their skill levels in correspondence and just general techniques. And he felt that Mr. Wheatley had a program that could be utilized to help do that. Q: Did he explain to you, when he suggested Mr. Wheatley's program, that it was based upon Scientology? A: I found that out. I wasn't really aware that that was the connection initially. . . A: . . .And with the Scientology issue being brought to my attention and the fact that it was technically a religious thing, then I felt I had no choice but to terminate the program until we could sit back and really evaluate it, take another look. Q: Did you ever take another look? A: No. Q: Okay. Why did the religion issue pose a problem for you? A: Well, it's a federal--it's a Housing Authority and, basically, from the federal standpoint and all of that, we're not supposed to be pushing any type of--you know, anything that would be perceived to be a religious type of a vein. The fact that somebody now had raised that issue, I guess I was forced to deal with it, address it, so I did. (Exhibit C: Deposition Transcript of Thomas Crawford, pp.173-177 June 27, 2002) Had Plaintiff brought the claim soon after July 18, 2001 solely based on Defendant Little's testimony, the Defendants would have most likely moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In order to avoid the significant costs to each party, particularly the Defendants, Plaintiff was under the obligation, pursuant to Rule 11 and the Advisory Committee's Notes, to delay bringing a claim of religious discrimination until after limited discovery had provided the "sufficient" evidentiary support for such a claim. (See Exhibits B, C, and D). In the instant case, Plaintiff could not yet confirm the existence of operative facts to assert a religious discrimination claim. She served additional discovery in the form of a request for admission, which was later denied based upon numerosity. Plaintiff only confirmed the existence of the facts supportive of religious discrimination through two non-party depositions of deponents Kemp and Crawford. As previously stated, each confirmed that Mr. Little required management training by all employees including the Plaintiff. "This is not a case where the amendment came on the even of trial and would result in new problems of proof. (citation omitted). At the time plaintiffs requested leave to amend, no trial date had been set by the court and no motion for summary judgment had yet been filed by the defendants. Also, it appears that the amendment will not involve a great deal of additional discovery." State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir.1981). In the instant case, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint did not come at the eve of trial because no trial date had been set. Nor did the Defendant file a motion for summary judgment. In fact, the Defendants still have not provided an answer to the complaint. (due to dilatory tactics to strike the complaint four times) Also, the amended complaint "will not involve a great deal of additional discovery." At best, Plaintiff anticipates a very limited set of new of requests for production and the completion of previously noticed depositions. As of the date of the instant motion, the Defendants have not served any such new discovery nor have they requested scheduling of the previously noticed deposition. The parties recently agreed not to take the depositions of Mr. Little and Ms. McClanahan or another other witness, due to those witnesses alleged scheduling problems.5 Plaintiff has yet to be deposed in this case, due to the Defendants repeated failure to provide documentation responsive to her discovery requests and because the Defendants have not filed an answer in this case, now two years old. D. Plaintiff's Religious Discrimination Claim Relates Back Based on the arguments present herein, supra, Plaintiff asserts that her claim of religious discrimination based on Defendant Little's illegal Scientology management practices does in fact relate back to her original complaint and the core set of operative facts from which this case arose. Plaintiff further asserts that the United States Supreme acknowledges that the federal rules of civil procedure must be construed as to do substantial justice: As amended, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 'These rules ... shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.' Rule 8(f) says: 'All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' And Justice Black reminded us, more than 30 years ago, in connection with an order adopting revised Rules of this Court, that the 'principal function of procedural rules should be to serve as useful guides to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal right to bring their problems before the courts.' Order adopting revised rules of S.Ct. of U.S. Mon. April 12, 1954. This Court, too, in the early days of the federal civil procedure rules, when Rule 15(c), see n. 5, supra, consisted only of what is now its first sentence, announced that the spirit and inclination of the rules favored decisions on the merits, and rejected an approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep may be decisive. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). It also said that decisions on the merits are not to be avoided on the basis of 'mere technicalities.' Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 229, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 27, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2383, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986). Based on the arguments asserted herein, denying Plaintiff her motion to include a religious discrimination claim based on Scientology would severely impair "substantial justice" in this case. More important, Plaintiff should not be denied a decision on the merits because of "mere technicalities" in the filing of her Sixth Amended Complaint. As discussed supra, Plaintiff did not have the evidentiary basis to bring such an action until discovery revealed such evidence, pursuant to Rule 11. The Second Circuit recently clarified the requirements and purpose of Rule 15(c): Rule 15(c ) provides that 'an amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.' Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2). Provided the amended pleading is based on the same series of transactions and occurrences alleged in the original pleading, the revised pleading will relate back to the original pleading, even where the revised pleading contains legal theories not included in the original. White v. White Rose Food, 128 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1997). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It states, "in pertinent part, that leave to amend the complaint should be 'freely given when justice so requires.' Indeed, leave to amend should be denied only in the face of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to the nonmovant, futility of amendment or where the movant has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies in previous amendments. Furthermore, district courts are vested with broad discretion to grant a party leave to amend the pleadings. The party opposing a motion for leave has the burden of establishing that granting such leave would be unduly prejudicial." Breyette v. Amendore, 205 F.R.D. 416, 418 (E.D.N.Y 2002)(Internal citations omitted.) The proposed amendment seeking to add a count for religious discrimination is proper because it 'relates back' to the original complaint. "To satisfy the requirements of the relation-back rule, an amendment need only spring from the same core event or transaction as that set out in the original complaint. Thus amendment under Rule 15(c) is freely granted to cure a defective statement or to replace an inadequate legal theory." Drakatos v. R.B. Denison, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 942, 945 (D.Conn)(1980). Reviewing the Sixth Amended Complaint, it is clear that the proposed amendment relates back to the original. The 'core event' in the original Complaint is the discrimination that plaintiff endured while employed by the defendant Greenwich Housing Authority, as committed by the Defendant Little. It identifies certain acts, performed by certain individuals, in a certain time frame. The proposed amendment also arises from this 'core event'. Indeed, the proposed amendment covers the exact same acts, performed by the exact same individuals, in the exact same time frame. The only new allegation is that the Defendant Little's conduct was motivated by religious discrimination based on Scientology. This change - a change only in the theory of recovery - is precisely the type of change permitted by Rule 15(c). Id. (Rule 15(c) amendment is "freely granted to...replace an inadequate legal theory"). Plaintiff respectfully asserts that her claim of religious discrimination relates back to the same core set of operative facts and should be allowed to test the merits of her claim. To deny her such relief would be a substantial injustice. -- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me) If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See for more. KSW:

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination part 5 of 5 From: Kristi Wachter <> NNTP-Posting-Host: Message-ID: <3d880645$> Date: 18 Sep 2002 00:51:17 -0400 E. Defendants Are Not Prejudiced By the Amended Claim Plaintiff asserts that because the Defendants have continually moved for repeated and costly motions to strike, although granted by the court, the Plaintiff still is prejudiced by the lack of knowledge of the defenses asserted by the Defendants. This whole process was a direct attempt to utilize the federal rules for the benefit of the Defendants, i.e. repeated motions to strike, so that the Plaintiff could not conduct adequate discovery of the Defendants' defenses or counterclaims. To deny Plaintiff the opportunity to adequate discovery of these defenses and counterclaims, as countenanced by the court in granting the repeated motions to strike, and then denying Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to include a bona fide religious discrimination claim, is clearly not a proper balancing of the interests of the parties. This is a well-heeled attempt to abuse the federal rules in favor of the Defendants. However, equity dictates that Plaintiff have the opportunity to a hearing on the merits of her religious discrimination claim. In Materazzo v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp, the court held the following, "the plaintiff can not be charged with bad faith in seeking the amendment and that there has been no showing that the delay per se will be unduly prejudicial. Indeed discovery often justifies a subsequent amendment to the complaint. Even though it is predicated upon a different theory, an amendment should be permitted in the absence of the injection of any new issues requiring new and extensive preparation detrimental to the speedy resolution of the case and prejudicial to the defendant." Matarazzo v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 70 F.R.D. 556 (E.D.N.Y.1976)(citing Middle Atlantic Utilities Co. v. S.M.W. Development Corp., 392 F.2d 380, 385-86 (2d Cir.1968). In the instant case, Plaintiff should be allowed to include her claim of religious discrimination. Discovery in this case justified her subsequent amendment. Inclusion of this claim will not require the injection of new issues and extensive preparation. The revelation of Defendant Little's Scientology discrimination was the "proper filter" for viewing all the facts in this case, which was difficult to piece together, not age or gender discrimination. The Defendants operate a federally funded municipal housing authority, and religious infiltration is the last thing one would think of. All of Defendant Little's actions can and will be meticulously matched with the scriptures, the so called "Technology" of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Plaintiff only respectfully requests the opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Defendants provided only conclusory statements that they will be prejudiced by Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claiming religious discrimination. The Defendants assert that Plaintiff had sufficient notice in June 2001 to bring her claim, as a result of Defendant Little's testimony during the Unemployment Appeals Hearing. (Exhibit K). However, as previously discussed herein, such testimony did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis pursuant to Rule 11. The Defendants' also assert that had Plaintiff brought the claim earlier in the litigation, it would have been given ample time to conduct discovery on her claim of religious discrimination. The Defendants place the cart before the horse. As previously asserted herein, Plaintiff derived the factual basis through the deposition testimony of deponents Kemp and Crawford. In addition, no reasonable individual using a sane mind would have been able to piece together the insidious and manipulative methods Defendant Little used to orchestrate his illegal discrimination until deposition testimony was taken in this case. Finally, the Defendants delayed over a year in providing Plaintiff with responsive documents on August 9, 2002, shortly after they filed their motion to dismiss. This is not about Plaintiff's alleged undue delay, bad faith and prejudice to the Defendants, this is about an abuse of the federal rules to gain a litigation advantage. One can only wonder how motivated the Defendants are to keep Plaintiff from bringing her claim of religious discrimination. Plaintiff pleads to the Court that the Defendants do not want the religious discrimination claim to see the light of day before this court, because such an obvious claim is so meritorious that the Defendants would become liable. More important, if they became liable for Scientology discrimination, then the United States Government through the Office of Housing and Urban Development would seek to remove Defendant Little's Scientology group from the Housing Authority. E. Plaintiff Shall Withdraw The Age and Gender Claims If the Instant Motion for Reconsideration is Granted-Scientology Lies At The Heart of the Discrimination in This Case In light of the aforementioned arguments and the obviousness of the Defendants religious discriminatory practices, Plaintiff shall withdraw her claims of age and gender discrimination if the Court grants the instant Motion for Reconsideration to file her religious discrimination claim. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state "these rules . . . shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Plaintiff's extraordinary action here is in keeping with this basic rule and the extraordinary nature of Defendant Little's discrimination. Removing these claims will reduce costs associated with preparation and questioning in depositions, costs associated with each parties preparation for summary judgment and trial. As a well-respected, well-educated and highly qualified female administrator6, Plaintiff now understands that Scientology was what truly motivated Defendant Little in wrongfully terminating her employment. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Reconsider and allow her to Amend her Complaint to include religious discrimination based on the Defendants Scientology management practices. Respectfully Submitted, URSULA MILDE, PLAINTIFF By: _________________________ Mark P. Carey(CT 17828) Carey & Associates, P.C. 71 Old Post Road, Suite One Southport, CT 06490 203-255-4150 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that the foregoing was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, this the 9th day of September, 2002 to: Francis P. Alvarez Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman 177 Broad Street P.O. Box 251 Stamford, CT 06904-0251 _______________________ Mark P. Carey -- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me) If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See for more. KSW:

World Institute of Scientology Enterprises = Recruitment Vehicle for Scientology

STOP-WISE.BIZ counter: counter

STOP-WISE.BIZ counter: counter