church abstention hearing proceedings 04-24-2014.fullprint (1)
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
1/85
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA2
3 ELLENBETH WACHS,
4 Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 11-CA-015545
5 vs. DIVISION:I
6 EDWARD GOLLOBITH, TRACY THOMAS, NAN OWENS, STEVE BROWN, MATT COOPER,7 GLORIA JULIUS, STEVE MILES, JAMES PATTERSON, WALLACE REINHARDT and ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA,8 INC.,
9 Defendants.
_________________________________/10
11 ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA, INC., CONSOLIDATED WITH
12 Plaintiff CASE NO.: 11-CA-015707
13 vs. DIVISION: L
14 ELLENBETH WACHS and JOHN KIEFFER,
15 Defendants.
_________________________________/16
17 JOHN W. MCKNIGHT, CONSOLIDATED WITH
18 Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2012-CA-002073
19 vs. DIVISION:F
20 ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA, INC. and ELLENBETH WACHS,21
22 Defendants. _________________________________/23
24
25
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20141
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
2/85
1 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BEFORE THE
2 HONORABLE STEVEN S. STEPHENS
3
Pages 1 - 85
4 Thursday, April 24, 2014
10:33 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
5
6 George E. Edgecomb Courthouse
800 East Twiggs Street
7 Tampa, Florida
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
REPORTED BY:22 Evanie P. Stephen
Stenographic Shorthand Reporter
23 Notary Public
State of Florida at Large
24 Esquire Deposition Solutions - Tampa, Florida
813-221-2535 (800-838-2814)
25 Job No.: 142849
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20142
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
3/85
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ROBERT H. BUESING, ESQUIRE Trenam Kemker3 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, #2700 Tampa, FL 336024 813-223-7474
5 On behalf of the Plaintiff
6 R. GALE PORTER, JR., ESQUIRE Porter Law Group, LLC7 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 475 Tampa, FL 336098 813-405-3100
9 On behalf of the Defendant, Atheists of
Florida, Inc.10
11 RINKY S. PARWANI, ESQUIRE Parwani Law, P.A.12 9905 Alambra Avenue Tampa, FL 3361913 813-514-8280
14 On behalf of the Defendant, Robert Curry
15
16 ALSO PRESENT: JOHN KIEFFER, Pro Se Defendant
17
18
19
20 I N D E X
21 PAGE
22 Proceedings 4
23 Certificate of Reporter 85
24
25
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20143
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
4/85
1 Proceedings taken before Evanie P. Stephen,
2 Stenographic Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and
3 for the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause.
4 * * * * *
5 P R O C E E D I N G S
6 THE COURT: Well, I see you have a few things on
7 the agenda for today.
8 MR. PORTER: Primarily the motion to dismiss --
9 THE COURT: That was the thing, it was very hard
10 to find that in the docket. It's preferable when you
11 file a motion, especially in a case that has 1,000 or
12 more pleadings in it -- but you state the date that
13 it was filed so we can find it because we don't --
14 our clerk -- and no clerk in the state of Florida
15 indexes the pleadings for reasons that the rest of
16 the world doesn't understand because they all do.
17 In any case, I did find it and I'm ready to listen to
18 you about it now.
19 MR. PORTER: I apologize. It was filed --
20 THE COURT: You didn't do anything wrong. I'm
21 just --
22 MR. PORTER: It's been a long time ago.
23 THE COURT: That's what I mean --
24 MR. PORTER: It's been a while.
25 THE COURT: The notice of hearing for today just
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20144
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
5/85
1 said, motion to dismiss, and there's at least six of
2 those in the file.
3 MR. PORTER: Sorry about that.
4 THE COURT: I mean, it's -- I'm pretty sure I
5 found the one that you were talking about.
6 MR. PORTER: Yeah. The one that I filed has gone
7 through and I've asserted several technical and other
8 legal arguments that gets sent to this ecclesiastical
9 extension doctrine --
10 THE COURT: Well, which one you want to talk
11 about? Go ahead and start going.
12 MR. PORTER: Well, I want to start with kind of
13 an overview of the case, okay. AOF, Atheists of
14 Florida, is a voluntary membership association. It
15 was founded in 1992. It's incorporated in Florida
16 under Chapter 617. It's a not-for-profit
17 corporation.
18 Going over the primary goals of the organization,
19 according to the bylaws that are attached to the
20 complaint, is to defend freedom of thought and
21 expression as well as the complete and absolute
22 separation of church and state as guaranteed by the
23 First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ellenbeth
24 Wachs is one of the defendants that we sued, along
25 with John Kieffer. She came into the organization in
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20145
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
6/85
1 the year 2010.
2 During 2010 and 2011, she demonstrated that she
3 was a person that doesn't back down. She was brave.
4 She was tough. She was outspoken, and compared to a
5 lot of other people in the group that have been there
6 for a long time, you know, she was well-respected.
7 In the year of 2011 -- by then, John Kieffer had
8 been elected president -- Ellenbeth Wachs was vice
9 president. And the way that the organization's
10 supposed to be run is that the officer's serving at
11 the pleasure of the board. In 2011, March, they
12 decided they were going to pull a publicity stunt
13 without going to the board first and getting clear
14 approval. They went over to the school board meeting
15 over in Polk County while the minister was saying a
16 prayer.
17 John Kieffer walked up to him, sort of interrupted
18 him. Ellenbeth Wachs was taking pictures. John
19 Kieffer got arrested. Ellenbeth Wachs was very vocal
20 about it; she ends up getting arrested for practicing
21 law without a license by the Sheriff, Grady Judd and
22 his posse over there, and the board had a vote and
23 they voted that they were going to spend the money to
24 defend Ellenbeth Wachs --
25 MR. BUESING: Judge, I hate to interrupt. It's
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20146
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
7/85
1 a motion to dismiss. He's way outside the pleadings
2 of our amended complaints, so I just -- I don't mind
3 him given you a background, but just so you know,
4 he's not -- he's picking on stuff that's not in the
5 pleadings.
6 MR. PORTER: I'm a go to the pleadings --
7 THE COURT: Well, no. See, that's going to make
8 my job a lot harder because you know I'm confined in
9 making this decision to what's in the pleadings and
10 I'm not sure how any amount of background
11 information, no matter how interesting I might find
12 it, is going to eliminate that, though.
13 MR. PORTER: Fair enough. I'll move along.
14 THE COURT: So, I mean -- yeah, ago ahead.
15 MR. PORTER: So just to finish, okay, briefly.
16 The organization spends a lot of money. She's
17 charged with three different crimes. The amount of
18 monies is starting to worry people within the
19 organization, and, you know, at some point, there is
20 a movement within the organization to get rid of her,
21 which was successful. So let's start at the
22 allegations of the complaint itself.
23 First of all, here's the amended complaint for
24 defamation that I'm asking the Court to dismiss.
25 It's 40 pages just in allegations, and it's another
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20147
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
8/85
-
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
9/85
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. PORTER: She is raising issues that she wants
3 this Court to decide, how annual meetings are
4 supposed to be noticed, who has a right to be present
5 at the annual meetings, how the chairmen should be
6 appointed, how often a luncheon should occur, how
7 luncheons should be run, how the board members should
8 be appointed, what's the best vehicle for getting the
9 atheist message out to the public, what types of
10 expenditures had to be approved by the board versus
11 this newly approved financial oversight committee,
12 you know, whether the expulsion procedure in the
13 bylaws is valid.
14 At Paragraph 96, you know, she's going on for 21
15 pages -- she gets into this allegation concerning the
16 interworkings of Atheists of Florida and argues that
17 there was a defamatory conspiracy to expel her. In
18 order to decide that, she wants the Court to look at,
19 you know, what was said during internal political
20 campaign, how the nomination process is supposed to
21 work, whether an election committee can be formed by
22 the officers alone, or instead, by the board; how
23 ballots should be sent out and how they should be
24 returned, who has the right to control ballots,
25 whether board members have the right to consult with
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 20149
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
10/85
1 an attorney, who has a right to be present at board
2 meetings.
3 I mean, this is 40 -- 37 out of the 40 pages of
4 this defamation count. You know, who are the
5 legitimate board members. After going through this
6 exercise of analyzing the entire, you know, sort of
7 political history of this organization, how far did
8 the presidents power extend compared to the boards
9 power, how can election be canceled. So the
10 conspiracy -- essentially, she explains that it's
11 two divergent views of how atheism should be
12 approached. You know, one is -- you know, one
13 faction she claims is her courage and personality of
14 putting herself at risk for separation of church and
15 state issues.
16 And so if you'll look at Count 1 where she's
17 realleging all 140 paragraphs, that's essentially
18 where she wants the Court to go, the entire internal
19 work and scope of the organization. If you look at
20 Count 2 --
21 THE COURT: Well, I still don't know why Count 1
22 doesn't state a cause of action on this face of the
23 complaint. It talked about everything else and about
24 all these other things that the lady's asking for,
25 and she may very well not be entitled to, but that's
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201410
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
11/85
1 not the test. As you know, the test is whether the
2 words that are on that piece of paper say something
3 that could amount to some sort of cause of action
4 and --
5 MR. PORTER: Actually --
6 THE COURT: -- you haven't really addressed that
7 directly as far as -- it sounded to me like you were
8 addressing a lot of other things that she was asking
9 for, that by the nature of their intrusiveness, where
10 things that you thought I would exclude, and it may
11 or may not happen, but right now, we're talking about
12 whether that piece of paper has words on it that
13 collectively state a cause of action that's
14 recognized under the law of Florida --
15 MR. PORTER: Well, I haven't started --
16 THE COURT: -- that's a much different request.
17 MR. PORTER: I haven't started my argument yet --
18 THE COURT: I kind of was hoping you would do
19 that because that's what we're here for, so...
20 MR. PORTER: Count 2, I want the Court to
21 understand what the pleadings are --
22 THE COURT: Let me be clear on what I'm trying to
23 tell you. Don't waste any time today trying to cast
24 them as bad people or people that are asking for
25 something they're not entitled to. It's a complete
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201411
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
12/85
1 waste of time in this kind of proceeding. That's all
2 I'm saying.
3 MR. PORTER: I didn't think I was, Your Honor. I
4 went through the allegations --
5 THE COURT: And I'm not saying -- please, please.
6 I'm not saying that you are, that you're doing
7 anything wrong, but we've been -- we're now a good
8 ten minutes into the argument, I haven't heard
9 anything about what you're saying the defect in Count
10 1 is or any of the other counts yet, so I'm asking
11 you to kind of focus on the stuff we're supposed to
12 focus on less than the more newsworthy aspects of
13 what's going on.
14 MR. PORTER: Okay. Count 2, I want the Court to
15 decline to exercise its jurisdiction over Count 2
16 because she's asking for a declaratory judgment --
17 and I'm reading from Count 2 -- that her expulsion
18 was wrongful, that the -- she wants the Court to
19 determine the invalidity of all the amendments to
20 the bylaws, presumably all the way back to 1992. She
21 wants the Court to establish the status of all
22 persons who purport to be the members of the board of
23 directors. She wants the Court to establish the
24 validity of a purported purchase that never happened
25 with real estate, what rights Ed Gollobith has to
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201412
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
13/85
1 change locks on a PO box, what rights people on the
2 board have to meet without notice, and what rights
3 the president -- she wants the Court to declare she
4 is the president of the organization, after going
5 through and hearing how the bylaws are not valid,
6 and, then, whether any defense are authorized to
7 direct the legal position claims of Atheists of
8 Florida, which is a member-based organization,
9 subject exclusively to member control.
10 I believe that complaint should be dismissed for
11 about five different reasons. I've laid those out in
12 my motion to dismiss. Number 1, to the extent that
13 she's asking the Court to reinstate her as the
14 president, to attack the expulsion, I want to show
15 the Court Florida Statute 617.0842 which specifically
16 says, "A board of directors may remove an officer at
17 any time with or without cost." This is Chapter 617
18 that deals with --
19 THE COURT DEPUTY: Please, turn the phones off.
20 MR. PORTER: -- that deals with not-for-profit
21 corporations, the Florida legislature has essentially
22 said, we're not going to allow the types of claims
23 that she's asserting to the extent that they're
24 saying, hey, I shouldn't have been removed. The
25 reasons are irrelevant. They could kick her out
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201413
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
14/85
1 because they didn't like her haircut, they can kick
2 her out for any reason with cause or without cause,
3 and so to the extent she wants the Court to reinstate
4 her, she can't do that.
5 I've also argued that the statute of limitations
6 for that type of claim has expired. I'll show the
7 Court Chapter 617.0607. This is, again, under the
8 not-for-corporation statute. It says, "Any
9 proceeding challenging an expulsion must be commenced
10 within one year after the effective date of the
11 expulsion." She didn't assert this claim until -- on
12 the face of the complaint, it was 2013 --
13 THE COURT: Let me interrupt you for a second
14 about that. When you're using the word "expulsion",
15 are you talking about expulsion as an officer or
16 director or expulsion as a member or what?
17 MR. PORTER: This specifically applies to
18 expulsion as a member. The previous statute dealt
19 with removal of officers.
20 THE COURT: Yeah, I got that. That's why I was
21 asking you about whether you're talking about
22 something that means the same thing or something
23 different which -- it is something different.
24 MR. PORTER: It is.
25 THE COURT: It's affecting the membership status
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201414
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
15/85
1 rather than the position that's being held within the
2 organization.
3 MR. PORTER: Okay.
4 THE COURT: What's next, sir?
5 MR. PORTER: The third argument is just a basic
6 elemental argument that in order to get the
7 declaratory judgment, there's five elements we have
8 to allege according to Florida case law: bona fide,
9 actual, present, need. Declaration deals with a
10 present ascertained or ascertainable set of facts,
11 and that's important in this case because it kind of
12 coincides with the extension argument, is this
13 something the Court really should get into. She
14 hasn't alleged any of the five elements for
15 declaratory relief under Florida case law, and I've
16 cited the case in my brief. Essentially, what she
17 seems like she's asking for is the Court to say, You
18 know what, they were wrong and you were right. Sort
19 of like a name-clearing hearing.
20 And under certain circumstances in government
21 employment situations, people have a right to a
22 name-clearing hearing. I cited a case that I was
23 involved with. I ultimately lost that case, but my
24 client was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing
25 because just saying bad things about an employee,
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201415
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
16/85
1 public employee, when they're terminated is not
2 enough. There's a stigma-plus test. There has to be
3 more than just a bad stigma associated with a
4 termination of somebody.
5 And, frankly, her case does not even come close
6 to -- it's like a wrongful discharge case, you know,
7 but, again, under Florida law you can -- just like
8 under not-for-profit law, you can terminate an
9 employee for any reason with or without cause. So I
10 don't think she's plead elements of action for
11 declaratory relief, and even if she had, I don't
12 think she's entitled to it. One of the -- probably
13 the fourth reason is that the governing body of a
14 private-membership organization is the final arbiter
15 of the sufficiency of causes for suspension of a
16 member. Courts cannot properly conduct a collateral
17 inquiry that questions the authority of a
18 private-membership association into the merits of the
19 organization's expulsion of a member. Now, there is
20 one statute -- that's the one that I've shown the
21 Court, 617.0607 -- that sort of blurs the
22 distinction -- well, it talks about the expulsion of
23 a member, and that's sort of a legislative reaction
24 in -- to some of the cases that I've cited here; but
25 in any event, as long as we can show that the
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201416
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
17/85
1 expulsion procedure itself was fair and reasonable --
2 and that's the statute in front of the Court -- and
3 that it was carried out in good faith, then --
4 THE COURT: Yeah. I saw that one in your
5 memorandum, but how in the world is -- in the real
6 world, somebody in the position of making a decision
7 about that supposed to reconcile the two propositions
8 that you're advancing now? I'm supposed to look at
9 whether it's fair and reasonable and whether it's
10 done in good faith, and I'm not allowed to inquire
11 into what's behind it at all? I mean, those are -- I
12 understand that you're just arguing what the law says
13 and that there's a conflict -- or that the conflict's
14 not something you're making up, it's something that
15 it has -- is rooted in the law in two different
16 places, but what would be your proposition about how
17 it's actually supposed to be handled and practiced in
18 a case like this?
19 MR. PORTER: Some of the cases in the -- and
20 we're going to go directly into that issue; in other
21 words, the ecclesiastical doctrine that I'll get
22 into in a minute, it takes away the Court's
23 jurisdiction. Once the Court finds it's going to --
24 THE COURT: Y'all get out of here. I don't have
25 jurisdiction. Go.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201417
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
18/85
1 MR. PORTER: Well, that's what we're --
2 THE COURT: I don't have the authority to make a
3 decision.
4 MR. PORTER: Well, and you know, the Court
5 obviously is, you know, allowed to hear the
6 motion, and at some point, the question is: Whether
7 or not the Court should or should not exercise his
8 jurisdiction.
9 The final argument before the ecclesiastical
10 issue is, is that the expulsion procedure that I laid
11 out in the complaint talks about it, and I won't go
12 through it because the Court's, you know, presumably
13 read it, but the expelled member will be allowed 90
14 days to appeal the entire board decision. Case law,
15 when it comes to private-membership associations,
16 requires exhaustion of administrative benefits. She
17 never appealed. She doesn't allege in her complaint
18 that she appealed.
19 And so when it comes to that, all I've said, is
20 her complaint fails to state a cause of action
21 because she didn't pull in the argument that she
22 needs to make: That there was not a fair and
23 reasonable expulsion procedure, there's no formal
24 proposal by any member to expel her; you know, she
25 needs to have -- she's not properly expelled and she
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201418
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
19/85
1 hasn't laid that out. She's just saying, well, it
2 was a conspiracy. All right. So now we get into the
3 issue of the ecclesiastical privilege. We are
4 arguing that this Court should abstain entirely from
5 exercising jurisdiction over her defamation claims as
6 well as her reinstatement claims because doing so
7 would require the State -- that is, this Court -- to
8 become excessively entangled in the internal affairs
9 of AOF which should be viewed as a church or
10 sectarian institution.
11 And let me just go through that with you real
12 quickly. Now, that's obviously the first point of
13 contention is whether or not AOF is covered. First
14 of all, let me show you Florida's Constitution of
15 Religious Freedom. This is Article 1, Section 3 of
16 the Florida Constitution. It says, No revenue of
17 the state or any political subdivision or agency
18 thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury
19 directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or
20 sectarian institution.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That's called a No-Aid
22 Provision. That was the basis for the First
23 District's decision in the case of Holmes & Bush --
24 you probably know about that case, right?
25 MR. PORTER: I do.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201419
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
20/85
1 THE COURT: That's a landmark case so --
2 MR. PORTER: And --
3 THE COURT: -- it's probably -- yeah, I know
4 you're making a record, but you don't need to read
5 law -- you know, remedial law 0012.
6 MR. PORTER: Well, over the last century, the US
7 Supreme Court has developed this ecclesiastical
8 extension document so that when church members or
9 members of any sectarian institution have internal
10 conflicts, the courts stay out of it. They abstain.
11 And that's why they're called the extension doctrine
12 and that's what we're here asking the Court to do
13 today. We're asking the Court to decline to exercise
14 jurisdiction. One of the key points here is that
15 every party to this lawsuit was either an officer or
16 director of Atheists of Florida.
17 This is not a case, like one side in the reply
18 brief where there's a third party suing the church;
19 this is an internal dispute purely among members.
20 But one of the main issues, of course, I got to
21 answer --
22 THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand that
23 because it seems like the rest of your argument was
24 about the person being expelled as a member, and that
25 the validity of the expellation of the person as a
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201420
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
21/85
1 member, which would make them, then, a third party
2 who's suing the church at this point.
3 MR. PORTER: Well, at the time the church's
4 conduct occurred, they were all members, you know.
5 THE COURT: I see.
6 MR. PORTER: So the issue is: Whether or not for
7 the purposes of this doctrine, atheism is a religion.
8 THE COURT: No, I think it's whether it's a
9 church, not just a religion. They're different,
10 right? I mean...
11 MR. PORTER: Under the First Amendment analysis,
12 the answer is no, they're not different. I want to
13 show the Court a case from the 7th Circuit, but it's
14 laid out this analysis very clearly, an analysis of
15 all the Supreme Court law. It's Kaufman versus
16 McCaughtry, 419 F. 3d 678. And it's a prisoner who,
17 he argues, that the prison officials violated his
18 constitutional rights when they refused to give him
19 permission to start a study group for atheism for
20 inmates. And so the Court has to deal with a
21 question that is, I think, correctly in front of this
22 Court -- you know, we addressed the claim under the
23 Free Exercise Clause first.
24 You know, there's a problem here. The problem
25 here was that the prison officials did not treat
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201421
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
22/85
1 atheism as a religion, perhaps because Mr. Kaufman
2 insisted that it was the antithesis of religion.
3 Whether atheism is a religion for First Amendment
4 purposes is a somewhat different question, whether
5 its adherence to belief in a Supreme Being or attend
6 regular devotional services or have a sacred
7 scripture -- and so --
8 THE COURT: Yeah, let me -- let me -- I don't
9 have any quarrel with the proposition that the Court
10 hasn't got the authority to evaluate the
11 religiousness of a shared belief system.
12 MR. PORTER: Okay.
13 THE COURT: I don't have -- I mean, that that's
14 the -- if that was the case, the courts would be
15 inundated with cases about other things that are,
16 shall we at least just call them -- they call
17 themselves religions, but they're nontraditional in
18 terms of not have -- not have -- bear any resemblance
19 to, I guess, you know, the more historical religions,
20 and I understand that point. So I'm not going to try
21 to make a record for you. Feel free if you need to.
22 MR. PORTER: No, that's fine.
23 THE COURT: I want you to understand that point
24 is not -- again, not a particularly controversial --
25 and maybe they're going to argue it is, I don't know,
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201422
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
23/85
1 but --
2 MR. PORTER: I --
3 THE COURT: I haven't -- these cases are always
4 more interesting about what the nonmoving party has
5 to say because you were trying to prove the negative
6 and you know how hard that is so --
7 MR. PORTER: Well, the next case --
8 THE COURT: -- so go ahead.
9 MR. PORTER: -- let me get straight to Florida
10 law that has applied the ecclesiastical extension
11 doctrine in a defamation case. And the first case I
12 want the Court to review is Goodman verses Temple
13 Shir Ami. This is a rabbi who files a claim against
14 the temple for defamation and breech of employment
15 contract and against the members of the temple's
16 board of directors for defamation. And the court
17 goes through the analysis, and this one --
18 THE COURT: Well, did they say that he stole
19 money from the temple?
20 MR. PORTER: Absolutely not.
21 THE COURT: Well...
22 MR. PORTER: And we haven't -- they haven't
23 claimed that we stole money either --
24 THE COURT: I thought they were saying that -- I
25 thought that their complaint was about some
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201423
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
24/85
1 statements were made by people of the organization
2 that you represent saying that they had somehow
3 misappropriated money, and that's what I was told the
4 last five times we were here on this case.
5 MR. PORTER: That's our lawsuit against her.
6 There's two lawsuits here. I'm trying to dismiss her
7 claim against the organization for defamation.
8 THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay. I see. I see.
9 MR. PORTER: They have not raised the
10 ecclesiastical extension doctrine in our claim for
11 her -- against her for conversion.
12 THE COURT: I'm not sure whether I didn't make
13 myself clear, but if the complaint for defamation is
14 an allegation that members of your organization had
15 made claims -- whether they're in a lawsuit or not in
16 a lawsuit -- had made claims that this lady somehow
17 stole some money, then, that is one kind of
18 defamation action. I want to know that this kind of
19 defamation action you're talking about is different
20 than that kind of defamation action.
21 MR. PORTER: This one is virtually identical.
22 THE COURT: Go ahead.
23 MR. PORTER: They committed the priest of
24 committing crimes while he was at another Chicago
25 temple, and that followed his employment; he was
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201424
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
25/85
1 terminated by that temple, so he told his current --
2 somebody within the organization told the current
3 temple that he had committed a crime out there and
4 had been kicked out and that -- and those allegations
5 were repeated to the entire membership. The temple's
6 board of directors voted against renewing the
7 contract and essentially -- and I've got a couple of
8 defamation cases I want the Court to look at because
9 there is -- as you look at the cases, which I've
10 looked at them pretty hard, there is a distinction
11 between things that just deal with esoteric rights,
12 like your reputation, and then things that deal with
13 property, cash, money, conversion, theft, those types
14 of claims. Most courts do allow the conversion and
15 theft claims, but they don't allow the defamation
16 claims. This is just one court were they concluded
17 that the trial court correctly dismissed the claims
18 with the exception of the breach of contract claim.
19 He said he had a contract and they owed him money
20 that will allow him to sue for money, but in order
21 for the trial court to have resolved these disputes,
22 it would've had to immerse itself in religious
23 doctrines and concepts and determine whether the
24 religious disagreements were a valid basis for the
25 termination of his services.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201425
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
26/85
1 The allegedly defamatorial [sic] court occurred
2 as part of this religious dispute and would require
3 the trial court to lay their effect on the board
4 members as compared to the effects of the other
5 considerations which clearly are religious
6 disagreements. I think the Court, in this case, can
7 substitute the word "religious" because it's
8 atheism -- for just internal. And let me explain --
9 THE COURT: You see --
10 MR. PORTER: -- how I believe this case applies
11 in this particular essence, but go ahead.
12 THE COURT: No, no, no. Thank you for your
13 permission, but finish your argument, please.
14 MR. PORTER: I'm sorry. The application of the
15 principle falls to what I'm talking about to this
16 particular case in order to know whether or not there
17 was a privilege to publish the expulsion of Ellenbeth
18 Wachs to the membership and to post it on the
19 website -- which by the way was taken down a month
20 later -- she essentially demanded it in her suit --
21 the Court is going to have to inquire into whether or
22 not the members of our organization have a right to
23 know of the reasons for her expulsion. You know,
24 that's going to --
25 THE COURT: Say that again, I'm sorry.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201426
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
27/85
1 MR. PORTER: The Court, in order to answer the
2 question, whether or not we have a privilege to tell
3 our members why she was expelled, which is what
4 this did, the Court's going to have to inquire into
5 our bylaws, our policies, our procedures in order to
6 know. You've got to answer that question: Did they
7 have a right to know. That's one of the key
8 privileges at law is that, you know, an internal
9 organizational dispute where members have a need to
10 know the information or right to know the
11 information.
12 THE COURT: The website you're talking about is
13 password-protected, only members can get to it, or is
14 it publicly available?
15 MR. PORTER: It is publicly available and
16 people from the atheist community do sign on to
17 occasionally -- it was actually a website that was
18 started up after she left and took our website, but
19 in any event, another issue, whether or not she and
20 John Kieffer had a right to issue this check for
21 $18,000, which is what kind of precipitated this
22 whole thing. And it depends on whether they, in
23 their claim is that, Hey, you guys said we could have
24 all the funds that had been donated to our legal
25 defense. Our position is, hey, those funds were long
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201427
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
28/85
1 gone. You never had a right to do it. But the
2 Court, having to decide that issue, is going to have
3 to look at whether or not the board is required under
4 the bylaws to approve the decision to turn over funds
5 that are raised in our behalf as a nonprofit
6 organization.
7 The court's going to have to look at the
8 financial oversight committee and determine, you
9 know, was it required. Did they have to get approval
10 in this case. What happened during that financial
11 oversight committee meeting. You know, is it true or
12 false. Essentially, the Court is going to have to
13 take sides with some faction of the organization, one
14 or the other; and decide based on the rules and
15 bylaws whether they were right or not.
16 THE COURT: But in what sense would that be based
17 on some sort of evaluation of something that we would
18 have historically called a religious doctrine in all
19 the other contexts of this case? I mean, your
20 point -- the whole religious exemption is to avoid --
21 ironically enough, is to make sure that we enforce
22 the separation of church and state, by avoiding
23 having judicial people who are secular officials who
24 make decisions solely on the basis of the law -- and
25 the facts at least -- they're supposed to avoid them,
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201428
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
29/85
1 having to make decisions about matters of religion,
2 which there is no way of proving one way or the other
3 because those are things that people believe. And
4 people willingly believe, in some cases, without
5 having necessarily, any empirical support for that
6 proposition. I mean, my point is, if somebody did or
7 didn't steal money and that their reputation was or
8 wasn't harmed by that, that's the kind of thing the
9 courts have traditionally done, and it doesn't
10 require any sort of trip to any theological
11 doctrine.
12 MR. PORTER: How's the Court going to know
13 whether she misappropriated money? And by the way,
14 nobody has ever --
15 THE COURT: Because that's a secular concept.
16 MR. PORTER: -- nobody has ever used the term
17 "theft" or "steal" in any of the writings that she
18 sues upon. There was an allegation of
19 misappropriation of organizational funds that is,
20 directly from the bylaws, the basis for expulsion.
21 Let me show the Court another case because it goes a
22 lot broader. See, the court, I think -- and I had a
23 feeling this was going to be a sticking point, you
24 know, does it --
25 THE COURT: Did you think, really?
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201429
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
30/85
1 MR. PORTER: -- religious beliefs -- well, it's
2 hard to swallow because you're dealing with atheism
3 which is the antithesis of religion whereas all these
4 cases are written in religious terms. But if you
5 look closely you'll find that the cases talking
6 about internally --
7 THE COURT: Well, what I'm asking you to do is to
8 recognize that there's a reason for that because the
9 full fundamental underlying reason for all of those
10 cases and for the church extension doctrine is
11 because church doctrines are based on things that
12 cannot be reconciled in the way that the law courts
13 traditionally reconcile things.
14 MR. PORTER: That may be the reason --
15 THE COURT: Because it requires you to make some
16 sort of statement about faith and reasonableness of
17 somebody's faith one way or the other, which clearly
18 we're not allowed to do, and I'm certainly not going
19 to do it.
20 MR. PORTER: That may be the reason behind the
21 rule, Your Honor, but the rule itself says that
22 therefore the court cannot go in and interpret their
23 bylaws, interpret their articles of incorporation,
24 interpret their termination procedures, their
25 expulsion procedures, and in -- so the rule of law
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201430
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
31/85
1 emanates from that reasoning, but the rule of law is
2 the one I'm asking the Court to follow, which is, you
3 can't go in and have to go through -- back to 1992
4 and reconstruct her view of the way the organization
5 should've been governed and give her her result. I
6 want to show you another case and I'll try to stop
7 and let Mr. Buesing talk. This is another Florida
8 case where a former church member sought declaratory
9 relief and damages for slander. The case is Kond
10 versus Mudryk. It's a 2000 case, 769 So. 2d 1073.
11 And their claim for declaratory relief -- they
12 want the Court to do exactly what Ellenbeth Wachs is
13 doing here. She wants to know her rights as to the
14 expulsion of the church member, the appointing or
15 designation of a pastor, the holding of elections,
16 and the performance of an audit. Okay. These are
17 the things that she wants this Court to go back and
18 rule on the way it was done internally, was not
19 according to the way it should've been done
20 internally.
21 So I've kind of laid out what they did. Also,
22 she's suing for money damages for slander and here's
23 the part about this case that I think is significant.
24 The church authorities in such tribunals as they may
25 set up for themselves are supreme in all spiritual
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201431
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
32/85
1 matters and may arbitrarily expel from membership any
2 individual with or without cause.
3 THE COURT: Well, are you arguing that the
4 decisions that were made were spiritual matters
5 within the scope of that authority or not?
6 MR. PORTER: They were matters of an internal
7 tribunal that was set up within Atheists of Florida
8 to make a decision as to whether or not people can or
9 cannot be expelled from their own membership.
10 THE COURT: Well, that's -- of every charity --
11 well, that's what I'm saying. You're citing the case
12 and telling me it's binding authority on the Court
13 that uses the word "spiritual matters," and I'm
14 asking you if you're -- if that's -- if your claim is
15 to include this organization within one that has a
16 right of -- certainly, a well-defined privilege for
17 spiritual matters, and that's the one I'm having
18 trouble with because there are plenty of charities
19 out there, for example, that advocate specific
20 propositions that are not religious propositions
21 and some -- many that advocate propositions that are
22 inconsistent with almost any religious dogma that I
23 can think of right now. I don't know that much about
24 that stuff, but those things, they're all subject to
25 the same kind of regulation that every other secular
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201432
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
33/85
1 company is -- or every other secular nonprofit
2 organization is subject to, and you're telling me
3 that this one gets a special status because it is
4 dedicated to separation of church and state and to
5 freedom of thought, and it's hard to see how that --
6 unless there was some sort of question internally
7 that you were telling me that I would have to look
8 into about whether or not, you know, X acts
9 constituted freedom of thought, or Z act constituted
10 separation of church and state, I don't understand
11 how your organization becomes separated from all the
12 other organizations when they're advocating a
13 position which is -- you know, certainly it's one
14 that is well focused on matters that are entirely
15 secular. I mean, it's very well focused on matters
16 that are -- pointedly focused on matters that are
17 entirely secular.
18 MR. PORTER: It sounds like one of the questions
19 is, whether you have to treat AOF as -- the same as
20 you would treat a church for First Amendment analysis
21 purposes.
22 THE COURT: Well, I realize that's your
23 proposition --
24 MR. PORTER: Yes.
25 THE COURT: -- but I'm inviting you to look into
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201433
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
34/85
1 the underlying guts of where that proposition comes
2 from and speak to it if you choose to at this
3 point --
4 MR. PORTER: Well --
5 THE COURT: -- because what -- we all know --
6 let's be clear, we know what's going on now, and that
7 is, y'all might care what I say for today, but
8 ultimately the decision that I have to make on these
9 points is not really my decision. My decision only
10 affects what happens for the rest of the making of
11 the record in this case so that the decisions
12 actually get made at levels way above my pay grade --
13 maybe even way, way above my pay grade -- so I'm
14 trying to make sure I do the best job I can of making
15 an argument -- or making a record so that both of
16 your arguments -- I'm going to be asking questions
17 too -- both of your arguments are fully fleshed out
18 on the record and that whatever decision you get, I
19 know the party who doesn't like the decision, when
20 the right time to appeal that issue comes, will have
21 that issue reviewed by the higher courts; and I
22 expect that to happen. I'm glad that they're there
23 to do that for me because this is -- the issue here
24 raised is one that deserves an answer from a higher
25 level of the court system than a circuit court and so
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201434
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
35/85
1 I know that's going to happen, all right? But it is
2 important to give -- for me to make sure that the
3 record is as fully fleshed out as possible by asking
4 questions that probe the propositions that you're
5 making. Of course, you haven't seen what's going to
6 happen when the other gentleman starts his argument
7 so --
8 MR. PORTER: Let me clarify it for the record.
9 THE COURT: Go right ahead, sir.
10 MR. PORTER: By the great weight of authority,
11 the civil courts will not interfere in church
12 government or discipline. That's reading from the
13 case law. Now, again, everybody has a hard time
14 calling atheism --
15 THE COURT: It's not that. It's that you're
16 asking me to extend a deference that the government
17 has shown to religion to something that says that it
18 doesn't have any connection with it.
19 MR. PORTER: Okay.
20 THE COURT: And, I mean, if you have a case from
21 anywhere that actually makes the one thing that
22 you're asking me to make, you would've shown it to me
23 already. I know you would've. You're very
24 well-versed in the field. And the point is that
25 this is -- we can't pretend it's not some extension.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201435
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
36/85
1 It may be a logical extension -- and that's your
2 argument -- may be a logical extension of the
3 doctrine and it may be something that the Court ends
4 up doing, but we're not going to pretend like it's a
5 Florida law conclusion already, are we?
6 MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I am asking the Court to
7 assume, Step 1, that this organization, Atheists of
8 Florida, is a First Amendment organization. It
9 deserves the exact same protection as any other
10 church, whether it's a Roman Catholic Church, or
11 Hindus, or any other organization in the world;
12 that's what the US Supreme Court says the court is
13 required to do.
14 THE COURT: Well, see, that's were you make a
15 statement that I have to ask you: Where does that
16 come from? I would fully acknowledge that with
17 regard to the First Amendment, anybody who forms an
18 association has the right to form an association,
19 like the case where they didn't let the guy in prison
20 do that, a blatant violation of his right to form an
21 association, which is a secular First Amendment
22 right. They have the right to free speech, they have
23 a right to free interchange of ideas, they have all
24 kinds of secular First Amendment rights that can be
25 intertwined in some of these things. I've never seen
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201436
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
37/85
1 anybody who had a case that extended rights that are
2 specific to religions, to groups that weren't validly
3 religious, and if that's -- if you want me to do that
4 today, then, I'm going to listen to your argument.
5 I'll make a decision at the end, like I said, I know
6 it's not going to be the last word so my job mostly
7 is just to make a record so that the people who do
8 have the authority to make these decisions, don't
9 have to send it back and say, Make a better record,
10 so -- but, anyway, you are -- it is an extension,
11 right?
12 There's no case in the US Supreme Court that says
13 you have to treat groups that avow that they don't
14 have any religious belief and that they think that
15 nobody else should have religious belief and they
16 want to spread that idea, there's no case saying
17 that they are entitled to be treated under these
18 religious doctrines that were created for churches
19 that have these big hierarchies and there are a bunch
20 of costumes --
21 MR. PORTER: Yes, there is.
22 THE COURT: -- and stuff like that so...
23 MR. PORTER: I mean, that's the 7th Circuit case
24 I just read to the Court.
25 THE COURT: Yeah, it doesn't say that.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201437
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
38/85
1 MR. PORTER: The case said --
2 THE COURT: That clearly says that they can't
3 stop the guy from forming an association of other
4 people who do the same thing.
5 MR. PORTER: The case itself says that for the
6 First Amendment purposes, that is, whether or not
7 the State can interfere with that religion or whether
8 in deciding internal disputes or not, that atheism is
9 the equivalent of a church. That's what that case
10 says: Atheism is a religion for First Amendment
11 purposes. The right we're talking about is the right
12 for the State not to interfere with their internal
13 governments, their internal discipline. That's what
14 the Florida courts have said. The two cases I've
15 given you -- they were defamation cases, both these
16 cases I've given you -- have said the defamation case
17 is not going to be decided by this Court because we
18 are not going to exercise jurisdiction; dismissed.
19 Two empirical cases that I think the Court has a
20 right to follow.
21 I think in this case, because there's no Second
22 DCA case, the Court has to decide between the Fourth
23 DCA, the case I've just showed the Court, which was a
24 Third DCA case, which if the Court follows those, we
25 win. And there's another case which Mr. Buesing is
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201438
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
39/85
1 going to talk about from the First DCA, in which case
2 we would lose.
3 THE COURT: Well, let's give him --
4 MR. PORTER: Sure.
5 THE COURT: -- the floor now because it's not
6 your fault, I know I've asked you a lot of questions,
7 but we used 45 minutes of the allocated hour and I do
8 have an 11:00 docket and --
9 MR. PORTER: Understood.
10 THE COURT: -- so let's...
11 MR. BUESING: Your Honor, all I can say is, any
12 time the Atheists of Florida, Inc. seeks protection
13 of the ecclesiastical privilege, that should send a
14 message to the Court that they really are not proud
15 of the way they conducted themselves.
16 THE COURT: Now, now. That's not -- is that in
17 any way relevant to my decision on the motion to
18 dismiss the case?
19 MR. BUESING: Well, it's an --
20 THE COURT: No, no, no --
21 MR. BUESING: -- it's a silly argument.
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry that I used up a fair chunk
23 of your time that normally would be allocated to you
24 for -- but please understand that now that we're
25 here, we don't have time for you to just try to -- I
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201439
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
40/85
-
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
41/85
1 intellectually interesting, but the least legally
2 relevant.
3 MR. BUESING: All right.
4 THE COURT: You -- he's saying that you don't
5 state the case for defamation. What are the elements
6 of defamation, and where do they occur in your
7 complaint?
8 MR. BUESING: He doesn't say I don't state the
9 case.
10 THE COURT: That's what he was trying to say as I
11 stopped him to ask him if he was going to say that,
12 but I...
13 MR. BUESING: He never did.
14 THE COURT: Well, how about you do what you have
15 to do and tell me what the elements are and where
16 they're listed in your -- and where they're stated in
17 your complaint.
18 MR. PORTER: Your Honor --
19 THE COURT: No, no, no.
20 MR. PORTER: -- may I stipulate?
21 THE COURT: Oh, to that one?
22 MR. PORTER: To that one.
23 THE COURT: Well, you're not asking to dismiss
24 that.
25 MR. PORTER: No, I'm not. I'm asking to
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201441
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
42/85
1 dismiss --
2 THE COURT: Well, you're asking dismiss it on a
3 different place, on the --
4 MR. PORTER: It's declaratory judgment that she
5 didn't --
6 THE COURT: Where are the declaratory judgment
7 provisions of your complaint supported by allegations
8 of your complaint? That's all this proceeding's
9 supposed to be about. Obviously, everybody -- and we
10 never get a crowd like this unless people are
11 expecting something much more than a simple ruling by
12 a -- you know, just trying to do our job here and
13 make a ruling based on what the papers say; it
14 doesn't have any judgmental overtone to it
15 whatsoever --
16 MR. BUESING: Right. Declaratory judgment
17 statue, Your Honor, is very familiar with 86.021.
18 It's very broad. It's any person claiming to be
19 interested or who may be in doubt as to his or her
20 rights under an article, memorandum, or instrument in
21 writing, the Court is open to that.
22 THE COURT: Is that these articles of
23 incorporation you're talking about?
24 MR. BUESING: And the bylaws, both -- the
25 supposed bylaws -- counsel mentioned that we raise an
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201442
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
43/85
1 issue about whether they were properly adopted. The
2 declaratory judgment act is to be liberally
3 construed. I cite case law, he did not object to
4 that or counter it. It's intended -- the declaratory
5 judgment act is intended to relieve litigants of the
6 common-law rule that a declaration of rights cannot
7 be adjudicated unless a right has been violated, and
8 to render practical help in ending controversies.
9 And, boy, can this case use practical help ending the
10 controversy which has not reached the stage where
11 other relief is immediately available, therefore, it
12 should be liberally construed.
13 That's the Florida Supreme Court case I cited,
14 1993.
15 THE COURT: But see -- I know and you know and
16 all counsel here know the procedural requisites for
17 a declaratory judgment action --
18 MR. BUESING: Right.
19 THE COURT: But you have to tell me what the
20 issues are that you're in doubt about and why they're
21 not already part of some of the other issues in the
22 case. That's pretty much what the declaratory
23 question is about.
24 MR. BUESING: Well --
25 THE COURT: It's a procedural point. What issues
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201443
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
44/85
1 is your client in doubt about? What are you trying
2 to get a resolution of, specifically? What -- he's
3 saying that the ones you're trying to get a
4 resolution of are ones that I don't have the
5 authority to do under church extension doctrine, or
6 that are, for other legal reasons, not really issues
7 that you have any business being in doubt about at
8 this point. That's what his contention is.
9 MR. BUESING: Well, we're setting aside church
10 extension for the moment. I'll get back to that --
11 THE COURT: That will be better. And go ahead.
12 MR. BUESING: But as to what people have doubt
13 about, I cited a series of cases --
14 THE COURT: See, if you don't tell me first, and
15 you just start given me cases, I don't have any idea
16 what you're trying -- what proposition you're trying
17 to --
18 MR. BUESING: People who need the court's
19 interpretation --
20 THE COURT: No, I already know that, but what do
21 you need the interpretation of is what I'm asking
22 you. And if you can't tell me --
23 MR. BUESING: The articles of incorporation and
24 the bylaws.
25 THE COURT: What rights are you asserting under
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201444
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
45/85
1 the articles of incorporation and the bylaws that
2 you're asking me to interpret or determine? If those
3 are things that the law says you're not allowed to
4 ask me about, that's what the gentleman's argument
5 basically was --
6 MR. BUESING: Okay.
7 THE COURT: -- and I need to evaluate that
8 argument by knowing what you think you are allowed to
9 ask me about -- that you're asking me about.
10 MR. BUESING: Right. Some of the cases I've
11 cited and I won't take the time on, go directly to
12 expulsion from membership; that the court does a
13 declaratory judgment to determine whether a process
14 for expulsion for membership complied with the
15 articles and the bylaws. That's --
16 THE COURT: All right. I understand. Then, I'm
17 going to write down on my notes, No. 1 is you're
18 asking me to determine whether the expulsion from
19 membership was legally valid or not valid?
20 MR. BUESING: Correct.
21 THE COURT: Okay. See, now I'm getting
22 somewhere. I deal in concrete stuff, all right?
23 MR. BUESING: Okay.
24 THE COURT: But go ahead. What else do you want
25 to tell me? Let's make a list first of what you're
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201445
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
46/85
1 telling me about so that I can have some idea of
2 exactly what it is that you're seeking under the
3 declaratory judgment action. I've read the papers
4 from both of you, and you're arguing at a very
5 intellectually abstract level, both of you, okay.
6 And I don't have the luxury of being able to do that
7 because I have to write orders that people can
8 understand and live by in the real world, so let's
9 make a list of the other things now that you're
10 saying are included within the declaratory judgment
11 action that you're asking for so that I'll be able to
12 know exactly what they are --
13 MR. BUESING: Right.
14 THE COURT: -- okay?
15 MR. BUESING: Okay. And by the way, for the
16 record, I'm reading from Paragraph 166 where I list
17 the --
18 THE COURT: So I appreciate that.
19 MR. BUESING: But the first one was her expulsion
20 from membership and board membership, two different
21 things, and AOF was wrongful because she was not
22 provided with a fair hearing purporting with the
23 articles of incorporation, whatever the applicable
24 bylaws are -- which is an open issue, Your Honor --
25 due process was a result of bad faith. There's a
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201446
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
47/85
1 statue that I cited, which is 617.0607, which
2 requires a fair hearing, and she didn't get a fair
3 hearing. She was -- it was -- they did not allow her
4 to say anything; so that's the first one. Second
5 one, there is a dispute among the parties as to
6 whether these amendments to the bylaws have any
7 validity. The amendments to the bylaws are to be
8 adopted by the membership, and one of their
9 amendments was -- they rewrote it and said, Oh, well,
10 the board can do it; but the membership never did it.
11 THE COURT: So if you're challenging the change
12 to the bylaws, you still -- that's just one of the
13 links in the chain. The next one has to be how that
14 affects the person that you're representing here, and
15 what interest of hers that you're alleging is
16 affected by that change to the bylaws. Because you
17 can't just -- I can't go sue, you know, General
18 Motors because I think they changed the bylaws in a
19 way that I don't approve of.
20 MR. BUESING: Right.
21 THE COURT: I'm not a stockholder in the company,
22 I don't have any personal interest that's been
23 affected by anything like that.
24 MR. BUESING: Okay. Well, the answer to your
25 question, Your Honor, and the reason we're all here,
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201447
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
48/85
1 is that there is a statute under Florida law which
2 says that the court can determine that actions taken
3 by the corporation are ultra vires, meaning beyond
4 their authority, beyond their power.
5 THE COURT: They can only do that in a case where
6 the case in controversy doctrine is satisfied, and
7 that is, that there's an actual dispute about
8 something that matters. That this lady has a right
9 to raise, and if you don't -- if you're not going to
10 tell me what it is, then, fine; we'll go on to the
11 next thing; but it's better at this point -- again,
12 I'm trying to make sure the record is nice and clear
13 for the reviewing court that we all know is going to
14 be looking at this, so I need you to identify
15 specifically what it is that -- in this change in the
16 bylaws that affected your client in a material way,
17 because he's trying to say that they're -- that you
18 don't have any legal basis for making that
19 allegation. So I understand that you're concerned
20 about the change in the bylaws, but I don't know what
21 relation it has specifically to your client. What
22 change in the bylaws are you talking about, and what
23 did it do to this lady?
24 That's -- and where is that in the complaint?
25 That's what I need to know at this point.
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201448
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
49/85
1 MR. BUESING: Well, it's all over the complaint
2 because what's alleged is that a series of changes
3 were made to the bylaws over time, that the process
4 that they attempted to implement against my client --
5 she's not just an outside observer, she was
6 affected directly by this -- was not supportable by
7 the bylaws, therefore it was ultra vires actions.
8 Therefore, under the Word of Light Ministry, Inc.,
9 case -- which by the way, includes a church where the
10 judge ruled that the appellate court said, We get to
11 look at the articles of incorporation, we get to see
12 if there're valid bylaws, we get to see if the
13 members properly voted, we get to make the
14 decision -- and out of that, the trial judge was
15 asked -- it was sent back to the trial judge to
16 determine what actions the corporation took were
17 ultra vires and therefore not enforceable.
18 THE COURT: Let me have that one and I'll take a
19 look at it --
20 MR. BUESING: That case --
21 THE COURT: -- sort of understand that's how the
22 law works anyway when circumstances are the usual
23 circumstances, but you still have to be able, at some
24 point or another, to say exactly what changes in the
25 bylaws you're complaining about and what effect it
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201449
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
50/85
1 had on the individual who's doing the complaining.
2 Are you saying that while the lady was vice president
3 of this organization, they changed the bylaws in a
4 way that authorized them to eject her or something
5 like that, is that what you're trying to say? I
6 don't understand, at this point, what the change in
7 the bylaws relates to, and that's a question that
8 anybody who's going to be reviewing this proceeding
9 is going to want to know also. And that's why I'm
10 kind of waiting to get a -- you know, get you to
11 address it specifically and...
12 MR. BUESING: Well, Judge, our position is the
13 bylaws are screwed up from day one. From day one,
14 1992, when the corporation was formed --
15 THE COURT: See, if that's what it's going to be,
16 then that's what it's going to be, but that's not
17 going to answer the question that I just asked you.
18 If you're not going to answer that question, let's be
19 clear that it's just not going to happen.
20 MR. BUESING: Well, no. It's my intention to
21 answer every question Your Honor raises, believe me.
22 THE COURT: If you're -- I thought so too. If
23 you're going to tell me about something wrong with
24 the bylaws going back to 1992, before this lady
25 joined the organization, before she obtained any sort
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 2014
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
HEARING PROCEEDINGSWACHS vs. GOLLOBITH
April 24, 201450
800.211.DEPO (3376)EsquireSolutions.com
YVer1f
http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/http://www.esquiresolutions.com/ -
8/12/2019 Church Abstention HEARING PROCEEDINGS 04-24-2014.Fullprint (1)
51/85
1 of status as an officer or member of the
2 corporation -- now, I'm almost regretting telling
3 your opponent to stop when he started telling me