No do it Mike Rinder. Tell the truth. (December 10, 2016)

10th December 2016, 05:20 AM #41


Re: Mike Rinder posted something important today

Originally Posted by programmer_guy

Mike made a general apology.
Gerry wants Mike (and others) to admit to specific details that can stand up in a court of law.

Which Mike cannot do without potentially exposing himself to civil and criminal liability — and thus threatening his family.

As I noted above, Mike cannot rely on any statute of limitations defense because of legal doctrines that suspend the running of the statute of limitations such as fraudulent concealment, equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, minority, incapacity, or simply being physically outside a particular jurisdiction.

My advice to Mike would be not to do it. If, hypothetically, I had a wife and child I would not endanger their futures and our family to do it.

If Gerry didn’t like that, I would completely understand. I would not, however, engage in an action that could threaten my family just because he is not satisfied with a “general” apology and wants “specific details that can stand up in a court of law.”

Honestly, I think that if Mike didn’t have a wife and child, then there *might* be some chance that Gerry would get what he wants. Given that Mike does have a wife and a small child, I think the probability of Gerry getting what he wants is precisely zero.

I understand that there are many people who, like Communicator IC, do not want Rinder to do what I have asked him to do, and even, like this poster, advise him not to do.

What I have consistently asked Rinder for is to tell the truth. What I have consistently, in many public communications, said I wanted from Rinder is the truth.  I simply want him to tell the truth.

In psychopathic logic, I am supposed to stop wanting him to tell the truth because he won’t, or hasn’t, or refuses. That isn’t the way such wanting works. One doesn’t want peace in the world, and then stop wanting it because there isn’t peace. In the choice between war and peace, I choose peace. In the choice between Rinder telling the truth or not telling the truth, I want the truth.

Wanting him to tell the truth, as I do, can exist as a life choice and nothing is done about it. Like a million other choices perhaps we all have made over our lives. My wanting him to tell the truth only arose when he claimed to be doing so, and because I had real and legitimate reasons to want him to tell the truth. The Scientologists and their collaborators, clearly, do not want him to tell the truth.

I did act on what I wanted, of course, and he knew right after he started presenting as telling the truth that that was exactly how he could help me and so many other people. It was exactly what I was wanting from him. I did have a brief email exchange with him, which, because of recent events, I’ve assembled here: I have not bothered him at all with correspondence.

I have communicated things that have helped keep alive the issue of Rinder not telling the truth, which at this time is serious.This obviously has upset the people who want him to not tell the truth yet be seen as telling the truth. But it’s fake upset, and the efforts to keep Rinder from telling the truth, and bestow celebrity status on him for telling the truth are perverse and logically puerile.

Although I want Rinder to tell the truth, and have made this known to him, I have also accepted that he probably won’t. I have long ago accepted his decisions to hate me, make me his enemy, black PR me, and side with the people who want me dead. I’ve accepted that all the Scientologists and their collaborators in the world hate me, consider me an enemy, and would welcome my death.

Despite accepting that Rinder, unless he has a Damascus Road moment, is not going to tell the truth, there is still a need to get the fact known that he is not telling the truth. The same was true with Hubbard: he didn’t tell the truth but claimed to be telling the truth; he was not going to start telling the truth, but there was still a need to get the fact known that he is not telling the truth. Fraud should be exposed, and Rinder’s pretense of telling the truth should be exposed just as Hubbard’s should be.

The truth has to be told in a way that means or does something toward reconciliation and justice, so his telling the truth to his priest or psychiatrist or his pillow or his personal demon wouldn’t suffice. The truth to be told is his experiences with and knowledge of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology corporations, organizations, and affiliated entities, and their officers, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, directors, successors, assigns and legal counsel. (This is the language of what Rinder, et al. sought to silence me about by their contract1

Rinder knows exactly who and what needs to have the truth told about them. It is very simple. Nobody wants Rinder to tell the truth about what he said in his auditing sessions, or about his dreams, or about his wins. The truth he must tell, if truth be told, is his experiences and knowledge of fair game, what was done to wogs in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy against persons and rights in which he was a key member for many years.

That criminal conspiracy still exists. Rinder still serves its criminal purposes. He can only stop serving its purposes by telling the truth about it. Otherwise, he will, until his death, serve that diabolical criminal conspiracy. Scientolomerta. And that will be his legacy. Except for his desire to keep serving this conspiracy and keep the conspiracy working, the choice, I would think would be obvious.

It is this conspiracy against persons and rights that needs to be taken down, not Scientology or the Church of Scientology or some named corporation.

Rinder admittedly has his reason or reasons for not telling the truth. He had ample reasons for more than twenty years, he says, as Miscavige’s Fair Game IC. As I said, he knows what the truth is that he has reasons to not tell. This could be described as criminal and depraved actions planned or taken against members of the SP class, black propaganda, which is also depraved, and ongoing injustices and fraud. That is a huge and understandable, but completely unacceptable, reason not to tell the truth about it.

That is also the reason Communicator IC gives for advising Rinder to not tell the truth. What he should tell the truth about is so criminal, so depraved, so unjust and involves so much criminal fraud, in Communicator IC’s reasoning, he shouldn’t tell the truth about it. The details of Rinder’s fair gaming good people for Scientology — for pay, for prestige, which still serves him, and for fun and for joy, because he had to have been uptone about it all those years — are so criminal, so depraved, and so unjust and the fraud he promoted and defended with fair game so noxious, that telling truth about them would threaten his family, so Communicator IC says.

Obviously, what it will take for Rinder to tell the truth — even if the contemplation of the shame of it all is crushing, even if it might open him up to liability for his actions to someone, even if he is honoring a contract to not tell the truth and his coconspirators might murder him, even if he’s still on Miscavige’s payroll, and even if he hates me beyond human endurance — is courage. He should be encouraged to tell the truth and advised to be courageous, rather than encouraged to be cowardly, and provided spurious justifications for his continued cowardice. I think he should opt for courage. He certainly learned cowardice in Scientology in spades. His bluster, I think, is rooted actually in the Scientology cowardice condition, which makes it misplaced bluster. But perhaps all bluster is.

Now is the time for Rinder to get courageous, to do the right thing, and tell the truth that can free people – the truth about his experiences and knowledge of actions by the Scientologists and their collaborators against members of the SP class.

Communicator IC’s assertion that Rinder cannot tell the truth without potentially exposing himself to civil and criminal liability, which is provided as a lead-pipe justifier for advising him not to do so, is clarifying on three issues. 1. It acknowledges, finally, that Rinder has not told the truth. 2. It acknowledges that the truth to be told is relevant and important, and concerns criminal and tortious actions against victims; in this case me personally. 3. It acknowledges that Rinder could not have told the truth to the FBI.

I have seen it claimed that, since apparently leaving the Sea Org and presenting himself as telling the truth about his Scientology-related experiences and knowledge, Rinder, along with Mark Rathbun, has been to the FBI, talked to the FBI, been interviewed by the FBI. I have no actual knowledge of their “going to the FBI,” but there are multiple reports of them doing so. If Rinder had told the truth to the FBI; if the FBI had been the Constitution-obeying federal law enforcement entity it publicly purports to be, operating by its motto Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity, and not cowardly collaborating with the Miscavige-Rathbun-Rinder, et al. conspiracy against persons and rights; and if the FBI has not prosecuted him, which they have not, then there is zero risk that Rinder would face criminal liability if he told that truth to me or my lawyer.

Rinder and Rathbun do not merit the defense or excuse that telling the truth will expose them to criminal liability, when they are claiming they’re telling the truth to the FBI — of all law enforcement entities — without the slightest hint of criminal liability.

When the FBI got the truth of the Scientologists’ fair game actions against Paulette Cooper during the GO period, the FBI contacted Cooper. Since Rathbun and Rinder, after supposedly leaving the Miscavigeite sect, went to the FBI, and supposedly told all, which had to include their years of fair game actions against me, the FBI has not contacted me. I have reason to believe, in fact, that Rathbun and Rinder continued their adherence to the conspiracy line in their communications with the FBI, which included the continued black PRing and criminal framing of me.

I wrote last year about Rathbun and Rinder’s visits to the FBI since claiming to have left the Miscavigeite sect, and explained that it is a virtual certainty they did not tell the truth:

This scenario of Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds has been brought up several times over the past few years. It is used as evidence of them doing the right thing, or how effective they are as critics, as it has been assumed that whatever they told the Feds helped the Scientologists’ victims.

In view of the known facts, however, this assumption is illogical. It is illogical to think that Rathbun and Rinder would lie about me in Memoirs, continue the criminal framing of me and Mike Flynn, black PR me and other persons he victimized, and yet tell the truth about what they did to fair game us to the Feds.

Rathbun went to the Feds all sorts of times while working inside the cult and in charge of fair game under Miscavige. Rathbun went to the Feds, and had others go to the Feds, about Flynn and me. Rathbun lied to the Feds then, and there is no reason to believe he is not lying to them now. Until he tells the truth to his victims about his victimizing them, his talking to the FBI is just like Kendrick Moxon talking to the FBI.

All the “Indies” talking to all the FBI had the effect of ending any investigation into the cult. All Rathbun’s followers would have black PRed me and others similarly positioned SPs to the Feds.

It must be understood, of course, that the Feds conspired with the Scientologists against the Scientologists’ victims.2 When Scientologist conspirators like Rathbun and Rinder talk to the Feds, they are talking to their coconspirators. The cure is the public exposure of the conspirators and breaking of the conspiracy, not the conspirators talking in secret. That keeps the conspiracy working, which appears to be Rathbun and Rinder’s purpose.2

If civil or criminal liability would exist should Rinder tell the truth, then it must exist now, without his telling the truth. Arrangements are very often made that provide immunities of various kinds if witnesses, or even participants in crimes, tell the truth about their experiences and knowledge, or allocute. Consequently, his telling the truth could actually reduce his criminal and civil liability. Therefore criminal and civil liability for telling the truth is not really a good excuse for Rinder not doing so, certainly regarding the Scientology v. Armstrong evils. In my case, the principal crime or offense against me is continuing, rendering statutes of limitation inapplicable, so Rinder’s liability increases every day he keeps serving his conspiracy’s purposes.

From the very earliest efforts I made to get Rathbun and Rinder to communicate to me, I have provided them with the best opportunity to tell the truth, to have it be meaningful, to put it to tremendous and dramatic use. It is disgraceful that people, presenting themselves as opposing the Scientologists’ malign purposes, advise Rathbun and Rinder to not take this golden opportunity, and smear the very person with whom the opportunity exists. Advising Rinder to not tell the truth but keep serving the Scientologists’ malign purposes serves the same people’s same purposes.

Communicator IC forks up a strawman that it’s my satisfaction that weighs or argues against endangering Rinder’s wife and child and family. I had never used, relied on or referred to my satisfaction in any of my requests to Rinder or arguments to anyone that he tell the truth. My satisfaction is unrelated to Rinder telling the truth. Reconciliation, justice, peace, honor, in fact the elimination of an endangerment to his child, wife and family — those are on the other side of Rinder growing a spine and telling the simple truth, not my satisfaction.

Legal and social issues relating directly to the truth of Rinder’s experiences and knowledge also exceed and transcend my satisfaction, including, e.g., human rights; religious freedom; contracted religious silence; a light on black propaganda; the IRS crimes;  those who would act in concert with me. It is completely understandable that the Scientologists and their collaborators do not want Rinder to tell the truth, because it would affect, and could correct these issues. They do not want the Scientologists’ criminally obtained and legally undeserved IRS tax exemption to be lost or challenged.

If child, wife or family endangerment is a factor, then it should be observed that Rinder endangered, and continues to endanger his children, wives and family by being Hubbard or Miscavige’s Fair Game IC for twenty years, committing acts that even Communicator IC says subject him to criminal liability. Now Rinder keeps adding his refusal to help his victims, as does Rathbun, when he could have done so much with nothing more than the simple truth, all of which will be the legacy he leaves his children.

What a burden on them also to discover that their father used them as his excuse not to help his victims, not to end injustices. Rathbun also has been using his wife and child as human shields for much the same purpose and his supporters too validate that use.

The Scientologists and their collaborators seek to present my relationship with Mike Rinder and Rathbun as one of equal opponents equally empowered, equally right, and equally deserving of public scrutiny and criticism. If this can be accepted, of course, my few requests of both of them to communicate to me and tell the truth can be made to sound unfair. After all, they are not requesting that I  speak up and tell the truth about their and their fellow Scientologists’ fair gaming of SP class members.

Even though I see the equality, and also the unity, of all Homo sapiens, however, the clear relationship this past thirty-five years is of victimizer and victim. It is our essential equality that makes this unholy relationship of victimizer and victim what it is.

As can be seen, I did not know that Rinder was targeting me until 1985 when the Scientologists proclaimed the shocking truth that he was conning me about being my friend, about understanding where I was coming from, and about coming to me for my assistance, because he and his “Loyalists” sought fairness, truth and justice.

Rinder knew that he was targeting me from the first minute he knew I had left, which was thirty-five years ago today. Through every minute of his OSA career he targeted me. I had no idea. I did nothing about him.

I naturally testified as necessary thereafter about what had been revealed in 1985 of what he had done, but that was only because he had done it and it was relevant in various legal proceedings

Rinder had the whole OSA apparatus and used it to sue me, black PR me around the world, frame me, bankrupt me, stalk me, op me, threaten me, betray me, destroy my relationships, get me enjoined and sentenced to jail, and drive me to the edge of death, all in execution of his conspiracy’s criminal purposes and programs. I had no such apparatus, and did none of those things to Rinder.

Rinder and his fellow Scientologists and their collaborators have sought for thirty-five years, and paid millions of dollars, and corrupted courts, to silence me. I never tried to silence him or them. In fact it is quite clear that I urge them to communicate.

Rinder, et al. seek to have me jailed and fined for truthfully expressing my sincere religious experiences and knowledge. I don’t seek to have them jailed, but seek to have them truthfully express their sincere religious experiences and knowledge.

In last week’s Scientology and the Aftermath program, Rinder said:

Part of my job was to discredit and destroy critics who spoke out against the Church. If the Church believed that someone was an enemy and needed to be silenced or destroyed, it was my job and I did it.


I was the guy.

I feel bad about the people who got hurt as a result of my actions. But I feel it’s important to tell the truth of what really goes on behind the scenes. What really is happening in Scientology.

I had no such job to destroy Rinder.

Rinder’s conjunction “but” is confusing here, but his implication is clear that because he says telling the truth of what really goes on behind the scenes in Scientology is important, he must be telling such truth. Obviously he is not telling such truth; or there would be no need to advise him to not tell the truth or supply him with justifications to keep him from telling the truth. What really goes on behind the scenes is the criminal conspiracy against persons and rights in which Rinder has been such a key conspirator.


No truth from Rinder? No reconciliation (December 08, 2016)

Churchill on ESMB wrote:

I have much respect and admiration for Mike Rinder, and am a regular reader of his blog which I appreciate immensely.
I hope that Mike and Gerry Armstrong can find it in their combined hearts, to reach out to one other, if they have not yet done so, and reconcile.
I feel that Gerry deserves the peace of mind, and sense of closure that this would bring, as does Mike. 1

Gerry has written and spoken quite a bit about Mike Rinder, because he was Rinder’s biggest fair game target for so long, and he continues to be a key fair game target. Below are links to some of the materials that inform their relationship, and to the small amount of correspondence between them.

Over all the years Rinder fair gamed Gerry for Scientology, and had been paid by Scientology for that purpose, he wrote and spoke a great deal about Gerry. Almost all of what Rinder has written or said was in secret. Much was black PR. He has never publicly, or to Gerry, disclosed or acknowledged what he did to fair game Gerry or what he has written or said about him.

Since Rinder in recent years has been portraying himself as Scientology tamer or exposer, the absence of his public statements concerning Gerry is actually a revealing factor in their relationship. Rinder is identified as editor of Rathbun’s 2013 book, and Gerry says it forwards the cult’s black PR on him and his attorney Mike Flynn. Rinder was briefly recorded by the German filmmaker Markus Thoess black PRing Gerry. (Video below) He has taken no action that I am aware of to correct the black PR he promulgated, even to the highest levels of government.

Rinder and Gerry really have an extraordinary relationship, which is similar to Gerry’s with Mark Rathbun: the long unrepentant victimizer and his common undying victim. Gerry is not seeking a sense of “closure.” His requests of Mike Rinder are the same as his requests of Mark Rathbun, which are essentially to tell the truth toward correcting ongoing injustices and black propaganda. It very well may be that “closure” is not obtained, but at least justice would have been sought. Right now, Mike Rinder and Mark Rathbun do not seek justice for their victims and do not support the people who do seek such justice. The “closure” they apparently seek is our acceptance of the decades long injustices and other crimes they perpetrated against their victims. “Public apologies” without real willingness to do what’s possible to correct the wrongs reduces the “apologies” to further acts of fair game. “May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed.”

No Truth from Rinder? No reconcilation.

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Mike Rinder (2010-04-14):

To Mike Rinder

Okay, so it isn’t really because Miscavige hates Heber. It’s because Heber might just tell the truth. You’ve got it. It’s why Miscavige, and Marty, and you, and all Scientologists hate me: because I tell the truth about Scientology.
Now, will you tell the truth about Scientology’s ops, black PR, the hatred, the threats on me for all those years? Are you going to be the honest Scientologist? Or, since that hasn’t been possible, will you be an honest born again wog?2

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2012-06-03):

Mike Rinder black PRs Gerry Armstrong and Graham Berry to German film makers

I had the copyright owner’s authorization to publish this video, and the copyright infringement claim was made in bad faith. 3

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong in a letter to Graham Berry (2014-03-27):

Gerry to Graham Berry on Honey Tech

I am not asking Marty or Mike for a deep psycho-philosophical shift, when, for example, a person changes from lying as a pro-survival activity and way of life and starts to value and desire truth telling and that becomes a way of life. I am also not denying that such a shift could perhaps occur, or be related. I think testifying seventy-some days in Scientology litigations might have altered me psycho-philosophically, and certainly being M & M & every other Scientologist’s target for all these years has.

I believe, however, that the testimony or truth that Marty and Mike can provide me, which would assist in correcting injustices, can be provided in a couple of days. They know how to debrief, know how to tell the truth, and have always had the ability. The idea that Scientologists cannot tell the truth or do not know truth from lies is a ruse that some Scientologists use to escape responsibility and natural consequences for the bad acts they know they’ve committed against their victims, or are still committing.

Marty and Mike are at cause over their refusal to now assist the people they helped to damage or destroy by intimidation, litigation and defamation activities. Their condition or their place in their long or short path of waking, recovery and healing is not why they have not assisted their victims. They had the ability to assist people while inside Scientology and the Sea Org, and the idea that they have lost that ability since leaving is ridiculous. They also have the same reasons for refusing to assist their victims that they had while in the SO. They did not acquire a new set of reasons for doing what they had always done: something or anything other than assisting their victims, giving justice, telling the truth.

I am just requesting the narrow, relevant truth about a clear and active matter: Marty, Mike, Hubbard, Miscavige, et al. v. Armstrong & friends. Marty and Mike are two individuals with a great deal of information, who are now presenting as fighters for justice who have told the truth about their part in victimizing others. Since they have not told the truth, and do not seek justice, even in correcting injustices they perpetrated and can help correct, the logical conclusion is that they are “Loyalists” mispresenting themselves. My communications that you call mercilessly attacking and condemning Marty and Mike have been useful and valuable in establishing these facts.
Not everyone gets to tell the truth that matters to someone. My request has been appropriate and the truth I’m requesting is relevant in ongoing legally cognizable injustices. Sometimes a request for the truth can be by subpoena. In my case it is the earnest, free request of a knowledgeable and known victim in a long legal and extralegal campaign of victimization and injustice.4

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Mike Rinder (2014-04-4th to 8th):

Reaching Mike Rinder

Your inimical, contemptuous communication contained within it the implicit license to me to do what I want with your email, because we are enemies. In reality, your communication only confirmed the inimical condition you were in with me. It did not cause the condition.

A communication from you could end the condition. In fact communication is what I want from you, just as I want it from Marty. I want you both to communicate about the Scientology v. Armstrong injustices and black PR over 32 years. I will know the communication that ends the condition, and neither of your two emails to me is it.5

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2015-03-01):

About Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds

This scenario of Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds has been brought up several times over the past few years. It is used as evidence of them doing the right thing, or how effective they are as critics, as it has been assumed that whatever they told the Feds helped the Scientologists’ victims.

In view of the known facts, however, this assumption is illogical. It is illogical to think that Rathbun and Rinder would lie about me in Memoirs, continue the criminal framing of me and Mike Flynn, black PR me and other persons he victimized, and yet tell the truth about what they did to fair game us to the Feds. 6

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Alex Gibney (2015-03-06 ):

Letter to Alex Gibney on the IRS deal, public policy, and calling out Rathbun and Rinder

Dear Mr. Gibney:


Calling out Cruise and Travolta to stand up and say it’s time for Miscavige to answer his accusers is logical because Cruise and Travolta are celebs, and they have contact and influence with him. Now I am urging you, and Wright and Paul Haggis, to call out Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder to answer their accuser, me. What I am accusing them of includes, most crucially, crimes and torts they committed against me personally to unlawfully obtain the IRS tax exemption, which is clearly a focus of your film.

Rathbun and Rinder, under L. Ron Hubbard and Miscavige, fair gamed me more than they fair gamed any other person during their time as fair gamers for Scientology. If they fair gamed someone else more than me, they have never said, and I have never heard of that person. The one person they fair gamed somewhat equivalently was my attorney Michael Flynn. 7

Since Rathbun and Rinder have apparently left the Scientology cult, and portray themselves as exposers of the Scientologists’ abuses and crimes, I have many times asked them to come forward and tell the truth about fair gaming me. I have asked them many times to come forward and tell the truth about what they did to me to obtain their cult’s unmerited tax exemption. 8

Yet neither of them has answered me, their accuser, other than with contempt and further fair gaming.9

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2015-03-11):

Response to Rinder re Disconnection

Rinder’s assertion that “disconnection,” which is one application of the SP doctrine, is merely a relatively simple theory, and, as he says on his blog, “is based on common sense,” is also false and malignant. His claim on his blog that when disconnection “is used for the benefit of the individual, it can be a helpful practice” is a lie to cloak an evil and indefensible practice.3

The other, even more evil, application of the SP doctrine is the “fair game” policy. Rathbun and Rinder have not told the truth about fair game, and have in fact continued to fair game and support the fair gaming of the wogs they most egregiously fair gamed while working directly for the Scientology cult. While disconnection is antisocial, it is arguably lawfully permissible, but fair game constitutes a criminal conspiracy against rights and is judicially punishable.10



Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2016-11-07):

Speaking up about Fair Game

Rinder personally participated in and directed criminal acts against me. See for example, my introduction to the Armstrong Op ; see also documents relating to Rinder’s part in it: . He knows about his criminal acts, and knows that I have confronted him on his refusal to tell the truth about them. Although the book is about “fair game,” and Rinder is a major contributor to the book, there is no mention of his fair game against his victims. There is no evidence he was asked about such actions, no challenge to his assertion or intimation that he and the new regime did not engage in illegal activities, and no question of his aghastness.11


Public Policy (January 25, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong 1

Caroline on ESMB: Gerry concluded some time ago that the key to the IRS decision and its cancellation is the “public policy” issue, or actually public policy violations issue. This explains why neither Rathbun nor Rinder have told the truth about their fair gaming of Gerry, Mike Flynn, etc., and have not told the truth about false statements to and dealings with the IRS. From the Introduction to the Armstrong Operation: […]

Wildcat on ESMB: This is good information, thank you! Can you provide a link or clarification about the “public policy” issue? I’m not sure what that is, but am very interested to know more.

Public policy. That principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term “policy,” as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be “against public policy,” when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

To see how “public policy” fits into the Scientologists’ IRS scheme, start with the September 1984 judgment in Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of IRS.2

The US was very aware of the Scientologists’ public policy violations against government, organizations and individuals because of the documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids, and because of testimony of Exscientologists. A broad statement reflecting the US’s knowledge of such public policy violations is provided in the December 1980 Sentencing Memorandum in the US v. Jane Kember & Mo Budlong case.

Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through   June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter.  In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.”  They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).


Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants

The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants.  If anything, these documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law.  They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. [ ] The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA) which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. [cite]  That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person”  “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist.  [He m]ay be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.” [cite] This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.



The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years.  It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country.  The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country.  Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals    and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail.  One can   only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data.  That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law.  Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard.  No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying.  No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes.  It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.”  Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed.  The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system.  In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.”  That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.3

In July 1987, the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 1984 judgment in CSC v. Commissioner. Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground of inurement to L. Ron Hubbard, it did not address the public policy issue.

We conclude that the Church failed to establish that “no part of the net earnings … inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Because we may affirm the Tax Court on this ground, we do not reach the questions of whether the Church operated for a substantial commercial purpose or whether it violated public policy. 4

Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court judgment only on the ground of inurement, it did not mean that the IRS could ignore the other grounds for denial of tax exemption if the Scientologists cured their inurement problem. Hubbard’s death solved inurement. The Scientologists solved their public policy problem by committing more public policy violations against the people who were already victims of the Scientologists’ public policy violations. For corrupt reasons, the US abetted the Scientologists, indeed required such public policy violations.

The Scientologists’ strategy, as has long been known, became to blame their Guardian’s Office for everything off-public policy the Scientologists had been caught doing, disband the GO as a rogue operation, and swear that public policy violations were no longer committed or permitted. The Scientologists, of course, first under Hubbard and then under Miscavige, continued violating public policy unabated, and probably even escalated public policy violating by having the GO to scapegoat.

The blaming of the GO, and the smearing of the Scientologists’ public policy violation victims by association with the GO, is a key theme in the Scientologists’ negotiated submissions to the IRS upon which tax exemption was granted in 1993. The Scientologists, and the IRS, had to deal with the public policy issue that is so prominent in the 1984 Tax Court judgment. These submissions, negotiated to demonstrate that public policy violations had ended with the GO, are actually irrefutable, and astonishing, proof that Scientologists continued violating public policy, directed by the very top leadership of Scientology. 5

There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.

Although in his 2013 book Memoirs Mark Rathbun did not confront his participation in the Scientology-IRS conspiracy, which defrauded Americans and criminally prejudiced the SP class, he did disclose a number of things that are useful in examining certain of the Scientologists’ fact statements in their IRS submissions. Comparing the public policy sections of these submissions with the US’s knowledge of public policy violations as shown in the 1980 US v. Kember sentencing memorandum, and analyzing both fact sets with what Rathbun has disclosed or what is known from other sources, would be a logical next step.


Mark Rathbun: The Juggernaut (May 28, 2013)


Chapter Twenty-One


Juggernaut:   in colloquial English usage is a literal or metaphorical force regarded as mercilessly destructive and unstoppable.   – Wikipedia

For all of his alleged faults, L. Ron Hubbard was a keen observer and writer on the human condition. He once noted that “the bank follows the line of attack.”   “Bank” is Scientologese for the reactive mind, the stimulus-response portion of the mind that seeks destruction of others for survival of self.   With the devastating strike upon Ron and Scientology delivered in Los Angeles, all roads to L. Ron Hubbard’s bunker led through Flynn and Armstrong. It seemed that anyone with a score to settle was drawn like a magnet to the duo. Those combined forces took on the appearance of an overwhelming juggernaut.

The DOJ duplicated Flynn’s latest legal tactic: ask courts in Scientology litigation to order the church to produce L. Ron Hubbard as the “managing agent” of the mother church. Flynn assisted the DOJ to procure sworn declarations from his growing stable of former high-level official witnesses in support of the move.

David Mayo, the expelled former auditor to L. Ron Hubbard and erstwhile top technical authority in Scientology, had created a thriving Scientology splinter operation in Santa Barbara, California. Former high-level messengers – including two former Commanding Officers of CMO Int (Commodore’s Messenger Organization International) served as executives of his operation.   Until the Armstrong affair, they had steered clear of the L. Ron Hubbard-bashing Flynn/ FAMCO circles. But by 1984 they were supplying declarations to the DOJ and Flynn in support of their motions to compel Hubbard into depositions in lawsuits across the country.

Breckenridge’s Armstrong case decision, bolstered by a dozen declarations by former Hubbard messengers and aides, made the allegation of Hubbard’s “managing agent” status virtually uncontestable. Miscavige and Broeker were clearly established as the last links to Hubbard, but they could not provide countering declarations because it would subject them to depositions – which would lead Hubbard’s enemies directly to him.

Worse, the Breckenridge decision destroyed any chance of winning, in courts across the U.S., our vast array of pending motions to dismiss Flynn’s lawsuits on the basis of First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. The twenty-one-page Breckenridge indictment was devastating to our three years of expensive efforts at positioning much of the Flynn litigation for pre-trial dismissal.

Worse still, the decision pumped new life into what we thought by then to be criminal investigations losing steam. The Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) had been actively investigating the church, as well as LRH, Pat and Ann Broeker, David Miscavige and other church officials as named targets for criminal charges. Until the Breckenridge decision we had kept the CID somewhat at bay through litigation combatting their summons power, and a team of lawyers attempting to negotiate with IRS counsel and DOJ officials. But our intelligence lines were reporting that the LA-based CID group was once again gearing up to indict Hubbard and his aides.

The Ontario Provincial Police had, after their March, 1983 raid, steered clear of targeting Hubbard. Now they were reconsidering, in light of the outcome of the Armstrong case.

Our intelligence network reported that Gerry Armstrong was feeling drunk with power, given the sudden attention he’d received and his new importance in the anti-Scientology community. It seemed Armstrong and Flynn had worked their way up to being the axle to which all anti-Scientology spokes were linked. Per reports, Armstrong was talking of bringing all Scientology’s enemies together in a concerted effort to take over the church. The man who had prevailed in his case because of his alleged “fear for his life” was beating his chest and promising to take the very life of our church, and convert all its assets to outside control.

Our only shot at staving off indictments against LRH across North America, and of keeping him out of the couple of dozen pending lawsuits was to take out the axle and so depower its spokes. It was this desperate state of affairs that drew me directly into the shadowy world of intelligence. Throughout his litigation Armstrong had remained in periodic communication with a Scientologist who knew a thing or two about intelligence. Dan Sherman had published a number of spy novels, and had struck up an acquaintance with Armstrong. Armstrong looked up to Sherman and envied his literary success and intelligence acumen. Armstrong believed that Sherman – like so many other Scientologists during the tumultuous early eighties – was disaffected with the church and no longer considered himself a member. In fact, Sherman was cultivating a friendship with Armstrong in order to glean intelligence from him about the enemy camp. Up through the trial their communications were infrequent and mundane.   All that changed when Armstrong became an overnight anti-Scientology sensation. Because of Armstrong’s newly won stardom, Sherman began giving him more face time. Armstrong began sharing some of the details of his activities as a coordination point for all camps inimical to the church, from the Ontario Provincial Police, to the IRS CID, to the DOJ, to the Mayo splinter movement. Armstrong asked Sherman to see whether he could locate some church insiders who might aid in a take-over coup inside the church.

Gene Ingram and I concocted a rather elaborate game plan.   Gene would tap one of his old LAPD comrades to obtain written permission to covertly video record conversations with Gerry Armstrong. Technically, it was a lawfully given permission since we had a witness attesting that Armstrong was suggesting taking over and destroying the church by questionable means.

Gene obtained a recreational vehicle which had a wide rear window with reflective coating, making it one-way vision. A high-powered camera could record what was going on outside without being seen. We planned to record meetings with Armstrong to obtain evidence showing that not only was he not afraid for his life, he in fact was a well-backed aggressor and an operative of government agencies out to get Scientology. After taking circuitous routes to lose any possible tails, Sherman and I met Ingram in the RV in Long Beach. We worked out every detail of Sherman’s cover. We would bring in a former GO operative and have Sherman introduce him to Armstrong as a church insider, plotting the overthrow of the Miscavige regime and willing to play ball with Armstrong, Flynn and their government allies. That would hopefully prompt Armstrong to repeat and elaborate on some of the provocative takeover and take-down ideas he had alluded to in earlier conversations.

The chosen venue for the meetings was Griffith Park, inside LAPD jurisdiction and with plenty of opportunities for positioning the RV to capture the action. Sherman met with Armstrong and whetted his appetite. He told him he had made contact with an ally who had a number of well-placed contacts, currently on staff in the church. He told Armstrong he could only be identified by his first name, Joey, for security purposes. Joey was formerly of the Guardian’s Office and was connected to a number of former GO people who were bitter about being ousted by Miscavige, and sympathetic to Armstrong and the Mayo splinter movement.   Armstrong was visibly overjoyed at this opportunity gratuitously falling into his lap.

Sherman arranged a meeting between Armstrong and Joey to take place on a park bench in Griffith Park. Joey wore an audio wire which transmitted the conversation back to the RV, parked a hundred yards away and video recording the event. Armstrong and Joey both wore sunglasses; both attempted to look as nonchalant as could be, as they introduced themselves.

Joey explained that there was serious disaffection within the church, and a forming cabal of veteran staff ready to take out Miscavige and the current management. He called this cell the Loyalists. Armstrong was clearly excited, and believed Joey’s cover – no doubt because of Sherman’s story-telling skills and credibility with Armstrong.

Armstrong shared with Joey the master plan, which he represented as his brainchild, along with Michael Flynn. He explained that the plan was backed by the Ontario Provincial Police, the DOJ and the IRS. Flynn would prepare a lawsuit on behalf of the Loyalists, asking the Attorney General of California to take the church into receivership on their behalf. The DOJ, FBI, and IRS would conduct a raid on church premises to get fresh evidence of illegalities, in support of the Loyalist action. The raid would be coordinated to coincide with the filing of the receivership action.   The public relations fallout and the possible arrests of leaders would all but cripple the church.

Joey played his role well, feigning fear and nervousness that Armstrong could make good on the government back-up. In order to prove his representations, Armstrong opened a notebook and started naming his government contacts, representing that each was briefed, coordinated and ready to roll with the plan. He cited the following agents as close personal friends and in constant contact and coordination with him and with Flynn:

Al Ristuccia – Los Angeles office of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division

Al Lipkin –  Los Angeles office of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division

Richard Greenberg – U.S. Department of Justice, lead counsel in defending civil litigation brought by the church against DOJ, FBI and IRS

Tom Doughty – DOJ associate of Greenberg

Al Ciampini – Ontario Provincial Police

Armstrong provided Joey with phone numbers for each, including home numbers for some – and urged Joey to get in touch with his team members from these agencies.

Over time, Armstrong told Joey that the IRS CID was the most active government participant, and served as the main coordination point between agencies. He told Joey the CID agents had been briefed about Joey and the Loyalists, and were excited and supportive. The CID would grant them informant status, offer immunity for any crimes they might commit in assisting the government, and had even talked of providing safe houses for insiders. Armstrong then asked   Joey to get his contacts to go into church files and find evidence of illegalities, so that the IRS and DOJ would know where to search. Joey then brought into the mix someone whom Gerry had known from his Sea Org days.   Mike Rinder was a Commodore’s Messenger who had once worked directly with Ron.   He was then heading up the U.S. branch of the Office of Special Affairs.   Joey introduced Mike to Gerry.   Mike reported to Gerry that the files were relatively clean – there were no big smoking-gun documents being created after the 1977 FBI raids. At this point Armstrong’s macho bravado provided what would be our greatest defense against the indictments being issued against Hubbard, Miscavige, et al.   Armstrong suggested that the Loyalists create evidence of illegalities and plant them in church files for the IRS and DOJ to find in a raid, and use against church officials.

All of Armstrong’s representations about government conspiracies to take down church leadership and close down the operation were duly recorded.

David Miscavige was ecstatic with the results. He had me make a presentation of the evidence to a team of criminal lawyers, assembled to represent L. Ron Hubbard, Miscavige, Pat Broker and Lyman Spurlock (Hubbard’s accountant at ASI) to prevent IRS CID indictments and convictions – the potential charges we took most seriously. These attorneys – most from white-shoe Washington, D.C. law firms – were scaring the hell out of Miscavige. They were suggesting the IRS CID case was so serious that they recommended working a deal with the IRS for Miscavige and Spurlock to do time in halfway houses, so as to prevent indictment of Hubbard.   At the root of the IRS CID case was the evidence of millions of dollars of church monies being funneled to Hubbard through fraudulent means. And at the heart of the case would be the infamous MCCS taped conference in which church attorneys and staff acknowledged the fraudulent nature of the transfers.

My presentation horrified the team of criminal attorneys. They were hired because of their conservative, Reagan administration contacts. They did not want anything to do with such an aggressive investigative move.   They were concerned about the propriety of the means Ingram and I had utilized to obtain the evidence, and thought it would reflect badly on their own reputations. One attorney who represented Miscavige personally took me aside, though. He said he did not know how to use it at the moment, but that the evidence I had obtained would ultimately save the day for Hubbard, Miscavige and the church.   Gerald Feffer was the former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for taxation during the Carter administration. He was becoming a dean of white-collar criminal case dismissal prior to indictment. He would become a senior partner in the venerable D.C. law firm Williams & Connally.   Gerry told me to work with some of our more aggressive civil counsel to figure out a way to make the information public, and he would use it to make the IRS criminal case go away.

Another disclosure from the Griffith Park meetings cut to the quick with both Miscavige and me. Armstrong had told Joey that another Department of Justice player was in on the grand plan to close down Scientology: Bracket Deniston III. Armstrong said that Deniston was not investigating to find out who attempted to pass Hubbard’s check, and he was not investigating the evidence we had provided to him.   Instead Deniston was out to nail our investigator, Gene Ingram. Deniston had represented to Armstrong that he was setting traps to nail Ingram and the church for attempting to frame Flynn with purchased evidence.

This was particularly disconcerting, given events in the check investigation while all this Armstrong business was going down.   After I had been ordered out of Boston by Deniston, I had been lured back in by a man being prosecuted by his office. Larry Reservitz had been charged in a case very similar to the one involving LRH’s check. One of Reservitz’s connections who had access to Bank of New England records had used his access to fraudulently transfer money from random accounts to Reservitz. While under indictment, Reservitz reached out to me for the $ 10,000 reward we had previously advertised in the New York Times, claiming he had inside information on the Hubbard case and could identify the inside man at BNE. We had a number of phone calls and several meetings attempting to negotiate the deal. The jockeying was due to my suspicion that Reservitz was shaking us down, and I was searching for facts that would indicate he knew what he was talking about. Reservitz was continually attempting to characterize my questioning as an attempt to make the deal an exchange of cash for handing us Flynn.

In the meantime, Robert Mueller, Denniston’s superior and head of the Boston U.S. DOJ office fraud division, had flown to Italy to visit Ala Tamimi. He bought Tamimi’s retraction of his original statement in exchange for dropping a number of outstanding indictments the DOJ had pending against Tamimi for a variety of fraudulent schemes he had previously executed. I attempted to confront Mueller with what we had learned, but he refused to meet with me. Deniston outright denied that any visit or deal had been carried out by Mueller. In either event, Tamimi’s retraction caused Miscavige to turn up the heat to get me to turn up fresh evidence of Flynn’s involvement in the crime.

I was caught between a rock and a hard spot. Miscavige wanted Flynn at any cost.   Yet I felt that Reservitz might be attempting to frame me for attempting to frame Flynn.   I walked a tight rope between pursuing the investigation to Miscavige’s required degree of aggressiveness, and not stepping over the line with Reservitz. I even visited the Boston FBI agent in charge of the Hubbard check investigation, Jim Burleigh.   I pointedly accused Burleigh of having covertly made a deal with Reservitz to attempt to sting me.   Burleigh brought in another FBI agent to witness his categorical denial that the FBI or DOJ had made a deal with Reservitz: “We would never cooperate with the likes of Larry Reservitz.” Deniston likewise denied that Reservitz was working for the DOJ.   Still, I had my suspicions, particularly when we learned Deniston had become pals with Armstrong and Flynn.

With the sharks circling in and our waning confidence in our civil lawyers (having their heads handed to them in the Armstrong case) and criminal lawyers (advising Miscavige that he resign himself to doing time, at least in a halfway house), Miscavige ordered I find a new breed of lawyer. He wanted someone tough as nails, not some nervous Nellie.   He wanted someone who could figuratively kick Flynn’s butt in court, and scare the hell out of his DOJ and IRS backers. After an exhaustive nationwide search and many candidates eliminated, I thought we had finally found our man – in, of all places, Boston.

Earle Cooley was bigger than life.   He was a big, red-haired knock-off of L. Ron Hubbard himself. His gravelly voice was commanding. His wit was sharp. He was perennially listed in The Best Trial Lawyers in America.   He could spin a yarn that charmed judges and juries and took easy, great pleasure in viciously destroying witnesses on cross examination.   After I had interviewed Earle and reported to Miscavige, I arranged for us to watch Earle in action.   Miscavige and I flew out to Boston to see Earle perform in a high-profile art theft trial. We saw him decimate a seasoned criminal government informant so thoroughly on cross examination that the fellow, in a trademark Cooley expression, “didn’t know whether to shit or wind his watch.” Earle’s client – whom the government had dead to rights, and who was as unsympathetic a defendant as could be – was acquitted by the jury.   We had found the horse for the course.

Earle was like a breath of fresh air to Miscavige.   He took a similar black-and-white view of matters – we are right and good, the enemy is wrong and bad. Miscavige had long since lost his patience and his tolerance for our teams of civil lawyers and the civil-rights-experienced civil-rights-experienced opinion leaders among them. He referred to them as the “pointy heads,” short for “pointy-headed intellectuals.”   To him, our only problem was our counsels’ timid, second-guessing, defensive frames of mind.   And Earle reinforced that view.   Cooley attended a few civil litigation conferences with our other counsel. He ruffled their feathers by readily agreeing with Miscavige’s simplistic sum-up of what was wrong and the solution to it, aggression. The existing lawyers’ nervous objections and eye-rolling reactions to Earle’s sermons only reinforced Miscavige’s view.   “They are nothing but a pack of pussies,” he regularly groused to me; “what we need is for Earle to sink his teeth into those Flynn witnesses and that’ll be the end of this nonsense.”

Miscavige was nothing if not resilient. While never giving a hint that the overridingly important goal was the attainment of All Clear, by late 1984 it was quite evident to all involved that we were fighting an entirely different battle now. It was a fight for survival. We were desperately staving off the barbarians storming the walls of whatever compound L. Ron Hubbard might reside behind. It was evident too that Hubbard himself might have quit fighting – we no longer received any dispatches from him about the legal front. He was only sporadically sending ASI advices concerning his personal business, and to the church about Scientology matters. Miscavige had a team feverishly marketing Hubbard’s new science fiction books, the Mission Earth series. He was putting just as much pressure on church marketing folks to market Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the broad public re-release of the 1950 book that had launched the entire movement.   All titles were making it back onto the New York Times bestseller lists.   So the incongruity created another level of cognitive dissonance. How could government officials across the continent be so feverishly pursuing a man who was so wildly popular with the public at large?   It would be years before I would find out that the sales were given a mighty boost by teams of Scientologists sent out to bookstores to buy them in bulk.   In the meantime, Miscavige was adept at keeping me and the troops motivated, inferring that we were buying Ron time to bail out the church’s disastrous public image and to complete his final researches at the highest levels of Scientology.

With Miscavige’s solving of the “why” behind our failures to attain an All Clear – i.e., the outside lawyers’ blatant counter-intention to Hubbard’s advices on using the enemies’ tactics against them, only more cleverly and more aggressively – our defeat-battered hopes were rehabilitated. Earle Cooley, the great Scientology hope, would soon be unleashed.


  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (pp. 255-64).
  2. GA: I mentioned Rathbun’s Chapter 21, which he titles “The Juggernaut,” in a recent letter to Dan Sherman. The whole chapter is Rathbun’s spin on the Armstrong Op, or more specifically the 1984 Griffith Park videotaping part of the op. The operation, which was clearly concocted to use or misuse the videos for nefarious purposes after the videotaping, still continues. Rathbun’s book shows the op continues by continuing it. Even though he calls it a memoir, and recounts different events or incidents in his Scientology career that appear unrelated to the op, the whole book is his spin on it. The book is also a fantastic late act, one more contemptuous fair game nastiness in the same old sick op.

    Most importantly at this time, Rathbun’s spin, and his facts propelling it, are virtually identical to the spin and facts the Miscavige Scientologists give to their description of these events in their black propaganda publications, in their filings in their legal proceedings, in their submissions to the IRS, or to governments and people around the world. The difference is that Rathbun says Miscavige ran and runs it all, and Miscavige and his corporate underlings either do not say or say the same thing.

Tampa Bay Times: Scientology vs. The IRS ( June 21, 2009)

Scientology: The Truth Rundown, Part 1 of 3 in a special report on the Church of Scientology
By Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:06am

This account comes from executives who for decades were key figures in Scientology’s powerful inner circle. Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, the highest-ranking executives to leave the church, are speaking out for the first time.

[…]Now they provide an unprecedented look inside the upper reaches of the tightly controlled organization. They reveal:


  • With Miscavige calling the shots and Rathbun among those at his side, the church muscled the IRS into granting Scientology tax-exempt status. Offering fresh perspective on one of the church’s crowning moments, Rathbun details an extraordinary campaign of public pressure backed by thousands of lawsuits.


Scientology vs. the IRS

By the late 1980s, the battle with the IRS had quieted from the wild days of break-ins and indictments. But Miscavige was no less intent on getting back the church’s tax exemption, which he thought would legitimize Scientology.

The new strategy, according to Rathbun: Overwhelm the IRS. Force mistakes.

The church filed about 200 lawsuits against the IRS, seeking documents to prove IRS harassment and challenging the agency’s refusal to grant tax exemptions to church entities.

Some 2,300 individual Scientologists also sued the agency, demanding tax deductions for their contributions.

“Before you knew it, these simple little cookie-cutter suits … became full-blown legal cases,” Rathbun said.

Washington-based attorney William C. Walsh, who is now helping the church rebut the defectors claims, shepherded many of those cases. “We wanted to get to the bottom of what we felt was discrimination,” he said. “And we got a lot of documents, evidence that proved it.”

“It’s fair to say that when we started, there was a lot of distrust on both sides and suspicion,” Walsh said. “We had to dispel that and prove who we were and what kind of people we were.”

Yingling teamed with Walsh, Miscavige and Rathbun on the case. She said the IRS investigation of Miscavige resulted in a file thicker than the FBI’s file on Dr. Martin Luther King. “I mean it was insane,” she said.

The church ratcheted up the pressure with a relentless campaign against the IRS.

Armed with IRS records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Scientology’s magazine, Freedom, featured stories on alleged IRS abuses: lavish retreats on the taxpayers’ dime; setting quotas on audits of individual Scientologists; targeting small businesses for audits while politically connected corporations were overlooked.

Scientologists distributed the magazine on the front steps of the IRS building in Washington.

A group called the National Coalition of IRS Whistleblowers waged its own campaign. Unbeknownst to many, it was quietly created and financed by Scientology.

It was a grinding war, with Scientology willing to spend whatever it took to best the federal agency. “I didn’t even think about money,” Rathbun said. “We did whatever we needed to do.”

They also knew the other side was hurting. A memo obtained by the church said the Scientology lawsuits had tapped the IRS’s litigation budget before the year was up.

The church used other documents it got from the IRS against the agency.

In one, the Department of Justice scolded the IRS for taking indefensible positions in court cases against Scientology. The department said it feared being “sucked down” with the IRS and tarnished.

Another memo documented a conference of 20 IRS officials in the 1970s. They were trying to figure out how to respond to a judge’s ruling that Scientology met the agency’s definition of a religion. The IRS’ solution? They talked about changing the definition.

Rathbun calls it the “Final Solution” conference, a meeting that demonstrated the IRS bias against Scientology. “We used that (memo) I don’t know how many times on them,” he said.

By 1991, Miscavige had grown impatient with the legal tussle. He was confident he could personally persuade the IRS to bend. That October, he and Rathbun walked into IRS headquarters in Washington and asked to meet with IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg. They had no appointment.

Goldberg, who did not respond to interview requests for this story, did not see them that day, but he met with them a week later.

Rathbun says that contrary to rumor, no bribes were paid, no extortion used. It was round-the-clock preparation and persistence — plus thousands of lawsuits, hard-hitting magazine articles and full-page ads in USA Today criticizing the IRS.

“That was enough,” Rathbun said. “You didn’t need blackmail.”

He and Miscavige prepped incessantly for their meeting. “I’m sitting there with three banker’s boxes of documents. He (Miscavige) has this 20-page speech to deliver to these guys. And for every sentence, I’ve got two folders” of backup.

Miscavige presented the argument that Scientology is a bona fide religion — then offered an olive branch.

Rathbun recalls the gist of the leader’s words to the IRS:

Look, we can just turn this off. This isn’t the purpose of the church. We’re just trying to defend ourselves. And this is the way we defend. We aggressively defend. If we can sit down and actually deal with the merits, get to what we feel we are actually entitled to, this all could be gone.

The two sides took a break.

Rathbun remembered: “Out in the hallway, Goldberg comes up to me because he sees I’m the right-hand guy. He goes: ‘Does he mean it? We can really turn it off?’ ”

“And I said,” turning his hand for effect, ” ‘Like a faucet.’ ”

The two sides started talks. Yingling said she warned church leaders to steel themselves, counseling that they answer every question, no matter how offensive.

Agents asked some doozies: about LSD initiation rituals, whether members were shot when they got out of line and about training terrorists in Mexico. “We answered everything,” Yingling said, crediting Miscavige for insisting the church be open, honest and cooperative.

The back and forth lasted two years and resulted in this agreement: The church paid $12.5 million. The IRS dropped its criminal investigations. All pending cases were dropped.

On Oct. 8, 1993, some 10,000 church members gathered in the Los Angeles Sports Arena to celebrate the leader’s announcement: The IRS had restored the church’s tax exemption, legitimizing Scientology as a church, not a for-profit operation.

“The war is over,” Miscavige told the crowd. “This means everything.”

Retrieved on 16 March 2014 from

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (March 7, 2006)

[…] 1

28. Scientology leaders had used the same Ken Hoden in a similar attempt in 1985 and 1986 to have me prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney on charges


that the organization itself manufactured. Scientology ran a covert operation on me from 1982 through 1984 involving a writer Dan Sherman whom organization leaders operated to befriend me, get close to me, and set me up in a series of secretly recorded and videotaped meetings with other covert agents. Mr. Sherman and the other agents claimed that there were people inside the organization who wanted to reform it and stop Fair Game, but they were afraid for their lives and so sought out my help. The other agents David Kluge and Michael Rinder, pretending to be reformers, attempted to entrap me into the commission of crimes, without success. The recordings were made without my permission or knowledge and were illegal, and were in no way evidence of what Scientology claimed they were. Nevertheless, Scientology edited the recordings and used Mr. Hoden and others to try to get the LA DA to prosecute me, as well as my attorney Michael Flynn. Appended hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the letter dated April 25, 1986 from LA DA to Mr. Hoden, et al. fortunately refusing prosecution or further investigation of Scientology’s claims.2 Scientology claimed that its covert videotaping operation was legal because it was authorized by the LA PD. As mentioned above, a Scientology agent had paid an LA PD officer at least ten thousand dollars for a series of phony “authorizations” to wiretap and eavesdrop on Mr. Flynn and me. Appended hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a public announcement of April 23, 1985 from the LA Chief of Police denouncing the “authorizations” as not from the LAPD3 Despite the scathing denouncement from the Chief of Police, and the corrupt officer being suspended from


the LA PD, Scientology has continued to this day to justify its unlawful entrapment operation and the false charges it sought with the lie that the videotaping was approved by the LA PD.

29. At the time he attempted to have me prosecuted on Scientology’s trumped up charges, Mr. Hoden was part of the organization authorized and directed to handle or treat or Fair Game SPs. Scientologists in such positions are expected to lie, including under oath, to obstruct justice, and do what is necessary and can be gotten away with to harm the people organization leaders want harmed, like Mr. Henson and me. I believe that Mr. Hoden was used specifically in the efforts to have us prosecuted because he has been willing to lie, testify falsely or otherwise Fair Game us, whereas other Scientologists might not be so willing. I believe that my knowledge of Scientologists lying and testifying falsely as a practice, and specifically Ken Hoden lying, to have the organization’s SP victims prosecuted and jailed or otherwise harmed, was very relevant in Mr. Henson’s terrorism case, and if the jury had heard that testimony he would have been found not guilty on all counts.

30. The scriptural principle given by founder Hubbard that Scientology is following in its actions in the legal arena against people like Mr. Henson and me states:

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO,
yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. And the public, seeing that you won, will then have a communication line to the effect that Scientologists WIN. Don’t ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives.4


The charges that the Scientologists and their agents who execute the Suppressive Person doctrine bring against their SP victims are often false charges. Scientology sought to have me falsely charged by the LA PD in 1982 for theft. In 1985 and 1986, as shown above, Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the LA DA. In 1985 and 1986 Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the FBI in Boston on a charge Scientology manufactured that I had impersonated an FBI officer.5 In 1992 through 1994, Scientology sought to have me punished for contempt of court on false charges. In 1997, Scientology was successful, as shown above, in having me punished with a fine and jail for reporting the organization’s threat to me after I was subpoenaed. In 1998, Scientology was successful in having me fined and ordered to jail for twenty-six days for expressions expressed in Canada and Germany.6  In 2001, Scientology was again successful in having me found in contempt of court for more religious expressions in Canada.7 In 2001, Scientology also sought to get me in trouble with the FSB, the Russian intelligence service that succeeded the KGB, and tried to have me picked up by U.S. agents in Moscow.8 In 2002, Scientology sought to have me charged by the Ekaterinburg, Russia prosecutor on the basis of false statements by Scientologists that I had trespassed in their office in that city. In 2004 and 2005 a Scientology agent leased an office across the street from my apartment in Chilliwack, B.C. Canada, spied on my wife throughout that period, and tried to trick us into making a video recording to later be used against us.9

31. I am convinced that Ken Hoden and any Scientologists who testified that they were frightened by Keith Henson possibly bombing them or hurting them in any way are lying as part of a conspiracy run by Scientology’s leaders to deprive him of his rights in violation 18 U.S.C. § 241, and in violation of other state and federal criminal statutes. What Scientology is trying to do in silencing me judicially and


extra-judicially demonstrates the same, and the list of beneficiaries of Scientology’s efforts to deprive me of my civil rights shows that the conspiracy is organization-wide. Since Scientology is demonstrably inter alia a criminal conspiracy against rights, Mr. Henson has every justification in the world to interfere with the conspiracy, even if the conspirators call their conspiracy religion.



Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 5) (July 9, 2002)


CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,




PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1


DATE: July 9, 2002. Afternoon Session.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,  Circuit Judge.

Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.



340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff

100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.


Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.


THE COURT: You may be seated. Okay, before we begin, two questions. Have you decided when you want the trial date, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: September.

THE COURT: All right. Have you decided whether or not you need Mr. Rosen?

MR. DANDAR: No, I don’t need Mr. Rosen.

THE COURT: All right. Then I’m going to assume that — I will go ahead and enter an order pro hac vice admitting Mr. Rosen, just in case.

He’ll be admitted, just for this purpose. And I’ll let you have —

MR. FUGATE: Should I prepare an order, Judge?

THE COURT: Do you mind?


THE COURT: Tell him to prepare an order, whatever.

MR. FUGATE: I’ll do it.

MR. DANDAR: So, Judge, since we will start picking a jury for the trial in September, what specific date would that be?

THE COURT: The second week in September. Whatever that Monday is.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: You may proceed.


MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: That, of course, assumes the motion to dismiss is not granted.

MR. DANDAR: I understand.

THE COURT: Mr. Lirot, are you still of the mind that if Mr. Dandar is removed as counsel, you are prepared on that date?

MR. LIROT: Hope springs eternal, Judge. But yes, Judge, I’ll be prepared on that date if need be.

THE COURT: All right.


Q Mr. Prince, what I was trying to do before the lunch break was finish up on the meetings that you had with Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks.

A Okay.

Q I believe we left off with your meeting with them when things got a little testy at the hotel for dinner.

A At the Radisson.

Q At the Radisson. In my — your note attached to your affidavit, you said you met with me before you met with them that Sunday. So that was April 14th.

A Okay.

Q All right? So let’s go from then on. What happened after April 14th?


A Mmm —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, he met with you before he met with them?

MR. DANDAR: That same day. That is where this handwritten note —

THE COURT: Right. For some reason, I thought it was after. But it was before?

MR. DANDAR: On this particular day he met with me at the mall with Mr. Lirot. And that was April 14th.

THE COURT: In the afternoon? Then he went there in the evening?

MR. DANDAR: Then he went there.


Q What happened after April 14th?

A Mmm, well, contact again — and I think I mentioned I had the one phone conversation with Mr. Minton where I invited him over to my house.

But they — they talked to me — or got messages to me via my fiancee. They would talk to her.

And if anything happened — we wouldn’t talk, we were not talking.

Q And what messages did you receive from Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that way?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Hearsay. That would have to be


hearsay. I mean, that would have nothing to do with Mr. Minton’s state of mind or anything in this proceeding, so you would have to, at the very least, bring in the other person.


Q So you never talked with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks since then directly, one-on-one?

A I talked with Mrs. Brooks. Mmm, she just told me that everything was going to be fine, regardless of whether or not I agreed to go with them or participate in activities with them with Scientology. She just told me things were
going to be okay.

Q When did Ms. Brooks stop paying you your monthly income?

A Either March or April.

Q And you said before that you went to Denis deVlaming’s office and spoke with him, and he couldn’t help you because of the conflict of interest. Did you go to any law enforcement?

A Well, it’s not entirely true to say that Mr. DeVlaming couldn’t help me.

What Mr. DeVlaming did do is refer me to his brother because, again, I wanted to somehow get a federal law enforcement involved in this, since my perception was that the criminal activity — conspiracy and criminal activity happened at least in New


York, New Hampshire and Clearwater.

Mmm, he said that he would talk with a federal agent that he did know and get back with me. He — I guess maybe a day or so later, he had a conversation with the federal agent, Mr. Douglas DeVlaming.

And he told me, after speaking with an agent, they thought that it would make a difficult case because Mr. Minton was now on the stand lying, telling lies. If he changed his mind —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.


Q Did you ever meet personally with law enforcement?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. Who did you meet with?

A I met with FDLE Agent Lee Strope.

Q Did you talk about Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A I pretty much gave Mr. Strope a complete rundown of the meetings, with the dates similar to how I laid it out there in the affidavit. And after —

THE COURT: Mr. Strope is with what agency?



A And after speaking with him, he asked me to give Bob Minton a message. And the message was that if it is determined that you have perjured yourself on the stand,


that he would see to it that charges would be brought.


Q This is Mr. Strope telling you to talk to Mr. Minton?

A This is a message Mr. Strope asked me to give Mr. Minton specifically.

Q Did you give him that message?

A Mmm, I wrote — I hand-wrote what he said. I gave it to my fiancee and she read it to Mr. Minton over the phone.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is it your testimony here today under oath an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement asked you to deliver a message to someone?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.


Q Any other meetings with law enforcement?

A Not about this specific incident.

Q Okay. Now, what was your impression, after meeting with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, on the meetings you have just mentioned, all of these meetings —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form. What was his impression?

THE COURT: Yes. What does that mean?


MR. DANDAR: I didn’t finish my sentence.

THE COURT: Go ahead.


Q What was your impression as to who was the person who was creating the scenario that I told Mr. Minton to lie?

A Mr. Rinder.

Q And what is the basis of that? What is the basis of your impression it is Mr. Rinder?

A Because that is what they said.

Q Who said?

A Bob and Stacy.

Q All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we just — I mean, is that — your Honor, so his testimony is that at some point Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks said that Mike Rinder said for Mr. Minton to lie?

THE COURT: Yes. That is his testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that testimony, please?

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is that your testimony?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: If you could look at your affidavit and tell us which one of these conversations that that conversation took place.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me see if I see it


here. I don’t seem to have my affidavit up here.

THE COURT: You don’t? I think I have it right here, if it will help.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the affidavit right here. I’m sorry. I was looking at it instead of listening to the Court.

THE WITNESS: This would have had to have happened sometime after the date that I mentioned on Page 5, Line 16, Paragraph Number 11 of the 3rd of April or 2nd of April, sometime after that time period.


Q After this — after the 2nd or 3rd of April?

A Correct.

Q All right. Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you this on more than one occasion?

A Well, the subject of the meetings — after they returned to Clearwater with Mr. Bunker April 2nd, the many times that I met with them, the subject of the conversations concerned what they were asked — or what they were being asked to do, what they wanted me to do.

So that was a continuing theme until, you know, the point that it finally broke off, because I didn’t, I guess, qualify to meet with the Scientologists or speak with them about this myself. But it was a continuing theme of



THE COURT: I believe that, in fairness, Mr. Prince may have testified to some of this yesterday, too.

MR. DANDAR: I think so maybe.

THE COURT: And may have dated some of this yesterday. I’m looking through his affidavit. I am remembering some of his testimony from yesterday.

MR. DANDAR: All right.


Q Now, Mr. Prince, yesterday you talked about Volume 0 and 00. Do you recall that? You looked in the book Introduction To Ethics and you said —

A Yes.

Q — what you were looking for may be in Volume 0 and 00?

A Yes.

Q And there are a bunch of books over there. Are there any of the books you want to refer the Court to?

A Sure, if I could just walk over there.

MR. DANDAR: Is that all right, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes. By the way, Ms. Greenway asked if she could take my picture. You can’t take pictures when court is in session. So I gave her permission to come in and take pictures when court


wasn’t in session of whatever she wanted to take pictures for. But when court is in session you cannot take pictures unless you are connected with the media and you are a pool photographer. Then you can.


Q No other books?

A No.

Q All right.

A This is — first off, I would like to say yesterday that I said that this was a crime for a person to give testimony about Scientology. I actually misspoke. It is a suppressive act to do that, according to this document here, suppressive acts, suppression of Scientology, Scientologists, the fair game law. And what it states specifically is —

THE COURT: Tell us, first of all, what are you reading from.

THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.


Q The book?

A I’m reading from HCO Division 1 Policy Volume, Scientology Policy Volume.

THE COURT: Okay. Those are Scientology policies in a book?


THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there a page number?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It is 553, what I’m going to make reference to.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Could we have the date on that book?


Q Copyright on the front?

THE COURT: Would it matter with these policies —

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, some, it may.

THE WITNESS: This is copyright 1970 through — what is it, 1950, it looks like. These are all of the copyright notices here.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let you-all take a look at it.


THE COURT: No. Let him go ahead and have his testimony, and then before cross-examination you-all can look at the book.


Q So a suppressive act is someone saying they want to leave Scientology?

A Yes. And testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public is a suppressive act.


Q All right. That has to do with testifying?

A Correct.

Q What about leaving Scientology or saying you want to leave?

A Mmm, yesterday I showed the reference and we went through that. It’s a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.

Q This may be something I already marked. Let me show you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 133. CS Series 22.

Can you identify that Exhibit 133?

A Yes. This is an HCO bulletin of 28 November, 1970, Mmm, subtitled “CS Series 22.” The “CS Series” means case supervisor series. It’s — it’s a series that is a staple or basic for persons that are supervising auditing in Scientology. And this document refers to the subject of psychosis.

Q And this document came from the PTS/SP course book you read yesterday. Is that correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now —

THE COURT: Who is permitted to take that course? Maybe you asked it before, but, I mean, if I’m a new Scientologist, new public member, can I go register for that course?


THE WITNESS: You certainly could. Any Scientologist in good standing —

THE COURT: Could take that course?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.



Q This course book also contains the search and discovery bulletin?

A I believe it does.

Q Okay. Now, this particular document, Exhibit 133, CS Series 22, does this have anything to do with people wanting to leave?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, it talks about the easiest ways for a case supervisor to detect the insane, and we go down here to Number 6, it says: “They often seek transfers or wish to leave.”

Q Now, does this apply to staff as well as public members?

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: I think this is already in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: I’m not sure. You told me to mark this yesterday as an exhibit.

THE COURT: Well, now that I’m looking at it, I’m thinking I read it before. But if you are not


sure, you want to introduce it again, why, that is all right.

MR. DANDAR: I’m really not sure.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I know we talked about this yesterday.

THE COURT: I’m not positive if this was the document, but I have read some of this before.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It is quite possible.

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem, but the next-to-last sentence says: “The insane can be helped, they are not hopeless.” We don’t have a problem with this. But the introspection rundown comes after this policy.

THE COURT: But you have no objection to this being introduced?


MR. DANDAR: We move it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It was referred to in the introspection rundown which was introduced three or four years later, this policy.

THE COURT: All right.


Q Speaking of the introspection rundown, Mr. Prince, speaking of your experience, expertise, is there any part of


the introspection rundown that is considered religious?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to his competence to this because Mr. Prince previously testified he wasn’t trained on the introspection rundown and never — as an auditor never did any introspection rundown.

THE COURT: I thought he did.

THE WITNESS: That is correct. I did. I never was — I never stated that I was not trained on the introspection rundown.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what?

THE WITNESS: I never stated I was not trained on the introspection rundown. That is false. I am very trained on the introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: What he said was he participated in an isolation watch, not as the auditor, you know, but as one of the people staying with Teresita.

THE COURT: Is isolation watch and introspection rundown the same?

MR. WEINBERG: It is part, Step whatever it is, 0, 00.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: This will kind of answer the question, I think.



Q So, Mr. Prince, is there parts or all of the introspection rundown that is religious? A religious practice?

A Mmm, in the very first bulletin about the introspection rundown, L. Ron Hubbard describes it as a new technical breakthrough that marveled something else of the 20th century, I forget specifically what it says there. But it was hailed as a researched scientific discovery for handling insanity.

MR. WEINBERG: So, your Honor, is what Mr. Dandar is doing is challenging whether or not the introspection rundown is part of the religion of Scientology? Because if he is, I think that has already been decided in this case and it is not appropriate and we should not be wasting our time on it.

THE COURT: Haven’t we decided that — or — I don’t know because I don’t know — I saw a motion once that dealt with religiocity. I didn’t hear any of that.

MR. DANDAR: That was not the —

MR. LIEBERMAN: But you have stated several times, your Honor, that there is no question in this case as to the religious nature of Scientology or


religious nature of the introspection rundown.

THE COURT: Okay. I know I have stated that I have no question on the — that the Church of Scientology is a religion and it is a recognized religion in the Church. And I have no question in my mind that Lisa McPherson was undergoing some sort of introspection rundown. I didn’t know whether I said that introspection rundown is part of the religion of the Church. I don’t even know if that is a call for me to make, to tell you the truth. I would suspect the Church doctrine would tell us whether it is or isn’t.

MR. LIEBERMAN: That is correct. And the Church characterizes what is religious practice.

THE COURT: I don’t know if I have seen that or not. I know we have a Mr. Rice affidavit. I haven’t looked at it in some time.

MR. LIEBERMAN: And he quite clearly places it within the Scientology practice. In fact, every part of Scientology, by definition, is part of Scientology belief and practice and is not a matter for the Court to challenge what is characterized by the Church as this religion.

THE COURT: I am going to let him answer this. I think he already has answered it, but I don’t know


we’re going to go there. And certainly one answer isn’t going to get it there.

MR. DANDAR: Right.


Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Hubbard called it scientific breakthrough?

A That is correct.

Q Did he ever call it religious practice?

A Never.

Q Did he call auditing a religious practice?

A No.

Q Oh.

A Not to my knowledge. I mean, this whole business of religion — I don’t know, you know, it is kind of — has kind of reared its head in Scientology every now and again. When I was here at the Flag Service Organization in 1979, there was a scare — a cold war scare of some nuclear threat and conscription in the Army and on and on. This is what we were told. So all of the staff had to do a two-week course called the minister’s course where you are instantly trained to be a minister. This was part of — a program which, in part, was to kind of improve or create a religious image for Scientology.

But if you will notice, in every document that Mr. Hubbard writes about Scientology, whether or not it is a


green —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear this. The United States Government, State of Florida, on and on down, determined Scientology is a religion, the Church of Scientology is a church. I don’t care what they used to think, what they used to say. It doesn’t matter. That is it.

MR. DANDAR: What I’m — I was getting at is just the introspection rundown itself.



Q The part of the introspection rundown talking about get some rest —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I —


Q — make sure you eat —

MR. WEINBERG: This is precisely why Mr. Prince should not be an expert, considered an expert in Scientology, because as he sits here today, he still is sitting there saying it is not even a religion or a church. He doesn’t recognize it —

THE COURT: He wasn’t. He was talking about some things that were said back in the 1970s when they were all sitting around talking —

MR. WEINBERG: He just said that — well, I


don’t want to argue with you. I mean, it — that is where he was going with this and that is what this — that is what this is about.

MR. DANDAR: It is not what this is about. I just asked him what I’m asking him now, the introspection rundown, the part that talks about resting and eating — resting and eating, something else —

THE COURT: 0, 00.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, those two steps.


Q In your experience within the Church of Scientology, was that ever considered a spiritual or religious part of Scientology?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, again, this is unconstitutional inquiry. You can’t bifurcate a religious practice and say part is and part isn’t. To just even hear this testimony is an unconstitutional attack on the religion.

THE COURT: Mr. Lieberman, your objection on that is preserved.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you.

A Well, you know, since — you know, people that are atheists or other ideas also rest and sleep. You know, it never came to me that this was a religious experience to


rest and eat.


Q Well, and in your knowledge of Scientology, if someone is injected with Valium or chloral hydrate, are they eligible to have auditing?

A According to — Mmm — the HCO bulletin entitled Model Session —

Q How do you spell that?

A Model, M-O-D-E-L, model session, a person who has had drugs or who has used drugs continuously is not eligible for auditing until six weeks after the period of taking the drugs.

Q Now, in your experience with Teresita, you said Dr. Dink, Hubbard’s doctor, came out and injected her with some kind of drug?

A Correct.

Q And she went to sleep?

A Correct.

Q How soon after that did she have auditing?

A Within hours after awaking.

Q Was that within the written policy?

A Is that what now? I’m sorry.

Q Is that per policy to have an auditing right after you have slept off the effects of the drug?

A Well, in the introspection rundown bulletin, it


states that each program is tailored specifically for the individual. So to that degree, if the person had to sleep first in order to get auditing, they would get the auditing, but then there is also later references in Scientology technology which state that in a period after the auditing that was delivered, while the person was on drugs, you could then go back and check those areas again to make sure that everything is fine.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 134. And do you recognize where this copy of this Page 258 comes from?

A Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary.

Q And what — how does it define the phrase “high crimes”?

A It says: “High crimes. 1. These consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing suppressive acts. Cancellation of certificates, classifications and awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can be leveled for this type of offense as well as those recommended by Committees of Evidence.”

MR. DANDAR: Okay. That is all of the questions I have.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may inquire.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.



Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your position of authority — your executive position of authority in the RTC — in March of 1987, didn’t he?

A Correct.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, you just got started.

Did you want to introduce this 134?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, sir. In fact —

MR. WEINBERG: We object to that. I would like to see the dictionary, see what the date of the dictionary was.

MR. DANDAR: Do you have it here? In fact, I just realized, unless you want to do this later, there are a bunch of things I marked and didn’t move them into evidence.

THE COURT: I’ll go ahead and let you do that —

MR. DANDAR: Later?

THE COURT: — later. But don’t forget.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Should I start over?



Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your


position — your executive position of authority in the RTC in March of 1987, didn’t he?

A Correct.

Q And at that time you were removed from your post, the last executive post you ever held in the Church of Scientology. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And that post, you said, was deputy inspector general external. Right?

A Right.

Q Now, you were removed because you had supported Pat Broeker and Annie Broeker and Vicki Aznaran in their effort to change Scientology tech. Correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q That was precisely what occurred, that Pat Broeker, who had designated himself the loyal officer, was in the process of changing, among other things, the Scientology grade chart, right? That is what he was doing?

A That is categorically false.

Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t doing that?

A Correct.

Q And you never acknowledged that Mr. Broeker did that?

A Correct.

Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t off on his own, trying to


change the religion of Scientology, after Mr. Hubbard died?

A Well —

Q Yes? Or no?

A Excuse me. Let me answer the question.

THE COURT: Well, I’ll tell you how this works on cross-examination. Go ahead and answer the question, but if you feel you have to explain your answer, you are allowed to do that after you have answered it.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry.

A Ask me the question again.


Q Wasn’t Mr. Broeker caught in — in an attempt to change Scientology tech?

A I have no percipient knowledge of that.

Q You have no percipient knowledge of that?

A In other words, I was not there — let me — I was not there. I didn’t see him changing anything. And, again, I was going to say, I have heard some hearsay about it. Since you vehemently object about it, I won’t comment about it, but I — you know, I haven’t personally been with Mr. Broeker when he’s altering Scientology technology.

Q When you were in the RTC prior to March of 1987, in that year after Mr. Hubbard died, you became aware of the


fact that some point in time that Mr. Broeker was changing and altering Scientology tech, weren’t you?

A Incorrect.

Q You became aware of the fact that Vicki Aznaran was part of an effort to change Scientology tech, weren’t you?

A Absolutely incorrect.

Q And what happened in March of 1987 is that Mr. Broeker was removed from all authority. Correct?

A Mr. Broeker was removed from authority.

THE COURT: Wasn’t? Or was?

THE WITNESS: He was, your Honor.


Q Annie Broeker, his wife, was removed from all positions of authority. Correct?

A To my knowledge, that is correct.

Q Your boss, Vicki Aznaran, was removed from her position of authority. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And you were removed?

A Correct.

Q And you were at that time — at that point in time, you went from what you described as an executive position with some authority in the — in RTC. Right?

A Correct.


Q To no authority whatsoever?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q From — for the next five years after March of 1987, did you ever hold a position where someone was junior to you? You know what I mean by that?

A Yes, I do. And, yes, I have.

Q I mean, you were, what, a machine operator after that?

A Mmm, no. I worked on post-production, pre-production and post-production for films.

Q That was one of the things you did, and you were a Cinemix, was that your job?

A No.

Q What was your job?

A My job was like an assistant engineer, assistant sound mixer. Again, I state I worked for post-production and pre-production for films and videos.

Q During that period of time you were in the RPF a couple of times. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q How many times were you in the RPF?

A I was in the RPF two times, but not that period of time.

Q You were in the RPF in March of 1987. Correct?

A Correct.


Q All right. Until what, the end of 1987?

A Mmm, I think it was — I wasn’t in there a very long time. I think maybe four months.

Q By the way, there is no higher crime in Scientology than changing the tech. Correct?

A That is incorrect.

Q Well, what would be a higher crime than changing Mr. Hubbard’s scriptures?

A Placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk.

Q One of the highest crimes in Scientology is to alter the tech. Correct?

A It is a high crime to do that. Yes.

Q Now, for the next — for those five years after you were busted — and that was the day you claimed, by the way, that you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and threatened to kill him?

A You didn’t mention a specific day. What day are you talking about?

Q Well, what day are you talking about when you were busted?

THE COURT: Without worrying too much about the date, the date you testified about when you were rousted from bed or got out of bed and went and got the guns, that is on the same day, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry.


THE COURT: That is the day you were busted?


THE COURT: That is what he was referring to.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry. I just didn’t understand the question.


Q That is the same day you claim you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and you threatened to kill him.


A I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige. What — maybe you have a wrong idea about what happened there.

I came there to defend myself. Twelve people were attacking me, were trying to hold me. Because I do know karate and have a black belt in it, I was able to get them away from me until I went and got protection for myself.

Q So then these twelve people that were attacking you let you go back to your room, get these two loaded guns?

A They didn’t know where I was going.

Q That didn’t really happen, did it, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, it did.

Q You didn’t pull guns on David Miscavige.

A Yes, it did.

Q So this is the person you say you could still be friendly with?

A You know, Mmm — yes. And I need to explain


something here because, you know, Mr. Weinberg, you and I have been around and around on this in front of Judge Moody. So, you know, you are giving me the exact same questions and I’ll sit here and be patient with you, but I think the record reflects we have done this one or two times before.

THE COURT: See, I haven’t heard it. This is my hearing, so we’ll do it again.

MR. DANDAR: Explain yourself.



Q So you contend that you really did go back to your room, get two loaded weapons, and walk back and enter a room and point them directly at David Miscavige?

A No, I never walked back into a room. By that time —

Q You ran back into the room?

A Would you like me to explain it? I —

Q Explain it.

MR. DANDAR: Wait. Wait. Objection.


Q Did you —

MR. DANDAR: He needs to explain it.

Mr. Weinberg —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll withdraw that question.



Q Did you point two loaded guns —

MR. DANDAR: That is not fair.


Q — at David Miscavige?

A No, I did not.

Q Who did you point them at?

A I had the one gun on my hip and the .45 in my hand. And they stood this way. The assault rifle never was pointed at anyone. It was just on my hip like this. And I had the .45.

And Mr. Miscavige, when he saw me, walked directly up to me with those guns in my hand and said, “Jesse, we are friends. Let’s talk.”

So I don’t think he felt that threatened. And I think that Judge Moody pointed that out to you the last time we were doing this.

Q I mean, no one would feel threatened when they had just busted somebody from position and the person got so mad to go back to the room and get two loaded guns and walk into a room. You can’t imagine anybody would be threatened by that, would they?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of what happened.

Q Well, my question is was there a particular reason


why you never told that story until — until you started getting paid to be a witness in the FACTNet case in 19 — whatever it is, 1998?

Why you waited all those years to tell that story?

A Mmm, I don’t know how to answer that question, Mr. Weinberg. You are associating things that don’t associate. You are associating with me being paid telling stories. And there is no association there.

Q Well, is there a particular reason, in the years after this alleged incident took place, that took you until 1998 to first tell this story about pulling guns on David Miscavige?

MR. DANDAR: Object to the form. It makes no sense. Telling stories where? Under oath? In a deposition? To his friends?

THE COURT: I don’t, either, because I don’t know whether you are talking about the first time he ever testified about that, and if that is the first case he was ever involved in, that is the first time he ever testified about that.


THE COURT: I’ll tell you one thing —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to —

THE COURT: — don’t get ahead of me because you want to go at this witness.


MR. WEINBERG: You are right.

THE COURT: I won’t have it.


THE COURT: I won’t have you really cutting this man off. I mean, I know you want to get where you want to go. But you’ll have to go slow.

And, Mr. Prince, whatever you told Judge Moody, I haven’t heard it, I haven’t seen too much of the transcript before Judge Moody, so I don’t want to hear what I — I already told Judge Moody this, I am not Judge Moody.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

THE COURT: If he asks you a question, unless I tell him, “You can’t ask that question,” just answer, even if you have already answered it before.


THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let’s go.


Q You were interviewed by Earle Cooley while still in the Church in 1988, weren’t you, in relation to another lawsuit?

A I would have to see something about that. I’m not sure what you are talking about.

Q You didn’t say anything about the guns to him, did



A Again, I would have to see what you’re talking about.

Q Well, you mention the 1994 interview with Mr. Cooley. You didn’t say anything about the guns to him in that interview, did you?

A I mean, you know, you are mixing apples and oranges. I mean, I don’t understand what you are asking me. I mean, I have told that story long before 1998 to my friends, my family, people that I know. I mean, you know, it isn’t like here is some money, let’s tell this story. I beg to differ with the way you are characterizing what happened here.

Q The reason you told the story to Mr. Minton in April of this year was to threaten him as to what you would do as to what kind of person you were? I mean, what did you tell him about it for?

A I told him that story, as I gave testimony yesterday, to show that Scientology, more than likely, will never keep or honor an agreement with anyone. It wasn’t to say I’m going to run and shoot you with guns. It was to give him an example to show him that Scientology will never honor an agreement.

Q Now, you would agree that the positions that you held after you were busted were extremely low positions in


the Church of Scientology?

A I would beg to differ on that, as well.

Q Now, you were — you were so humiliated, apparently, by Mr. — what you claim Mr. Miscavige did in March of 1987 that you pulled these guns on him. That is what it was about, wasn’t it?

A Absolutely not. And even as we have been sitting here, I think I made it clear to you why I went and got those guns. It wasn’t humiliation. It was being attacked.

Q You were —

A Physically attacked.

Q You resented the fact that you had been busted?

A I resented the fact I was being physically attacked by people that used to be my friends.

Q No. My question is did you resent the fact that you had been busted from your executive position in RTC?

A And I’ll answer the question it isn’t so much that I resented the fact that —

THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Prince, of course you must have been annoyed. I don’t know why we’re playing a semantics game. Anybody would be annoyed if they were busted from the position they thought —

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, that isn’t right.

I think that deserves clarification because I was


pretty much tired of that activity that I had been involved in, in Scientology. I was ready for a change. I was ready to be done with that position because that — that position responsibility entailed being involved in criminal activity.

This is something that I had not experienced in Scientology prior to going to Gilman, Hot Springs and working at that level. To me, Scientology was something different than what I was doing.

So, no, it wasn’t a big deal for me, you know. I was already wanting to be away from that responsibility.

But what was a big problem for me was twelve people grabbing me, because I had an earlier incident of that happening in Scientology where six people grabbed me and locked me in a room for three months, and I ended up staying 16 years. So that had precedent over that position I was being removed from.


Q So you were relieved by the fact you were busted from your position?

A Yes. I was somewhat relieved by it.

Q Now, you — you, Jesse Prince, dislike vehemently David Miscavige, don’t you?


A I would not say that that is true. I have no vehement dislike for him. I dislike the things that he does. But I don’t envy his position. He’s the leader of a religion. He has a lot of responsibility. That doesn’t give you license to be a criminal, though.

Q You spent the last four years, ever since you met apparently sometime in the summer of 1998, started getting paid by, ever since you met Mr. Minton, you spent the last four years trying to destroy David Miscavige, haven’t you?

A That is incorrect.

Q You have picketed where you have spoken vilely and obscenely about Mr. Miscavige, haven’t you?

A Yes, I have.

Q You have picketed various Churches of Scientology around the country and even in the world, correct?

A That is incorrect. I never picketed an organization outside of the United States.

Q Just in this country?

A Correct.

Q You have threatened David Miscavige in these pickets, haven’t you?

A I need you to clarify what you mean by threatened for me, please.

Q Threatened to do harm to him.

A I have jokingly alluded to it, yes, I have.


Q You thought it was funny?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did you think it was funny when you were outside the various Churches of Scientology, including what you call the mecca of Scientology, holding signs and shouting obscenities about the leader? You thought that was funny, too?

A I — I think you would have to show me or present evidence that I was holding a sign, shouting obscenities.

Q Oh, we will, Mr. Prince.

A Okay. I would like to see that.

Q Did you think that was funny?

A I would like to see the evidence, please, sir.

Q Would you consider, sir — I mean, I think you said that Mr. Minton was the — something basically the most harassed person you’d ever seen, something to that order?

A Something along that order, correct.

Q Would you consider what you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Greenway and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Oliver and the other folks at the LMT — would you consider what you were doing harassing Scientology?

A Well, what were we doing that was supposed to be harassing?

Q I mean —

THE COURT: His question to you is whatever it


was you were doing, would that be, in your mind, harassing Scientology?

THE WITNESS: Well, I guess to clarify it, if it meant picketing, does that mean harassing Scientology? It has a broader meaning to me. It means I’m exercising my First Amendment rights as a citizen to protest.

Mmm, if you want to call that harassing Scientology, I call it exercising my freedom.


Q I’m asking you, because remember you talked about the harassment time line of Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember talking about that?

A Yes.

Q And my question to you, if — if we put all of your pickets and all Mr. Minton’s pickets and all your postings and all Mr. Minton’s postings and all of the postings of these folks that have been in and out of the LMT and all the pickets of them on a time line, do you think that time line might be somewhat larger than this Minton harassment time line?

A I think it would be minuscule and it would pale by comparison.

Q By the way, are you part of an anti-Scientology



A I have never been part of an anti-Scientology movement.

Q Are you an anti-Scientologist?

A No, I am not.

Q What do you consider yourself?

A I consider myself in the instant case where I’m sitting right here today an expert witness concerning Scientology.

Prior to that, I worked in an establishment whereby I helped people who had been victimized by Scientology.

Q And would you consider Mr. Minton to be an anti-Scientologist during those four years that you were part of the A team, I think you said?

A I consider Mr. Minton to be an activist.

Q An activist?

A Yes.

Q What is that?

A You tell me what it is. Do you need to know what the word means? I mean, he was an —

Q What do you mean —

A — activist concerning —

Q What do you mean when you say he was an activist?

A He was an activist ensuring the rights, basic


human rights, that are accorded to us through our constitution.

I think Mr. Minton got started on his relationship with Scientology when he found out a Scientologist was trying to remove the name “Scientology” from a newsgroup — or at least this is the way he explained it to me. And how
lawyers and raids and things would come to even discuss Scientology, which is how I knew it from being in Scientology.

I knew if you ever spoke about Scientology outside of Scientology, you would get clobbered. So to actually see people doing it openly on the Internet was —

THE COURT: That is well past the answer. You don’t have to — we have to try to get through this.


THE COURT: He simply asked you to define what an activist was. And I think you have done that.

THE WITNESS: All right.


Q Now, when did you begin — when did you begin your work against Scientology? What date or time?

A Mmm, I began to give testimony concerning Scientology, to the best of my recollection, in the FACTNet case.

Q Specifically, up until I — I think you said you


considered yourself a Scientologist until, I think you said, 1997. Correct? Isn’t that what you said in your testimony?

A I think maybe ’96, I said.

Q All right. So you considered yourself a Scientologist after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, after you say that you were — you said all those horrible things happened to you in the five-year period, you still considered yourself a Scientologist in ’93, ’94, ’95 and ’96. Correct?

A I think I should clarify that for you, if that is okay. I think that I still had Scientology values. I think that I still respected some of the tenets of Scientology, and I freely associated with Scientologists.

Q Well, you were working for a public member of Scientology for several years, right?

A Several years is incorrect.

Q How many years?

A Maybe one.

Q This is the job that the Church had helped you get after you left the Church where you were making $60,000 or $70,000 a year. Was that your testimony?

A I think you are mis-characterizing what happened. No, that is not my testimony. The Church didn’t help me do anything. It never has.

Q Well, just tell us one of those Scientology values


that you — that you continue to accept and feel close to after you left the Church of Scientology.

A That man — man is a spiritual entity. That — Mmm — man is capable of seemingly — seemingly more capable than is realized and those potentials can be cultivated and used and expanded on.

Q Any other ones?

A You know, some of the organical principles about the importance of organization, the importance of schedules. You know, these kind of things.

Q When you were a Scientologist, you believed, did you not, that psychiatric problems were spiritual in nature. Correct? That is what you believed? And could be dealt with spiritually through the religion of Scientology. You believed that when you were a Scientologist, didn’t you?

A Yes, I did.

Q And that is what Scientologists believe, don’t they?

A I can’t speak for all Scientologists. I know that, you know, as you are trained in Scientology, you accept more and more of what you read, and it’s a progression, it is a degradation of belief system, I guess.

But I couldn’t say that everyone believes that.

Q Well, you could say that Scientologists — no Scientologist would want to be committed to a mental


institution. You can say that, can’t you, from your years as a Scientologist?

A Mr. Weinberg, I can say that about Scientologists and anyone else. There is no one that I know that is aching to be committed to an institution.

Q But I’m asking you from when you were a Scientologist —

A Uh-huh?

Q — the last thing that you would have — you would have rather shot yourself than be committed to a mental institution?

A Absolutely not. I mean, that is unreasonable. It is irrational.

Q Well, can you think of anything worse, as a Scientologist, than to be committed to a mental institution?

Can you just answer that question?

A Rehabilitation Project Force, maybe.

Q One of the fundamental principles of the Church is — is the Church’s abhorrence with psychiatry and mental health treatment. Correct?

A Well, you know, Mr. Weinberg —

Q Can you just answer that question?

A I used to believe that is the answer. I used to believe that. But I found, from Mr. Hubbard’s autopsy report that I had a copy of, that he himself was taking


psychiatric medication —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Move to strike.

A — in his life. So maybe —

THE COURT: Stop. There is an objection. You have to stop.

MR. WEINBERG: It is not responsive to the question. It was a very simple question. Yes or no.

MR. DANDAR: I would say this is outside of the scope of direct and the issues.

THE COURT: It is not outside the scope of direct and not outside the scope of the issues but, quite frankly, this is not helping me any.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: It is an interesting banter between you and Mr. Prince and —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on.

THE COURT: — this might be of interest to a jury, but it really isn’t of interest —

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: — to me.


Q Since you have met Bob Minton, all of the money that you have received since June, other than this apparently $4,000 that you just got from Mr. Dandar, that


you have received since June, July, of 1998, up until April of 2002, came directly or indirectly from Mr. Minton, didn’t it?

A That is incorrect.

Q And all of the money — all of the money that you have received in that period of time you received as a result of your work about or against or involving Scientology?

A That is incorrect.

Q Correct?

A That is incorrect.

Q What is incorrect about that statement?

A I think that — Mmm — that all of the money that I have had during those periods of time derived from those activities, that is — specifically is incorrect about it.

Q What, 99 percent of it? 95 percent of it?

A You know, I have turned over my financial records to you. I think they speak for themselves.

Q All right. Let me play you — because you asked me to — let me play you a video — some videos and maybe this will refresh your recollection. I’ll ask you some questions about it.

A All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Get the first one.

MR. DANDAR: We’re going to object. If he


plays the video that they would like to play from the Boston picket, I demand that they play the whole video so that you, Judge, can see what Mr. Prince was responding to in that very vile video that you may have already seen.

You only saw their version of it. There is like two, three, four minutes of extremely vile language coming from ministers of the Church of Scientology to bull bait Mr. Prince into responding the way he did on video. So if they are
going to do that, they need to play the whole thing.

MR. WEINBERG: That is not the one I’m playing, first of all —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — to make it easy. Secondly, if he wants to do something later, he can.

THE COURT: There is a rule of completeness which we’ll get into when we get to trial. At a trial, if somebody will try to pick and choose, I’m probably going to insist on the rule of completeness in an appropriate case.

But in this hearing, if they play something and you think I need to see it all, make a little note, tell them to keep it there and play the whole thing on redirect.


MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Or ask them if they’ll play it all.

If they say no, then you play it.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, this is a video in front of the Ft. Harrison on November 30, 1998.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“You want to see the other side of the sign, too? Just want to make sure you get all of the information, all of the data.

“Tell David I’m coming with a dick so big, I’m gonna knock his goddamn spine out cuz I’m black. I got a big dick. I’m black. I got a big dick.

“Hey. Hey. Didn’t that guy have curly hair? (Inaudible.)

“No. No. Jesse. Yo momma. I been fucking your momma a long time (inaudible). That’s why you got that curly hair.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)



Q Do you recognize yourself, Mr.~Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q You recognize Mr. Minton?


A Yes, I do.

Q And you thought that was funny? Your statement about Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes, I did.

Q You don’t consider that a threat?

A No, I don’t.

Q You think it is appropriate for an expert, or anybody, for that matter, but particularly an expert on — supposedly on religion to be in front of the Ft. Harrison to be making obscene statements about David Miscavige like that to other — to Scientologists?

A You know, I think there was an indiscretion that happened there, certainly.

Q And you consider it harassment for you and Mr. Prince — and Mr. Minton and others to be holding signs like the one you were holding, “Lisa, blood on her hands,”and the one Mr. Minton was holding about the Third Reich, do you consider that harassment to be walking in front of the mecca of Scientology? Do you consider that to be harassment?

A I consider it to be exercising my constitutional right —

Q Okay.

A — as a citizen of America.

MR. WEINBERG: Want to play the next one,


please? Actually, let me — go ahead.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played. No audio available.)

MR. WEINBERG: This is on the same day in front of the Criminal Court Complex.


Q Now, do you remember this being the day of the arraignment in the criminal case and do you remember being in front of the complex with Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Ken Dandar, Dr. Garko and yourself? Do you remember that photo?

A I remember that photo.

Q And do you recognize that as the criminal complex in Clearwater?

A The one on 49th Street?

Q Yes.

A Yes, I do.

Q And who took that photo?

A You know, I’m not sure.

Q And do you think that is funny? “Scientology, Hubbard Third Reich,” do you think that is funny?

A You know, I think those people in that picture are exercising their constitutional rights.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for the trial team of Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you and Ms. Brooks, along with


Mr. Minton, to be standing in front of a public building holding signs like that?

MR. DANDAR: Objection.


Q Do you think that is appropriate?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Mr. Minton is not part of any trial team.

THE COURT: He said “and Mr. Minton.” So I’m assuming he was excluding him.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I did.


Q Do you consider that to be appropriate behavior?

A I consider that unless I’m committing a crime, I’m exercising my constitutional rights as an American citizen.

Q Do you believe that that constitutes harassment of the Church of Scientology?

A No, I don’t. I think if I was doing anything illegal, Scientology would have had me arrested on the spot.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Harassment is not illegal. I guess what he’s trying to ask you is, in addition to exercising your First Amendment rights, did you consider that that might be considered harassment?

THE WITNESS: You know, and I — my answer again is no. My answer is I’m exercising my


constitutional rights as an American citizen.


Q You wouldn’t consider that picket —

MR. WEINBERG: Can you put that photo back up?


Q Somebody asked you — I think Mr. Dandar asked you whether or not he was ever on a picket.

THE COURT: Now, Counselor, in all fairness, that is a picture, that is not a picket. What we saw before —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I was asking to ask him. This is a picture.


Q My question is what was going on with these signs in front of the Clearwater courthouse? What were you-all doing with these signs?

A I think we had been picketing earlier.

THE COURT: Was Mr. Dandar with you when you were picketing?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. Neither was Mr. Garko.


Q And whose idea was it to pose for this picture?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall. I don’t remember.

Q I mean, no one forced you-all to do this.



A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Go to the next one, please.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“You work for a criminal organization. And they’re going to be found out. You take that and put it on the camera and run it to Miscavige, your leader, your guru. He’s going down.”

(End of playing of video tape.)



Q Now, that was right outside the Clearwater Bank building where all the people go in to eat. Correct?

A Yes. It was.

Q And right down the street, as you look down the street, is where the LMT offices were?

A That is correct.

Q All right. And do you consider that to be a threat to Mr. Miscavige where you say he’s going down?

A No, I do not. And I think I have to — you know, because this is just a little snippet you are showing here, I think I should give the situation that was occurring.

On that very street that you saw me in front of where the Lisa McPherson Trust is around the corner, on that


particular day I had gone to a shop on Cleveland to buy a pack of cigarettes and go back to the office.

From the moment I walked out of my office, all of the way up to the door of the shop I went to and all of the way back, a Scientology OSA person had a camera on me like this (indicating).

I was annoyed. If that is a crime, find me guilty.

Q Now, was that your purpose when you say, “You’re going down,” was your purpose to get rid of Mr. Miscavige from being the chairman of the board or the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology?

A My purpose was to express my annoyance.

Q And “guru,” were you just being funny?

A Again, my purpose was to express my annoyance.

Q Now, was that your agenda? Strike that.

Was it Mr. Minton’s agenda — was part of his agenda to get rid of David Miscavige?

A You had Mr. Minton up here —

Q I’m just asking you.

A — Mr. Weinberg, forever, you know.

Q I’m asking you.

A He never said that to me. He never said that to me.

THE COURT: There is an answer in the


courtroom. It is called “I don’t know.” If it is —

A He never — no, he never said that to me.


Q Now, you described you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton as the A team, right?

A Correct.

Q And the A team got formed in the summer of 1998?

A I would say — Mmm — thereabouts.

Q Right. And the A team continued to be —

A Maybe — wait a minute. I misspoke about that because that A team business didn’t come up until after — after we’d worked together for a while and had done things.

And that concept came out — in the summer of ’98 is when I first met them, so I think it would be a misrepresentation to say that the A team was in the summer of ’98, at least to my best recollection as I sit here today.

Q So when was it?

A And I can’t be sure. It was sometime later.

Q When you said it became the A team after you had done things, what kind of things? Are you talking about like — do you mean like pickets and sending postings and things like that? Are those the things that you were doing?

A I think more like helping people directly.

Q Helping people?


A Yes.

Q How was Mr. Minton helping people, by standing and holding signs like that?

A Well, you know, I guess there is a myriad of answers for that. But what I meant to say, helping people, I meant helping people that had run into problems with Scientology and were not able to resolve them so that they can get on with their lives.

Q Now, where did the A team concept come from?

A You know, I think there used to be a television program.

Q Are you talking about the one with Mr. T?

A If you let me finish. You know, the reason why I can’t answer that question, because when those television series were going on, I was in the Sea Org and we weren’t allowed to watch TV. So I have a big missing section in my life with serial programs and things like that.

So again I’ll say there was some program that had the A team on it. And I think Mr. Minton brought it up and — but —

Q And —

A — but I have never seen a program called the A team or anything like that.

Q When you said the A team yesterday, what did you mean, A team? What was it that the A team was doing?


A The A team was myself, Bob and Stacy. And the A team were helping people that needed help to resolve issues with Scientology.

You know, just to — to show how far at the other end of the spectrums were, Mr. Minton actually thought he was helping Scientology by helping these people resolve issues with Scientology.

Q Do you remember speaking to the media about bringing Mr. Miscavige down?

A No. I do not.

MR. WEINBERG: Play that next one, please.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea. We’re dealing with people who are ignorant and we’re going to bring them down.”


Q Do you remember that?

A I object to that very — I can’t object, but that was an obvious edit where you sliced two things together.

And I think you are mis-characterizing a speech that I gave for a vigil for Lisa McPherson where the press was there. I was not speaking for the press. I was speaking to former Scientologists.


Q Were you talking about bringing down Scientology?

Is that what you were talking about?

MR. DANDAR: We object and ask the whole thing be played.

THE COURT: I think that is fair.

MR. WEINBERG: It was a newscast, we didn’t — we can play the whole newscast. It takes a minute.

THE COURT: I don’t want the whole newscast.

Just whatever Mr. Prince said.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is what Mr. Prince said. That is all he said is what we just played.

THE COURT: Well, it did look like there was a definite splice.

MR. WEINBERG: There was. One of these newscasts where the reporter said something and Stacy Brooks said something and he said the first thing on there, Mr. Prince, then somebody else said something, then he said the last thing.

We took the two things Mr. Prince said and put it together. But we can play the whole section.

THE COURT: It makes it look like he said all that together, and it may not have been.

I think if what it is you are trying to do is every time he said we’re going to bring him down, what is it you mean when you say that?


THE WITNESS: Expose — expose what is actually going on.


THE WITNESS: You know, expose the fact that private investigators are being used to terrorize citizens because they disagree with Scientology.

Expose the fact that someone gave $100,000, and it is Scientology’s policy, if you don’t use a service that you paid for, they will refund it to you.

THE COURT: Normally, when you want to say we’re going to expose somebody, you don’t say expose somebody, you say bring them down, that kind of means put them out of business. That is what I mean by that. What did you mean by it?

THE WITNESS: I mean ending the criminal activity. Ending the assault of citizens who have no way to protect themselves once they get on the bad side of Scientology.

THE COURT: When you say “We are going to bring you down,” this is your testimony, you did not mean put the Church of Scientology out of business, do away with the Church?

THE WITNESS: Right, in the illegal activities. I never had a — as I said, corrupt activities wasn’t even anything in my mind during the majority


of my stay in Scientology. These are things that I learned about after I got to Gilman, Hot Springs, and started working directly for Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Miscavige. I was an ignorant, blind person to it prior to that time.


Q When you said in that newscast that I just played, quote, “It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea,” that was how you — that — you were expressing your opinion about Scientology, that is what
you meant by that, isn’t it?

A No. You have taken this out of context because I don’t know what “It is.” You showed me a little snippet. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

THE COURT: I don’t, either.

MR. WEINBERG: I have the transcript. We’ll play the whole tape because we are obviously not going to get done today.


Q But — it was a response to a question, “Today they spoke out against the Church of Scientology,” and then they play what you said about it. But we’ll play the whole thing. It takes about a minute. All right.

You remember going on several trips to Europe with Mr. Minton, correct?


A I think I went on a couple of trips with Mr. Minton.

Q All right. He paid for the trips?

A Correct.

Q Who else went with you?

A You know, as a matter of fact, I only traveled to Europe with Mr. Minton one time.

Q And the purpose of that trip was?

A To visit with his business partner, Jeff Schmidt, to have a face-to-face with him to find out specifically what Scientology-hired private investigator David Lee was doing to try to get him to a — do a similar thing as Bob and Stacy, basically turn against Bob and provide criminal information so Scientology could use it to attack Bob Minton.

Q Now, do you remember being in Germany with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks in or about June of 2000?

A I think I was in Leipzig, Germany.

Q And Mr. Minton paid for that trip?

A I think that trip was paid by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q So in June of 2000 you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust at that point?

A Correct.

Q You had just gone on the payroll?


A You know, I can’t remember.

Q And do you remember — you remember being in the DB lounge?

THE COURT: What is that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What is a DB lounge?

MR. WEINBERG: It is a bar of some sort.


Q Correct?

A We were at a train station in Leipzig, and there was a bar called the DB Bar, which we thought was amusing because DB means something very specific in Scientology, it means degraded being.

Q And you were there with Ms. Caberta, we heard about, the German government official that works against Scientology, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play this clip here. This is something turned over to us by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Okay, so — so, Stacy, you start. DM, this drink’s for you.

“DM, this is a special toast to you coming


straight from the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany.

“I’m not going to call this guy DM anymore. Remember what my new name for David Miscavige is, the former ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology.

“I know this is going on camera.

“I know, but what did I say — (inaudible).

“Yes — yes, this is — this is a toast to David Miscavige, also known as Pope David I, from the DB lounge in Leipzig, Germany. Up, up, up and away.

“Now, Ursula.

“Hi, Mr. Miscavige. We did a great work here in Germany. And we will finish Scientology soon.

“This is to you, Miscavige. We are so thankful that you give us reason to live. Salute.

“Pope David I. Cheers.


“Just some DBs hanging out here.

“David I.


“This is to David Miscavige in the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany at the train station.

“Pope David I.

“Cheers, Miscavige.


“Rear Admiral.


“Listen, listen, just —

“No, just stop here now. Now listen.

“We all know in Grady’s deposition, when Grady was deposing David Miscavige, that he went ballistic over the thought of Graham —

“Now —

“– of Graham Berry spending time –”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Does that bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q And you think that is funny?

A Well, what I think you have is a home video of our trip in Europe that was never made public — Mmm — to anyone. And we were just having fun. Yes, I do think it was funny. We were just having fun at the train station.

Q Does that man, Mr. Minton, look like the most harassed person on the face of the earth?

A He does, to me.

Q And when Ms. Caberta, the German official who has — who flew over here and who is working against Scientology, when she said, “We’re going to finish


Scientology,” she was talking about getting rid of it, wasn’t she?

A No. I think she was specifically talking about Scientology isn’t viewed as a religion in Germany.

Scientology is viewed as a political group. The reason Scientology is viewed as a political group —

THE COURT: I don’t need to know that.


THE COURT: I don’t need to know, care, what is going on in Germany.



Q When you talk about the reason for living, when you-all were talking about, you know, David Miscavige gives us a reason to — a reason for living — reason to live for, talking about so that you can malign him, is that what
you-all are talking about?

A No. Not at all.

Q And do you remember — it was cut off at the end.

Do you remember that — that at that point, Mr. — Mr. Minton said something very obscene about Mr. Miscavige?

A I do not remember that. But, again, I’ll state that this was a video that we made on our trip that was a private video, never made public, never put on the Internet, and it is being exploited here today.


Q Well, it sort of gives you a different impression about what you-all were about, doesn’t it?

A Who is you-all?

Q Excuse me?

A Who are you talking about, you-all? What you-all were about. What are you talking about?

Q You, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton?

A The —

Q The A team?

A I didn’t get that impression.

Q Now, who took that video, this home video that ended up in the LMT on this trip that was financed by the LMT?

A I think Mr. Bunker.

Q So he was there, too, obviously? Was anybody else on this trip? You have the A team, you have Mr. Bunker. Is there anybody else on it?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q And you-all thought the DB was kind of funny because that is a Scientology term?

A Correct.

Q Now, after looking at your obscenities in front of the Ft. Harrison about Mr. Miscavige, watching this toast, you still think that he would be your friend? Wasn’t that your testimony this morning?


A You know, I’m talking to a camera there. The answer to your question is yes, I think that if he and I sat down and actually had a discussion, we would certainly find friendship, would be able to communicate.

I mean, isn’t Scientology all about helping people learn —

THE COURT: That didn’t really answer the question. You have that opinion and that is fine. Then that is the answer to the question.


Q You talk about counseling. The principal purpose of the LMT, when it moved into Clearwater, was for the A team and the people that were working for the A team to picket and harass Scientology, wasn’t it?

A That is incorrect beyond belief.

Q Okay. Now —

A I would like to explain that, if I could. I would like to explain why the LMT came here, since you brought it up, and if you would allow me to just fully answer the question.

Q So you were involved in the —

THE COURT: I’m going to let him answer the question. What was the purpose of the LMT that — what do you believe the purpose of the LMT was?

THE WITNESS: The purpose of the LMT —

THE COURT: Fifty words or less.


THE WITNESS: Okay, fifty words or less, and I won’t talk too fast for the court reporter.

THE COURT: That is 25.

THE WITNESS: When Lisa McPherson left that hotel, she had no place to go. She had a minor accident, stripped off her clothes, told people that she needed help. She ended up back in the Ft. Harrison. Seventeen days later, she was dead.

The reason that Lisa McPherson came to Clearwater and the reason it was there, in case there was another instance where someone needed a safe place to go where they could come and get help.

That is why we were there. And that is the only reason we were there.

And those were the dying wishes of Fannie McPherson, Lisa McPherson’s mother, when she was on her deathbed.


Q So all of this picketing which happened on a regular basis, correct —

A Incorrect.

Q Well, can you, like, give us an estimate of the number of times you participated in a picket against the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, I can. Let me think. Because I certainly


remember the first one well enough. I think I have probably been involved in maybe six or seven pickets.

Q So in the —

THE COURT: Over what periods of time, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: From 1998 to the present.

THE COURT: All right.


Q So in a four-year picket —

THE COURT: Four-year period. Not picket.


Q Right, I have picket on the brain. In the four-year period, you say you only picketed six times?

A I roughly estimated six or seven times that I picketed, yes.

Q And do you have a sense of how many times Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton picketed in that four-year period?

A I do not.

Q A lot more than six?

A I believe so.

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: I believe he just said “I believe so.”


Q Now, in Clearwater there were other people in the


LMT that participated in pickets, including Peter Alexander, correct?

A Yes.

Q Patricia Greenway?

A Yes.

Q Frank Oliver?

A I — I can’t say that I have ever seen Frank Oliver carrying a sign, picketing.

Q So you are not aware he picketed?

A Correct.

Q Of course Minton — of course, the A team, right?

A You know, I think Stacy herself maybe picketed maybe five or six times, as well. But then she didn’t do it anymore because it was not anything she agreed with, nor did she feel it was effective in handling the problem that we
were dealing with.

Q Well, let me ask you this. Do you remember that on September 2, 1998 you and Mr. Minton participated in a picket in Boston at the Boston Airport?

A At the Boston Airport? We — I think you have that in complete reverse. Scientologists picketed us at the airport.

Q Do you have signs, “Scientology, The Third Reich”?

A Do I have signs?

Q Did you-all, you and/or Mr. Minton?


A Mmm, it’s a possibility. I don’t know.

Q In September of ’98 did you and Mr. Minton picket in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?

A That is possible.

Q Well, that is when he was actually arrested for assault and battery. Right?

A Correct.

Q In October of 1998 did you picket with Mr. Minton in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?

A It’s possible.

Q You remember several pickets in Boston in October of ’98 with one of Mr. — one with Mr. Minton and one with Ms. Brooks?

A I don’t remember that specifically, no.

THE COURT: Tell me why we have to spend so much times on these pickets.

MR. WEINBERG: Because, your Honor, it — it — it demonstrates — first of all, it puts the lie to what we’ve heard all of the way through —

THE COURT: But I know that this man has been involved in pickets.

MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that, your Honor. I mean, really —

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that. You have


before you a harassment time line. And Mr. Dandar has spent literally 28 days suggesting that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed to the point where — where, for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, for that purpose he would come in and incriminate himself.

And the fact is — we’re not playing all of the pickets. But when you see these clips, most of which we got from the Lisa McPherson Trust in these videos that were just turned over, you will see what was really — what was  happening here in Clearwater.

THE COURT: I have no doubt that at the LMT Trust they had very little use, if any, for the Church of Scientology. And they picketed them fairly regularly. Quite frankly, if they had fallen on their face, they wouldn’t have cared; that they were out, in essence, to undo what they perceived to be the bad things that they perceived the Church of Scientology did. I don’t have any doubt about that.

I think the record is clear. So I don’t know why we keep going over those things.

There are things that are really critical to this hearing. And I don’t think those are it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean —


THE COURT: It might be important to the counterclaim, but not to this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, if you rely on, for example, what Peter Alexander said, he said he didn’t have anything — or essentially nothing to do with it. You’ll see essentially the opposite.

You have heard that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed. And you’re going to see what was really going on, that the Church was harassed beyond comprehension.

THE COURT: I have no doubt Mr. Minton harassed the Church, as well as the Church harassed Mr. Minton. It is just that simple.

MR. WEINBERG: But nothing is more — well, can I proceed with my cross-examination?

THE COURT: Yes. You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.


Q You went on the Internet, as well, didn’t you?

A I have been on the Internet. Yes, I have.

Q You made postings on the Internet?

A Yes, I have.

Q In that Leipzig toast you — instead of using the name “David Miscavige,” you actually said “Miss Cabbage,” didn’t you? That was a little joke, wasn’t it?


A Did I say that?

Q I’m asking you.

A I thought I said “Miscavige.”

MR. DANDAR: I think we need to hear the video, rather than someone’s transcript.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m going to show you a posting.

THE COURT: In a posting we have heard him called Rear Admiral. We know what that means. And we know they called him Miss Cabbage. And they don’t speak kindly of David Miscavige.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that. And I’m going to show him, have him identify, his Internet postings.

A I will admit — I have said that before, Miss Cabbage. I just don’t know that — if that is what you are seeing there.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I stand up here with Mr. Prince?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: I have no other copies.

THE WITNESS: I have no idea what this is.


Q This is your postings, isn’t it?

A Excuse me?

Q This is your postings?


A I don’t think so. I think it is a fictitious document created —

Q So you didn’t send a posting that said:

“Too bad, Little Miss Cabbage has a corncob up your ass, 724365. I know the feeling. That is why I have him reeling, spending money like a bitch kicked from a pimp. Roll on, ho, big daddy can see you. Jesse.”

A Yes, correct. But that is a fictitious document that was created for the purpose of — to malign me.

Q To malign you?

A Yes.

Q But you have used Miss Cabbage?

A Yes, I’ll admit it. Freely admit it.

MR. DANDAR: Objection. This does not have the normal E-Mail headers on it that you would find if it was an original document, instead of something that someone altered.

A I don’t even know who Robert is.

THE COURT: I don’t know. If he can’t authenticate that, I don’t know whether — I don’t know whether it is in or not. At the top it says

“Spread the word, bitch.”

Then it goes on to some other comments. And that is not the way an E-Mail normally —

MR. WEINBERG: It is not an E-Mail. It’s a



THE COURT: Well, the same thing. I don’t know. It would seem like this Jesse Prince, would be Mr. Prince’s — that would be — is that what you go by?

THE WITNESS: I had that in 1998, I think, when I had a particular type of computer, I used to have that address. But as I sit here today, I don’t know what name — the name Robert.


Q Well, when you use the word “Miss Cabbage,” what do you mean?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. That is not his E-Mail.

THE COURT: No, he admitted that he has called David Miscavige Miss Cabbage.

A It’s an obvious derogatory use of Miscavige.


Q And derogatory in — I mean, in what context did you use it when you used it?

A I don’t remember. I just know that — you know —

I have said that before. I admit to it.

Q Now, let me show you — see if you recognize this posting. Or is this another fictitious one?

MR. WEINBERG: What will this be?



MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number is that?


THE COURT: The one before that was 2-what?


THE COURT: That did not come in because —

MR. WEINBERG: He said he couldn’t authenticate it.

THE COURT: So that is not in evidence. That is Number 218. This one you just gave us is 219?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.




Q Did you make that posting?

A Yes, I did.

Q And do you consider that to be a — a posting that would indicate a derogatory view toward Mr. Miscavige and the religion of Scientology?

A Mmm, I think that this posting is a result of the Scientology operations being run on me.

While I’m trying to testify in a court in front of a judge in Denver, Scientology hired a prostitute, had a deep undercover agent, Laura Terepin, working on me, helping me with the deposition, saying there are people other than


who they are. You know, this is an annoyance response to what had been happening to me. You see I clearly speak about private investigators following me.

In Denver, very strange things happened.

Q What do you mean, they hired a prostitute?

A A prostitute.

You know, this guy from Denver — there was a private investigative agency in Denver that was watching me. He brought a woman who said it was his sister, who was a whore. She got a room directly across the street from my — not across the street, across the hall from my room in the hotel that I was staying in.

And when I came out — and she was a beautiful woman, you know. “Oh, can you help me get my key,” on and on and start this conversation.

This guy says, “This is my sister. We’re just in town.”

Suitable guise. Mr. Sharp will explain it to you. And they started this whole routine of, “Come on. Party with us tonight. We’ve got drugs, we have this. We’ve got whatever.”

I’m supposed to testify. I literally had to get rid of them.

The other person, Laura Terepin was — her real name wasn’t Laura Terepin.

Jolie Steckart, specifically paid by Scientology


to infiltrate Mr. Dan Leipold’s office as I sat there writing my declaration for his case.

It was these kind of things that annoyed me, and I would write these things.

Q So when this hooker came to your room, you told her to leave?

A Yes.

Q Or did you —

A We were at the bar. And then she wanted to come to the room. I’m like, “No, I have to testify.”

Q But I think you testified previously that she actually — you let her come to your room and you did something with her. Right?

A No. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I — I think that you are fabricating that.

Q Now, when you say in the first sentence: “It seems some people (Miscavige) just don’t have the guts to quit when it’s over,” what did you mean by that?

A What I meant specifically by that is that I came into the case — the FACTNet case — Scientology had brought an action against FACTNet for copyright — certain copyright violations.

And — Mmm — I — I remember vividly the whole issue of copyrights in Scientology. I have given a — a detailed affidavit about it.

But the fact of the matter is the copyrights — or


at least some of them — were completely bogus. And the filings of the copyrights were filed under false premises.

I did an affidavit against that concerning that — concerning that naming specifically the people that were involved. Another officer, staff member, Pat Brice, was involved, because after Mr. Miscavige dismantled the Guardian’s Office, there was always a section in Scientology, according to its own policy, to register trademarks and copyrights all of the time.

Q That is what you meant —

A Excuse me I’m still talking. And they let that lapse a period of time. So you had a large section of materials that they claim copyright protection for which, in fact, they did not have. And I was able to identify what that was.

Q So that is what you meant when you said, “When it’s over, they just don’t have the guts to know when it’s over”?

A Correct. They submit false documents to the Court. I point out to the Court that the documents are false and show them how, is specifically what I mean there.

Q The third paragraph, the last sentence, where you say: “Can’t you just –” talking about Miscavige now, “Can’t you just take it like a man? Soon you’ll be in a place where you’ll be taking it like a man regularly,” that


is sort of like the Miss Cabbage thing, you’re talking about him being in jail and sexually assaulted?

A I’m talking about him being incarcerated for being involved in criminal activity.

THE COURT: Was this a posting to David Miscavige, or somebody else?

THE WITNESS: No. It was that newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology.


Q Let me show you another one. You did hundreds of these things?

A I don’t think so.

Q You just felt compelled, as an expert, to go on this alt.religion.scientology and say obscene things about David Miscavige?

A At the time of these writings, I was not operating — I don’t think I was — I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t think I was an expert in this — I think I came in here in December of ’99 when —

THE COURT: I mean, there are people that learn things from this case. Mr. Prince, if you are going to ever testify in another case, you ought to learn not to post things on an Internet, especially not to be involved in vulgar demonstrations. They’ll always come back to haunt you in a court proceeding.


Just like I hope Mr. Dandar learned, whether you call it picket or vigil, if you are a lawyer, you ought not to be there.

There are certain things you need to have learned. I hope you learned that.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that is a true statement. I have learned that from Judge Moody. He taught me quite a bit about how I needed to act in relationship to this.

And you are right, I have had some indiscretions. All right, if we need to talk about that, we will.


Q I showed you what I marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 220. Do you see that, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you remember writing that open letter to David Miscavige?

A Uh-huh.

THE COURT: That is a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry. Yes.


Q And — and this is when you are definitely involved as an expert, you already worked on Wollersheim, you already reviewed the PC folders for Mr. Dandar.



A Quite possibly I’ll agree with you there.

Q And so you say in the first paragraph: “How desperate you must feel. If you sit quietly and listen carefully, you will hear it.”

MR. DANDAR: Objection. I need to have the question asked of the witness to identify this document and make sure it is his.

MR. WEINBERG: He just did.

A This is my document. Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It doesn’t have headers on it. That is all.

THE COURT: Well, he has identified it, so —

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A Yes.

THE COURT: You are introducing this?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: It will be received.


THE COURT: Honestly, I’ll tell you the same thing, I don’t need you to read it to me. If there is some part you want to point to —

MR. WEINBERG: Really, the first paragraph and last paragraph.



A Yes, I wrote — I wrote the first paragraph, all of the paragraphs in the middle, all of the way to the end.

And I think if you read this whole thing, you’ll see that I’m upset, I’m very peeved over the fact on Page 2, second paragraph, that —


Q I didn’t ask about Page 2. I asked about the first paragraph. That is all I asked you.

A Oh, okay.

Q And the last paragraph. You wrote that, where you quote the Bible?

A Correct.

Q And the reason for quoting this passage from Revelations about “Avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth” was what?

A Well, you know, if you know this passage, these are the saints that died for righteousness but evil and corruption carries on. And when the fifth seal is opened, biblically speaking, the saints’ blood will be avenged.

This is specifically what I’m talking about. And how this relates to Miscavige and Scientology is the corruption — the agonizing activity that I had to go through to deal with my children, my father, old girlfriends, Scientology did their noisy investigation on me.


I wish I would have had this document when Mr. Dandar was asking me do you remember noisy investigations. They ran around to my entire family. I had to go to Chicago, I had to go to Minneapolis, to Memphis, Tennessee, to deal with friends and associates and family as a result of Scientology doing their, quote/unquote, noisy investigation, spreading lies and false information about me.

THE COURT: Are you done with Number 220? We need to take our break.

MR. WEINBERG: We offer 220. And I do also offer 219, the one before that.

THE COURT: That will be received, too. And we’ll go ahead and take our afternoon break. It is 25 after. A 20-minute break.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:25 to 3:50.)

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. At the break I had one more of these things I was going to mark. I’ll go on. That is 221.


Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recognize Defense Exhibit 221 as a posting which you made on or about August 6 of



A If you’ll give me just one minute —

Q Sure.
A — to review this document, please, I’ll indicate it for you.

Okay, yes. I do remember this document.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll offer this, your Honor. I have a couple questions to ask on it.

THE COURT: All right. It will be received.


Q Now, this is one of the first postings you made after you had joined the ranks of working against Scientology, correct?

A I would hardly characterize it as that. But this is one of the first postings that I made on the Internet concerning Scientology. Yes.

Q All right. Now, in that first paragraph you say, second sentence: “You know, I just can’t refer to Scientology as a church in any way. It would be an insult to all religions.” Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And that is how you feel today, isn’t it?

A You know, it is not. And I can explain to you why.

Q You don’t need to.


A Okay. Then I have answered the question.

Q So you think it’s a church?

A Correct.

Q So you just sent this out of some hatred?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. He didn’t want him to explain it. Now he’s asking him. So let the man explain his answer.

THE COURT: Well, I think that was a different question. And I think that Mr. Prince is capable of answering that question, then I think he can explain it.


Q You sent this out of some hatred for Scientology?

A Mmm, no, sir.

Q Now, if you go to the fourth paragraph where it says, I quote:

“The bottom line is that the hierarchy of Scientology is composed of people who are very, very, very mentally ill, sick people of the worst sort. Why? Because they are sick and don’t know it. In all honesty, I hope to reach them so they can wake up and start getting well like I have and others have.”

You wrote that, right?

A Correct.

Q Wasn’t that what you have, in essence, been doing for the last four years, trying to get rid of the hierarchy


of Scientology, including David Miscavige?

A You know, that is not exactly what I say here, to get rid of those people. I said I hope that I could reach them so that they can wake up and start getting well themselves.

Q Now, you — the truth is, isn’t it, Mr. Prince, that you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, the A team, had a ball with regard to all this picketing you-all participate in over the last four years?

A I’m sorry, I hardly can agree to that, Mr. Weinberg. I wouldn’t call it a ball.

Q You had a lot of fun doing it, wouldn’t you say?

A I wouldn’t say that either, Mr. Weinberg.

Q You remember the first time that you went to New Hampshire and — and — and encountered picketing in New Hampshire?

A Yes, when Scientologists came in and picketed Mr. Minton’s home.

Q Right. And that was on Mr. Minton’s — that was on Ms. Brooks’ harassment time line. Right?

A It very well could have been. Sure.

Q And do you remember that you were there with Mr. Minton and that you-all were laughing and giggling and making fun of the Scientologists, the few that came by in the cars? You called it a drive-by —


A The picketers, yes, it was amusing because the Scientologists came by and stood in the road with their signs, and it is quite a narrow road up in New Hampshire, there aren’t sidewalks where Mr. Minton lives. So a state trooper came and asked them not to stand in the road because it was dangerous. It was actually kind of a blind curve by Mr. Minton’s house that makes it dangerous, being there are no sidewalks.

And what was particularly amusing about what the Scientologists resorted to at that point is that they — Mmm — went around and pulled their cars way back, then took their picket signs out the window, because they were too big to stick through the window, and they held them outside of the car and drove back and forth. I thought that was pretty pathetic.

Q And you and Mr. Minton had anti-Scientology signs, correct?

A Mr. Minton had signs.

Q You did, too?

A No. I never owned a picket sign myself.

Q You never held a picket sign?

A I never owned —

Q I didn’t ask you whether you owned it.

A I’m sorry.

Q You had a sign. There were signs there that you


and Mr. Minton had, correct? Anti-Scientology signs?

A That may or may not be correct. I don’t specifically recall.

Q All right. Do you remember doing a posting with regard to that incident that appears on the harassment time line?

A I do. But — but, Mr. Weinberg, I have to say this because, you know, you selectively are taking paragraphs out of these things and you are painting a picture here.

But really what this is about is — this last thing you handed me is about trying to help these people. I’m telling the story about something that happened to Marty Rathbun, something that might have had a psychological
impact on him that he would need help resolving.

Q But that wasn’t my question. All my question was, you did another posting about this incident which appears on Mr. Minton’s harassment time line in front of his house in 1998. Correct?

A You know, I need that time line right here. I mean, I’m saying it’s possible. But if you want to pull it out, you want to show me what you’re talking about, I think I can answer the question better.

Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Marked as 222.



Q You can identify this as your posting, can you not, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q And in the second paragraph you say, “Bob and Jesse quickly helped with the pilot and started bullbaiting the protesters.”

When you say bullbaiting, that would suggest that you were, what, holding signs or doing something back?

A No. Bullbaiting is a term that is used in Scientology specifically to designate some of their training routines. The training routines are called TRs; TRs for short.

Part of the training routine is to be able to sit across from a person without flinching and without moving when the person makes gestures or tries to do something shocking; in other words, this is a routine to train you to keep your countenance during an adverse commission, I guess.

Q In here you said, “We had great fun”?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you know why this appeared on the harassment time line if it was so much fun?

A Well, you haven’t shown me that — and I have asked you, too, to show me on the time line. So I can’t answer these questions — you know, you are referring to

something that I don’t have in front of me. I can’t see it.

Q I thought from the testimony yesterday that you had reviewed the time line pretty closely?

THE COURT: Well, believe me, he has. It’s a very long thing. I think it’s a fair request. If you want him to specifically note whether it is on the time line or not, show him the time line.


THE COURT: My recollection is that document was extremely long.

MR. DANDAR: It is. And, Judge, I object to 222 because there has definitely been editing done. Right after “barbecue” and before the word “soup,” something is taken out.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it is not. You knew exactly what it is.

THE WITNESS: Where is that at?

MR. DANDAR: Where it said, “You invited Minton for barbecue,” after “barbecue” there is a blank, then there is “soup.”

THE COURT: 222, you are talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. Right here.

THE WITNESS: Second paragraph? Oh, yes, you are right. You are right. It has been edited.

Something has been deleted from there.



Q What was there? Because we didn’t edit anything.

A Yes, maybe you didn’t, but your client did. And I know specifically why.

What it said, “We were having BT and cluster soup.” BT is part of the secret cosmology of the upper levels of Scientology. So this has been, in fact, edited.

MR. DANDAR: I object to it. It is an altered document.

MR. WEINBERG: Are you testifying, first of all?

MR. DANDAR: I’m objecting to it based on Mr. Prince’s testimony. It’s an altered document by the defendant.

MR. WEINBERG: He identified it before, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar just indicated that it had been altered. And so if it now — I’ll ask you, Mr. Prince, is that the original document, or has it been altered?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, this has been altered. This is not the original.

THE COURT: If you have one that has not been altered, then it will be admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: First of all, we didn’t alter



THE COURT: I didn’t say you did. But if — I mean, I’m happy to write in the original what was there if Mr. Prince remembers it and everybody agrees.


Q Do you remember what was there?

A I remember exactly what was there. It says we were having barbecue BTs and cluster soup. “BTs” and “clusters” are words Scientologists aren’t allowed to use outside of Scientology.

Q So it’s a derogatory thing?

A No, there is nothing derogatory about BTs and clusters. This is a reality – something they believe in.

Q Well, I —

A But they are sensitive to it, so they altered the document.

MR. DANDAR: And I would object. If there is any more altered documents, that they not attempt to use them, or tell you in advance.

THE COURT: You just heard counsel say he did not know or believe it had been altered. So be careful, though, when you look at your documents.

That does look like something is missing from there. But I do know on my own E-Mails sometimes they


all get askew and don’t seem to line up right. I was on the Florida Supreme Court website looking up stuff on the death penalty cases. And all of a sudden they go and they just stop. So you can’t tell by looking.

MR. DANDAR: But this one —

THE COURT: That one does appear to be where there is something clearly missing. So —

MR. WEINBERG: It obviously was not what I was focusing on, BT and cluster soup. But with the record indicating what Mr. Prince was saying was there, I offer the exhibit.

THE COURT: Take the original back and write it in.


THE COURT: And ask Mr. Prince if that is what he recalls it said and, if so, then we can admit it with that —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll let him write it because I don’t know — I assume how to spell it but I’m not sure how to spell it.

THE COURT: BT , is that like two initials.



Q Here. Do it like this.


THE COURT: Everybody make notations on your copies. Cluster is C-L-U-S-T-E-R.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And the original has “BT” and that he wrote in.

THE COURT: Okay. That will be admitted.


Q Now, you remember that at this —

A Excuse me.

Q I wanted to show you the harassment time line. Let me show you what has been previously marked as the harassment time line, the “Time Line of Scientology Harassment of Robert Minton and Colleagues.”

I show you the entry for September 7, 1998. It says: “Scientologists picketed Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire again but it was done in a car with picket signs held out of the car window.”

A Correct.

Q So that was the incident, right?

A Yes.

Q Now, I want to play this. This is that — you remember you-all videoed this?

A I don’t remember videoing the incident, but let’s see what you have got.

Here is your pen, by the way —


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Don’t block her sign now, Jesse. I’ve gotta get a picture of that good sign.

“Okay. Let me put mine up.

“Okay, yeah.

“Hey, Maureen, just out here having a little chat.

So did you see that last — “(Inaudible.) I don’t know. All I can say is when I was in your position, there was a lot of —

“That you’re a staunch Scientologist. And it’s dangerous for you to believe otherwise because you’d be wrong.”



Q Those are Mr. Minton’s signs?

A Correct.

“Drive-by pickets. That’s cool.”

MR. DANDAR: Could we clarify the people in the car are Scientologists?


Q They are, aren’t they, Mr. Prince?

A They are. OSA personnel.


“Damn dumb asses. I got ’em. See, what they need, what they need is like a — what they need — what they need is a chain — I mean a long line of cars.

“They just don’t seem to be able to get more than two —


“– for these little New Hampshire things.

“Hey, it’s an hour from Boston, man.

“Ain’t it pathetic. One person holding one sign out the window. And then when they go by this way, the driver can’t do it so the fucking sign’s over there. Oh, my God. How pathetic.

“They must think this is having some kind of terrible psychological impact.

“Yes, it’s just entertaining as all hell.

“Here they come.



“Hey, you fucking idiot.

“They don’t have enough nerve to try to run over me.

“Me, either. I stood there, too. I just stood in the middle of the road and got ’em driving up.

“Look at this. This is a good one.


“Here they come again. That’s when they were coming earlier. That’s all I got of them so far, but the two of them are good.


(End of playing of the video tape.)

MR. WEINBERG: That is it?


Q So you were having fun, you and Mr. Minton, in this thing on the harassment time line?

A Mmm, you know, Mr. Weinberg, I think even I said on that tape it was just an annoyance that they do it; though it was pathetic and though it was funny, it’s annoying. Now, you made a huge point about how harassed Scientology feels about being picketed. But when these people come by and picket, we’re supposed to be having fun. You can’t have it both ways.

Q Well, what do you call what they were doing, by the way? Do you call that harassment? Or do you call that the First Amendment?

A They were exercising their First Amendment rights.

But what happened that was harassing is that Bob and I didn’t have a clue they were even out there until they parked their cars, ran up to the door, knocked on the door


screaming, “Minton, Minton, Minton,” then ran back to their cars. This is the only way they let us know they were there.

We are upstairs fooling around on the computers. These guys are banging on the doors. We wonder, what the heck. We run down. And we got the drive-by pickets going on.

Q They didn’t shout obscenities?

A Absolutely. “Where is your whore, Minton?” This kind of thing. Absolutely.

Q You didn’t hear that on the tape, though, did you?

A Well, of course not. Because what I’m speaking about is when they knocked on the door, and we were way in the back of the house. They wanted to make themselves known. Now, what they’re doing, going up and down there,

Q Now, after this, after September of 1998, was this your first encounter with picketing, having signs and stuff like that?

A It could have been.

Q Now, after this, for the next — for the next four years, or almost four years, Mr. Minton and you and Ms. Brooks and other people affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust did all kinds of pickets in front of Scientology buildings, shouting obscenities, making threats,


interfering with — with Scientologists going into their buildings and the like, didn’t you?

A That is categorically false.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you play the first tape, please. This is May 27 — this is again — this is the Lisa McPherson Trust.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Stick this in the right place. Scientology is a scam. A white meter. Fucking criminal. David Miscavige is a white Jew. He will be a convicted criminal.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Now, do you consider that harassment of the Church of Scientology? That was out in front of the church in Boston, wasn’t it?

A Yes. Was I there?

Q I’m asking you, do you consider that harassment?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. He’s not there. He should not be asked to comment about —

THE COURT: I think he can comment on that.


A You know, what I see there, that little snippet that you showed me, I would say yes, that is a bit annoying


and harassing.

But I also suspect, because when Bob Minton would go out and picket, he would just be quiet, he wouldn’t say a word, he would just walk up and down the street.

But then the OSA people would come out, Maureen Garde, the person I was walking with in the previous video, they would come out and start talking to Mr. Minton about things from his therapy sessions.

This is where the therapy information started, in picketing the Boston org. And they would kind of whip him into a frenzy. And the whole idea was to bait Mr. Minton to make him look like an ass.

Well, you know, I agree everyone ended up looking like an ass on some of those things, but, you know, let’s put this in perspective, because these little snips aren’t going to work. These people were specifically targeting Mr. Minton to do psychological terrorism on him.


Q Now, is it a bit annoying that Mr. Minton said that L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige were wife beaters?

That is a bit annoying?

A And I’m sure he’s annoyed because Mrs. Maureen Garde started speaking to things about — from his confidential counseling sessions with Scientology.

How Scientology got that information, God only knows, because no one will ever speak on it, will they? But that is what was


happening there.

Q And Mr. Minton, according to your testimony, was quiet on his pickets?

A He would just be as quiet as hell. Then if he got antagonized, he would start in. And I think that was known.

And, you know, you talk about me hating Scientologists. When you saw me in that first —

THE COURT: We’re well past the answer to that question.


MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Reform Scientology now. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would not approve of what David Miscavige has done.

“It’s safe to look. It’s safe to talk. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy the Church of Scientology. Make it something you can be proud of. Dump David Miscavige. Dump David Miscavige. It’s safe to talk. It’s safe to look. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what Miscavige is doing. (Inaudible.)

“Reform Scientology now.


“Don’t let the introspection rundown kill you. You don’t have to die in introspection rundown. You don’t have to let Miscavige scare you to death.

“Don’t be afraid.

“Don’t let Miscavige scare you out.

“It’s okay to confront the fact that Miscavige cannot handle some pressure.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q You recognize that as people including Mr. Minton from the Lisa McPherson Trust, right where the Scientologists in Clearwater go to eat, right? That is where that was, wasn’t it?

A Yes, it was.

Q And that sure sounded like a direct attack on David Miscavige, didn’t it?

A Mmm, it sounded like there was definitely some problems with Miscavige being voiced there.

Q You saw Miss Greenway there, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q You saw David Cecere from the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Yes. I didn’t see me, though.

Q You were the vice-president of PR at the Lisa


McPherson Trust, weren’t you?

A That is such a fabrication, it is laughable. I have never been — had anything to do with public relations, period. Can’t you tell?

Q So what was your position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I was there specifically to help people who had been in — somehow had some gripe with Scientology that they wanted to make right.

And again I’ll say it. The work that we were doing at the Lisa McPherson Trust helped Scientology because you had a lot of garbage in the street, people that were hurt, people giving you a bad name.

When we finished with those people, they signed releases saying they wouldn’t speak disparagingly about you again, they got their money and they went on their way. Okay, that part needs to be told.

Q My only question was what was your title or position in the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Vice-president.

Q Vice-president of what?

A The Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what was your responsibility there?

A I’ll say it again.

THE COURT: He just already said that.


MR. WEINBERG: That is just what he said?



Q Now, were you referred to as the big boss at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A No.

MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Make Scientology something to be proud of. Reform it now before David Miscavige ruins it. Find the new leaders within your organization whom you can be proud of.

“Stacy, why don’t you try to round some of them up?

“The Lisa McPherson Trust was established at 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue in order to let the world know about the abusive practices which David Miscavige has caused Scientology to live by.

“The Lisa McPherson Trust will always be here to remind you that you have a responsibility to be good human beings. David Miscavige is ruining your organization.

“Telecommunications is one of the powerful things you have learned in Scientology. Use it.


Try to use it to make the world a better place and start with dumping David Miscavige.

“If you ever want any help from Scientology, you can run to 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue to the Lisa McPherson Trust.

“If you remember, Lisa McPherson is the woman who was held by Scientology for 17 days.

“The whole episode in the Church of Scientology’s Ft. Harrison Hotel was totally out-tech. Even the state prosecutor said it was totally out-tech. The whole thing was run by David Miscavige. David Miscavige is responsible for that woman’s death.

“Remember, David Miscavige is the one who performed the out-tech on Lisa McPherson.

“Remember, David Miscavige was responsible for the out-tech, out-tech handling of Lisa McPherson. She died after 17 days in captivity here.

“It was totally out-tech and you know it. You can look and smile.

“David Miscavige pulled the plug on Lisa. He pulled the plug on Hubbard’s tech. It’s time to face reality. Reform Scientology or it will be destroyed by David Miscavige.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)



Q Now, what was the reason that the Lisa McPherson Trust documented all these pickets by taking videos like this?

A Mmm, I think the purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust always having the video when in close proximity to Scientology is the same reason that — for the same reason that happened to Mr. Minton when David Howe (phonetic) and another staff member — I think that was a staff member that attacked him. I personally took him to the hospital. He just raced him, no one is looking, boom.

So it became routine to take a video camera, in case something did happen that was truly criminal, that it could be documented. That was the purpose.

Q But it was for evidentiary purposes?

A Correct.

Q It wasn’t for posterity?

A Correct.

Q I mean, wasn’t this what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about — let me finish my question — to try to get rid of David Miscavige and to terrorize, using your word now, the Church of Scientology?

A I — I think Mr. Minton was very clear on what the Lisa McPherson Trust was for. And I’m glad you showed that


video, because he made it clear he wasn’t out to destroy Scientology, make Scientology go away, as you have, you know, suggested earlier. He wanted it to reform. He wanted the criminal activities to stop.

Why does he pick David Miscavige? I think we need to talk about it. Because you know why? He’s the man that has the private investigators do what they do. He’s the one that — that instigates these vicious attacks against individuals who have any disparaging thing to say about Scientology.

Why does Mr. Minton mention him? Because he knows he’s the person that can change it. Just like that letter that was turned into evidence concerning Bernie McCabe.

He’s the person that can do it. If anyone can do it, Mr. Miscavige can do it.

Q Right. And you accused Mr. Miscavige of murder in your affidavit, didn’t you?

A I accused of — Mr. Miscavige of letting her die?

Q Of intentionally letting her die?

A Letting her die.

Q Intentionally?

THE COURT: We’ll not get anywhere. The document speaks for itself.

MR. WEINBERG: You are right.



Q You suggested, stated, in your affidavit, that a decision was made, an intentional premeditated decision, to let her die?

A Correct.

Q This is the same man that you shouted obscenities about, it’s the same man we are watching videos of Mr. Minton and others stand up, asking to be deposed or thrown out of position, right?

A It’s the same man I audited. It’s the same man I have been friends with many years. It’s the same man I have done training with. It’s the same man I helped myself establish and build Scientology for many years. So add that into the equation, too.

Q You think he would call you his friend?

A I think if David and I sat down and talked, he would —

THE COURT: I have heard this question and I have heard this answer at least twice.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.


Q Now, when Mr. Minton said the words “Out-tech” that is something that means something to a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.


Q I mean, Mr. Minton, prior to getting involved with you —

THE COURT: Counselor, it is getting pretty bad to me because I understood it.

MR. WEINBERG: But — all right.


Q A Scientologist, or a judge that sat in a hearing for 28 days.

THE COURT: There you go.


Q That is not something Mr. Minton or any of us, having not been exposed to Scientology before, would understand, correct?

A Yes.

Q And to be out — out to accuse the ecclesiastical leader of being out-tech is about as — about as serious and severe an accusation as you could possibly make against David Miscavige, isn’t it?

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, my answer is if the shoe fits, wear it.

Q Just answer that question.

A I did. If the shoe fits, wear it.

THE COURT: No, he wants to know if that is a serious accusation to make to other Scientologists about their ecclesiastical head. Is that a bad


thing to the head of Scientology to be out-tech.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: To another Scientologist, those folks seeing that demonstration, if they believed that, would not think very highly of their leader?



Q And would you not — from looking at that video or the other videos that you have seen so far, it doesn’t look like any of the Scientologists are having a lot of fun at your demonstrations, correct?

A You know, you have only shown me specifically Mr. Minton. You haven’t shown me what the Scientologists are doing or not doing, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, in that video we just showed, it was —

A It was going back and forth.

THE COURT: You know what, the deal is we are showing this for —

MR. WEINBERG: That is correct.

Could you play the next one, please.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Communicate to David Miscavige that he’s fired.

“Remember Lisa McPherson.


“When you’re eating, remember Lisa at her last meal in December of ’95, held captive by the Church of Scientology leader, David Miscavige.


“What is not safe for you is to stand there and do nothing. Tell David Miscavige he’s wrong. Tell him that L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what he is doing to destroy your church.

“PK, PK, don’t run away.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Does it look, in that video — I mean, and others that we’ve seen — that Mr. Minton is terrorized, harassed or anything like that?

A Mmm, it looks like Mr. Minton was picketing, to me.

Q Now —

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Okay, are we going to do the locks?

“But the — are we going to do the alarms or –” (Inaudible.)

(End of playing of the video tape.)



Q You were just having a big time, you and Ms. Greenway?

A You know, that is an edited video you have there. It is — there is obvious editing there, so I would be hard-pressed to draw that conclusion.

Q When it started, it started like all of the pickets started inside the offices of the LMT, correct?

A That is a mischaracterization of how pickets started because every picket did not start in the Lisa McPherson Trust. Other people picketed the Ft. Harrison that weren’t associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust or employees of the LMT — Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q That clip from the LMT film library, that one started in the LMT building, didn’t it?

A I don’t know if it started or finished there because you have shown me one tiny segment. So, you know, if I could have some perspective and see the whole thing, I would be able to comment more accurately.

Q Now, the LMT — literally at times these pickets were intended to literally shut down Clearwater around where you-all were picketing, right?

A No.

MR. WEINBERG: Play that one, please.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Last year, we were all over the place in a clump. We shut down here, we shut down here, we shut down there. We had Flag shut down for the whole day, anyway. This year we spread out in strategic spots and shut down the whole city.

“Frank Oliver came and caused the last breach. So far about two hours now they can’t hardly move anybody any way. They can pick up people from Flag but they can’t bring them in because they have to bring them in there, and they can’t do it.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

Q That is somebody from the LMT?

A Absolutely not.

Q Who is that?

A Greg Hagglund. He lives in Canada.

Q And he was down here for the picket in December?

A Looking at that date of that, he was down for the picket and vigil. People come from all over the United States and even Europe for that. They were doing that long before the Lisa McPherson Trust ever existed or it was here in Clearwater. So, you know, it would be a real bad stretch to think that, you know, he’s working at the trust because


he’s picketing.

Q Well, is there a particular reason why the trust had that tape in its film library?

A Maybe someone videotaped it and gave it to the trust, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, who was the videotaper for the trust?

A Mark Bunker.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Remember Lisa McPherson. Okay, let’s go. (Inaudible.)

“– is one of our old friends.

“Yes. Some other friends from Germany, too.

“That is a good one, too.

“Where else would you like –”


(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Those are all people from the Lisa McPherson Trust, weren’t they?

A False.

Q Oh, Miss Caberta was from Germany, your guest over here?

A Ms. Caberta was here on vacation. Mrs. Caberta.


And if you will recall, you yourself earlier said she’s employed by the German government. So, you know, she’s not LMT. She’s just like you said, employed by the German government.

Q This was an LMT-sponsored picket in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel?

A LMT has never, to my knowledge, sponsored a picket.

Q Is there a particular reason why Mr. Merrett was at that picket?

A I believe Mr. Merrett was at the picket to make sure that nothing happened, there were no altercations, no scuffles, no — you know, you’ll notice this, people, for the most part, are just silently walking up and down the street.

They are not screaming at Scientology itself or yelling at Scientologists; they are exercising their constitutional right to protest.

Q Do you think it might be somewhat harassing to the — on the doorstep of the mecca of Scientologists with signs saying “Blood of Lisa McPherson on your hands” and things like that?

A You know, I can see where someone could draw that inference or conclusion. But the inference and conclusion I draw is people were exercising their constitutional right.

If it was even a civil crime, they would have been sued out


of existence.

Q Do you remember that the Lisa McPherson Trust — people documented by Lisa McPherson Trust video picketed in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel when a Hindu wedding was going on? A Hindu wedding?

A No, I was not there. I know nothing about it.

Q As your position as the VP of the Lisa McPherson Trust, you don’t remember that one?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Why don’t we show that.

THE WITNESS: Was I present here?

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Well, Jesus, that is one thing Scientology didn’t believe in or any other religion, isn’t that right, guys? Isn’t that right? Isn’t that right? That is all — let’s let all of the Nazis come out.

“People are trying to have a wedding, sir.

“What is that?

“Hey, this is fine.

“They’re just trying to have a wedding. They are not —

“Listen, it’s not my fault they got married here.

“Come on now.

“This is a public sidewalk, buddy, so don’t start



“This is not — (inaudible).

“This is a public sidewalk. Let’s get out of the way. It is still a public sidewalk. Okay?

“When you get out of Scientology, your luck will — (Inaudible.)

“Let’s go. Let’s go.

“Let’s go.

“Come on.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Why did the LMT put that in its film library?

A I think that every — and I’m not sure if this is not Mr. Mark Bunker’s film library that you are referring to — but, you know, we’re — we’re looking at here your two star witnesses. You are showing me videos of your witnesses that you have used in this hearing to testify for you. What are we doing here?

Q I think you said that this is the most harassed person you have ever seen. Does it look like Mr. Minton is the most harassed person you have ever seen when he’s standing there with a sign with skulls on it in front of the Ft. Harrison —


THE COURT: Don’t —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: — raise your voice up to this witness and start approaching him.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: I won’t have it. And I’m not going to remind you again.


Q With a sign with skulls on it, interrupting a Hindu wedding?

A Mr. Weinberg, I agree with you what happened there — what happened was extremely inappropriate. And I don’t agree with it. And you didn’t see me there.

Q I’ll show you one you are at, Mr. Prince.

By the way, before you play that, that tape was done — the one we just played was done in — in September of 2000.

You were full-time at the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?

A That is possible, yes.

Q Not possible. That is correct?

A I said it’s possible.

Q Why do you say it’s possible? I mean —

A Because I’m not sure when I made that transition from — I’ll explain it to you, I’m not trying to be coy


here, but there came a point in time when my work with Mr. Dandar involved doing a bunch of depositions of Scientology staff members or Scientologists or whatever and we worked together quite a bit then.

But then there came a period of time when it was time for the medical experts. Those people are the experts. He certainly didn’t need me there. So there came a point in time when I started working at the Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q In September of 2000 when that took place, you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?

A It is possible, yes.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Jesse is — this is — Jesse, show him what you’re going to do if they come at you.

“Drop and fall. That is all. I’m going to fall down.

“Hey —

“You know what (inaudible).

“That is a good idea.

“Full resistance, that is our motto.

“How are you going to do it?

“Just carry the sign.

“Oh, my God.

“Kind of like the Three Stooges.


“The St. Pete Police.

“Yes, I told them I would be there by quarter to seven.

“Oh, God.

“Let’s do this.

“Guys, remember what we all agree with. We’re all staying together.

“Yes, boss.


“Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay, well — Mmm, no.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)


Q Now, that is one of your six pickets?

A Rhetorical.

Q Excuse me?

A That is one of the six pickets I have probably been in.

Q And in that video we saw Patricia Greenway, correct, who is in the audience, right?

A Show it to me again. I missed that.

THE COURT: Yes, she was there.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll take your word.


Q Peter Alexander, who testified in this hearing?


THE COURT: I don’t know if he was there or not.


THE COURT: I didn’t recognize him, but —


Q The gentleman, sort of young guy in the pink or red shirt, that was Graham Berry, correct?

A Correct.

Q The lawyer from LA?

A Correct.

Q Now, your sign, “Mafia Cult”?

A Correct.

Q And that was —

A In relationship to the black operations that are run out of OSA.

Q And you were picketing, you walked from the LMT — this was an LMT operation, wasn’t it? That is where you-all left from, from the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And at that point, you were full-time at the LMT?

A I — I’ll stipulate to that, sure.

Q Except you were still working for Mr. Dandar, you were still doing stuff on the Lisa McPherson case, weren’t you?

A Well, you know, as I said, Mr. Weinberg, there

came a time when Mr. Dandar was solely doing medical experts. There was certainly no need for me to sit there through that.

MR. WEINBERG: One second, your Honor.


Q Now, you, Mr. Dandar and a number of other people from the LMT were at the closing when Mr. Minton closed on the purchase of the building either at the — at the beginning — January 5 of 2000, is that right?

A I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Dandar was — and you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were very enthusiastic about the LMT and how the LMT was going to — to operate. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And Ms. Liebreich was very enthusiastic about the LMT opening, correct?

A I don’t think Mrs. Liebreich was there.

Q But do you remember that the first phone call that was made was made to Ms. Liebreich, and you talked to her, among other people?

A I think I remember something about that, yes.

Q And she was very enthusiastic about that. Right?

A She was very happy and proud that the last wishes of Fannie McPherson were actually taking effect, which was to expose any deceptive and abusive processes by


Scientology, you know.

Mr. Minton is — just wants reform, tired of people calling, tired of people saying, “Can you please help.”

Q Your testimony, I believe, was — and correct me if I’m wrong — that you never met with Mr. Dandar for any purpose — for any meeting type purpose at the LMT. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you remember at this opening that — at this closing where, in essence, the LMT was opening, that you described — or someone described what your position and responsibility was going to be at the LMT?

A I don’t recall it specifically, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And you deny it was in charge of PR, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: If you could play that, please.

This is another video from the LMT.

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Ken, I’m sorry there’s no more chairs.

“It is okay.

“Sign first — (inaudible).

“You want to sit down? Here is the — these are the — (inaudible).


“Did you bring the property insurance papers?

“Of course not.

“You didn’t?


“You mean the balance, it’s everything you did fax me yesterday.


“The insurance papers are the closing paper for the mortgage.

“Yeah. Right. Right.


“That is okay. That is okay.

“It’s just that we don’t have the check for him — or, we have the check but — (inaudible).

“How are we going to do it? How are you going to do it?


“No, I’ll just tell you to send a check and how much it is. (Inaudible.) It’s a binder.


“If Scott has a fax machine I can fax it to him.

“Hang on one second. Okay?





Q Is that Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times?

A I believe it is.

“This is Steve Mitchell. This is Jesse Prince.

“Nice to meet you, Jesse.

“Nice to meet you.

“He’s an expert on Scientology in the Lisa McPherson case. He’s going to be also working at the trust.

“Oh. Terrific.


“So he has an idea of what we’re dealing with. Big time, right?

“Big time, Bobby. This is too cool.

“Jesse, what are you going to do with this organization?

“Make it as successful as possible.

“I mean, what’s your job or what — do you have functions or duties or —

“I’m on the board of directors. And I’m going to just, you know, be here with the organization, get it through its initial phase of establishing itself, and run around and do public relations.

“Oh, really.



“He’s also an expert on the Lisa McPherson case so he’s going to be spending a lot of time with Ken Dandar so he’ll be –”


“He’s been working, you know, intimately with Ken on this case for a long time.



“You mean, does he own the building now?

“Thank you very much. Thank you. Scott.

“Thank you.

“Thank you very much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this.

“I wish you the best. I hope you do well with this.

“Thank you.

“Scott’s been under a lot of pressure, I’m sure.


“Thank you.


“Hey, Ken?

“Hey, Ken?

“So anybody want to open that champagne?



“Ken, your comments?

“Well, I think this is a good day for downtown Clearwater.

“Hi, Mike. How is it going?

“Happy New Year.

“We just closed on the building.

“Okay. Call me.

“I have a binder in my office.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

MR. DANDAR: Could we have a stipulation that was edited by the defense?

MR. WEINBERG: I mean —

THE COURT: I don’t know if it was or not.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, Mr. Bunker edited a lot of these tapes before he ever gave them to us. I mean —

MR. DANDAR: Well, whatever.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean —

THE COURT: All I can say, Counselor, it is available for you to get a copy of, so —

MR. DANDAR: I know.


Q Now, what was the Lisa McPherson trial consultant and the Lisa McPherson case lawyer doing at the closing of


the LMT building?

A It looks like they were partaking in the festivities, to me.

Q It does to me, too, Mr. Prince.

A Yeah.

Q Now, when Ms. Brooks said that you were going to be doing public relations, was your first job to get Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times there?

A You know, I think that is a leap in logic. And I think the person that actually said doing public relations stuff was me. I don’t think it was Ms. Brooks.

Q All right, I stand corrected. When you said you were doing public relations, what did you mean?

A I think that that was just an offhand comment. And I didn’t even know what I meant. Maybe I had some intention on doing something public relations-wise.

But what factually ended up happening is once the door opened, the phones started ringing. And as I mentioned, you know, getting through the initial establishment part, to find out exactly what our role is going to be, it simply turned into servicing current and ex-Scientology members.

Q The way you got your message out was to carry signs and picket in front of the Church of Scientology?

A That was the one thing that was done.


Q And — but at this time when this started in January 5 of 2000, you were in charge of public relations but you were being paid by Mr. Dandar to be a so-called expert in the Lisa McPherson case. Correct?

A That is totally incorrect. There was no public relations. I was not doing public relations, orchestrating public relations, media contact.

Mr. Weinberg, if you have shown anything with the indiscretion I have used, public relations is not anything that I would even pretend to be versed in, so, you know, let’s move on.

THE COURT: I’m going to tolerate about one more of these, then I can’t stand any more for the day. I still do not know why we’re playing all of these, but —

MR. WEINBERG: I can explain.

THE COURT: I’ll let you do that in closing argument, but I can only stand one more today, so play it and —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play one more and it will be this one.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: December 2, picket across from the Ft. Harrison.

I want you to look for Mr. Dandar here. All



THE WITNESS: Okay. All right.

THE COURT: What is the date again, Counselor?

MR. WEINBERG: December 2, 2000.

THE WITNESS: Was I at this picket?

(WHEREUPON, the video was played. No audio available.)


Q You recognize the person with the sign was Frank Oliver?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Teresa Summers? She testified in this case.

A Yes.

Q You recognize yourself?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Merrett?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Dandar. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And that was in front of the Ft. Harrison during a picket, wasn’t it?

THE COURT: I didn’t see any signs except


one — I did not see what I would classify as a picket.

A There was no picket. And I remember this incident, if you’ll let me explain it to you.

Bob Minton had come into town and Ken needed to talk to him or see him for something. Mr. Dandar simply stopped by. Mr. Dandar was not a part of any picket or doing anything. He simply knew where Mr. Minton was going to be, he came there, spoke with him and left.


Q So what were you-all doing there?

THE COURT: I saw folks across the street, Counsel, that had signs, then somebody said hi, went across the street. That is where Mr. Dandar was.

The sign was down. The only one person that had it, they were talking, then somebody put a sign up and went off like there was something else going on someplace else.

I don’t think it would be fair to classify what Mr. Dandar was in was a picket. I could not tell they were in front of any hotel, either.


Q Well, you recognize that was across from the Ft. Harrison?

A No, I do not.


THE COURT: I don’t know where it was because I couldn’t tell. It looked like a street corner. It might have been. I don’t recognize that.

MR. DANDAR: I can tell you, Judge. It was catty-corner across the street from the Ft. Harrison. These people with signs who were across the street from me, across the street from the Ft. Harrison, were standing in front of the new Super Power building. But I wasn’t part of any picket.

That is right.


Q Now, was Mr. Merrett part of the picket?

A No, he was not.

Q Were you?

A No, I was not.

Q So you had been — so all these LMT people were sort of off to the side, and there were other LMT people that were holding signs?

A You know, again, Counselor, I’m not trying to be difficult here. You are showing snippets and you are drawing conclusions. The conclusion that I see from this snippet is we are simply standing there having a conversation. No one but no one is picketing.

THE COURT: Looks like there was getting ready to be a picket. There were people with signs, but


when they saw Dandar, it looks like somebody waved, walked across the street, the guy that had the sign, whoever that was, the one, put his sign down. When he picked up the sign, he went walking off to where I would presume a picket was going on. But those other folks were across the street that must have been going for a picket, I’m guessing.

MR. WEINBERG: You said that was the last one you wanted to see.

THE COURT: That is absolutely the last one I want to see.

It is 5 o’clock. We’re done for the day.

We’ll see you at 9 o’clock tomorrow.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. Have a good night.

(WHEREUPON, Court stands in recess at 5 o’clock.)




I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.



CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question 3(d) [re Guardian and GO] (November 23, 1992)

Question 3(d)

3(d). Did the Guardian’s Office exist on December 31, 1989, or any date since then? During that period, has there been a Guardian? If the answer is yes to either or both of these questions, please list the name(s) of the Guardian(s) and describe the role of the Guardian and the Guardian’s Office. If no, is there any entity that performs functions or operates in a manner similar to the former Guardian’s Office?


In this question and question 10(a), the Service seeks information concerning the Guardian’s Office. Because of the close relationship of this question with question 10(a), we answer both questions fully here.

There are straightforward answers to these questions. The Guardian’s Office (“GO”) was disbanded in 1982 and 1983. A thorough purge of Guardian’s Office staff was conducted at that time: those convicted of illegal acts were dismissed and are prohibited from ever returning to Church of Scientology staff in any capacity. During 1981 through 1983 the Church conducted its own internal investigation and dismissed from its employ anyone found to have been in any way involved with or condoning similar activities. Such individuals are also barred from ever again serving on staff in any Church of Scientology. There is no Guardian currently and there has not been one for over a decade.

No entity replaced the GO. However, certain functions the GO was originally formed to conduct are now carried out by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”), the International Finance Network, the LRH Personal Public Relations Network and the Association for Better Living and Education (“ABLE”). Specifically,‘with legal matters; the International Finance Network sees that Church organizations maintain proper financial records and accounts; LRH Personal Public .Relations Office International handles ,public relations; and ABLE deals with the community outreach social betterment programs of drug rehabilitation (Narconon), criminal rehabilitation (Criminon), education (Applied. Scholastics) and raising moral standards in society (The Way to Happiness Foundation).

As discussed in greater detail below, none of these activities operate in a manner similar to the old Guardian’s Office.



The Guardian and Guardian’s Office were first established in March of 1966 because legal and other external facing matters were consuming the time and resources of churches of Scientology. In particular, church leaders were being distracted from their primary functions of ministering to the spiritual needs of their expanding religious communities and building their organizations. The first Guardian was Mary Sue Hubbard. Over the next several years, Guardian’s Offices were formed at local churches of Scientology around the world. These local GOs assumed responsibility for each church’s external affairs, with the purpose of freeing their executives and staff to practice and proselytize the religion without distractions. In January of 1969, Mrs. Hubbard appointed Jane Kember as Guardian worldwide, the highest position in the Guardian’s Office, and Mrs. Hubbard assumed the position of Controller, which was senior to the Guardian’s Office.

In 1966, when the GO was formed, the ecclesiastical management headquarters for the Church of Scientology was located in England, at Saint Hill Manor. The highest ecclesiastical body at that time was Executive Council Worldwide. The office of the Guardian was then physically located with the rest of Church management. Mr. Hubbard resigned his position as Executive Director of the Church in September 1966, in order to devote his time to researching the upper levels of spiritual awareness and establishing a base where these levels could be delivered to Scientology’ parishioners.

Needing an environment free from the workaday distractions of Saint Hill, Mr. Hubbard along with his family and a few trusted Scientologists relocated aboard a ship in the Mediterranean. This marked the beginning of the Sea Organization.

The Executive Council Worldwide and the Guardian’s Office Worldwide remained in England and continued to perform their functions from Saint Hill. Within a couple of years it became clear that Executive Council Worldwide was not adequately performing its functions and that the Church was experiencing a decline. In August 1971, after various attempts to correct the perceived problems, the Executive Council Worldwide was disbanded and the ecclesiastical management of the Church was taken over by Sea Org members in the recently formed Flag Bureaux aboard the Sea Orq ship Apollo.

While the Executive Council Worldwide was disbanded in 1971, the Guardian’s Office Worldwide (“GO WW”) continued to be headquartered in England where it was managed and directed by Jane


Kember. By the 1970s then, GO WW was physically separate from Scientology ecclesiastical management. The reporting and command lines in the GO were also entirely separate. G0 offices were locked and off limits to non-GO staff. The GO thus had become an autonomous network, separate from the rest of Church management.

Within the GO there was yet a further segregation — a group called the Intelligence Bureau (“B1”) kept its activities confidential even from other parts of the GO, particularly those activities it considered sensitive.

During the middle 1970s, the Scientology ecclesiastical management structure continued to evolve with the formation of the Commodores Messenger Organization, the move of the Flag Bureaux from the Aggllg to a landbase in Clearwater, Florida, in 1975, and other changes. Throughout this period GO WW remained in England, becoming more and more distant from Church management. The Guardian’s Office was not Sea Org. Their operations, activities and premises were inaccessible to Sea Org members in Church management — or anyone else not in the GO.

Guardian’s Office Illegalities:

In July of 1977, the FBI conducted massive raids on offices of the GO in Los Angeles and in Washington D.C.. Michael Meisner, who had worked in the Information Bureau of the GO, both in D.C. and Los Angeles, had gone to the FBI and provided detailed information about infiltration of government offices by GO staff and/or volunteers, for the purpose of obtaining documents those offices had on the Church. Litigation over the legality of the raids commenced immediately. Criminal indictments were returned against eleven individuals, including Mary Sue Hubbard and Jane Kember.

Because of the autonomy of the Guardian’s Office, and the secrecy within its Intelligence Bureau, the truth about G0 misconduct remained unknown to the rest of the Church and even to other segments of the Guardian’s Office for several reasons. The GO executives involved.with the criminal activities suppressed this information within the Church and characterized the raids and criminal prosecutions as simply the latest in a long history of attacks on the religion. This explanation was  supported by the fact that government (especially FBI and IRS) disinformation about the Church was rampant in the 1960s and 1970s and Scientologists


had become somewhat inured to it. 1/ Church management and staff were concerned with the practice of the religion and were not involved with the GO indictees. This combination of circumstances made it possible for someone like Jane Kember to hold herself out as a martyr being unjustly persecuted and yet remain credible with Scientology management. 1/

Indeed the Government Prosecutor in the D.C. criminal trial testified in deposition that only a small percentage of the people within the GO even knew about the illegal acts that were committed by the GO staff.

Church Investigation of the Guardian’s Office:

In late 1979 and throughout 1980 Church management began to receive indications that there were problems within the Guardian’s Office:

1. The Mission network which was the responsibility of the GO (and which was its primary source of funding) was experiencing an ethical decline. One of the largest missions became embroiled in litigation and a number of mission holders were found to be involved in unethical activities when they arrived at the Flag Service Organization for auditing. Instances of GO staff opening businesses and employing Church staff to the detriment of local churches were reported. When this situation was reported to GO WW and to Mary Sue Hubbard, the response was a GO investigation and intimidation of the Sea Org staff who had received the reports.
1/ For example, internal FBI and IRS documents from this period falsely accused the Church of trafficking in illegal drugs and weapons, promoting rampant drug use and.promiscuity, conducting paramilitary operations and plotting civil insurrection .

2/ Mrs Kember recently testified at a trial in Canada that she and her Deputy Guardian for Intelligence, Mo Budlong, confronted with attacks that they believed threatened the very survival of the religion, decided on their own to use illegal intelligence measures to locate the sources of the attacks and defend the religion. She confirmed that these activities were only known to a small number of people within the GO because she knew that these activities would not have been condoned by Church management.


3. In the Fall of 1980, after having had no communication with the Church for several months, Mr. Hubbard wrote to the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International (“CMO INT”) about a wide range of subjects including an inquiry about whether there were any lawsuits against him that he should know about.3/  When asked about this subject, Mary Sue Hubbard gave only a terse response that there were a number of suits, it would take years to resolve them and that the GO did not welcome anyone’s help or inquiries.

The above, combined with the always bothersome general secretiveness of the GO, were interpreted by CMO INT as very alarming behavior. Accordingly, a full time Special Project was initiated by CMO INT to investigate legal matters and the GO’s ineffectiveness in dealing them and the extent to which the GO had departed from its original purpose and design.

The Special Project’s attempts to get information were thwarted by Mrs. Hubbard. She informed the Special Project that she did not appreciate their investigation of the GO and that if one were needed she would do it. In March 1981 she cut all communication lines to the GO except through herself. It must be noted that Mary Sue Hubbard believed her position as Controller and as the Founder’s wife to be unassailable and beyond reproach by anyone but Mr. Hubbard – who was not around at the time. This, plus her absolute control of the GO made it difficult for the Special Project to get anything done.

In April 1981, in an unprecedented move and without Mrs. Hubbard’s knowledge, Special Project sent a mission to GO WW to inspect the Legal Bureau under the guise that they had been authorized by Mrs. Hubbard. What the mission found confirmed their worst suspicions. They found the Deputy Guardian for Legal involved in unethical sexual activities, not doing his job and desiring to leave the GO to go into private practice as an attorney. An inspection of files showed the legal suits to be severely neglected with overdue motions and pleadings. There was almost no evidence of standard Scientology administrative policy being applied.

3/ As discussed in the response to Question 10(d), in early 1980, Boston attorney Michael Flynn initiated a series of duplicative personal injury lawsuits against the Church and Mr. Hubbard. Part of the Flynn litigation strategy was to name Mr. Hubbard in these suits in the belief that he would not personally appear and thus force the Church to settle or alternatively face default judgments.


During May 1981 the Special Project’s investigation of the GO intensified. The original mission to the Legal Bureau GO WW brought back a great deal of damaging information. Mary Sue Hubbard, in order to save face, could not admit to her staff that she had not authorized the mission. A second mission fired to GO WW in May and removed the Deputy Guardian for Legal, Charles Parselle, from post and put other GO WW executives and legal staff through Scientology ethics procedures in an effort to correct them and make them more productive.

With increased access to the legal area, in June, 1981 the Special Project discovered startling information. Appended to pleadings by plaintiffs suing Scientology were documents detailing GO criminality which had been seized in the 1977 raid. These documents contained appalling evidence of GO criminality – infiltration of government agencies and harrassment campaigns against those the (K) considered enemies. When further investigation proved the documents to be authentic, CMO INT decided that it would have to take charge of GO WW and the GO network until it could be reformed and corrected.

CMO INT planned a complete take-over of the GO.

There were a number of obstacles. Mary Sue Hubbard was still asserting her position as Controller. Mrs. Hubbard and other GO executives suborned the then Commanding Officer CMO INT, Dede Reisdorf, to call off the investigation. Mrs. Hubbard also befriended Laurel Sullivan who was working on a corporate sort out project for the Church and convinced her to restructure corporate affairs so that she and others in the GO would own the trademarks of Scientology. Sullivan was encouraged and assisted by Gerry Armstrong, who sought a position in B1 as his reward.

Sullivan’s mission was immediately terminated and she was put on menial physical work pending ethics and justice actions. Reisdorf was removed from post by her peers. Armstrong was investigated for having falsified documents within the Church. These GO sympathizers later left the Church and became government informants and witnesses against the Church in civil litigation as set forth in detail in the response to question 10d.

David Miscavige gathered a couple dozen of the most proven Sea Org executives from around the world. He briefed them on what had been discovered in investigating the GO. Together, they planned a series of missions to take over the GO, investigate it and reform it thoroughly. The stakes were high because they faced expulsion from Scientology if they were unsuccessful and the GO prevailed.


Accordingly, on July 13, 1981, with no advance warning to the GO, a coordinated series of five CMO missions were sent out to take over the Guardian’s Office.

The first of these missions, headed by David Miscavige, met with Mary Sue Hubbard to convince her to resign. This was essential as the GO consisted of around 1,500 staff who were loyal to Mrs. Hubbard. During a stormy meeting she refused to cooperate. She finally relented when Mr. Miscavige told her that regardless of what authority she attempted to invoke, when both public and staff Scientologists were briefed on the crimes of the GO they would demand the GO leadership step down. It would result in a war of wills involving the entire congregation. She would lose, and there would be a lot of bad blood created to the detriment of the religion. Realizing the outrage that would ensue and that the GO would lose any such struggle, she wrote her resignation.

The other missions were then sent out as soon as this resignation was obtained. One mission was sent into the Intelligence Bureau with its principal objective to uncover any and all illegal activities and the persons responsible. Another mission was sent into the Office of the Controller, comprised of assistants under Mrs. Hubbard for each of the areas of Legal, Intelligence, Public Relations and Finance. The Deputy Controller and the Controller Assistants for these areas were all removed from post. They, along with Jane Kember and a number of the individuals who were directly involved in the criminal proceedings were then turned over to another separate ethics mission. This mission, aptly titled the Crim (criminal) Handling Mission, commenced internal ethics and justice actions on these individuals and began the process of removing them from Church employ. Any staff determined by any of the missions to have been involved in any illegalities were put under the charge of this ethics mission to determine more fully each person’s situation and to remove them from staff.

The fifth CMO mission sent at that time went to GO WW to organize that area as most of the executives who had been over it had been removed.

Within a day of Mrs. Hubbard’s resignation, senior Guardian’s Office officials including Jane Kember and the head of Intelligence, Jimmy Mulligan, secretly met with Mrs. Hubbard and conspired to regain control of the GO. Mrs. Hubbard signed a letter revoking her resignation and condemning the actions by the CMO. Scores of GO staff responded, locking CMO INT Missionaires out of their premises and were intending to hire armed guards to bar access to the Sea Org. Mr. Miscavige confronted the mutineers,


and persuaded Mrs. Hubbard to again resign which ended the last vestige of resistence. While the GO still existed, it was now operating under the direct supervision of CMO missions.

In early August 1981 a Scientology ecclesiastical justice action was convened concerning eleven Worldwide and U.S. Guardian’s Office senior executives who had been removed from their positions, including Jane Kember and three of the other persons who had been charged in the criminal case. In early October each of these individuals formally resigned their staff positions.

It was not until September 1981 that Mr. Hubbard was informed about what had taken place with the Guardian’s Office, when he again contacted the CMO requesting to be updated on current activities in Scientology. He expressed shock at what had been found in the Guardian’s Office and praised those in the CMO who took action on their own initiative.

CMO INT missions and investigations into GO WW in England and the United States Guardian’s Office in Los Angeles continued through the end of 1981 and into 1982, weeding out anyone found to have had any part in anything that appeared to have been illegal or who had knowledge of and condoned the GO’s illegal acts. Anyone found to be in this category was removed from Church employ.

Beginning in October of 1981 missions were also sent to the other continental Guardian’s Offices, such as Canada and Europe, to find out what, if any, illegal activity had occurred there. This process continued throughout 1982 with missions going to virtually all GO offices around the world. Any GO staff who had taken part in criminal activities as well as any staff who believed the GO should operate autonomously and without regard to Church policy were dismissed. During this period the staff of the GO network was reduced by hundreds. Directives were issued that required all orders or communications affecting churches of Scientology originating from the GO to go through the Watchdog Committee of CMO INT.

After the completion of over 50 Sea Org missions into all echelons of the Guardian’s Office, in early 1983 it was decided that cleaning up and maintaining the Guardian’s Office was not workable and that it needed to be disbanded altogether. This was accomplished by a new series of CMO Int missions sent to GO offices around the world. The pattern of the missions was to remove all GO staff from their positions and put them on estates work and physical labor around the Church. Concurrently, each person was


required to make a full confession of past misdeeds (not limited to illegal acts but also any other violations of Church policy) as part of his or her ethics handlings. Depending on what was found, the person was either dismissed from staff or put on a rehabilitation program. In some cases if the person was relatively clean and willing to abide by Church policy, he or she was retained on church staff but in a lower position on a probationary status. All GO directives and issues of any kind were cancelled across the boards.

Before being disbanded the GO’s Finance Bureaux had monitored some aspects of the Church’s finances, including the production of and maintenance of accounts and financial records. With the disbanding of the GO, this function was taken over by the International Finance Network where it remains. Public relations activities were put under the direction and supervision of the LRH Personal Public Relations Officer International and his staff. All GO social betterment functions – drug rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation and education reform, were taken over by a new organization known as Social Coordination. Later this function was assumed by Association for Better Living and Education (“ABLE”).  To administer legal affairs, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA) was formed from a mixture of Sea Org staff who had been on one or more of the missions that had disbanded the GO, new staff recruited to work in the area and some former GO staff who had survived investigation and scrutiny and had undergone ethics clean-ups relating to their former affiliation in the GO.

The Office of Special Affairs is not an autonomous group. OSA International is part of the Flag Command Bureaux and the highest OSA management position is that of CO OSA INT. The Watchdog Committee has a WDC member, WDC OSA, whose sole job is to see that OSA INT effectively performs its functions and operates according to Church policy. Continental OSA units are part of the Continental Liaison Offices and local OSA representatives, called Directors of Special Affairs, are staff at their local church subject to the supervision of its Executive Council.

These measures guarantee that the office handling legal matters for the Church will never be autonomous.

Since the disbandment of the GO further steps have been taken to make sure that the negative influences of the GO that were eradicated can never again arise. In 1986 the Church instituted firm policy which makes it mandatory for any former GO staff member to request and get permission from the International Justice Chief before being allowed employment. Any staff who were dismissed


because of involvement in illegalities are not permitted to return to staff under any circumstances. In 1987 another policy was implemented governing the eligibility of Ex-GO staff for advanced level Scientology religious services as parishioners. Such parishioners are required to request permission from the International Justice Chief and must demonstrate to him that they have been rehabilitated, completed their ethics handlings, are leading ethical lives and that they have made significant contributions toward the overall welfare of the Church.


The illegal acts of the GO and its perversion and abandonment of Church policy were not taken lightly by Church management once they became known. It required many months of investigation and severe measures by dedicated members of CMO INT to finally cleanse the Church of this corruption. There are no longer any autonomous groups or networks within the Church. All staff are measured against a standard of compliance with church Scripture and against their performance in advancing the religion in terms of ministering to the Scientology religious community and in attracting new members.

In early 1983, the Service was advised, in response to a similar request, that none of the eleven individuals convicted of involvement in criminal activities was then on staff at any church of Scientology, nor was any of them eligible to be on staff in the future.

This continues to be true today and will remain so. Additionally, the Church dismissed a number of others who were determined to have had some part in illegal activities and, although never charged or convicted, are not eligible to be Church of Scientology staff members in the future.



Aznaran v. Scientology: Brief for Appellees (August 22, 1990)

In The


For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288


Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,






Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.1

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California


Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Appellees VICKI J. AZNARAN and

In The


For The Ninth Circuit

NO. 90-55288


Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,






Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California




The undersigned counsel of record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran certifies that other than parties to this appeal, the following parties have an interest in the outcome of this case.

– i –

Bent Corydon
Gerry Armstrong Martin Samuels
Marjorie Wakefield Nancy Dincalci
Gabriel Cazares Kima Douglas
Tonja Burden Robert Dardano
William Franks Laurel Sullivan
Homer Schomer Edward Walters
Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne

With the exception of Bent Cordon, the aforementioned parties, all former Scientologists, have executed settlement agreements with Scientology which include releases containing obstruction of justice provisions of the same type and nature Scientology will enforce against appellees Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran if it prevails in the herein appeal. Moreover, pursuant to such agreements, in each court case connected with each said party, with the exception of Bent Corydon, the court file has been sealed.

Attorney of Record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran

– ii –


TABLE OF CASES…………………… vii
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court …….. 3
B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have
Jurisdiction Over This Appeal ………..
1. The Motion For Summary Judgment ……. 4
2. The Motion For Reconsideration ….. 5
3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction … 5
4. The Notice Of Appeal…………. 6
5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final …… 6
6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject For Appellate Review …………… 8
7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation ……… 9
A. Nature Of The Case…………… 13
B. Factual Background …………… 14
C. The Substance Of The Releases………. 23 23

– iii –

A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal………. 25
1. Introduction…………….. 26
2. Standard Of Review…………. 26
3. Preliminary Legal Principles …….. 27
B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void………… 29
C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void………… 32
D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal……………… 34
1. Scientology’s Contentions ……… 34
2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran’s Declarations ……………. 35
a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988……….. 35
b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988……….. 37
c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989……….. 38
d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989………. 40

– iv –

3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989 41
4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation … 45
5. Conclusion…………….. 45
A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed …. 46
B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment…………. 48
C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case………….. 50
D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways………….. 51
E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction ………… 52

– v –

A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable………. 54
1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For
A Preliminary Injunction ……….
2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below
17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction ……..
3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm …. 60
B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability ………….. 61
C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit……………. 65
D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment…………. 69
E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits……………… 71
F. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans . . 77
G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest … 78


Cases Page
Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525………………. 9
Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797……. 16, 44
Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31……. 30, 31
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521…………….. 50
Associated Press v. United States 326 US 1……… 79
Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110 ………….. 57
Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749……………… 7
Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 36 L.Ed.2d 420…………. 47
Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608……………. 30, 31
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 46 L.Ed.2d 659………… 57, 67
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1………………… *, *
C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 154 P.2d 710…………. 73
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 84 L.Ed. 1213……… 57, 62, 68
Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79………………… 51
Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97………… 75

– vii –

Cases Page
Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701…………….. 52
Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328……………. 49
Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) …………. 43
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273…………….. 54
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402………………… 48
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541…………………. 3
Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401……….. 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252……………….. 57
Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529……… 74
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 45 L.Ed.2d 648…………. 47
Dymo Industries, Inc. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141…………….. 49
Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34…………… 29
Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347………….. 78
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1……………….. 57, 58
F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426 ……………. 3, 12
Fabrege, Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426……………. 49

– viii –

Cases Page
First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388………………… 27
Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 233 P.2d 606……….. 29
Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212…………….. 70
Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448……………. 71
Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 97 L.Ed. 828………….. 62
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076………….. 57, 59
Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 57 L.Ed.2d 364………….. 8
Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618 …………… 54
Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704…………. 69
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 99 L.Ed.2d 296………… 8, 13
Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983 …………… 57
Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122……………… 9
Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171……………. 57
In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451……………. 54
International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547…………….. 49
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430………….. 69, 70

– ix –

Cases Page
J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187…………….. 49
Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817…………….. 50
Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349 ….. 75
Kass v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037 ………….. 51
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 US 753…………………. 79
Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105…………….. 7
LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 102 CAl.Rptr. 588……… 27
Le Sportsac, Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602…………… 55
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602………………. 57, 58
Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 308 P.2d 713…………. 28
Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)……………….. 53
Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211……………. 56
Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7……………. 54, 55
Maness v. Meyes (1975) 419 U.S. 449………………… 57
Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270 ………….. 55
Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845…………….. 55

– x –

Cases Page
Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330…………. 46, 47
Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141…….. 79
Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670…………… 53, 76
Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871…… 32, 33
Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
71 Cal.App. 492…………………..
Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595…………….. 9
McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 55 L.Ed.2d 593…………. 69
Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268…………… 57
Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130……………. 50
Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092……………. 14, 61, 80
Morey v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727………… 30
Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160……………… 7
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 87 L.Ed. 1292…………. 62
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415………………. 57, 58
National Customs Brokers and Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511…………….. 55
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 US 539…………………. 78
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254……………… 57, 58, 79

– xi –

Cases Page
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 53 L.Ed.2d 867…………. 67
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490………”………. 57, 58
Oakland Tribune Publishing Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374…………… 53, 56
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252……….. 28
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253………… 46
People V. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596 ….. 26
People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69………… 62
Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif .1984) 611 F.Supp. 990………….. 47
Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419 F.Supp. 1251 ………….. 55
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. (1969) 395 US 367…………………. 79
Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI…………. 34
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473……………. 52
Roth v. United States 354 US 476………….. 79
S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945…………….. 50
Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 261 P.2d 721…………. 29
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988…………… 10, 11

– xii –

Cases Page
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 10 L.Ed.2d 965…………. 62
Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22 …………… 46
Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415……………. 50
Sipple v. Chronical Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045…………… 57, 58
Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750…………… 48, 51
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 US 557………… 79
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452……………… 8
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………….. 57
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………… 57, 58
Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 62 L.Ed.2d 454………. 47, 48
Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127…………….. 9
Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. 80 Cal. 570 …………………… 33
Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453 F.Supp. 25………….. 70
Tiedje v. Aluminium Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 296 P.2d 554…………. 29
Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374………………… 57
Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 6 L.Ed.2d 982…………. 62
United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 88 L.Ed. 1148………….. 62

– xiii –

Cases Page
United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64…………… 43
United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062……………. 42
United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439……………. 70
United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314…………….. 43
United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317…………….. 42
United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 13 L.Ed.2d 733…………. 69
United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9……………… 42
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364…………………… 50
Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823……………… 7
Van Cauwenberghe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 100 L.Ed.2d 517…………. 7
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125…………… 70
Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654…….. 42
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664………………. 57, 58
Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178………………. 57, 68
Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101……………… 9
Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 93 P.2d 1028……….. 74
White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812……………… 7

– ivx –

Cases Page
Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031……………. 10
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 32 L.Ed.2d 15…………. 61
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331…………. 15, 44, 62-65, 69, 80
Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748………………… 27
Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129……………. 51
Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414………………… 47
Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719…………… 49, 52
18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) ………………. 44
§ 201(c) (2) ………………. 44
§ 1510……………….. 42,43
28 U.S.C. § 1291……………… 3, 6, 8, 11
§ 1292(a)(1) …………… 9-11, 13
§ 1332………………….. 3
§ 1927…………………. 80
F.R.A.P. Rule 4……………….. 10, 11
Rule 38………………… 80
F.R.C.P Rule 42(b)………………… 7
Rule 56……………….. 4,7
Civil Code § 1550…………………. 32
§ 1598…………………. 32
§ 1607…………………. 29
§ 1608…………………. 29
§ 1667…………………. 32
§ 1668…………………. 32
§ 3423…………………. 46

– xv –

Treatises Page
Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 …… 27
Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts,
§ 441……………… 27
§ 442……………… 27
§ 429……………… 29
§ 444……………… 27
§ 445……………… 28
§ 611……………… 32

– xvi –

In The


For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288


Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,






Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California



1. Can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals question whether an appeal ostensibly taken from a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is, in fact, simply a pretext to obtain interlocutory review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment,


and would an exercise of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over such an appeal be proper?

2. Do contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct constitute an obstruction of justice, and, if so, are said releases illegal and void?

3. Can contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct be specifically enforced?

4. When an organization which ascribes religious status to itself is aware of what it alleges are threats to its First Amendment religious rights arising from and at the outset of tort litigation and waits for 17 months before seeking a preliminary injunction, can it assert such threats are irreparable injury?

5. Does the bare claim of religious status confer an immunity in tort from accountability from the consequences of conduct that is outrageous and coercive?

6. Is Scientology1 necessarily entitled on this appeal to prima facie status as a religion?

7. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary injunction constitute a prior restraint on the Aznarans’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and Associational Privacy?

8. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary

1Appellants herein are Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International, Church of Spiritual Technology and Author Services, Inc. They will be referred to collectively as “Scientology.”


injunction violate the Aznarans’ First Amendment right to Redress of Grievances.

9. Did the district court erroneously apply the law underlying the legal issues in denying Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and therefore abuse his discretion?

10. Is the herein appeal frivolous?



A. Jurisdiction of the District Court

The District Court properly exercises jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this lawsuit pursuant its diversity jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal

When the issue is one of appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court of appeals to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associates. Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426, 429. Unless subject to a statutory or judicially created exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 states this Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not a “final decision” of the District Court. “The effect of the statute is to disallow appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete … So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541, 546.

Although Scientology’s instant appeal is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the practical effect of this


appellate review is that Scientology now relitigates, for the fourth time, the District Court’s denial of its mc ion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the purported releases and waivers are valId. Below, after losing its summary judgment motion, Scientology first sought reconsideration. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, Scientology again relitigated the issue by a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thus, through the pretext of this interlocutory appeal, now Scientology will again relitigate the issue of whether the purported releases are valId.

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment

On December 12, 1988, pursuant to the Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Scientology filed its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a separate trial on the issue whether the alleged releases and waivers were valid. (Record No. 140.)

On May 25, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Aznarans’ alleged release and waiver of their right to prosecute this lawsuit by its written Order filed on May 25, 1989. (Record No. 219.) In its decision the District Court specifically found there was a

“genuine issue of material fact [whether the release was an enforceable contract because] . . . plaintiffs were subjected to threats of being sentenced to defendants’ Rehabilitation Project Force, or declared ‘suppressive persons’ and subjected to the ‘fair game policy’ if they did not cooperate in signing the releases. Plaintiffs also provide testimony that they did not sign the releases with their free will and only signed them to get away in relative safety from defendants. Plaintiffs further provide testimony that they


were not given the opportunity to confer with legal counsel when they signed the releases and the releases they signed and the releases submitted to the Court are not the same because at the time they executed the releases, they were not given copies of them.” (Record No. 219 at 2:5-3:14.)

2. The Motion For Reconsideration

On June 6, 1989, Scientology filed its motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s Order denying summary judgment. (Record No. 228.) On July 24, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for reconsideration and specifically found as follows:

“In the instant action, the defendants’ motion for reconsideration merely repeats the arguments made in its original motion for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied. (Emphasis supplied)” (Record No. 238 at 2:10-13.)

3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

On November 9, 1989, not deterred by having suffered two adverse decisions on the issue of the legal effectiveness of the purported releases and waivers, Scientology filed its motion for a preliminary injunction wherein it sought to enforce the terms of the purported release and waiver against the Aznarans. Scientology’s motion also sought a separate evidentiary hearing on the issues raised by the release and waiver. (Record No. 261.)

On January 9, 1990, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing. In its Order denying injunctive relief the District Court specifically found as follows:


“In the instant action, defendants’ motion merely attempt[s] to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release. The Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration that the validity of the release is a jury question because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs consented to the release. The Court has also ruled that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of time to have a separate trial on the validity of the release.” (Emphasis added.) (Record No. 2 64 at 2:19-3:2.)

4. The Notice Of Appeal

On February 5, 1990, Scientology filed its notice of appeal (Record No. 267) of the District Court’s Order denying its motion (1) for a preliminary injunction to enforce the releases and (2) for a separate hearing on the validity thereof. Thus, Scientology asks this Court to relitigate the issue a fourth time. This appeal is a transparent ploy to both avoid the consequences of the final judgment rule as it applies to summary judgment orders and to relitigate an issue which thus far in the trial court has been conclusively determined as a proper question for trial.

5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 confer jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals to review appeals “from all final decisions of the district courts . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Generally, a party may not take an appeal under § 1291 “until there has been a decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ [Citation.]”


Van Cauwenberqhe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 521, 100 L.Ed.2d 517.

As a general rule, “the denial of a Rule 56 motion is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is available until the entry of judgment following trial on the merits.” Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105, 1107; White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812, 814.

“The denial of a motion for summary judgment because of the presence of genuine issues of fact is not normally appealable. For the moving party is not hereby foreclosed. When the facts are developed, he may still win. Plainly such an order is not final.”

Morqenstern Chemical Co. v. Scherinq Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160, 161. When a summary judgment is denied on the basis of”‘unresolved issues of fact,’ the order is only a pretrial one which does not touch on the merits of the case” Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749, 750 and is not
final. Thus, where “[o]nly [a] procedural aspect or incident was . . . involved, [n]o substantive right of appellant was affected. Without injury to rights, there could not be a basis for any interlocutory consideration.” Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823, 825.

The substance of the instant appeal is, in fact, taken from the denial of a FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and a Rule 42(b) motion for a separate trial on the issue of the releases. Contrary to the manner in which Scientology labelled its third motion on the issue of whether the releases were valid as one for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing,


the substance of the summary judgment motion, the reconsideration motion, the preliminary injunction motion and this appeal was, and is the same. The obvious thrust of each of the motions was to judicially validate the releases so as to defeat the Aznarans lawsuit before it could get to trial.

6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject Of Appellate Review

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provide that the denial of an interlocutory injunction in District Court is reviewable pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. “[T]he statute creates an exception from the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals …. The exception is a narrow one and is keyed to the ‘need to permit litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.’ [Citation.]” Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 480, 57 L.Ed.2d 364. Hence, “It must be construed strictly.” Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452, 457.

Thus, as when summary judgment is denied, “an order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 279, 99
L.Ed.2d 296. Such orders do not involve irreparable consequence.

This Court enjoys the discretion to determine whether the instant appeal falls within, or is beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. §


1292(a)(1) because “Courts examine the effect of an interlocutory order rather than its terminology in determining reviewability under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595; Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127, 1129. Therefore, “the meaning of injunction within § 1292(a)(1) would turn … on the substance . . . [not] on the form of the trial court order.” Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525, 528. “[A]n injunction is defined not by its title but by its effect on the litigants.” Id. at 529, Fn. 14.

“In considering the application of § 1292(a)(1) to borderline cases . . . [the Court] must be ever mindful that it was intended as a narrow exception to the policy of the basic final judgment rule, ‘a wisely sanctioned principle against piecemeal appeals governing litigation in federal courts.’ [Citation.] The great advantages of that policy in the administration of federal justice dictate against a reliance on the strict letter of § 1292(a)(1) which would cause the exception to encroach unduly on the rule.” (Emphasis added.)

Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101, 104.

The same common-sense rule applies to the Court’s evaluation of the nature of a motion for a preliminary injunction. “The label does not determine the nature of the motion. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122, 128.

7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation

Simply because Scientology dubbed its motion as one for a”preliminary injunction” does not necessarily require this Court to


exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial thereof. Although under “normal circumstances” Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031, 1032, the denial of a preliminary injunction requires review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) , such is not required when a “motion for a preliminary injunction was not made under normal circumstances.” Ibid.

Thus, in Winfield, the court rejected jurisdiction of an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction. It found the appeal “was simply a refiling of a motion which had been denied two years earlier.” Ibid. The court recognized that it was confronted with “a device to extend the period for filing an appeal from thirty days to two years” and to “rule in favor of appellants on this issue would circumvent the policy behind Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ibid. Therefore, “where the motion is simply a ploy” Ibid, designed to subvert a policy behind a rule or statute, an appeal from the denial thereof will not be heard because it is not properly before the reviewing court.

The Seventh Circuit reserves the right “to penetrate through form to substance” in order to dismiss an appeal of an injunctive order brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988, the trial court enjoined Suter from violating the Security Act and he did not file a timely appeal. Thereafter, Suter brought three successive, and unsuccessful, motions to vacate the injunction. He took an appeal from the last denial. The appellate court dismissed his appeal because his briefs in both the district court and the court


of appeals revealed “that his only ground for vacating the injunction is that it should never have been entered in the first place.” Id. at 990. The reviewing court found that the motions to vacate were “efforts to create appellate jurisdiction over the injunction after the deadline for an appeal had passed.” Ibid.

The strategy employed by Scientology in connection with the instant appeal is analogous to the conduct rejected by the courts in Winfield and Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants in those cases employed devices, in the form of injunction related motions, intended to circumvent the policy implemented in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requiring timely appeals. In our case Scientology has employed the device of a preliminary injunction to circumvent the policy of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to avoid piecemeal appeals and consider only those trial court determinations that are final. Scientology could not properly appeal from either the denial of its summary judgment motion nor its motion for reconsideration. Thus, it cannot legitimately appeal from the denial of a “motion for a preliminary injunction” when the appeal seeks to do indirectly that which the law prohibits it from doing directly.

“Because the civil rules do not explicitly define the extent of the district judge’s discretion in allowing successive pretrial motions or motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order such as a preliminary injunction, early court decisions formulated a requirement that a successive motion state new facts warranting reconsideration of the prior decision. [Citations.] This logic also applies to the interpretation of § 1292(a)(1). . . . The issue here is appellate jurisdiction and the duty of the court of appeals to determine


sua sponte if necessary, whether jurisdiction is proper. Mischaracterization by the lower court or by the parties does not affect jurisdictional determinations.” F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc., supra . 815 F.2d at 428-429.

In Kerr three similar motions were brought, the last two of which were “virtually identical.” Id. at 429. The court stated:

“Parties should not be allowed to harass their adversaries and the courts with a barrage of successive motions for extraordinary, preliminary injunctive relief, secure in the knowledge that they can take an interlocutory appeal when it becomes apparent that they cannot win their war of attrition.” Ibid.

Likewise, in the instant case Scientology should not be allowed to successively relitigate the issue of the validity of the releases in the hope that if enough shots are taken, it will obtain a favorable ruling. Since the nature of the motion for preliminary injunction was, in fact, as found by the District Court, “merely [an] attempt to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release [which] [t]he Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for consideration”, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should dismiss the instant interlocutory appeal for lack of proper appellate jurisdiction.

The repeated rulings of the District Court consistently reveal that it was exercising its control over the progress of this litigation so as to preserve for the jury’s determination all claims between the adverse parties, to be heard together in the same proceeding. Similarly, the substance of the three motions


below, unsuccessfully brought by Scientology, which now culminate in the instant interlocutory appeal consistently reveal its determination to obtain a favorable pretrial ruling that the releases are valid. Therefore, as this Court’s scrutiny penetrates the terminological form Scientology dubs as a motion for a preliminary injunction, logic compels the conclusion that in substance Scientology is attempting to obtain an advantageous, and improper, pretrial ruling via appeal on the releases which in the trial court has thus far been three times elusive.

An analysis of Scientology’s motions and the District Court’s rulings below compels the conclusion that the District Court’s respective rulings on Scientology’s motions for summary judgment, for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction relate “only to the conduct or progress of litigation . . . [which] is not considered an injunction and appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream, supra, 485 U.S. at 279.

Therefore, the herein appeal should be dismissed because it is not properly before this Court. The Court should decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.



A. Nature Of The Case

On April 1, 1988, the Aznarans filed their Complaint below for false imprisonment, fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, breach of contract, restitution, breach of statutory


duty to pay minimum wages and overtime and constructive fraud. The factual basis of the complaint is predicated upon the Aznarans’ fifteen years in Scientology.
After successfully disqualifying the Aznarans former counsel, the Scientology defendants answered and all except Author Services, Inc., counterclaimed against the Aznarans.

In the District Court, Scientology has consistently, but unsuccessfully, sought to silence and neutralize the Aznarans by acquiring a judicial finding that the “releases” Scientology alleges the Aznarans signed are valid and enforceable.

B. Factual Background

Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran are married. Formerly, they were among the highest ranking officials in Scientology. Vicki was the President of Religious Technology Center and Richard was the Chief of Security, Worldwide. For fifteen years they were subjected to fraud, coercive persuasion and exploitation at the hands of Scientology. The Aznarans were subjected to coercive persuasion 2 by Scientology without their knowledge or consent.

As defined by the California Supreme Court in 1988, what has been called coercive persuasion, thought reform or “Brainwashing is ‘a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.’ [Citation.] The specific methods of indoctrination vary, but the basic theory is that brainwashing ‘is fostered through the creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy of the ability to think independently, which induces a subject’s unyielding compliance and rupture of past connections, affiliations, and associations.” Molko v. Holy Spirit Association [Footnote con’t.]


The imposition of such techniques forced them to abandon their identities and submit to Scientology’s authority. They were brainwashed by, among other techniques, being hooked up to a lie detector machine, called an “E-Meter,” whereby they were coercively indoctrinated with the Scientology’s peculiar definitions and meanings of words. This caused them to communicate in a language known only to Scientologists. The result of the indoctrination was blind acceptance of everything that Scientology promulgated, including the dissolution of their marriage. (Record No. 197 at 26, 32-34; Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶14.)

Both Aznarans were continuously subjected to techniques of coercive persuasion through which Scientology coercively inculcated them with its ideology and dominated them. Yielding to Scientology’s coercion, they were subject to Scientology’s domination and almost absolute control. The ideology included the premise that if they dis-affiliated with Scientology, each of them would be deemed a “suppressive person” against whom the “fair game policy” would be employed by Scientology.3

[Footnote con’t.] (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1109. Coercive persuasion often results in “serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide.” Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1118.

3 “. . .'[F]air game’ was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on ‘suppressives,’ which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a ‘suppressive,’ all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to ‘neutralize’ that individual – economically, politically and psychologically.” Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 888. The “fair game policy”, to be enforced against “enemies” or “suppressive persons” states that such [Footnote con’t]


After 15 years of deception, coercion, exploitation and abuse, Vicki Aznaran found herself in a potentially life-threatening circumstance at the end of March 1987. Having been incarcerated for almost two months under constantly cruel conditions in Scientology’s forced-labor camp dubbed “Rehabilitation Project Force” in the California desert near Gilman Hot Springs, Vicki’s uterus had become infected. She had been forced to run, not walk, at all times. She was compelled for long hours to perform hard physical labor on a daily basis and sometimes with a jackhammer from 7:00 a.m. until after night fell. She was not allowed adequate sleep or provided adequate food. She was at almost all times guarded by one or two people who constantly watched her, even as she used the bathroom. Additionally, on motorcycles and in jeeps armed security guards patrolled the fenced-in area where Vicki was incarcerated. Letters from Richard Aznaran, her husband, were not delivered and he was prohibited from visiting her.

She was prohibited from reading newspapers or books. At night, she was locked up. Despite her daily requests to see a doctor for her infected uterus and consequential fever, Vicki was denied medical attention. She was in physical pain. (Record No. 197 at 22-25; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.)

Terrified, Vicki managed to escape from the forced labor camp in the desert and fled to Hemet, a nearby town.

[Footnote con’t] person “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn. 1, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797.


Scientology leader David Miscavige and chief Security Checker, Ray Mithoff summoned Richard to Hemet where they interrogated him until 5:00 a.m. in an effort to get him to divorce Vicki because she was a “suppressive person.” Richard could not compromise his loyalty to his wife. He told Miscavige and Mithoff that he would try to salvage Vicki. They sent him to the hotel to talk her into returning to Scientology. (Record No. 197 at 25.)

From April 1, 1987 to April 9, 1987, with an exception of a trip to obtain medical attention for Vicki, Richard and Vicki were held at a hotel in Hemet. They had less than $50 between the two of them. They were surveilled 24 hours per day by plainclothes security guards from a local Scientology church. They were supposed to stay in the hotel room unless they specifically left to eat. Richard felt they were physically restrained from leaving the hotel. The Aznarans were told by Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff that they had to remain at the hotel until the Scientology leaders were finished with them and that if they failed to “cooperate” they would be declared to be suppressive persons and subject to the fair game policy. It was reiterated to the Aznarans that the only way to avoid being declared suppressive persons was to “cooperate.” (Record No. 197 at 26-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Vicki and Richard had a plan to leave the control of the Scientologists but only if they could accomplish it without being declared “fair game.” When Scientologists left without approval, they were declared “fair game.” Over the years, the Aznarans had seen what happened to people who were subjected to the fair game


policy after they had failed to cooperate with Scientology. The Aznarans knew that if they were not “fair game,” Scientology would “exercise some kind of restraint, whereas with fair game there would be no restraint.” (Record No. 197 at 2 6-29.)

The Scientology security guards held all their personal belongings, including a horse and two dogs, so as to further ensure the Aznarans’ cooperation. Vicki knew of others in the past whose belongings and pets were possessed by Scientology as they were leaving the organization. When such people had not “cooperated”, their pets were given away and belongings destroyed. (Record No. 197 at 26; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 5.)

While in the hotel room, Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff for hours at a time subjected both Richard and Vicki to “security checking” and “interviews.” Security checking is a form of interrogation employing the E-Meter lie detector. Security checking was a tool of thought reform and control employed by Scientology. Ray Mithoff was the highest trained and most senior security checker in all Scientology. During the time the Aznarans were confined to the hotel room, one of them would be getting security checked while the other was being interviewed by Mark Rathbun. (Record No. 197 at 28-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit B ¶¶ 3, 3A.)

During the course of the hours of security checking, Richard was reminded how powerful Scientology was and the type of command it could bring to bear upon him should he fail to cooperate fully. Much of the security checking interrogation was directed toward the reasons that the Aznarans wanted to leave Scientology. Specific


attention was paid to whether either of them harbored a secret motive for wanting to leave, whether they were going to go to the government with information concerning crimes being committed by Scientologists or their agents, give testimony or otherwise make information public that Scientology wanted kept secret. (Record No. 197 at 22-32; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 6; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.) Particular attention was also paid to interrogating the Aznarans on how much they knew about Scientology so the threat of their leaving could be analyzed. It was intimidating to be security checked by Ray Mithoff and the Aznarans “were in terrible fear that [they] would not be allowed to leave.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 3.)

The releases were not negotiated at all. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D ¶ 7.)

The Aznarans never requested any “loan” from Scientology. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.)

A few days before the Aznarans were allowed to leave the hotel, top Scientology leader, David Miscavige, came and spoke with them. In response to Miscavige’s inquiry as to their future plans, Richard told him that they had no specific plans, but intended to stay in Southern California and work something out. Miscavige was adamant that he wanted the Aznarans to “leave Southern California” and avoid contact with people they knew, but wanted them to go to Texas. Richard told him that as he had little money, he and Vicki would have to stay in California long enough to sell their horse and make some money to finance the trip. The following day, at


Miscavige’s request, Mark Rathbun suggested to Richard that Scientology purchase the horse from him as well as loan him some money so that he and Vicki could leave immediately for Texas. The Aznarans never requested any loan from Scientology. However, they were told that the reason for the loan was to keep them “out of enemy hands” and to ensure they would not be easy “prey” to those opposed to Scientology. Rathbun’s offer to purchase the horse was for the purpose of expediting our departure from California. Thus, the loan and the purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases. Rathbun’s statements to the contrary are false. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 7; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7; Record No. 197 at 32. Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.) The Scientologists wanted the Aznarans “out of California quickly so we would not be served with any subpoenas in the cases that were going on against them at that time.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at f 7.) Scientology did not pay $300 more for the horse than had Richard; it paid $300 less. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 13.)

That Scientology wanted to indemnify Vicki with respect to any lawsuit wherein she might be named was in order to maintain control over her and prevent her from testifying in a hostile manner in any litigation to which Scientology was a party or to any governmental agency. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.) With respect to the ongoing case entitled Stansfield. et al. v. Starkey, et al.. wherein Vicki was at that time named as a defendant, Mark Rathbun “specifically brought up the indemnification” and “warned us that we were to contact him should there be any contact concerning this


litigation or any other litigation in which Scientology was involved. The purpose was to protect Scientology’s interest however and certainly not ours.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4b.)

There had been a fire at one of the Scientology ranches where Richard had worked. It destroyed all his belongings concerning which a claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than wait in California, Richard was -given $1,040.90, the value of his belongings destroyed in the fire. His understanding is that the money would later be reimbursed by the insurance company. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 8; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Richard was also paid $387.37 in wages, according to Scientology’s rules, that was owed to him for the pay period immediately preceding his departure from Scientology. However, it did not include any compensation for the many hundreds of hours of work he had performed, but been forbidden to include on his time card during the previous 13 months that he had worked for Scientology leader, Norman Starkey. He was supposed to have received minimum wage. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at f 9; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Through earlier contacts as a staff member with Scientology’s dirty tricks unit known first as the Guardian’s Office and then as the Office of Special Affairs, Richard had seen various policies concerning releases. Releases were to executed by every public and staff Scientologist before and after every single service received. Guardian’s Office personnel and Scientology attorney John Peterson


told Richard that the releases were unenforceable and for purposes of deterrence only. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 5; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 4.)

In order to dis-affiliate with Scientology without being declared “suppressive” and thereby subject to “fair game,” the Aznarans did what they were told by the Scientologists. This included signing stacks of documents which they did not, with any care, read. Two of Scientology’s attorneys were also present when the Aznarans complied with Scientology’s orders and signed the papers whatever papers they were given. Richard said all the releases and other papers were “all handed to me at the same time. I just signed them.” (Record No. 197 at 29-30; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 3.) Vicki said “we were being watched by guards . . . and we were extremely afraid of being declared fair game if we did not cooperate. I was in a very bad physical and mental state and would have signed anything in order to get away.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Neither of the Aznarans “carefully” read the Mutual Releases and Settlement Agreements. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4a.) Any statements by Mark Rathbun to the contrary are false. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 2.)

At the time Vicki and Richard signed whatever releases where presented to them at the hotel, it was stressed that if they “spoke to government agents about any ‘confidential information’ [they] had concerning the cult that [they] would be in violation of [their] agreements and that [they] would be sued.” Additionally,


they were directed to “withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice.” Richard concluded that “with the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities, [he] certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 6.)

The Aznarans did not have the benefit of legal counsel. In fact, it was made clear that they could not seek other counsel. Id. Despite their repeated requests for a copy of the releases over many months following the Aznarans’ move to Dallas, Texas, the Aznarans were not provided copies of the papers they had been forced to sign until shortly before the instant lawsuit was filed. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶¶ 2B, 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶¶ 2, 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 13.)

The Aznarans do not believe that the releases and waivers supplied by Scientology in support of itself in the instant lawsuit were the papers that they signed in the hotel room in Hemet. In fact, what Scientology now asserts as the releases include more pages that what Richard recalls having signed (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 11; Record No. 197 at 30-31.)

C. The Substance Of The Releases

The alleged releases in question provide, in part, that the Aznarans would be bound as follows:

To “release, acquit and forever discharge . . . the


CHURCH . . . from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions and causes of action of every kind and nature, known and unknown, from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof.” (¶ 3 of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing, or to broadcast, or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape, any show, program or movie, concerning [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology, or personal or indirectly acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any entities or individuals listed in Paragraph 1, above. [Plaintiff] further agrees that [he/she] will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information [he/she] may have concerning the Church of Scientology . . ..” (¶ 6.C. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

To “not voluntarily assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the religion of Scientology in any proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations, or cooperate with any person adverse to any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, in any proceeding against any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Plaintiffs] also [agree] [they] will not cooperate in any


manner with any organizations aligned against Scientology and any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, (¶ 6.E. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Will “not testify or otherwise participate in any other judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology or any of the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other awful process. Unless required to do so by such subpoena, [plaintiffs] [agree] not to discuss [his/her] experiences or personal or indirectly acquired information concerning the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1, with anyone other than members of [his/her] immediate family. [Plaintiffs] shall not make [themselves] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this agreement. . .” (f 6.F. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)



A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal

l. Introduction

Scientology’s indefatigable effort, now through this appeal, has been and is to silence the appellees Aznaran who by first-hand experience possess comprehensive knowledge of the nature and


conduct of Scientology. Such knowledge was gleaned first, from the ground up, and later, from the top down. Scientology would have this Court prohibit the Aznarans from providing aid and support to litigants adverse to Scientology, such as Bent Corydon, whom Scientology has harmed. To do this, Scientology would have this Court enforce agreements that are illegal.

Such illegality lies in the agreements’ would-be legal effect: the judicially enforced suppression of any information that would discredit Scientology or expose its criminal activities. Such a legal effect would corrupt and pervert the time-tested and result-approved objective of all judicial proceedings: the search for and ascertainment of truth. Were such to occur, litigation to which Scientology was a party would become a travesty of justice and, for the opposing party, a paradigm of fundamental unfairness.

2. Standard Of Review

With respect to a contract the validity of which is challenged on public policy grounds, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to show that its enforcement would be in violation of the settled public policy of this state, or injurious to the morals of its people.” People v. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596, 5597. As to the judiciary, before “labelling a contract as being contrary to public policy, courts must carefully inquire into the nature of the conduct, the extent of public harm which may be involved, and the moral quality of the conduct of the parties in light of the prevailing standards of the community.” Ibid.


3. Preliminary Legal Principles

In his work Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 at 738, Professor Pomeroy states:

“Whenever a party, who as an actor, sets the judicial machinery in motion to obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, where a contract is made either (1) to achieve an illegal purpose, or (2) by means of consideration that is not legal, the contract itself is void. Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts, § 441 at 396. (Hereinafter”Witkin, § ____ at ____.”) Since an illegal contract is void, it cannot be ratified by an subsequent act, and no person can be estopped to deny its validity. Witkin, § 442, at 396; First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388, 405-406; Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748, 759 [“A contract void because it stipulates for doing what the law prohibits is incapable of being ratified.”]

A party need not plead the illegality as a defense and the failure to do so constitutes no waiver. In fact, the point may be raised at any time, in the trial court or on appeal, by either the parties or on the court’s own motion. Witkin, § 444, at 397; LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 75, 102 Cal.Rptr. 588 [“When the court discovers a fact which indicates that the contract is illegal and ought not to be enforced, it will, of its own


motion, instigate an inquiry in relation thereto.”]; Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-148, 308 P.2d 713 [“[T]he court has both the power and the duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummation or encouragement of what public policy forbids [and] may do so on its own motion.”].

Thus, the court will look through provisions that may appear valid on their face, and with the aid of parol evidence, determine that the contract is actually illegal or is part of an illegal transaction. Id. 48 Cal.2d at 148 [“[A] court must be free to search out illegality lying behind the forms in which the parties have cast the transaction to conceal such illegality.”]; Witkin, § 445 at 398.

There are two reasons for the rule prohibiting judicial enforcement, by any court, of illegal contracts.

“[T]he courts will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act [because] Knowing that they will receive no help form the courts . . . the parties are less likely to enter into an illegal agreement in the first place.”

Lewis & Queen, supra , 48 Cal.2d at 149 [308 P.2d at 719].

“This rule is not generally applied to secure justice between parties who have made an illegal contract, but from regard for a higher interest – that of the public, whose welfare demands that certain transactions be discouraged.” (Emphasis added.)

Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252, 254.

Illegal contracts are matters which implicate public policy. Public policy has purposefully been a “vague expression .


[that] has been left loose and free of definition in the same manner as fraud.” Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 575, 261 P. 2d 721. Public policy means “anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel is against public policy.” Ibid. Therefore,”[a] contract made contrary to public policy may not serve as the foundation of any action, either in law or in equity, [Citation] and the parties will be left where they are found when they come to court for relief. [Citation.]” Tiedie v. Aluminum Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 454, 296 P.2d 554.

“It is well settled that agreements against public policy and sound morals will not be enforced by the courts. It is a general rule that all agreements relating to proceedings in court which involve anything inconsistent with [the] full and impartial course of justice therein are void, though not open to the actual charge of corruption.”

Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34, 36; Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. 71 Cal.App. 492

B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void

The consideration for a promise must be lawful. Civil Code § 1607. Moreover, “[i]f any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1608. Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 414, 233 P.2d 606. “In other words, where the illegal consideration goes to the whole of the promise, the entire contract is illegal.” Witkin, § 429 at 386;


Morev v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727, 738 [“The desire and intention of the parties [to violate public policy] entered so fundamentally into the inception and consideration of the transaction as to render the terms of the contract nonseverable, and it is wholly void.”].

In Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the California Court of Appeal adopted section 557 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts prohibiting as illegal those agreements which sought to suppress the disclosure of discreditable facts. The court stated:

“A bargain that has for its consideration the nondisclosure of discreditable facts … is illegal. … In many cases falling within the rule stated in the section the bargain is illegal whether or not the threats go so far as to bring the case within the definition of duress. In some cases, moreover, disclosure may be proper or even a duty, and the offer to pay for nondisclosure may be voluntarily made. Nevertheless the bargain is illegal. Moreover, even though the offer to pay for nondisclosure is voluntarily made and though there is not duty to make disclosure or propriety in doing so, a bargain to pay for nondisclosure is illegal.” (Emphasis added.)

Brown 28 Cal.App.2d at 618.

In Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31, the court did not allow a breach of contract action to be litigated because it involved a contract that was void for illegality. In Allen, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract which he subsequently amended five times. Plaintiff, a union member, was entitled by his collective bargaining agreement to have a fair and impartial arbitration to determine the truth or


falsity of the allegations against him of theft and dishonesty. The allegations of the amended complaints stated that there had been an agreement between the parties whereby defendant laid off plaintiff, defendant’s employee, and allowed plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits and union benefits. “Defendants also agreed that they would not communicate to third persons, including prospective employers, that plaintiff was discharged or resigned for dishonesty, theft, a bad employment attitude and that defendants would not state they would not rehire plaintiff.” Id. at 163. Plaintiff alleged there had been a breach in that defendants had communicated to numerous persons, including potential employers and the Department of Human Resources and Development, that plaintiff was dishonest and guilty of theft and for that reason had resigned for fear of being discharged for those reasons, that plaintiff had a bad attitude and that defendants would not rehire him. Plaintiff alleged as a result of the breach he suffered a loss of unemployment benefits, union benefits and earnings. The court held that the plaintiff had bargained for an act that was illegal by definition, the withholding of information from the Department of Human Resources Development. It stated:

“The nondisclosure was not a minor or indirect part of the contract, but a major and substantial consideration of the agreement. A bargain which includes as part of its consideration nondisclosure of discreditable facts is illegal. (See Brown v. Freese, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, 618 [83 P.2d 82.].) It has long been hornbook law that consideration which is void for illegality is no consideration at all. [Citation.]” Id. 52 Cal.App.3d at 166.


C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void

The object of a contract must be lawful. Civil Code § 1550. If the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful, the entire contract is void. Civil Code § 1598. Civil Code § 1667 defines unlawfulness as that which is either “[[c]ontrary to an express provision of the law,” or is “[c]ontrary to the policy of the express law, though not expressly prohibited” or is “[o]therwise contrary to good morals.”
Civil Code § 1668 states:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Further, an agreement to suppress evidence or to conceal a witness is illegal. Witkin, § 611 at 550. Penal Code §§ 136, 136.1, and 138. In Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871, a licensed physician was alleged to have repeatedly engaged in the sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. A civil lawsuit arising from the molestations had been settled and the file sealed. In the order dismissing the action by stipulation and sealing the court files, the trial court, at the request of the parties, ordered the parties, their agents and representatives never to discuss the case with anyone. The appellate court found such “confidentiality” was against public policy. That court stated:


”The stipulated order of confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial justice shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete evidence in the case from the very public agency charged with the responsibility of policing the medical profession. We believe it clearly improper, even on stipulation of the parties, for the court to issue an order designed not to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the administration of justice [Citation], but to subvert public policy by shielding the doctor from governmental investigation designed to protect the public from misconduct within the medical profession, and which may disclose a professional license of this state was used to establish a relationship which subjected a juvenile patient to criminal conduct. Such a stipulation is against public policy, similar to an agreement to conceal judicial proceedings and to obstruct justice. . . Accordingly, . . . such a contract made in violation of established public policy will not be enforced . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 316-317.

Similarly, in Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 570, 571-572, the court invalidated a settlement agreement provision. It stated:

“It was contended by the Respondent that this was nothing more than a payment of a sum of money by way of a compromise of litigation, and that such contracts have been upheld. We do not so construe the agreement. It was a promise to pay a consideration for the concealment of a fact from the court and the parties material to the rights of said parties, and which it was her duty to make known. Such a contract was against public policy.”

In the instant case, the releases are void because they violate the public policy prohibiting the obstruction of justice by suppressing evidence of illegal conduct that is criminal and



D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal

1. Scientology’s Contentions

Scientology contends that the Aznarans have “blatantly disregarded their promises not to divulge information about the Church and not to cooperate or appear voluntarily in other proceedings against the Church” (Brief for Appellants at 9-10) in the following ways:

(1) From March 18 to 30, 1988, the Aznarans met with Joseph A. Yanny, a former attorney for Scientology who at that time was not (but in the future would be) in litigation with Scientology.

(2) In June 1988, the Aznarans met with reporters for the Los Angeles Times newspaper.

(3) As recently as September 1989, the Aznarans met with and submitted declarations on behalf of Bent Corydon, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401.

(4) Vicki J. Aznaran met with an attorney in other Scientology litigation, currently before the Honorable James M. Ideman, entitled Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI and in October 1988 filed a declaration therein. 4

For reasons that will become more apparent below, Scientology has not included in its litany of the “breaches” of the “release” it attributes to the Aznarans an interview with agents of the Internal Revenue Service that took place on [Footnote Con’t.]


Scientology claims such disclosures constitute irreparable injury because they disclose:

“confidential information about internal Church affairs, including subjects such as internal Church management, structure and activities, and information learned during attorney-client privileged discussions during the time when Vicki acted on behalf of one of the appellants [Religious Technology Center], information as to her own experiences with the Church, including her employment history, her claims in this lawsuit, and information allegedly imparted to her by senior officials of Scientology organizations when she was a fiduciary.”

(Brief for Appellants at 11.)

2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran1s Declarations

Vicki Aznaran submitted six declarations concerning which Scientology claims she has breached the “release.” However, as a quick perusal of the substance of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations will illustrate, Scientology’s “releases” are void. At best, the information imparted by Ms. Aznaran concerns facts which discredit Scientology. At worst, such information concerns criminal activity.

a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988

Vicki Aznaran’s October 27, 1988 declaration in the Corydon litigation was in support of a motion seeking service of a Summons

[Footnote Con’t.] May 19, 1988. (Record No. 168 at p. 2 [Memorandum in Support of Motion for Production of Audio Tape [of I.R.S. interview].])

Similarly, among the complained of “breaches” Scientology has failed to mention an interview between Brett Pruitt, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Aznarans. (Record No. 252 at 3.)


and Complaint by publication of defendant David Miscavige. The facts of which Vicki Aznaran had first-hand knowledge which she set forth in her declaration include the following:

¶ 2. As one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and upon the basis of her position in upper management, Vicki was a member of the “Sea Organization” (“Sea Org”) and was familiar with Scientology’s methods of organization, authority and control. The Sea Org would send its members to individual Scientology organizations wherein such Sea Org personnel would exercise “unlimited power to handle ethics [discipline], tech and administration.” Sea Org personnel would be sent to Scientology organizations when said organization were making insufficient profits. Such personnel “can take any action they deem necessary . . . to accomplish their ends. They can control the funds of that organization and its personnel. They can remove personnel and post personnel. They can transfer funds to the Sea Org organizations or spend funds as they see fit.

¶ 3. The real management of all Scientology organizations is comprised of Sea Org members. Scientology management will designate persons to be the “figurehead” officers of its corporations, but they will possess little, if any actual power, over that particular organization. Officers of Scientology corporations are to be mere figure heads; the directors have more power and there are “trustees who are over the very top corporations who can remove directors. These trustees hold the power as regards Scientology’s money, assets, personnel, etc. The top trustees of Scientology when I was director of RTC were David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey.”

¶ 6. Spurlock controlled all tax matters for Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International/ Author Services/ Inc./ Church of Scientology of California and Church of Spiritual Technology. When Vicki was the president of Religious Technology Center, Spurlock would issue orders to her. Spurlock, Starkey and Miscavige chose the directors, trustees and officers for RTC, CSI and CST.

¶ 7. Starkey and Miscavige supervised and controlled all litigation matters for Scientology. In 1982 both Starkey and Miscavige ordered Vicki to obtain a private investigator to compromise Judge Krentzman of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, because he “had been giving Scientology unfavorable rulings.” In 1986, they ordered certain


Scientology corporations to settle cases in which such corporations had been named defendants. The officers and directors of the corporations did not know the terms of the settlements.

¶ 9. Part of the strategy for the manner in which Scientology manages its enterprises is “to shield its management from legal process. Front men are designated to hold figurehead posts, while real management power is held by others outside the corporate structure. To this end, Scientology will go to extreme lengths to conceal upper management personnel from service of process, subpoenas and depositions. . . For example, in 1984 when the IRS was conducting a criminal investigation against various Scientology entities, the personnel who had knowledge of criminal behavior as regards Scientology’s funds were hidden or sent away. Fran Harris . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. Mark Ingber . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. . . . Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock took great precautions with their travels, offices and residences so that they could not be found or served.”

¶ 12 I have reason to believe that documents which would
normally reflect traditional criteria of the managing agent relationship between Scientology and Mssrs. Spurlock and Starkey have either been concealed or destroyed by Scientology. For example, at Mr. Starkey”s direction, I destroyed such information as it related to the involvement and control over Scientology By L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Starkey and Mr. David Miscavige.”

(Exhibit A.l to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988

On November 30, 1988, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. As President of RTC and a member of the Sea Org in 1985 Vicki “attended a Scientology conference on splinter groups, i.e. groups of ex-Scientologists, often called “squirrels.”

¶ 3. This meeting was attended by Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock and David Miscavige. At the meeting Miscavige “ordered that Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack Squirrels and disrupt their operations. Bent Corydon . . . was included in this target group.”


¶ 4. “This order represented an on-going policy that started before 1985 and was still in effect when I left Scientology in 1987.”
(Exhibit A.2 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989

On February 8, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation.
Among other things, it stated:

¶ 1. When she was President of RTC, it “claimed to own the various Scientology trademarks and functioned as an enforcer of the ‘purity’ of Scientology as interpreted by its power hierarchy. This enforcement power extended, in diverse ways, over the functioning of supposedly independent Scientology corporations. . . “I also had access to many of the business and litigation secrets of Scientology, including its many dirty tricks projects.

¶ 2. “In 1985, I attended a meeting called by David Miscavige . . . present were Norman Starkey (President of ASI) and Lyman Spurlock. These three . . . were the managing agents of Scientology at that time. . . The meeting was called to discuss legal matters of all the Scientology entities. Most of the important decisions for Scientology corporations ASI (Author Services, Inc.), SMI (Scientology Missions International), RTC (Religious Technology Center), Bridge, CSI (Church of Scientology International), etc.) were handled at meetings like this without the presence or input from the officers of the separate corporations because the control of all Scientology was principally in the hands of Hubbard, Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock.

¶ 3. “Miscavige told the meeting that Scientology organizations had not been aggressive enough in combatting squirrels (individuals who had broken with the Church of Scientology but were still using ideas similar to Scientology).” Such persons are on “Scientology’s list of enemies and subject to Scientology’s ‘fair game’ policy. ‘Fair game’ is a policy (actually it is a part of Hubbard’s ‘scriptural’ writings) which mandates that the enemies of Scientology may be ‘deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.'”


“Miscavige told those at the meeting that they should take the lead from Hubbard’s suggestions of violence and personal attacks against squirrels both as written in the fair game policy and in Professional Auditor’s Bulletin No. 53 in which Hubbard said the way to treat a squirrel is to hurt him to hard that he ‘would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck” and, Hubbard continued, ‘I don’t mean thought-wise.”

¶ 4. Actions against squirrels were commenced and “I received reports of such completed actions. These actions included, but were not limited to burglaries, stealing records, and sending provocateurs to infiltrate squirrel events and to provoke fights. These activities were also directed against Bent Corydon, including break-ins at his office, physical attacks upon him, and the use of spies to infiltrate his group.”

¶ 5. Whenever Scientology discovers that a book critical of it or L. Ron Hubbard is going to be published, “a three pronged attack is set into motion. Scientology’s intelligence arm (now the Office of Special Affairs and previously the Guardian’s Office) commences data gathering including covert operations to obtain data on the author and get a copy of the manuscript, etc. Scientology’s legal staff is activated to determine how to prevent publication by legal means or threats of suit. The public relations staff are also activated … to design plans to attack the author’s credibility …”

¶ 6. In late 1985, “Scientology became aware that Bent Corydon was writing a book critical of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Therefore, the attacks of him became more important and plans were designed to meet the three objectives: legal, intelligence and public relations. This type of plan involved decision making, people and money from several of the ‘separate’ Scientology organizations under the direction of Miscavige.”

¶ 7. “When Scientology organizations undertake illegal operations, little in the way of written records are kept. However, as President of RTC I would regularly receive envelopes with unsigned papers detailing the specifics of operations targeted against enemies and announcing successful actions. I specifically recall seeing one such report outlining the attacks on Corydon on account of his book.”

(Exhibit A.4 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)


d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989

On September 26, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. Vicki was the President of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) from 1983 to 1987. RTC is the most powerful corporation controlled by Scientology.

¶ 3. One of the “foremost enemies” of Scientology is a person labelled a “Squirrel”, someone who practices Scientology on his own and threatens Scientology’s profitability because Scientology does not get money from such practice. “Squirrels are despised and persecuted in Scientology.”

¶ 4. David Miscavige is the most powerful person in Scientology with whom and other “top officials of Scientology organizations” Vicki attended meetings “to review the status of all Scientology’s activities including its litigation and dirty tricks campaigns against Scientology’s enemies.”

¶ 6. At one meeting in 1984 or 1985 Miscavige instructed those present that “all of Scientology should be more aggressive in their fair game attacks upon and injuries inflicted on Scientology’s enemies, especially squirrels.” “Bent Corydon was a hated squirrel who vexed Scientology’s leadership by his refusal to give up his outspoken position.”

¶ 8. “Miscavige meant all types of attack be used, including physical attacks, defamation, and efforts to cause Corydon to go into bankruptcy” pursuant to Scientology’s “scripture” known as the “fair game” policy which dictates that enemies may be “Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist, without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, lied to, sued or destroyed.”

¶ 9. Because Vicki was president of RTC she knew “that fair game actions against enemies were commonplace. In addition to the litigation tactics described below, fair game activities included burglaries, assaults, disruption of enemies1 businesses, spying, harrassive investigations, abuse of confidential information in parishioner files and so on.”


¶ 11 “Ultimate control of all Scientology corporations rested with Miscavige . . ..”

(Exhibit A.5 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989

In the same case in the Corydon litigation, appellee Richard N. Aznaran submitted a declaration dated October 31, 1989, on behalf of Bent Corydon, wherein among other things he stated the following:

¶ When he left Scientology in 1987 he “had been in security and intelligence operations for the most senior management of Scientology for five years.” He “reported to and was directed by David Miscavige” who “particularly detested Bent Corydon an ex-Scientology ‘squirrel’ who had defected in 1982.”

If “I was instructed by David Miscavige . . . specifically . . . “that if I could I was to hurt Corydon physically if I could arrange for it to appear justified.”

¶ “On the next occasion . . . security guards, under my direction, jostled Corydon and placed him under ‘citizens arrest1 for trespassing. In actual fact Corydon never set foot on our property not did he represent any harm or threat of harm.”

¶ “Later, Miscavige called me to his office . . . and was yelling at me and threatening me with loss of my position and with ethics conditions [discipline] for not having carried out Miscavige’s instructions.”

“The bottom line was that Miscavige wanted Corydon physically and mentally punished.

(Exhibit A.6 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

If this Court enforced the “releases,” Corydon would not have the benefit of the Aznarans’ voluntary cooperation in the form of sworn statements. Were Corydon deprived of such cooperation, the result would be “to subvert the truth and pervert justice through fraud, trickery and chicanery at the hands of unscrupulous


[persons].” Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654, 657, 658 [Agreement was void “as tending to obstruct and impair the administration of justice, and therefore as contrary to public policy.”].

4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation

On May 19, 1988, the Aznarans were interviewed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for eight hours on the subject of their knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 168 at 3:12-4:27.) In addition to this, an F.B.I, agent named Brett Pruitt interviewed Vicki Aznaran for six hours in 1988 on the subject of her knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 246 at 3:3-9.)

Obstruction of criminal investigations is included within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 which “was designed to deter the coercion of potential witnesses by the subjects of federal criminal investigations prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317, 320; United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9, 20-21. Its purpose is to “extend protection . . . afforded witnesses, jurors and others in judicial, administrative and congressional proceedings to ‘potential informants or witnesses’ and to those who communicate information to Federal investigators prior to a case reaching court.” United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062, 1065.

Scientology has a history of implementing strategies to avoid accountability for its criminal conduct. Thus, in relation to


Scientology in United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64, 75, Judge Richey found a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510. He stated:

“When an organized group [Scientology] attempts to prevent one of its members from withdrawing from a conspiracy, surrendering to federal investigators, and detailing the criminal offenses committed by the other members of the group, plainly a violation of section 1510 is made out.”

The information possessed by both Vicki and Richard Aznaran pertains to both criminal conduct perpetrated by Scientology including the secreting of witnesses during I.R.S. investigations and the destruction of documents. Judicial enforcement of the”releases” would conflict with the intent and purpose of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1510. As was the case in Hubbard, Scientology’s attempts to judicially enforce the “releases” are further attempts to prevent witnesses or participants, including the Aznarans, from withdrawing from the conspiracies of Scientology by sealing their lips, from communicating with federal investigators and from detailing the
criminal activities of the enterprise. Moreover, where funds are provided to one with “the specific intent to buy his silence,” United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314, 318, both bribery has been perpetrated and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510.5

5 Given Scientology’s tradition as set forth in various official reports and the former high rank of the Aznarans with their concomitant knowledge of Scientology’s activities, it would be consistent for Scientology to attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to silence the Aznarans. See Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, 443, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) [“[Scientology] has violated well-defined standards of public policy by conspiring to prevent the IRS from assessing and collecting [Footnote Con’t.]


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) bribery of a witness is defined, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person . . . with intent to influence such person to absent himself [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), in pertinent part, defines bribery of as witness as:

Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person . . . for or because of such person’s absence [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

The “releases” are intended to obstruct justice and suppress evidence. Only information compelled by subpoena can be disclosed and that can take place only after either one of the Aznarans”shall not make [himself/herself] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this
agreement.” Even if the federal obstruction statutes are not violated, the “release” comes so close to the line as to indisputably violate the public policy prohibiting the suppression

[Footnote Con’t.] taxes due from [Scientology].”]; United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238 [Scientology criminal convictions in connection with the burglary of and conspiracy against the I.R.S.]; Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 [Former Scientologist falsely accused of grand theft and subjected arrest and imprisonment in consequence of application of “Fair Game Policy”]; Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra , 212 Cal.App.3d at 888 [Retributive conduct per the “Fair Game Policy” constitutes modern day parallel to the inquisition of the middle ages.]


of evidence of discreditable facts or criminal conduct.

5. Conclusion

It is indisputable that the violations of the releases, solely as they apply to Corydon. concern the disclosure of both discreditable facts and criminal activity orchestrated by Scientology’s leaders. It is clear that the object of the “releases” was to prevent such information from ever seeing the light of day. It is equally clear that the “consideration” for the “benefits” Scientology claims the Aznarans have received was the nondisclosure of facts which tend to both discredit Scientology and reveal that it is an organization that is, in substantial part, criminal in nature. Therefore, the “releases” which Scientology would have this Court compel enforcement by reversing Judge Ideman’s denial of preliminary injunction, are void. Similarly, the “releases” intended to prevent the Aznarans from cooperating with federal agencies investigating Scientology. Thus, the “releases” could in fact violate federal statutes prohibiting the obstruction of justice.



In essence, Scientology has sought judicial relief in order to compel the Aznarans’ specific performance of the alleged”releases.” Scientology would have the Court force the Aznarans to drop their lawsuit and to remain mute in relation to their knowledge of the wrongdoing of Scientology. Such would constitute specific performance of the “releases.”


Civil Code § 3423 provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specific

ally enforced. Scientology could never obtain specific performance of the releases at issue because, as shown above, those releases are voId.
In this regard, the California Court of Appeal stated:

“courts will not compel parties to perform contracts which have for their object the performance of acts against sound public policy either by decreeing specific performance or awarding damages for breach. [Citation.] Ordinarily, the parties to a contract, void because contrary to public policy will be left where they are, when they come to the court for relief.”

Stanley v. Robert S. Odell & Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 521, 218 P.2d 162, 169; Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253, 254.

Therefore, upon this ground as well, the denial, below, of preliminary injunction sought by Scientology is justified



A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed

The grant of a preliminary injunction is a “drastic and unusual judicial measure,” Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330, 334, and “an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted as an exception rather than as the rule.” Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22, 28.

“The award of such relief is not a matter of right, even though the petitioner claims and may incur irreparable injury. The matter is


addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and absent a strong showing of need, it need not be granted. Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414, 440. Where an injunction may adversely affect a public interest, the Court, in its exercise of discretion, may withhold such relief even though such denial may prove burdensome and cause hardship to the petitioner.” Marine Transport, supra , at 335.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits. When mandatory, rather than prohibitive, relief is sought, those seeking relief must “clearly establish that a change in the status quo is warranted.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif.1984) 611 F.Supp. 990, 1001.

The purpose and scope of appellate review of a preliminary injunction is the propriety of its issuance:

“While the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in light of the applicable standard constituted an abuse of discretion.” (Emphasis Added)

Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 457, 36 L.Ed.2d 420 See also Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 931-932, 45 L.Ed.2d 648.

The Supreme Court has affirmed this standard in a case in the face of a claim wherein First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were asserted to have been implicated as the basis for “different treatment.” Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 1308, 62 L.Ed.2d 454. The Supreme Court stated:

“[A] trial judge’s determination of a


preliminary injunction should be reversed by this Court or by other appellate courts in the federal system only when the judge’s ‘discretion was improvidently exercised.’ [Citations.]” Id. at 1307.

The Court specifically rejected arguments by the Synanon Church that review of a district court’s decision was subject to a different standard of review simply because a church contended an impact upon its Constitutional Rights.

“Applicants contend, however, that by reason of the fact that they are a church, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution they are somehow entitled to different treatment than that accorded to other charitable trusts. But we held only last Term that state courts might resolve property disputes in which hierarchical church organizations were involved in accordance with ‘neutral principles’ of state law. [Citations omitted.]” Id. at 1307-1308.

B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment

Generally speaking, for the court of appeal to determine whether the District Court has abused its discretion it must:

“Consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . the [reviewing] court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the [district court].”

(Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416; See, Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750, 752. Thus, a ruling on a preliminary injunction “will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had
applied the law to the facts of the case. [Citation.]”


International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547, 550.

Indeed, when deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court “is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141, 143.

The standard of review for an exercise of discretion in the denial of a preliminary injunction was clearly stated by this Circuit in Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328. In Chism, the district court, in an exercise of its discretion, entered an order of dismissal against the plaintiff for failure to comply with the court’s rules. The Ninth Circuit upheld the sanction of dismissal as being within the sound discretion of the trial court. It stated:

“The rule in this circuit, often reiterated, is that the trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors. [Citations omitted.] In applying the quoted standard of review, we must remember that the district court, not this court, exercises the discretion.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1331.

Furthermore, the trial court’s findings regarding disputed facts are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See, J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187; Fabrege Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426. Therefore, provided that the District Court has not based
its decision to deny a preliminary injunction “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact” Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th


Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719, 725, such that “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364, 395, the reviewing court is “bound by the district court’s resolution of conflicting evidence and other
findings of fact.” Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817, 818.

C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case

The Ninth Circuit has noted that review of a preliminary injunction is much more limited than review of a permanent injunction:

“Our review of the district court at this stage of the proceeding is very limited. . .. The district court’s grant of the injunction must be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521, 523; Accord, S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945; Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130, 1133-1134, 1135 fn. 5.

A preliminary injunction is merely “an equitable tool for preserving rights pending final resolution of the dispute.” Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software. Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415, 1423. Thus, appellate review:

“of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is therefore much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction where all conclusions of law are


freely reviewable.” (Emphasis added.)

Sports Form, supra , 686 F.2d at 752.

The Supreme Court has stated:

“Preliminary injunctions are appealable to protect litigants from the potential irreparable consequences of erroneously issued injunctions, not to give litigants a preliminary opportunity to appeal their cases on the merits.” (Emphasis added.)

Carson v. American Brands. Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79, 83-86, In fact, “where the granting of a preliminary injunction would give to a plaintiff all the actual advantage which he could obtain as a result of a final adjudication of the controversy in his favor, a motion for a preliminary injunction ordinarily should be
denied.” Kass v. Arden-Mayfair. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037, 1041.

Unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial judge made a clear error of judgment such as to render the discretionary denial of a preliminary injunction clearly unreasonable, the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction must be upheld.

D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways

The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the District Court and will be reversed only if the District Court abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129, 1132. A district judge may abuse his discretion in any of three ways:


“(1) he may apply incorrect substantive law or an incorrect preliminary injunction standard; (2) he may rest his decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction on a clearly erroneous finding of fact that is material to the decision to grant or deny the injunction; or (3) he may apply an acceptable preliminary injunction standard in a manner that results in an abuse of discretion.” Zepeda, supra . 753 F.2d at 724.

Thus, a district court’s order is reversible for legal error if the court failed to employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction or, if in applying the appropriate standards, the court failed to apply the proper law in connection with the underlying issues in the litigation.

Finally, where the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction is based upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, it is reversible. Id. at 724-725; Accord, Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701, 704. Legal issues underlying the preliminary injunction decision are reviewed de novo. Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473, 1478.

E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction

In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one of two tests. Under the first test, the court may issue a preliminary injunction if it finds that:

“(1) the [moving party] will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the [moving party] will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the [non-moving party] will not be harmed more than [the moving party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. [Citation omitted.]”


Alternatively under the second test:

“A court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates ‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. [Citation omitted.] Under this last part of the alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits. [Citation omitted.] There is one additional factor which we must weigh. In cases … in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction. [Citation omitted.]”

Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670, 674-675. The two formulations of the alternative test”represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases [Citation.] Under any formulation of the test, there must be a demonstration that there “exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, Inc., supra . 762 F.2d at 1376.

Also, in certain cases, “the public interest is an important factor.” Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, 1498, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).




A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable

A preliminary injunction is an “an exceptional remedy [to be] granted only in exceptional circumstances where its compulsory quality is appropriate.” In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451, 454. It is sought upon the theory

“that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action and cannot complain of the delay involved pending any final relief to which it may be entitled after a trial of all the issues.”

Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618, 622; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273, 276. Thus, party resisting a motion for a preliminary injunction may argue that the lapse of time between the filing of an action and moving therein for a preliminary injunction indicates an absence of any injury that is irreparable. In order to be effective, such delay need not rise to the level required to assert the equitable defense of laches.

“Although a particular period of delay may not rise to the level of laches and thereby bar a permanent injunction, it may still indicate an absence of the kind of irreparable injury required to support a preliminary injunction.”

Id. 756 F.2d at 275-276. In Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macv & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7, a case trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought to enjoin certain conduct of defendant concerning


which it had been aware at the time it filed its lawsuit. It waited seven months before moving for a preliminary injunction. Reversing the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit found even though there was not a defense of laches, plaintiff had not been entitled to a preliminary injunction. It

“Lack of diligence, standing alone, may, however, preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief, because it goes primarily to the issue of irreparable harm . . ..”

Id. 762 F.2d at 8.

In Le Sportsac. Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602, plaintiff delayed nearly one year before seeking relief by way of preliminary injunction. The trial court stated”[d]elay of this nature undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.” Id. 478 F.Supp. at 609. See, Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270, 1275 [Deprivation of constitutional rights failed to overcome unjustified delay in seeking preliminary injunction.]; Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419
F.Supp. 1251, 1255 [Ten week delay after commencement of action “evidences a lack of irreparable injury and constitutes a separate ground” for denial of preliminary injunction.]; Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845, 856 [Three month delay in bankruptcy proceeding before seeking preliminary injunction: “Such a delay negates the very purpose for which an injunction serves.”]; National Customs Brokers and


Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511, 1517 [While plaintiff’s exhaustion of alternative remedies “cannot be faulted the court is not convinced that each step towards a preliminary injunction has been pursued at a pace consistent with a necessity for immediate action to prevent further harm.”]

The Ninth Circuit applies the same rule. In Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211, this Circuit held that a “delay in seeking a preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in weighing the propriety of relief. . . By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need
for speedy action. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 1213. Thus, a plaintiff’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374, 1377.

1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

Scientology, in its “Brief for Appellants”, asserts that it suffers irreparable injury for the following reasons:
The instant litigation implicates what Scientology describes as “complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendant’s religious practices and beliefs.” (Appellants’ Brief at 3 3.)

“Litigation of such issues as religiosity, the truth or falsity of religious doctrine, and the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices would constitute a highly intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters” in violation


of Scientology’s contention it is entitled to First Amendment protection; (Appellants Brief at 33.) 6
That the instant lawsuit constitutes “harassing litigation”, a deterrent to the exercise of First Amendment rights. 7

However, Scientology’s contentions that it suffers such harms, which have now become “irreparable,” in consequence of the pendency of this lawsuit, have been made from the outset. Each legal contention submitted by Scientology in this appeal as the basis for its claim to irreparable harm was submitted in written arguments during the initial stages of this lawsuit in June 1988.

2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below 17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction

On June 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Notice of Motion and


6 In support of this claim, Scientology cites the following cases in pages 33-35 its brief herein: Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, 675; Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 620, 624-35; NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490, 502; Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73; Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 460; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64; Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296; Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 16.

7 In support of this claim in its appellants’ brief Scientology cites the following cases: Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076; Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 387-391; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 267-83; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 431-433; Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045; Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171; Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983, 989; Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110, 1121; Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268, 1273.


Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Record No. 50) wherein it contended it was a religion whose “religiosity” could not be adjudicated and cited Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir. 1979) 604 F.2d 73, 78; Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. (Record No. 50 at 9) In its Motion to Dismiss, from pages 6 to 27 of that motion Scientology submitted a lengthy argument wherein, citing Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra,N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, supra, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, supra, New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, it contended that the Aznarans’ lawsuit was not justiciable on the following grounds:

  • Because it involved a dispute between a church and its members;
  • Because it impermissibly sought to impose tort liability of a religion;
  • Because tort liability could not be imposed on the basis of church discipline;
  • Because liability could not be imposed on the basis of brainwashing by church; 8

On August 15, 1988, Scientology filed a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions (Record No. 85) wherein at page 24 it stated:

“A quick perusal of plaintiffs’ complaint and the opposition to dismissal reveals outrageous and vilifying charges against the defendant religious organizations as well as the assertion of massive financial liability. . . Accordingly it was foreseeable that a vigorous

8 On September 6, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. (Record No. 102.)


and costly defense would be and indeed has been aroused against plaintiffs’ admittedly false allegations.” (emphasis added.)

On September 19, 1988, Scientology filed its Reply in support of its Rule 11 Motion where at page 29 it stated:

“included … in plaintiffs’ complaint are outrageous and inflammatory allegations regarding the defendants which would which would trigger a vigorous and costly defense . . . [including] allegations that the sole purpose of the defendant organizations was to make money . . . The significance of such a charge goes to the very heart of defendants1 First Amendment defenses to this entire litigation, as the defendants are religious entities who perform myriad religious services for their members. . . . Defendants . . . [argue] that the complaint must be dismissed because, inter alia, its adjudication would violate the First Amendment by invariably entangling the Court into a forbidden determination of solely religious concerns.” (emphasis added.) (Document No. 113) 9

On December 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Defendants’ Opposition To Ex Parte Application For A Temporary Stay Of Proceedings” (Record No. 153) wherein, citing Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Joint Executive Board, supra . 542 F.2d at 1082, on page 8 it stated:

“In addition, defendants are prejudiced by plaintiffs’ continued delay in bringing this action to resolution. Moveover, the mere pendency of claims impacting heavily on defendants1 First Amendment rights cause prejudice to defendants. … In Franchise Realty, the court warned that where a case poses the threat of ‘the long drawn out process of discovery’ which can be ‘harassing and expensive,’ added to a large damage claim,

On October 25, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Record No. 133.)


the action becomes ‘a most potent weapon to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights.’
Id. at 1082.” (emphasis added.)

At the time Scientology first raised the foregoing arguments, the harm it then claimed to suffer was not such as to move it to seek injunctive relief.10 At the time Scientology’s answers and counterclaims were filed, it did not seek injunctive relief despite the fact it was on notice as to the harms it now claims are
irreparable. Appellees submit if the harm was not then irreparable, it is less so now.

3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm

Scientology first noticed the depositions of the Aznarans on June 1, 1988. Thereafter, it commenced its “vigorous defense” with a consistent barrage of motions attacking the both substance of the Aznarans7 complaint and the facts upon which it is based. As set forth above, from the outset, Scientology was aware of the nature of the harm relief for which it now claims the District Court improperly denied a preliminary injunction.

Scientology delayed seeking a preliminary injunction until November 9, 1989, almost one and one-half years after it commenced litigating its defense of the suit. In light of the fact, according

10In fact, when Religious Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology and Church of Scientology International filed their answers and counterclaims they pleaded their first causes of action on the Aznarans’ alleged breach of the “releases”; their second causes of action are based on the Aznarans’ contacts with Joseph Yanny, reporters from the Los Angeles Times. Bent Corydon, Jerold Fagelbaum and agent of the I.R.S. (Document No. 110 at 20-22 [Religious Technology Center]); (Document No. Ill at 20-23 [Church of Scientology International]); (Document No. 112 at 19-21 [Church of Spiritual Technology])


to Scientology’s own arguments, it was aware of the “harm” it alleges to be manifest in the Aznaran lawsuit, and in light of the fact that it failed to seek injunctive relief for 17 months, Scientology’s delay was, and is, not reasonable. Scientology’s delay eviscerates the legitimacy of the irreparable harm it has now decided to claim.

Simply, Scientology resorted to the legal technique wherein it sought preliminary injunctive relief only after its resort to other legal techniques had failed. Failing to win may hurt, but it is not irreparable injury.

B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability

Scientology contends it suffers irreparable harm because the instant lawsuit allegedly implicates a number of asserted rights. However, in so doing, Scientology has overlooked the legal fact of life that, like everybody else in our civilized society, it is subject to State Control in relation to the Torts it commits.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The provision creates two very different protections. The “establishment clause” guarantees the government will not impose religion on us; the “free exercise” clause guarantees the government will not prevent us from freely pursuing any religion we choose. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra . 46 Cal.3d at 1112.

The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 215, 32 L.Ed.2d 15.


The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 84 L.Ed. 1213. While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 88 L.Ed. 1148. The government may neither compel affirmation of religious belief Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 97 L.Ed. 828, nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 116, 87 L.Ed. 1292.

However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69. Such conduct “remains subject to a regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 3 04. Thus, “while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person’s religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based upon those beliefs. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 884.

Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state’s interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 214. The greater the burden imposed on religion,


the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. Molko. 46 Cal.3d at 1113.

Unwitting exposure to coercive persuasion, even when occurring in a context claimed to be religious, justifies the imposition of tort liability. There is a substantial threat to public safety, peace and order posed by the fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion. Id. at 1118.

Many individuals exposed to coercive persuasion:

“develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide. [Citation.] The state clearly has a compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process. [f] The state has an equally compelling interest in protecting the family institution [Citations] . . . [which] almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs significant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion….” Ibid.

The court in Wollersheim decided that even if the “retributive conduct” known as “fair game” was a core practice of Scientology, it did not merit constitutional protection. The Wollersheim court reasoned that “fair game” was to the core of Scientology religious practice in Scientology in a similar way that “centuries ago the
inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe.” Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888.

“[T]here are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game’ like the ‘inquisition’ targeted ‘heretics’ who threatened the dogma and institutional security of the mother church. Once ‘proven’ to be a ‘heretic, ‘ an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant


incarceration, torture and death. [Citations.] As described by the evidence in this trial, the ‘fair game’ policy neutralized the ‘heretic’ by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. [Citation.]” Ibid.

The court stated that if such conduct were to, in fact, “qualify as ‘religious practices’ of Scientology … we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d 890-891

The Wollersheim court also held that the process of “auditing”11 was not constitutionally protected when conducted under threats of economic, psychological and political retribution. An atmosphere of coercion constructed on the threat of “fair game” if one were to “defect,” the threat of imposition of a “freeloader debt”12 and physical coercion stripped “auditing” of any constitutional protection that it might enjoy were it voluntarily practiced. Id. at 893-894.

Wollersheim, like Vicki Aznaran in this case, was assigned to “Rehabilitation Project Force.” While on Rehabilitation Project

11“Auditing” is a one-on-one process between a Scientology “auditor” and a Scientology student. The student is connected to a crude lie-detector, called an “E-Meter.” The auditor asks probing questions and notes the student’s questions as registered on the E-Meter. Wollersheim. 212 Cal.App.3d at 891.

12 When a Scientology staff member received courses, training or auditing, it was at a reduced rate of payment. If the person later were to leave Scientology, he would be presented with a bill for the difference between the staff rate and the public rate. A five-year member of Scientology could easily accumulate a “freeloader debt” of between $10,000 and $50,000. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 894. “The threat of facing that amount of debt represented a powerful economic sanction acting to coerce continued participation in auditing …” Ibid.


Force, Wollersheim’s regime commenced at 6:00 a.m. and concluded at 1:00 a.m. It included menial and repetitive work in the morning, study in the afternoon and meetings in the evenings. When he slept, it was in a ship’s “hole.” Wollersheim subjected himself to

“auditing because of the coercive environment with which Scientology has surrounded him. To leave the church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he would be become a target of ‘fair game’, face an enormous burden of ‘freeloader debt’, and even confront physical restraint.”

Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 895. When a religious practice takes place in the context of such coercion, it enjoys “less religious value” than were it engaged in voluntarily. More significantly, “it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.” Ibid.

The facts pertaining to the Aznarans in the instant case and the facts set forth in Wollersheim have more in common with one another than not. In Wollersheim. as well as in the instant case, Scientology raised a “fundamental constitutional challenge to this entire species of claims against Scientology.” Wollersheim, 212 Cal.App.3d at 880. In the instant case, as in Wollersheim, Scientology’s constitutional challenge must be rejected.

C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit

In essence, Scientology asserts certain constitutional claims as the basis for its assertion of irreparable injury. It contends that the district court “erred as a matter of law in finding no injury as a result of the pendency of this lawsuit and the attendant threat to First Amendment rights.” (Appellant’s Brief at



Scientology claims the Aznarans’ suit causes injury of an irreparable nature because it (1) will not be able to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of the practices and beliefs of Scientology; (2) the case involves complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendants’ religious beliefs and practices; (3) the case is an intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters such as the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices and the truth or falsity of religious doctrine; (4) the case is an invasion of privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists; (5) the case will have a chilling effect upon religious practice by Scientologists and an adverse effect on religious proselytizing; and (6) will constitute an unconstitutional breach of the “wall of separation” between church and state.

In light of Molko, Wollersheim and the principles of First Amendment jurisprudence upon which those cases are built, the cases upon which Scientology predicates its foregoing claims are not controlling and provide little, if any, guidance.

Scientology raises the concern that it will be impossible to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of its practices and beliefs. However, as discussed above in Section VI,B, above, Scientology is not immunized from accountability for the consequences of its coercive practices. Indeed, there is a compelling state interest in preventing citizens from being exposed to religious coercion which justifies the state’s restriction of


Scientology’s conduct. Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 42 L.Ed. 2d 574 does not support the creation of an immunity for Scientology. That case held that a lawyer may not be held in contempt for advising his client to refuse to produce documents in a civil proceeding that in good faith the lawyer believed would incriminate his client and the “bell” in that case that could not have been unrung would have been material protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For similar reasons, Scientology cannot take shelter behind the rubric wherefrom it asserts a claim of violation of “the privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists.” (Opening Brief at 34.) The Wollersheim court noted society has an interest in eliminating Scientology’s imposition of coercive religious practices on its citizens. Such a compelling interest overrides the above-mentioned ambiguous and broad claim to “privacy.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 does not help. Buckley pertains to the principle that compelled disclosure of names of political contributors “can seriously infringe on the privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Id. 424 U.S. at 60. However, as here, “a compelling public need that cannot be met in a less restrictive way will override those interests.” Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 467, 53 L.Ed.2d 867. The Molko court held “[a]fter careful consideration, we perceive no less restrictive alternative [to suing] available.” Molko 46 Cal.3d at 1118-1119. At 212 Cal.App.3d at 879, the Wollersheim court held:


“the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

When Scientology contends that this lawsuit imposes a chilling effect upon religious practice by members and its proselytizing, it cites Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 and Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra . Apparently, Scientology takes the position that any testimony about its practices will subject it to “public stigma.” Watkins 354 U.S. at 197. Simply because there may be a chance that Scientology will suffer stigmatization, due to its forcing its religion upon citizens such as the Aznarans, does not justify an abrogation of the victim’s right to seek redress by lawsuit. If Scientology wants to avoid the stigma attached to the public dissemination of its outrageous and coercive practices, it should stop them. The answer is not to cloak such practices in secrecy so that under the claim of religion Scientology can continue to abuse the rights of others.

Finally, Scientology appears to want to maintain a “wall of separation” between church and state that is absolute. Scientology’s wall would preclude the state from imposing any limitations whatsoever on the nature and extent of whatever conduct in which Scientology chose to engage. In two hypothetical questions the Wollersheim court succinctly disposed of a similar postulation:

“This religious practice [the inquisition] involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. [Citation.] Yet should any church


seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?”

Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888. The framing of the questions communicates their answer. In fact, the logical conclusion of Scientology’s postulation would be “a diminution of the state’s power . . . [such] that there would soon cease to be that separation of church and state underlying the concept of religious liberty.” Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704, 712.

D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment

“Initial characterizations of conduct are important, if not dispositive, within the First Amendment realm.” International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430, 438. The First Amendment does not immunize an organization from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy simply because it ascribes religious status to itself. In fact, courts should be “cautious in expanding the scope of [religious] protection since to do so might leave the government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests.” McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, fn. 7, 55 L.Ed.2d 593.

In order to merit bona fide religious status, the religious beliefs in question must be held in a manner that is “sincere.”


United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 166, 13 L.Ed.2d 733. Under this “sincerity” standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are “religious.” See, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, supra; United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125. When embarking on an evaluation of the bona fides of an organization claiming it is religious, the court initially looks to the purpose of the underlying constitutional safeguard. “The free exercise of religion promotes the inviolability of individual conscience and voluntarism, recognizing that private choice, not . . . coercion, should form the basis for religious conduct and belief.” (Emphasis added.) Krishna Consciousness 650 F.2d at 438.

In Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212, the court noted that “[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred.” Id. at 1160. The Founding Church court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that”. . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion.”Id. at 1162. Moreover, in Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453


F.Supp. 25, the court indicated that criminal conduct by members of a purported religion may trigger “sharp and careful scrutiny of [their] activities, including [their] claim of religious sincerity.” Id. at 259.

The court in Wollersheim noted that the ”specific issue of whether Scientology is a religion . . . remains a very live and interesting question.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 887. See, Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448, 1451 [“whether Scientology is a religious organization, a for profit private enterprise, or something far more extraordinary [is] an intriguing question that this suit does not call upon us to examine. . ..”].

Thus, for the purposes of this appeal the Court ought not to automatically confer religious status upon Scientology simply because it asserts it is, prima facie, a religion. See, Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint (Document No. 65. at 2-17) [“Scientology is essentially a profit-driven business enterprise” engaged in quackery and criminal activity]. Its lust for money and coercion of its members’ free choice caution against too readily expanding the scope of First Amendment protection to include such conduct.

E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits

Scientology’s conduct as to the Aznarans, as described above in Section II.B, is medieval and of the same nature as the conduct described in Wollersheim. Under the facts set forth in this case, Scientology developed deception, coercion, overreaching and unfair


conduct into a formula whose equation would be a phenomenal escape from accountability – both to the Aznarans and to other victims whom the Aznarans could assist if they are not silenced. The “releases” were the final end point of Scientology’s formula for coercion which for 15 years it imposed upon the Aznarans. Having abused and harmed the Aznarans, Scientology then sought to silence them for life. Scientology has not stopped trying.

The Aznarans were under a misapprehension as to the nature and scope of the releases in that they understood the releases as the only means by which they could escape Scientology’s inquisition. Such an understanding was induced by the misconduct of Scientology.

The Aznarans did not intend:

(1) To release Scientology from legal liability for the egregious torts Scientology has perpetrated against them;

(2) To allow Scientology to chill, if not silence, their First Amendment right to speak by a “gag order” [which Scientology would then ask the court to enforce];

(3) To allow Scientology to dictate with whom they choose to associate and speak;

(4) To allow Scientology to prevent them from giving aid, comfort, and support to other victims of Scientology, including those who are bitterly locked in Scientology-style litigation;

(5) To bargain with Scientology about anything other than the chance to escape without being declared suppressive persons and subjected to retribution and the fair game policy.

Scientology has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to


succeed to establish that the releases are either valid or enforceable. The releases that Scientology would enforce are not even the releases that the Aznarans signed. For months after they signed whatever it was that Scientology had them sign the Aznarans repeatedly requested copies of the agreements. Those requests fell
on dead ears. Since Richard Aznaran on many occasions requested Scientology provide him with a copy, the most likely explanation for its refusal is that the releases have been changed to suit Scientology’s claims. Moreover, such conduct “fits with their earlier modus operandi.” (Record No. 197 at 30-31.) This is an
example of fraud in the inducement. When fraud induces a person to believe that the act which he does is something other than it actually is,

the act of the defrauded person is void because he does not know [what] he is doing and does not intend to do this act. . . Where a person is fraudulently induced to sign or indorse a bill or note in the reasonable belief that he signing something else, he cannot really be said to have made or endorsed the bill or note.”

C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 548, 154 P.2d 710 In our case, Scientology brought intense pressure to bear on the Aznarans, who were essentially captives, for more than one week. Scientology used the threat of “fair game” to obtain from the Aznarans what it wanted. It had the Aznarans sign agreements, but wouldn’t provide any copies thereof. Subsequently, when repeatedly asked for a copy over a course of months, Scientology produced
nothing. This is a case where there is a question of fact whether there has been fraud in the inception. Under this set of facts, it


is a question of fact for the jury whether the releases Scientology claims the Aznarans signed are genuine or whether they signed something other than what Scientology says they did.

In Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 559, 93 P.2d 1028 the court applied the doctrine of fraud in the inception to avoid a release that the plaintiff had actually read and knew what she was signing. The trial court found that the adjuster who obtained plaintiff’s signature on the release had employed “high pressure” methods, including lengthy importunities over a period of several days, to take advantage of the plaintiff’s physical and mental condition. When the adjuster obtained the signature and left plaintiff’s house, he did not leave a copy of the release with plaintiff. The court held that the adjuster “prevented the plaintiff from becoming acquainted with the character, contents and legal effect of the instrument.” In such case, there was no assent to the agreement. Thus, it was “absolutely void.” In our case the facts are quite similar and the final determination shall be for the finder of fact.

Scientology’s conduct with reference to the “releases” is subject to an estoppel. Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 555, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529. It had brainwashed the Aznarans for 15 years. It knew they had no money. It held them captive at the hotel. It sequestered their belongings and pets. It security checked them for hours eight days in a row. It threatened them with “fair game.” It offered the Aznarans the loan because it wanted them to leave California immediately. It threatened “fair


game” if they failed to sign all the documents submitted to them. It concealed the relationship of consideration among the releases, insurance payment, wage payment and loan by withholding the releases on one hand and providing documentation of the loaned principal on the other. It was aware of both the releases’ substance and that the Aznarans were not so aware because it refused to give them a copy, even when they asked. Scientology intended that the Aznarans spend the loan money without being aware of either the potential obligations of the releases or, in the alternative, the potential necessity for restoration and rescission. It induced the Aznarans to act in reliance on the concealment of the relationship of consideration between the releases and the loan by directing the Aznarans to move from Southern California to Texas where the Aznarans would have to start their lives anew. Such is compulsion, not ratification.

Scientology has manipulated the Aznarans into the posture where after they spent the loan money and could not offer to restore it, Scientology gave them a copies of the purported “releases” and took the position that the loan was consideration for the release the terms of which would be effective if the loan money was not restored. They should be estopped from asserting such a claim because Scientology may not take advantage of its own misconduct.

Nonetheless, Under the circumstances extant here, it is irrelevant that the Aznarans never sought to rescind the releases. Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97, 103 [When releaser, not due


to his own neglect, suffers misapprehension induced by misconduct of the releasee as to nature and scope of the release, the release is binding only to the extent intended by the releaser unnecessary to effect recission of release]; Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349, 352 [Where releasee causes misconception whereby contract releases claims other than those understood by releasor to be included, the release is ineffective as to misconceived claims – rescission and tender unnecessary]; Walsh v. Majors (1935) 4 Cal.2d 384, 396 [Requirement of restoration what has been received may be excused by special circumstances when on general equitable principles it would be unfair to impose such a condition].

Since the circumstances of the inception of such “releases’7 were permeated with domination, undue influence, duress, menace, fraud and violence the escape from which was the Aznarans sole cognizant consideration, they never entered into any agreement whereby they intentionally contracted away precious constitutional rights. Rather, they submitted, one last time, to Scientology’s instructions, directives and demands. The Court properly denied the injunctive relief sought by Scientology because such relief would far exceed the status quo pendente lite. The Aznarans never acted in a manner which in any way has conferred any validity on the releases. They only sought to escape Scientology. In such a circumstance, “courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.” Martin 740 F.2d at 675. Just as after the ordering of injunctive relief, a court must be vigilant to ensure


”that what it has been doing [is not] turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong” Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir.1986) 801 F.2d 1080, 1090, it must be careful that a motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute an instrument of wrong at its inception (at trial or on appeal). The trial court exercised such care when it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

P. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans

Were the Court to reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction, Scientology would enjoy the following benefits and the Aznarans would suffer the following hardships:

1. Scientology would protect itself from adverse exposure in the marketplace of ideas by possessing the force of a court order by which the Aznarans would be compelled to remain mute and silent about the information pertaining to Scientology that, on the basis of their long-standing affiliation with Scientology, they possess. The Aznarans would suffer a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Association.

2. Scientology would protect itself from its adversaries in litigation and obtain an unfair advantage therein by controlling said adversaries access to the public dissemination of the Aznarans’ knowledge through an injunctive restraint on speech. Scientology would also control any assistance the Aznarans might be able and willing to provide to its adversaries by preventing a sharing of information intended to expose the malevolent nature and


practices of Scientology. Such an order would tend to suppress evidence and thus constitute an obstruction of justice and the truth-seeking function of the courts.

3. Scientology would sequester the Aznarans from participating in the core democratic functions pertaining to any judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding in a further strategic step designed to minimize liability for harm for which it is, and should be, responsible.

4. Scientology would enjoy the opportunity to avoid accountability to the Aznarans for the consequences of its conduct. Such conduct was clearly tortious, and not subject to constitutional protection. The Aznarans would be prevented from exercising their right to obtain redress for and to be made whole from their abusive treatment at the hands of Scientology.

The only hardship that Scientology would suffer from the denial of its appeal is that it would have to be responsible to its victims, including the Aznarans, for the wrongs it has committed. In contrast, reversal would result in impermissible violations of the Aznarans’ constitutional rights. The balance of hardships tips sharply away from, not toward, Scientology.

G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest

Through the relief it seeks, Scientology would silence two of its highest-ranking former members from disclosing to an interested public what they learned about the nature, beliefs and practices of this “religion.”

This would be constitutionally intolerable. “Prior restraints


on speech and publication are the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539, 559. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, without doubt constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373-374.

It is axiomatic “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. at 269. The mark toward which the First Amendment aims is “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” Associated Press v. United
326 U.S. 1, 20. This constitutional safeguard “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 484. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to “preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.” (Emphasis added.) Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. 395 U.S. at 390. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 U.S. 753 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the public constitutional interest in being able to receive information.

“In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas: It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive …. Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141, 143; Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557, 564″ Id. 408 U.S. at 762-763.

Were the Aznarans silenced by an injunction, not only would


their First Amendment rights be violated, but also so would the right of the public at large to receive first-hand, truthful and accurate information about Scientology.



This appeal is frivolous. This is the fourth time that Scientology has litigated whether it can enforce the releases. The releases themselves, as well as Scientology’s conduct in connection with them, smack of corruption and illegality, dirty The dilatory motion for a preliminary injunction was brought 17 months after Scientology submitted identical arguments in support of other motions by means of which it hoped to eliminate the Aznaran lawsuit. Both Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, conclusively establish that Scientology is the constitutionally, and morally proper subject of a lawsuit prosecuted to redress the abuses of coercion and torture. Stripped of its rhetoric, Scientology’s position in this appeal is simply frivolous and taken with a reckless disregard for the law, if not in malicious bad faith.

This court may award just damages and as much as double costs. FRAP, Rule 38. Moreover, such costs can be, and in this case should be imposed personally on counsel for the four appellant Scientology entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. If the Court is inclined to give serious consideration to this request, appellees respectfully request further opportunity to comprehensively set forth the facts upon which this claim is predicated.



The Aznarans have been interlocutorily hauled into this Court to litigate the same issues on which they have prevailed three times below. They respectfully submit this appeal should be denied, if not dismissed.

DATED: August _____, 1990


By: (signed) Ford Greene
Attorney for Appellees


Aznaran v. church of Scientology of California, et al.

For The Ninth circuit
NO. 90-55288

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

[X] (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the united States Mail at San Anselmo, California.

[ ] (Personal I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand Service) to the offices of the addressee.

[ ] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

DATED: August 22, 1990


Legal Secretary


Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.

For The Ninth circuit
SERVICE LIST No. 90-55288

United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard.
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard, suite 2000
Hollywood, California 90028

* One (1) copy of Brief for Appellees



Deposition of Vicki J. Aznaran (May 9, 1989)







NO. CV 88-1786-WDK



On the 9th day of May 1989, at 10:00 a.m. the oral deposition of the above-named witness was taken at the instance of the defendants before Roger W. Miller, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, at the offices of Stanley, Harris, Rice, 3100 McKinnon, Suite 1000, in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of Texas, pursuant the agreement hereinafter set forth.



A.      What money was spent or how much money was spent, which I believe was 250,000.

Q.      Anything else you remember telling the FBI about that incident?

A.      I told them that it was Dick Story and Dick Bass were largely the players involved.

Q.      Any other details you recall telling the FBI about that?

A.      No, not offhand, I don’t recall anything else.

Q.      Are there any other instances involving judges that you discussed with the FBI?

A.      They wanted to know about Scientology executives going to see Marianna Pfaelzer one night.

Q.      Anything else? That’s what you already talked about with Mr. Cooley, is it not?

A.      Yeah. I think we went into that.

Q.      Any other judges?

A.      Yeah. Breckenridge and the Judge on the — the original Judge on the Wollersheim case. I don’t know if “original” is the right word, but he was a judge on the case during, I believe, pretrial.

Q.      What did you tell the FBI about Judge Breckenridge?

A.      I told him about destroying documents that



Judge Breckenridge had ordered produced.

Q. What did you tell him about destroying those documents?

A. What did I tell him? I don’t remember specifically. That there were documents that he ordered his folders produced, and myself and some others went through those folders and took out and destroyed documents out of them that we did not want turned over.

Q. When you say he wanted his folders produced, who is that, judge Breckenridge?

A. Yeah. He ordered them turned over to him.

Q. His own folders?

A. Armstrong’s, Jerry Armstrong’s.

Q. And what did you tell the FBI about the first judge on the Wollersheim case?

A. Well, supposedly he had a son who was homosexual, and there was some — some operation withthe son’s boyfriend, which was brought up to the Judge in order to try to get rid of that Judge, if —

Q. Do you recall any more —

A. I believe that’s what I told him, the drift of it, anyway.

Q. Do you recall telling him anything else about that incident?

A. Not specifically, no.



Q. Were you involved in that incident in any way?

A. Peripherally. No, not really. I was just there part of the time.

Q. It was not done at your instigation?

A. No.

Q. You did not participate in anything involving the Judge Pfaelzer incident directly?

A. Staff members — well, no, not really.

Q. You personally, I’m not —

A. Yeah. No, not really.

Q. Now, your knowledge of the facts that you related to the FBI concerning Judge Breckenridge is firsthand, from what I understand you are saying?

A. The destruction of the documents?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. You participated in it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told that to the FBI?

A. Yes:  .

Q. And what is the source of your information concerning the first Judge on the Wollersheim case?

A. I believe David Miscavige.

Q. He told you about it?








This is to certify that I, Roger W. Miller, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, reported in shorthand the proceedings conducted at the time and place set forth in the caption hereof and that the above and foregoing pages contain a full, true, and correct transcript of said proceedings.

Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 9th day of May, 1989.

[signed Roger W. Miller]
Roger W. Miller, Certified
Shorthand Reporter No. 328
in and for the State of Texas
My commission expires December 31, 1989.