Affidavit of Monique E. Yingling (July 16, 2002)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION1;2

ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, by
and through the Personal Representative,
DELL LIEBREICH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

Case No. 00-5682-CI-11
Division 11

AFFIDAVIT OF MONIQUE E. YINGLING

Monique Yingling, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the District of Columbia and the State of California. I have represented and continue to represent Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and other Scientology Churches and Church of Scientology organizations on corporate and tax matters. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2. I was first engaged to represent CSI and other Churches of Scientology in early 1986 in connection with applications for recognition of their tax-exempt status then

1

pending with the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and with related administrative and judicial proceedings. In particular, I represented those Churches of Scientology during a series of administrative proceedings with the IRS that resulted in the formal recognition of their separate tax-exempt status in 1993.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B are authentic copies of June 29, 1992 memoranda my office provided to the IRS as part of these administrative proceedings on behalf of these Churches of Scientology.

[signed]
Monique E. Yingling

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 16 day of July, 2002, by Monique E. Yingling who is personally known to me or has produced and who did take an oath.

GLEN E. STIL0
Notary Public – State of Florida
My Commission Expires Oct 10, 2003
Commission # CC878443

2

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?

Introduction:

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, OSA deals 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.

3-35

Background:

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
Org 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

3-36

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. GO 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 (“Bl”) 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 Apollo 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 GO 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

3-37

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. 2/

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.

2. 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.

3-38

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.

3-39

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 GO 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 CMG 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.

3-40

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 congregration. 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,

3-41

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

3-42

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

3-43

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.

Summary:

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.

3-44

Question 10(a)

10(a). The Service has expressed its concerns relating to violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations. What assurances can the Service be provided that these violations are not continuing as of December 31, 1989, and that those who were involved in the commission of the acts described in the CSC case are no longer affiliated in any capacity or employed by the Church of Scientology, including any Scientology-related organization?

The Service’s ongoing concerns about “violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related  organizations” appear to be based on the Tax Court’s decision in CSC. The misconduct that gave rise to the Tax Court’s public policy findings in CSC was the criminal misconduct of individuals within the Guardian’s Office. As discussed in detail in response to question 3(a), the Guardian’s Office has been disbanded, the principal wrongdoers removed from staff permanently barred from ever serving on staff of any Scientology church in any capacity, and other former GO staff with lesser involvement removed and retrained. The procedures instituted that prevent recurrence of misconduct by Church staff in their official capacity apply equally here — the legitimate functions of that office now are carried out under full
and direct ecclesiastical supervision, and there are no organizations or groups performing church functions in the practice and propagation of the religion of Scientology or its affiliated
social welfare and public benefit activities which can operate independently of CSI and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.1/

__________

1/ Church of Spiritual Technology is autonomous from the CSI hierarchy. CST has its own unique activities and purposes which require it to be autonomous. CST’s autonomy does not create a risk of a recurrence of the Guardian Office misconduct, because CST is not involved in any way with the ministry of religious services to the public, the proselytization of the Scientology religion, or the performance of its social welfare and public benefit functions.

10-1
Question 10(b)

b. The term “Snow White” referred in the 1970s to a covert operation carried out by the Guardian’s Office under which illegal acts were perpetrated,  including burglarizing the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Is any operation known as “Snow White” still in existence? If not, please describe and document the method by which it ceased operations. If an operation under the name still exists, please describe the operation and provide supporting documentation. In addition, please describe any operation of whatever name that may be designed to achieve goals similar to the “Snow White” operation that existed in-the 1970s.

As discussed in our responses to Questions 3(d) and 10(a), during the 1970s the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) carried out a series of operations to infiltrate  government offices, including the National Office of the IRS, to obtain copies of documents concerning the Church. While the GO used various names to refer to those operations, we do not believe it ever used the name “Snow White” to designate those operations. However, we understand that the term Show White may have been misused within a program involving infiltration of government agencies. This may be the source of the misconception about this program conveyed by the Service’s question. The term “Snow White” correctly refers to a
program written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 for the purpose of correcting false governmental reports about the Church of Scientology through strictly legal means.

Mr. Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program because several countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea had denied entry to their ports to the ship Apollo, which at that time housed the Church’s senior ecclesiastical management bodies, as a result of false reports concerning the Church that were being distributed primarily by certain governmental officials in England and the United States. Mr. Hubbard wanted to correct the record and to seek redress for religious persecution. Accordingly, Mr. Hubbard wrote:

To engage in various litigation in all countries affected so as to expose to view all such derogatory and false reports, to engage in further litigation in the countries originating such
reports, to exhaust recourse in these countries and then finally to take the matter to the United Nations (that now being possible for an individual and a group) and to the European Commission on Human Rights, meanwhile uprooting and cancelling all such files and reports wherever found.

10-2

This program did not contemplate anything illegal whatsoever, and in fact expressly stated its “Ideal Scene” to be “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged . . ..” (Emphasis added).

An example illustrating the use of the Snow White Program, why it was necessary and its results, concerns the country of Portugal. Between 1969 and the first half of 1974 the Apollo frequently docked at ports in Portugal with no problems and good relations with the people and legal […]this same rumor had first surfaced at ports in Spain in 1972 and as a result of this and other false reports the ship had been denied entry into some Spanish ports. Although the rumor continued to surface in 1973 and 1974 in Portugal, the Apollo nonetheless
continued to be welcome in Portuguese ports without major incident.

On October 3, 1974, when the Apollo was docked at the port of Funchal on the island of Madeira, Portugal, it was attacked by a large crowd throwing rocks and shouting “CIA ship.” The local police and army stood by and watched, doing nothing to hold the crowd back. As a result some Church staff aboard the ship were injured and property was damaged or destroyed. Cars and motorcycles belonging to the Church and Church staff were thrown off the dock into the bay. The ship crew had to fight off the attackers with fire hoses while the ship made an emergency departure to escape the violence, without being able to take on food, fuel or water. The Apollo and her crew were forced to wait miles offshore for over a day while order was restored so she could return to load fuel, food and water and sail to a safe country.

Documents obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information act pursuant to the Snow White Program, trace the “CIA ship” rumor to a State Department telex in April of 1972 sent to various European countries that contained this and other false reports. Following the Snow White Program procedure of locating and expunging false reports and seeking redress for religious persecution, a suit was filed in Lisbon by the company that owned the Apollo, Operation Transport Corporation (“OTC”), against the government of Portugal seeking damages as a result of this riot. In June of 1985 the Administrative Court of Lisbon awarded damages to OTC finding that the riot in October of 1974 had been sparked by the CIA ship rumor, and that this rumor was false. These damages were sustained by an appellate court in 1987.

Based on these decisions and clearing up of the false

10-3

information originally generated by the U.S. government, in April of 1988 the Minister of Justice in Portugal officially authorized the registration of the Church of Scientology in  Portugal, accomplishing the Snow White Program’s objective for that country. The principal activities in the United States under the Snow White Program have consisted of filing Freedom of Information Act requests with all Federal governmental agencies and public record requests at the state and local level, pursuing litigation to compel disclosure of records being withheld, and the filing and prosecution of a large lawsuit in 1978 against a number of federal government agencies for the purpose of expunging all false reports on the Church and Mr. Hubbard contained in their files. Other activities under the aegis of Snow White, both in the U.S. and abroad, had to do with investigating and exposing Interpol as an autonomous police agency serving as a conduit for false reports on the Church and others.

The Osler Decision:

The Service need not simply rely on our representations about the Snow White Program as we are providing a copy of the original program with this write-up as Exhibit 10-A. Additionally, Justice Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, reviewed this program in 1985 to determine whether an Ontario Provincial Police officer should be cross-examined on an affidavit he had sworn in support of a search warrant against a Church of Scientology in Canada. The officer had characterized the Snow White Program as calling for illegal actions.

In an opinion dated January 23, 1985, after reviewing the Snow
White Program document and other related evidence, Justice Osler
noted that

. . it is not without significance that the affidavit of Fletcher Prouty, appearing in Volume 8A of the record at tab KK, makes it appear that he formed the conclusion, as a highly
placed official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States that since 1950 there has been a definite campaign of harrassment against this organization (Scientology) for nearly thirty years primarily by means of the dissemination of false and derogatory information around the world to create a climate in which adverse action would be taken against the Church and its members. Defense against this type of activity was, of course, the stated objective of the SNOW WHITE program.

10-4

Decision of Supreme Court of Ontario, Osler, J., pp. 33-34.

Concluding that the document on its face called for actions to “legally” expunge files and that the word “legally” appeared to have been purposely left out of the officer’s affidavit, Justice
Osler ordered that the cross-examination of the officer go forward.

Following the cross-examination, on February 7, 1985, Justice Osler issued a second opinion stating that while he did not believe that the officer’s mischaracterization of the Snow White Program rose to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation, he did find that the officer had made “errors in judgment” in characterizing the program as calling for illegal actions.

Current Snow White Activities:

The Snow White program is not being executed today. It was a very specific program tailored to a particular state of affairs at the time it was written. However, over the years the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. So the term may be heard in connection with this activity from time to time. The Church’s legal bureau, working with Church counsel, utilize the Freedom of Information Act and similar statutes around the world to locate false reports on Churches. When located they seek cooperation of the agencies involved in expunging and correcting such reports.

These staff and attorneys carry out no activities that are in any way illegal, and neither does any other unit or function in the Church.

A copy of the Snow White Program as issued in 1973 is attached as Exhibit II-10-A.

Notes

 

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?

Introduction:

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, OSA.deals‘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.

3-35

Background:

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

3-36

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

3-37

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.

3-38

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.

3-39

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.

3-40

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,

3-41

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

3-42

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

3-43

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.

Summary:

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.

3-44

Notes

CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question 10 [Civil litigation involving the Church] (November 23, 1992)

Question 10

INTRODUCTION1

In the responses that follow, the Church is providing all of the information the Service has requested in the various subparts to Question 10. It is only fair, however, that the following responses be considered in their proper context, and for that reason we submit the following additional information by way of introduction.

Question 10 relates exclusively to public policy questions, focusing on civil litigation involving the Church. There is no escaping the irony of being asked to catalogue the unsubstantiated allegations of civil litigation adversaries when those allegations often have been manufactured, promoted, disseminated, and even subsidized by a cadre of anti-Scientology individuals within the Service itself. The Church does not believe that the Service as an institution, hates Scientology. We believe there are and have been, however, a core of dedicated “Scientology-bashers” within the Service who have allied themselves with encouraged, and even fixed the tax problems of the principal sources of the tired civil allegations we are now being asked to chronicle.

Question 10.e.i and 10.e.ii request a list of all of the tort allegations that have been made against any Church of Scientology in more than a score of cases arising within the last twelve years and for copies of all verdicts, decisions or findings made by any court that any of those allegations were true. As may be seen in the following responses, two of the only four cases where any such decision has been issued, and a majority of the other cases were instigated or heavily influenced by the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”).

CAN and its influence on the litigation in question was described in passing at page 10-20 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions. There is no escaping the fact that CAN has been able to survive financially and has drawn much of its false veneer of credibility from the Service’s recognition of it as exempt under section 501(c)(3).

CAN was formed in 1975, under its original name, Citizen’s Freedom Foundation. CAN’s activities, from its inception until today, have consisted of negative propaganda campaigns against nontraditional religious organizations and promoting and perpetrating “deprogrammings,” a euphemism for kidnapping people and using force and coercion to dissuade individuals from maintaining their voluntarily held religious beliefs.

CAN applied for tax exemption in March of 1976 as an educational organization. Literature provided with its

10-1
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152016

application, however, clearly evidenced CAN’s biased views and its involvement in deprogramming. Indeed this material shows CAN’s close association with Ted Patrick (one of its founders), who has   been convicted on numerous occasions for kidnapping, assault and related charges arising from his violent deprogramming activities. It was Patrick who touched off the premier tort case against Scientology when he deprogrammed Julie Christofferson in 1977. (This is further described at pages 10-15 and 10-16 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions and infra.)

The IRS denied CAN’S initial application for exemption because “after reviewing your publications, we concluded that a significant portion of your viewpoints were not supported by relevant facts.” CAN reapplied in 1977 but the application and CAN’s accompanying literature showed that CAN had not reformed. Consequently, the Service again informed CAN that its application was being denied because “Your revised application for exemption contains disparaging statements about organizations which are not supported by facts. Your revised application indicates that the reasons for our denial of your previous application are still present.” (Exhibit III-10-A).

CAN did not give up. In July 1978, CAN submitted additional information to the IRS including a “Statement of Purpose, Functions and Activities” which included the claim that one of CAN’s functions was to recommend personnel and facilities for deprogramming. CAN furnished the Service with an example of how CAN would handle a contact from a caller who intended to join the Church of Scientology: referral of the person to ex-members for negative information on Scientology and to an attorney in his or her area, as well as providing the person with a list of “Dos and Don’ts” which included advising the person to file complaints with the government. (Exhibit III-10-B). CAN identified the Church of Scientology as one of its principal targets and the Service granted CAN tax exempt status. (Exhibit III-10-C).

From that point forward until the present, CAN has followed the precise modus operandi concerning Scientology that it described   to the Service in 1978. CAN refers individuals to ex-members for negative information about the Church and to attorneys who then create causes of action against the Church that almost always recite the same boilerplate tort claims. As will be seen in the response to Question 1.e.i, a large number of the cases listed in that section have been filed by attorney Toby L. Plevin. Plevin is a CAN member who gets all of her client referrals from CAN in exactly the manner CAN described in its 1978 application supplement.

CAN also continues to be involved in the felonious practice CAN calls deprogramming, which is as flagrant a violation of public policy as can be imagined. While CAN enjoys exempt status

10-2
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152017

its deprogrammers are being arrested and jailed by local police agencies and the FBI. Recently, CAN deprogrammers Galen Kelly and Bob Moore, and CAN attorney Robert (“Biker Bob”) Point, were arrested by the FBI and charged with conspiring to kidnap Lewis DuPont Smith, heir to the DuPont fortune, and to “deprogram” him   from his support of Lyndon LaRouche’s political organization. (Exhibit III-10-D). At this writing there are several other CAN deprogrammers under indictment as a result of their deprogramming activities, including Joe Szimhart, Mary Alice Chrnaloger, Karen Reinhardt and Randall Burkey. (Exhibit III-10-E). It is troubling that in the face of this kind of evidence individuals in the Service like Jacksonville District EO agent Melvin Blough, continue to use CAN as an investigative arm to drum up false charges against the Church of Scientology. (Exhibit III-10-F).

There are individuals in the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”) who harbor sentiments about Scientology very much akin to those espoused by CAN, who have directly brought about or have had a major influence on Scientology-related civil litigation. Much of this information has been covered before or is covered in more detail in the responses to specific subparts of Question 10 that follow. Consider the following:

* The decision in Gerry Armstrong’s case is one of those described in detail in response to Question 10.e.ii. Armstrong’s fanatical hatred of Scientology ingratiated him with the LA CID and earned him the status of IRS operative in an unlawful scheme to infiltrate and destroy the Church through, among other things, the seeding of Church files with forged or manufactured documents. Armstrong was a link between the CID and Michael Flynn, whose multi-jurisdictional litigation campaign against Scientology was encouraged and assisted by the CID. (See pages 10-8 to 10-16 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions). The allegations, first manufactured by Armstrong and Flynn, have been adopted and parroted by many of the other tort litigants whose cases are described in the response to Question 10.e(i). In exchange, Gerry Armstrong has been insulated from liability for his theft of Church documents and encouraged to continue and to expand his nefarious efforts.

*The Aznarans, whose case was described at pages 10-18 and 10-19 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions, left the Church and filed suit for $70,000,000,

10-3
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152018

resulting almost immediately in their being embraced by the IRS CID. The CID agents then passed the Aznarans on to like-minded EO agents in Los Angeles who interviewed them, encouraged them to continue their attacks on Scientology, treated their claims as fact and used their allegations as a basis to throw five years of cooperation from the Church down the drain. A tax debt that the Aznarans had been unable to handle with the IRS for ten years disappeared when they became civil litigants against the Church and CID informants.

*Question 10.e.iii asks for a description of the criminal case involving the Church in Canada, which is described in the answer to Question 10-e-(iii) and in a memo from counsel for the Church of Scientology of Toronto attached as Exhibit III-10-U. As that memo details, LA IRS CID agents fed information, allegations and witnesses to the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) and plotted with Armstrong, Flynn and OPP officers to bring about the “collapse” of the Church. CID agents traveled to Canada where they encouraged the OPP to bring indictments, offering to help locate L. Ron Hubbard and others in the Church if OPP moved forward with their case. The CID and OPP also utilized apostate David Mayo and his cronies to recruit ex-GO criminals as government witnesses to testify against the church and their former subordinates about crimes that they themselves had perpetrated. Mayo is further described below.

* As early as 1969, a CID operative named Gene Allard was allowed to get off scot-free with the out-right theft of Church records. (See response to Question 10.d.1, infra.).

* Laurel Sullivan, who left and became disaffected with the Church after she was removed from her Church post for being a Guardian’s Office sympathizer, was embraced as an informant by the CID, and was represented by a government attorney when the Church sued her personally for improperly disclosing attorney-client information to the IRS. (See page 3-40 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions).

* As described below apostate David Mayo gained favor with the IRS as an informant and IRS reciprocated by granting exempt status to his group in support of his anti-Scientology stance. This list could go on with example after example of times when some person or organization has manifested an anti-Scientology sentiment and has suddenly emerged as an IRS ally, operative or beneficiary. At that moment such a person or group is transformed into a fountainhead of unassailable virtue whose claims are gospel, whose protection is guaranteed and who is given unwarranted, improper encouragement and assistance. As described in detail below, while Churches of Scientology receive unprecedented scrutiny when they apply for tax exemption, apostates who sue the Church and attack the religion have been aided by IRS tax exemption subsidies.

10-4
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152019

An anti-Scientology sentiment has existed in the IRS National Office Exempt Organizations Technical Division, dating at least back to CAN’S 1978 exemption. Certain EO Technical Division officials appear to have directly colluded with the CID in 1984 and 1985, using information gathered by the CID, including the statements and allegations of their informants, to sabotage the Church’s exemption proceedings at that time. Evidence of their bigotry is best seen in their treatment of anti-Scientologists.

David Mayo:

David Mayo was removed from a senior Church position for moral turpitude. He was using his position for economic advantage. Even more serious from a Scientology perspective, he was the source of serious alteration and denigration of the technical scriptures of Scientology. Rather than atone for his misdeeds, he left the Church in 1982.

Upon leaving, Mayo and a few others established an organization he called the Advanced Ability Center (“AAC”), which utilized a badly altered version of Dianetics and Scientology technology in an effort to lure parishioners away from the Church for economic advantage. For example, Mayo dropped the use of Scientology ethics technology altogether, eschewing ethics as an applicable concept. Solely for the tax advantages it would afford, he incorporated the AAC under the name “Church of the New Civilization” (“CNC”), but it operated solely as the Advanced Ability Center. Mayo’s prime objective was to obtain copies of the confidential upper level scriptures so that he could represent that CNC/AAC could deliver the entire Bridge as it existed in the early 80’s and thus attract a larger following. Mayo conspired with like-minded apostates in Europe and effected the theft of these scriptures on December 9, 1983 from AOSH EU & AF in Denmark. These events prompted the suit by RTC and the Church as described on pages 10-17 and 10-18 of our response to Question 10 of your second series of questions. Mayo also actively endeavored to lure Scientologists away from Scientology, including putting out a publication of negative propaganda on the Church.

In 1984 CNC filed for tax exemption. The original application identified CNC’s source of financial support to be “Fees received from parishioners for counseling.” CNC’s statement of activities stated that “The program of activities of [CNC] are limited to personal counseling and spiritual studies” and responded affirmatively to questions on whether or not recipients would be required to pay for counseling. Subsequently, Mayo gave an opposite answer to the question. Eventually, the 1023 application was forwarded to National Office for processing by Rick Darling who inquired further into CNC’s fundraising methods. Mayo responded that “Parishioners receive spiritual enhancement and guidance from the Church in a program of services for which monies are given and received” to a question asking why parishioners would donate to CNC.

10-5
CSI Prod 114-93
152020

During the same time period Darling and Friedlander were considering the CNC application, they were using “commercialism” as a reason to deny tax exemption to various church of Scientology applicants. Their purported reason was that the Church charged fixed donations for services giving them a “commercial hue and purpose.” Shortly after issuing adverse determination letters to the Scientology applicants, EO granted CNC’s application on substantially identical information as to funding practices.

Mayo had become a CID informant (Exhibit III-10-G) and Darling/Friedlander were now aware that Mayo was an enemy of the Church of Scientology. (Exhibit III-10-H). On March 27, 1986, David Mayo himself responded for CNC to a set of questions from   Darling. In response to a question whether CNC charged fixed amounts for their services, Mayo provided information which contradicted CNC’s 1023 record and was flatly impossible stating that CNC had “no predetermined price.” (Exhibit III-10-H).

Frank Gerbode:

Psychiatrist Frank Gerbode is an heir to the Alexander Baldwin sugar fortune. He left psychiatry for Scientology in the 1970s and for several years was the mission holder of the Palo Alto mission. He ran afoul of Church management in the early 1980s when the Church tried to reform his financial misdealings. In March 1984, Gerbode left the Church to join up with David Mayo. He set up a parallel operation he also called Advanced Ability Center in Palo Alto which, for tax purposes, he named the Church of the Universal Truth (“CUT”). Gerbode’s 1023 application, along with those of CNC and various Church applicants also went to Darling and Friedlander.

The exemption applications for the churches of Scientology were denied; the applications for CNC and CUT were granted. While Darling and Friedlander asked endless intrusive questions of the Scientology applicants, they chose not to find out about CNC and CUT. For example, by the time they recognized CNC’s exempt status, CNC had long since ceased operations. Mayo had cashed in its assets and deposited them in his personal Liechtenstein bank account and had gone to work for Gerbode at CUT. He essentially liquidated the corporation into his own pocket, even though it was a non-profit organization purportedly dedicated to section 501(c)(3) purposes.

More specifically, the last known letter from Mayo to the IRS on the CNC exemption application is the one mentioned above, dated March 27, 1986. (Exhibit III-10-H). According to the deposition testimony of his wife, Julie Mayo, CNC closed its doors one month later, on April 30, 1986, at which time David and Julie Mayo both resigned their respective director and officer positions. They also sold the house in which they were living that had been purchased in their name by CNC as a “parsonage,” and using other

10-6
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152021

rsed to them from CNC as “severance pay,” “travel expenses”and “vacation pay accrued,” they traveled for the next several months to Europe, Australia and Florida with Gerbode and his wife. While on this trip they stopped over in Liechtenstein where Gerbode introduced Mayo to his banker who opened an account for him with the $80,000 received from the sale of their “parsonage.” CNC’s exempt status was granted subsequent to these events. In fact the only ongoing activity of CNC at the time it was granted exemption was ongoing litigation with the Church of Scientology.

Gerbode obtained tax exemption for CUT ostensibly based on representations that the organization was a church and conducted exclusively religious activities. (Exhibit III-10-I). In fact, once tax exempt status was obtained, CUT ceased carrying out any religious activities and began dispensing a novel brand of psychology under the name Center for Applied Metapsychology (“CAM”), and promoting Gerbode’s personal books and literature, co-authored by Mayo, much of which are plagiarized from the works of L. Ron Hubbard. In 1986, Gerbode also established the Institute for Research in Metapsychology (“IRM”), another tax exempt organization which operates at the same address using the same personnel as CAM, and which produces the literature and materials that CAM promotes and distributes. IRM characterizes metapsychology in scientific terms, making it clear it is not a religion and followed no belief system. Yet metapsychology is what Gerbode’s church, CUT operating as CAM, dispenses.

Compare the representations made by CUT in Exhibit III-10-I, a letter to the IRS in support of their exemption application in December 1985, to the representations made by Gerbode concerning the same organization on November 2, 1992 in Exhibit III-10-J. In the December 5, 1985 letter in support of its exemption application, CUT discussed its purported “religious doctrine” and “religious history” and submitted copies of their baptismal, funeral and marriage ceremonies, representing that it was a Church conducting exclusively religious activities. (Exhibit III-10-I). On November 2, 1992, Gerbode wrote to the City of Menlo Park, California in response to a “complaint that a church is being operated at the premises” to set the record straight so that they would not lose their zoning permit:

CAM [really CUT] is classified under the IRS code as a church . . . However . . . CAM does not hold worship services, perform baptisms, or carry out other such activities typical of churches.

* * * *

“‘Church’ means a structure intended as a meeting place for organized religious worship and related activities.” We feel that this does not apply to the building or the activities occurring therein.

10-7
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152022

Exhibit III-10-J.

This is the “church” that passed muster with Friedlander and Darling as soon as it was apparent to them that, like Mayo, Gerbode   was no longer associated with and was opposed to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Gerbode has made substantial “contributions” to both CAM and IRM, which he deducts on his personal income tax returns as charitable contributions. However, at the same time Gerbode receives the direct benefit of the bulk of these “contributions” from CAM and IRM in the form of rent, salaries and payment of personal expenses. The organizations also   provide Gerbode with an administrative staff and office facilities, all tax-free. The following are specific tax law violations Darling and Friedlander could have found if they had subjected CUT   to the same kind of scrutiny they had subjected Churches of Scientology to during the same period.

In 1982 and 1983, prior to the incorporation of CUT, when Gerbode was still the mission-holder of the Church of Scientology Mission of Palo Alto, he claimed substantial tax deductions on his personal tax returns for books, office furnishings, equipment, artwork, etc., that he purchased for use at the Mission. When Gerbode left the Mission in 1984 and established CUT, he donated these same books, office furnishings, equipment and artwork to the new corporation and again claimed them as charitable contribution deductions on his personal tax return. These were listed as donations in the 1023 application for CUT that Darling reviewed in 1986. When Gerbode left Scientology in 1984 he evicted the mission from his building in favor of his new operations, CAM and IRM from which he now collects rent. It is also evident that he launders donations to CAM/IRM back to himself as rent in order to get the benefit of both the charitable deductions and depreciation write-offs.

The IRS continues to probe litigation involving the Church while it ignored litigation against Mayo et al. Indeed the Service gave a de facto subsidy to the Gerbode/Mayo litigation by granting exemption to their litigation tax shelter. In the letter that Mayo wrote to the Service in support of CNC’s exempt status in March of 1986 (Exhibit III-10-H) he sent along part of the complaint in the suit RTC and CSI had brought against Mayo and CNC which alleged theft and violations of the RICO statute. Darling apparently did   not consider it necessary to inquire about the possible public policy implications of this litigation once he saw that Mayo was on opposite sides in the litigation to the Church and granted exempt status.

In 1986, Gerbode and Mayo established and obtained tax exempt public charity status for the Friends of the First Amendment (“FFA”), an organization purportedly established to support and promote First Amendment rights, but which in fact enabled Gerbode to claim tax deductions for hundreds of thousands of dollars he

10-8
CSI Prod 11-93
152023

“donated” to FFA, which sums were then used to pay Mayo’s litigation costs in his litigation with the Church. Although Gerbode is not a party to this litigation, a central issue in the suit concerns the control of copyrights in the name of L. Ron Hubbard that Gerbode has exploited. Gerbode struck a deal with David Mayo that Mayo will continue the litigation provided that Gerbode funds it, with the understanding that Gerbode will be reimbursed for the litigation costs if Mayo wins a counterclaim for damages. Thus, Gerbode has used FFA to deduct as charitable contributions what are in reality his own litigation expenses, that he expects to recover if the litigation is successful. David Mayo, on the other hand, hopes to net millions of dollars if the counterclaim is won. Gerbode has also disguised some of the millions of dollars he laundered through FAA so that they would not appear to be from him in order to avoid FFA being found to be a private foundation, and cemented this by shutting FFA down just before its advance ruling period on private foundation status expired in 1990.

The only question Mayo’s and Gerbode’s groups were asked concerning litigation was whether their “legal defense fund” was set up solely to battle the Church of Scientology. When they answered in the affirmative, exemption was awarded.

Unlike CNC, CUT, and CAN, who to this day enjoy exemption, our principal clients have no such status. Yet we alone of that group have been and are providing truthful and full answers to each question you have asked.

———————-

All of the information the Service has requested in the various subparts of Question 10 is contained in the responses to the individual subparts that follow.

* * * *

10-9
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152024

Questions 10.a, 10.b, 10.c and 10.d.2

In question 10 of our second series of questions, we expressed our concern over the possibility of continuing violations of public policy and requested certain information to assuage these concerns. We have additional follow-up questions in this regard.

a. Attached is a document relating to a program referred to as Snow White that apparently existed as of December 16, 1989. Please explain the apparent discrepancy between the document contained at the attachment and the response to Question 10.b.

b. The response to Question 10.b refers to a decision by Judge Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario (page 10-5). Please provide a complete copy of the cited opinion.

c. What is the status of Operation Transport Company? Does it continue in existence? If not, please specify when and to whom all assets were distributed or transferred.

* * * *

d.2. Please provide the following information with respect to Exhibit II-10-A; (i) fill in the blank under the heading of “Primary” contained in #6; (ii) an explanation of the reference to “HF” or “AS” under the heading of “Primary” at #7; and, (iii) fill in the blanks under the heading of “Vital Targets” contained in #7.

—————–

As a preliminary matter, we note that question 10 has two subparagraphs denominated as “10.d.” For the sake of clarity, we will refer to the first as “10.d.1″ and the second as “10.d.2.” Subparagraph 10.d.1 and paragraph 10.e are addressed in separate responses. This response addresses the remainder of question 10.

Subparagraph 10.a

Subparagraph 10.a asks for an explanation of an “apparent discrepancy” between the response to Question 10.b of your second series of questions and Exhibit II-10-A.

That which is attached is a copy of a document written in December of 1989 by a person holding the position of Snow White Programs Chief in the Office of Special Affairs United States,

10-10
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152025

and describes her functions and those of the Snow White Unit. The document also specifically mentions the Snow White program and its “Ideal Scene”: “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged and OTC, “Apollo” and LRH free to frequent all Western ports and nations without threat and all required ports open and free.”

Initially, it must be stated that the document in question was stolen from Church offices by an individual who had infiltrated the Church at the behest of the Cult Awareness Network. It was then passed on to the IRS by the CAN infiltrator via CAN. (See page 10-20 of our response to your second series of questions and supra for discussions of the Cult Awareness Network).

The “apparent discrepancy” to which subparagraph 10.a refers seemingly arises from use of the word “programs” in a post title that includes the words “Snow White” viewed against the statement on page 10-5 of our response to your second series of questions that “The Snow White program is not being executed today.” There is no inconsistency. That same page also states that the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. The Church vigorously pursues these objectives through the use of the Freedom of Information Act and through direct negotiation with government agencies intended to persuade them, at minimum, that if expungement of false reports is not feasible, corrective reports should be filed.

The original Snow White program, provided as Exhibit II-10-A, was written specifically to address problems which existed in 1973 with respect to OTC, the Apollo and Mr. Hubbard. Because the United States State Department and other government agencies had engaged in the circulation of false reports, free access to various Western ports and nations had been severely curtailed. The Apollo was sold in 1975, OTC became inactive at that time, and Mr. Hubbard passed away in 1986. Clearly, the original Snow White program became obsolete within a couple of years of its creation and is no longer in effect. In fact, the Apollo no longer exists. Once converted by its new ownership to a restaurant in Texas, it was involved in a train collision and in dry dock was cut into scrap. So, there is no way the Apollo will be frequenting Western or any ports!

However, obsolescence of the actual program did not invalidate Mr. Hubbard’s observation that when governmental and police agencies are allowed to accumulate false information in their files, and disseminate it to other agencies, they then “…tend

10-11
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152026

to act on the file without the presence of the real scene data which is factually good but which is then ignored.” In an ongoing effort to practice the Scientology religion free from the interference of misinformed government agencies, the Church continues to pursue the Snow White objectives with the legal means at its disposal. Only when the Church is free from governmental harassment and is accorded its rights will the 6 need for Snow White activities vanish.

Subparagraph 10.b

Subparagraph 10.b requests a copy of Justice Osler’s decision cited in the June submission. A copy of that Supreme Court of Ontario decision is submitted as Exhibit III-10-J-1, with the appropriate sections highlighted.

Subparagraph 10.c

Subparagraph 10.c addresses the present status of OTC, as well as details regarding the timing and distribution of any of OTC’s former assets.

OTC effectively ceased to operate in late 1975 when the Church activities that had been housed on the Apollo moved ashore in Florida. OTC remained inactive from that point forward except for ongoing litigation against the Portuguese government which is described on page 10-3 of our response to your second series of questions.

In July 1981, OTC’s aggregate assets were approximately $2,244,252 plus Pounds Sterling 2,254,852. At that time, OTC transferred all of its assets except for approximately Pounds Sterling 200,000 and its pending Portuguese claim to the Scientology Endowment Trust. This trust was recognized as tax exempt by the IRS under Section 501(c)(3) in 1983 after the particulars relating to the transfer of funds from OTC were specifically reviewed. In 1988, OTC dissolved and all assets still remaining, approximately $180,000, were transferred to Church of Scientology Religious Trust.

Subparagraph “10.d.2″

In Subparagraph “10.d.2,” you ask to have some blanks in the copy of the Snow White program provided to you with the June submission filled in and for an explanation of the terms “HF” and “AS.”

The version of the Snow White program provided with the June submission contained blanks in the places that you noted, apparently left there by whoever retyped that version. We have located, and are including here as Exhibit III-10-K, another

10-12
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152027

version which appears to be a copy of the original version and contains no blanks. The abbreviations “Cont,” “Gdn” and “DG/US” in Vital Target 7 stand for Controller, Guardian and Deputy Guardian United States.

The abbreviation “HF” stands for Hubbard Freedom Foundation. Our records show that it was set up as a Liberian corporation in November 1972 for scientific, research and educational purposes, received a total of $500 from OTC, but then never became active and never received any other funding.

The abbreviation “AS” stands for American Society which was another Liberian corporation also established in late 1972, at or around the same time as the Hubbard Freedom Foundation and probably for similar or related purposes. The best available information is that the American Society had a fate similar to Hubbard Freedom Foundation, receiving a small amount of money to get started, but then never actually carrying out any activities or function.

As neither of these Liberian corporations was ever active and as no effort was made to maintain their corporate charters in Liberia, we assume that they were dissolved by operation of law many years ago. The Liberian attorney who originally formed them was killed in a political upheaval more than a decade ago, and we, therefore, have no access to HF or AS records.

* * * *

10-13
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152028

Subparagraph 10.d.1

In our prior question 10, we expressed our concern over the possibility of continuing violations of public policy and requested certain information to assuage these concerns. We have additional follow-up questions in this regard.

* * * *

d. In CSC v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 381 (1984) at 431-437, there is a discussion of the actions of several persons identified by name or office (e.g., Vicki Polimeni). Please identify the persons who held the following offices during the period referenced at pages 431-437 of the CSC opinion: (i) FBO International; (ii) FBO AOLA; and (iii) FBOs at various other Advanced Organizations as described at page 431 of the CSC opinion. Please state whether Vicki Polimeni or any of the individuals identified in the response to this question have at any time subsequent to 1989 been related (by reason of being service-provider or otherwise) to any Scientology-related organization (either as staff or in any other capacity). Please describe the current relationship between Martin Greenberg and Scientology-related organizations.

——————–

During the period of time described at page 431 and 432 of the CSC decision, i.e., May through August 1969, there were only three Advanced Organizations in existence. Consequently, the positions you have inquired about and the individuals who held them were:

FBO International — Al Boughton FBO AOLA — Lauren Gene Allard FBO AO United Kingdom — Don Clark FBO AO Denmark — Rob Sanderson

Vicki Polimeni, Don Clark and Rob Sanderson ceased having any relationship with any Scientology-related organization many years ago, long before 1989. From 1989 to the present, Al Boughton has been a staff member at the American Saint Hill Organization (ASHO) in Los Angeles. He holds the position of Auditing Supervisor for the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, responsible for overseeing the auditing done by students training to be Scientology auditors on this course. The Church has had no specific information concerning the activities or whereabouts of Gene Allard since 1981, when he appeared as an IRS witness in the Tax Court trial of the CSC case.

The Church has long suspected that Allard was sent into AOLA in 1969 by IRS Intelligence Division agent John Daley, to infiltrate the Church as an agent provocateur. John Daley was an agent in the IRS’ Case Development Unit in Los Angeles, a unit

10-14
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152029

which served as a model for a national intelligence operation known as the Intelligence Gathering and Retrieval System (“IGRS”). The IGRS was disbanded in 1975 when Congress found that it had “fostered unrestrained, unfocused intelligence gathering and permitted targeting of groups for intelligence collection on bases having little relationship to enforcement of the tax laws.” Congress found that “there were the beginnings of politically motivated intelligence collection in at least one district; and evidence that the fruits of similar investigative efforts in two districts had been destroyed.” One of the districts that destroyed its files on the eve of the Congressional investigation was the Los Angeles District (i.e. John Daley’s files) and the other was the St. Louis District, where Congress found that a file labelled “Subversives” that “contained only material on the Church of Scientology” had been destroyed. (See pages from Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports On Intelligence Activities And the Rights of Americans, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, attached as Exhibit III-10-L).

Circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Allard was a clandestine operative who reported to Daley. Daley had been investigating the Church since at least 1968 and, by the time Allard first appeared at AOLA, Daley had already used a plant inside Crocker Bank who provided Daley with illegally-obtained copies of the Church’s confidential bank records. After occupying the position of FBO AOLA for barely two months, Allard suddenly disappeared, taking with him some internal Church correspondence and other Church assets. Allard turned over the documents to the IRS in Kansas City; the documents were forwarded to John Daley in Los Angeles.

The Church filed criminal charges against Allard. He was later located and arrested by the FBI in Florida and brought back to Los Angeles. Not long after Daley interviewed Allard in jail, the California Attorney General’s office decided the evidence against Allard was insufficient and dropped the charges. Then, in 1981, Allard surfaced as a witness for the IRS in the CSC case along with the documents that he had stolen, admitting on cross-examination that he was hopeful of receiving a reward if his testimony resulted in collection of any taxes. Judge Sterrett demonstrated a willingness throughout the CSC trial to regard any anti-Church witness as credible, but even he had problems with Allard’s testimony: Judge Sterrett found that “There were significant inconsistencies in his testimony . . .”. 83 T.C. 509.

Nevertheless, it was Allard’s testimony and the documents that he stole that formed virtually the sole basis for the findings at

10-15
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152030

pages 431 and 432 of the CSC decision about which you now inquire. Judge Sterrett’s gratuitous comments suggested that whatever occurred at AOLA in 1969 constituted some kind of criminal conspiracy. All of this evidence however, was known in 1969 when Revenue Agent Woodrow Wilson unsuccessfully sought to institute a fraud investigation. In June 1969, Daley even went so far as discussing with California State officials the use of the Allard evidence as “grounds for dissolution” of the Churches of Scientology. (Exhibit III-10-M.) In August of 1969, Wilson presented this information in the form of a “fraud referral” in an effort to elevate it from “case development” status to an actual criminal investigation. The fraud referral was declined by the Chief of Intelligence. (Exhibit III-10-N.)

You have also asked about the current relationship of Martin Greenberg to any Scientology-related organizations. Mr. Greenberg has not been on the staff of any Scientology-related organization since early 1980’s. He is a certified public accountant with an accounting practice in Clearwater, Florida. Although we understand that individual Church members have used his services for their personal or business accounting, he has not to our knowledge been retained nor has he done any accounting work for any Scientology-related organizations for many years. Mr. Greenberg is a parishioner of the Scientology religion.

While in Los Angeles in 1978, Martin Greenberg, along with CPA James Jackson, formed the firm of Greenberg and Jackson. In 1983 Greenberg moved away and sold his interest in the practice to Jackson, who retained the name “Greenberg and Jackson” for the professional corporation. At that time Mr. Greenberg ceased having any involvement in or knowledge of the affairs of any Scientology-related organizations. Recently, Mr. Jackson also sold his interest in this practice and presently there is neither a Greenberg nor a Jackson associated with “Greenberg and Jackson.” Several Scientology- related organizations continue to utilize the services of CPA Brad Bernstein, one of the present shareholders of that firm.

* * * *

10-16
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152031

Questions 10 e(i)-(ii)

In our prior question 10, we expressed our concern over the possibility of continuing violations of public policy and requested certain information to assuage these concerns. We have additional follow-up questions in this regard.

* * * *

e. We have carefully reviewed the response to Question 10.d. The Service still requires a more complete understanding of the cases listed in the response. Please provide the following information, as well as any other information or documentation that you believe would assist the Service in this regard.

(i) For each of the cases listed on pages 10-20 through 10-22, please provide a short description of all claims by the non-Church of Scientology parties. In particular, please describe any allegations that the Scientology-related organizations, and/or the individuals, described in Question 2.d of our second series of questions have engaged in any action that is an intentional tort and/or that would violate any criminal law. In your description, please include the date the action is alleged to have occurred and the party alleged to have committed the action.

(ii) For each of the cases on pages 10-8 through 10-22, other than the “GO Criminal Activity Fallout Litigation” cases listed on pages 10-16 and 10-17, please provide a copy of any jury verdict, or any decision, finding or statement by a court that any Scientology-related organization, and/or any individuals described in our prior Question 10.d, engaged after 1980 in any action that is an intentional tort and/or that would violate any criminal statute. The copy should be provided regardless of the ultimate disposition of the underlying legal action (e.g., even if an appeal is still pending or the action was settled, dis- missed, or successfully appealed). With respect to each copy provided, please state whether the Church agrees with the court’s statement, and, if so, whether there is presently any connection or relationship between the individual(s) involved and the church.

——————-

Subparagraph 10 e(i)

In our response to the Service’s prior Question 10.d, we provided a lengthy description of litigation involving Scientology-related organizations or individuals since 1980. To facilitate the Service being able to understand these cases and put them into proper context, the cases were grouped according to the kind of case and allegations and the phenomena that brought the various suits about.

10-17
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152032

In this follow-up question the Service is asking for copies of any jury verdicts or judicial findings respecting all but a few of those cases, where it was found that a Scientology-related organization or individual committed a tort or criminal law violation; and with respect to just three of the groupings of cases, the Service wants further information concerning the allegations made in those cases. Those groupings are: 1) cases listed as financial or property disputes or transactions; 2) personal injury or medical-related suits; and 3) suits that appear to have been instigated directly or indirectly by the Cult Awareness Network.

As described above in the Introduction to Question 10, in the vast majority of these cases the allegations that have been made and which are described below, trace back in one way or another to the IRS itself.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, we are providing in this response all of the information requested — i.e. the description of the allegations in each of the cases listed on pages 10-20 to 10-22 of our response to your second series of questions and copies of the verdicts, decisions and findings requested in Question 10.e (ii). We feel it is appropriate, however, to make the following preliminary observations.

Public Policy As An Exemption Issue:

All of these questions concerning litigation relate to the issue of public policy. Section 501(c)(3), however, contains no express condition that an organization must operate in conformance with public policy to qualify for tax exemption. Whether or not an organization violates public policy is relevant to exemption only in the context of whether the organization is operated exclusively for one of the exempt purposes that section 501(c)(3) enumerates.

Only one judicial decision has ever applied a public policy condition to the exempt status of a church — the Tax Court decision concerning the Church of Scientology of California (the “CSC decision”). Judge Sterrett, however, limited his findings of public policy violations affecting CSC’s exempt status strictly to the activities of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) that resulted in a number of GO members being convicted of crimes. Thus, although the Service was prepared to present testimony in the CSC case from tort claimants such as Larry Wollersheim and some of attorney Michael Flynn’s clients, Judge Sterrett precluded that testimony and made no finding regarding public policy based on any civil tort claims. (See our response to Question 10.d of your second series of questions for a description of Michael Flynn’s and Larry Wollersheim’s claims infra.).

10-18
Prod 11-4-93
152033

The CSC decision, upon which the Service has often relied, itself highlights the irrelevancy of pending, dismissed or settled legal cases where any form of tort allegation has been made. The public policy issue was addressed in the CSC case and decided in that case, and the only acts of any Church of Scientology members that were found to provide a basis for questioning exempt status were the criminal activities of the Guardian’s Office. If Judge Sterrett did not find the allegations of Flynn’s clients, Wollersheim and the rest to be relevant, there can be no legal basis for considering the same kinds of allegations now.

The Church has addressed the Guardian’s Office both here (see responses to Questions 3.e, 10.a and 10.d) and in our prior response (responses to Questions 3.d and 10.d). The Church also addressed at some length the various kinds of other litigation Scientology-related organizations and individuals have been involved in (response to your prior Question 10.d). On this basis, the Church feels that it has adequately addressed public policy against the relevant legal authorities.

Public Policy As Applied to Other Churches:

The Service has enforced the public policy standard selectively, applying it only to the Church of Scientology and not to other churches to which it could just as easily, if not more appropriately, be applied. For example, for most of the past decade the Catholic Church has been embroiled in a major scandal arising from the exposure of an astonishingly large number of instances of child molestation involving Catholic priests. Copies of newspaper and magazine articles about this subject are attached as Exhibit III-10-O. A book published in October 1992, Lead Us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry, states that between 1984 and 1992 four hundred Catholic priests in North America were reported for molesting children, and in this same period the Catholic Church has paid out $400 million to resolve these cases. The book further details how other Catholic officials, including many high in the Catholic hierarchy, have covered up what occurred or were guilty of complicity by knowing what was happening and ignoring it or reassigning a tainted priest to another job where he would still have contact with children. These are not merely cases where unproven allegations have been made; some of the cases resulted in criminal convictions of the priests involved. In the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe, for example, Father Gauthe pleaded guilty to 36 counts of child molestation while serving as a parish priest in Louisiana. The attempts to cover-up Father Gauthe’s crimes described in Jason Berry’s book spanned the Catholic hierarchy and included archbishops, bishops, other priests and directions and orders emanating from Rome. Thus a jury also awarded a verdict of $1.25 million to one of the victims and his family against the responsible Catholic diocese.

10-19
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152034

We are not suggesting that the IRS should now investigate the Catholic Church or make a tax exemption issue out of an unfortunate scandal that should be dealt with in the criminal justice system. Rather, this example serves simply to illustrate the unfair double standard that has been applied to the Church of Scientology.

Nevertheless, the following is a description of the cases that were listed in our prior response, describing the allegations in those cases of commission of intentional torts or violations of criminal statutes.

Description of Tort Litigation:

The suits listed on pages 10-20 through 10-22 each have their own set of facts and assortment of claims, but for the most part are of the same general character. They involve frivolous claims by “crazies” who think they can make some money suing Scientology; suits against former spouses or business associates naming the Church to seek a tactical advantage; and a considerable number of suits inspired by the Cult Awareness Network, which bombards the person with negative information about the Church and then refers them to an attorney who tells them they can sue the Church and get rich. (See the “Introduction To Question 10″ for further information on CAN) . There are a few instances, like the Rabel case, where a stereo speaker fell from the window of a Scientology mission injuring someone walking below, where there was a valid claim which the Church equitably settled. Not one of the cases asked about in Question 3.e.1 has been adjudicated by a court; thus all the claims listed are unproven.

Because many of these suits are refund suits, it is useful first to review the Church’s refund policy. It has been a longstanding policy of the Church that if someone is dissatisfied with their Scientology services and asks to have their contributions returned within a three month period, these amounts will be returned. Likewise, if the person asks for return of contributions for which no services were received (i.e. an advance payment), there is no three month limitation period. Anyone newly enrolling in services at a Church of Scientology is informed of the policies and signs an agreement to abide by them. As a further condition of receiving a refund or repayment, the person understands that they may not again receive services from the Church.

10-20
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152035

Within the Church, there are two separate terms: A “refund” refers to a return of contributions to a parishioner within 90 days of participating in religious services while a “repayment” refers to a return of a parishioner’s advance payment before he or she has participated in religious services. For simplicity, the following discussion will use the term “refund” to describe both types of transactions, because both involve a return of parishioner contributions.

The Church’s refund policy is exceedingly fair. If someone isn’t happy with Scientology — which is a very small minority of people — he simply has to make a proper request for his donations back, agree to forego further services and his donations will be returned. For the Church, in addition to the fact that this policy aligns with Scientology principles of exchange, it also serves the purpose of allowing our churches and the parishioners who are very happy with Scientology, to carry on without the unhappy few in their midst.

The presence of a considerable number of refund suits in the following list is directly related to the influence of CAN and CAN attorneys. As described in the “Introduction to Question 10,” CAN’s modus operandi is to seek out anyone who is unhappy with Scientology, feed them negative information and then refer them to an attorney. The CAN attorney then convinces the person that he can not only get a refund of his donations, but by allowing the attorney to handle the claim he can get damages as well, and possibly get rich. As will be seen in the descriptions of the cases that follow, almost one for one such suits are ultimately settled for the refund amount the person could have obtained in the first place simply by requesting it.

It is also of interest that we know of no suit filed for refund that wasn’t instigated by CAN. In fact, the Church rarely has any refund requests, by suit or otherwise, except when instigated by the IRS-sanctioned CAN. And in most cases, further discussion reveals the person was quite happy with his service at the Church and seeks his money back only after CAN has told him how “terrible” Scientology is.

Descriptions of individual suits follows:

Mira Chaikin v. Church of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard. et al.: The following is from the judge’s ruling dismissing the case, which says all that needs to be said about this case:

“In this pro se complaint, which can most charitably be described as bizarre, plaintiff Mira Chaikin (‘Chaikin’) alleges that the various defendants are exploiting her, impersonating her and ‘implanting’ her.

10-21
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152036

She alleges that because defendant Ron Hubbard has been ‘flowing to (her) sexually and romantically’ she is his ‘true wife,’ as well as ‘having been (his) wife in (her) last life who was murdered. ‘ Thus, she further alleges, defendant Mary Sue Hubbard is ‘in no way the wife of Lafayette Ron Hubbard ‘ but has merely been impersonating plaintiff with resulting severe endangerment of plaintiff’s mental health.

“As against the Church of Scientology, Chaikin appears to be claiming that the organization is acting contrary to its theoretical foundation. For the reasons set forth below, I dismiss the complaint.

“An action may be dismissed ‘when the allegations of the complaint are beyond credulity . . .’ [cite omitted]. I find plaintiff’s allegations, to the extent they are comprehensible at all, to be patently incredible.

Terry Dixon v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Portland, et al.: This is a typical CAN-influenced suit for refund by Terry Dixon, which also asks for damages based on claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Dixon alleges that the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre Portland, Church of Scientology of Portland and Church of Scientology Flag Service Org, breached a contract with him and their fiduciary duty, by failing to deliver to him results he considers to have been promised him from Scientology religious services. The suit was filed in December 1990.

Each of the three churches filed motions to abate the case pending arbitration, based on enrollment agreements signed by Dixon while he was in the Church, which include a clause that any disputes between the Church and the parishioner must be arbitrated. The judge ordered the case to arbitration and it has now been settled for the refund amount.

John Finucane, David Miller, Alexander Turbyne v. Emery Wilson Corporation, et al.: This suit was instigated directly by CAN and CAN attorney Toby Plevin. All of the plaintiffs are dentists who were clients of Sterling Management Systems (Emory Wilson Corporation) for a brief period of time and also briefly received some services from the Church of Scientology of Orange County. Sterling is a company that has been owned and run by Scientologists and uses methods of organizational administration developed by L. Ron Hubbard to help business people improve their businesses. Some of these individuals, upon being impressed with Mr. Hubbard’s works, have become interested in Scientology.

The lawsuit was filed in LA Superior Court on December 26, 1991 by Finucane, Miller, and Turbyne, who reside, respectively, in Aiken, South Carolina, Sacramento, California, and Sohigan, Maine,

10-22
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152037

against Sterling and the Orange County Church. The complaint contains causes of action for deceptive trade practices, fraud, and injunctive relief, alleging that Sterling misrepresented itself to be an independent management training organization when, in fact, it was a part of the Church of Scientology and operated as a recruitment office for the Church with the goal of procuring new members and getting them to take Church services.

Miller and Turbyne settled their cases with the Church of Scientology of Orange County for a refund, but not with Sterling, leaving all plaintiffs with claims against Sterling, and only Finucane suing the Orange County Church. Finucane has so far refused offers from the Church to have his claim arbitrated as per the enrollment agreement he signed. The Church therefore filed a counter-claim and criminal complaint against Finucane relating to his breach of contract (his refusal to abide by the enrollment agreement) and invasion of privacy (for secretly tape-recording a conversation with a Church staff member and then broadcasting a heavily edited version of it on national television).

Dorothy Fuller, an individual v. Applied Scholastics International, et al.: This is another Toby Plevin, CAN instigated suit filed in April 1992. The claims are breach of lease, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Applied Scholastics leased a residential property from Fuller who claims that the house was misused in several ways, including housing more people than agreed upon in the lease, use of the house as a child center, dormitory style living, and fabrication of products for resale. Thus it is a minor property dispute escalated by Plevin into tort litigation. It is expected that this suit will be quickly settled.

Lisa Stuart Halverson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al.: This was another suit for refund that CAN attorney Toby Plevin filed, alleging several torts for purposes of effect. The claims were for violation of the deceptive practices act and fraud, based on Halverson being told she could get a refund and then not being able to get it. The suit was settled for the refund amount.

Thomas and Carol Hutchinson v. Church of Scientology of Georgia, et al.: The complaint in this suit is virtually a carbon copy of the complaint in the Corydon case, one of the Michael Flynn cases listed at page 10-13 of our prior response. Although the Corydon case was settled, Hutchinson apparently got a copy of the complaint, very likely provided by CAN, and felt its inflammatory claims against a wide array of Church organizations would add spice to what is otherwise a suit for refund of money paid to the Church of Scientology of Georgia. The claims are stated as fraud and deceit and infliction of emotional distress, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. However, the claims revolve around a core that the teachings of Scientology differ from those of

10-23
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152033

Fundamentalist Christianity, a topic constitutionally barred from secular adjudication.

The Church anticipates dismissal of this suit, favorable summary judgment or settlement for a refund of the Hutchinson’s donations.

Mark Lewandowski v. Church of Scientology of Michigan, et al.: This suit was against the Church of Scientology of Michigan and two individuals, one former and one current staff member of the Michigan Church. Mark Lewandowski, who had previously been under psychiatric treatment with a substance abuse disability, took some courses at the Church of Scientology of Michigan in 1988. Although Lewandowski’s relationship with the Church was short, in his suit he alleges that the Church committed consumer fraud by failing to ascertain his unstable mental condition, fraud, for allegedly misrepresenting the nature of the courses he took, and intentional infliction of emotional distress through the above. The nature of Lewandowski’s claims and allegations strongly suggest that he was influenced to file suit by CAN.

This case went before a mediation panel where a settlement was accepted by the Lewandowski’s attorneys for a refund. The Church of Scientology of Michigan is in the process of paying this amount to end the suit.

Peter and Francis Miller v. Church of Scientology et al.: The suit was filed on April 29, 1991 by CAN attorney Toby Plevin against several organizations, including CSI, Church of Scientology Orange County and Sterling Management Systems. This suit makes claims not unlike those of the Finucane suit described above, that they were misled into Sterling and Scientology and therefore want their money back. The claims include fraud, breach of express and/or implied warranties, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The Millers’ claims against Sterling were arbitrated, with the millions the Millers originally claimed reduced to the refund amount. The case is still at the pleading stage as regards the Church parties.

Dee and Glover Rowe v. Church of Scientology of Orange County, et al.: This is another Toby Plevin/CAN suit naming the Church of Scientology of Orange County, RTC, CSI, the Sea Org and Does 1-100. It was filed on October 7, 1991, alleging fraud/deceptive trade practices, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit essentially repeats the allegations made by the Rowes in the May 6, 1991 edition of Time magazine, that they took courses at Sterling Management Systems and allegedly under the guise of management training were induced to take Scientology services. Discovery in this case has demonstrated that the Rowe’s claims are contrived and maliciously false, and that these are people with a history of criminal activity. Glover Rowe embezzled

10-24
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152039

money from a fraternity in college and Dee Rowe has a history of emotional turbulence starting long before any contact with any Scientology organization. One of their claims, which has already been dismissed on summary judgment, was that the Church bugged their hotel room. This was a completely fabricated claim as seen by the fact that the staff of the hotel testified that this was impossible and that the Rowes could “support” it only by stating without any proof that their room “must have been bugged.” It was not, a fact quickly recognized by the court. The Rowes were referred to Time magazine by CAN and continue to be encouraged by CAN.

Pretrial summary judgment motions are still being considered in this case and the Church expects all of the Rowe’s claims to be dismissed. The Church also expects to prevail on a counterclaim naming the Rowes and CAN defendants, for libel and breach of contract, and that by deprogramming the Rowes, CAN interfered with the Church’s relationship with the Rowes.

Frank and Joan Sanchez v. Sterling Management Systems, et al.: This is yet another CAN-inspired suit involving a dentist, Frank Sanchez and his wife, Joan Sanchez, filed against Sterling, the Church of Scientology of Orange County and IAS.

The Sanchezes attended a Sterling seminar at the end of October 1989, after which Sanchez asked Sterling to administer a program in his office. The Sanchezes went to the Church of Scientology of Orange County in December 1989 and were involved with the Church for less than a month. Sanchez wanted help with his marriage as he and his wife had marriage counseling over a twenty year period but it had been unable to straighten out problems arising from twenty years of adulterous affairs. Joanne Sanchez was opposed to the trip to Sterling and Orange County and went only because her husband wanted her to go.

The Sanchezes paid some money to Sterling and the Orange County Church, but then returned to New Mexico and refused further participation in any services at either Sterling or the Church, which would appear to have been directly caused by negative information provided them by CAN. Although the bottom line of what they are seeking is a refund of their money, their complaint asks for damages for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for fraud and all the usual, boilerplate CAN allegations. The suit was dismissed with respect to the Orange County Church and it is expected that ultimately it will be settled for a repayment of the money they paid to Sterling.

Thomas Spencer v. The Church of Scientology, et al.: This suit was settled for a refund and dismissed on August 31, 1992. It was another suit for refund laced with the standard CAN claims,

10-25
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152040

breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Irene Zaferes v. Church of Scientology: This was a personal injury suit filed in April 11, 1989. The plaintiff was a Hollywood woman who claimed that a wrongful death occurred when her brother, Luke Andrea (a.k.a. Louis Zaferes) died on April 12, 1988, some months after he did some “heavy construction work” at the Church of Scientology Flag Service Org, while having a heart condition. Zaferes was acting as her own attorney. The case was dismissed.

Jo Ann Scrivano v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al.: Jo Ann Scrivano, had an extensive psychiatric history including the use of heavy psychiatric drugs, before she came to the Church of Scientology Mission of Long Island in January of 1986. After receiving a small amount of introductory level auditing for which she donated $450, Mrs. Scrivano became upset and blamed this on her auditing. She was offered her money back, but refused it and left. She subsequently filed a suit naming not just the Long Island Church but also a number Church organizations that had never heard of her. She even alleged an array of torts and sought $10,000,450 in damages. Her claims include Fraud, Constructive Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Malpractice, Negligence, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. None of these claims is true, and both Scrivano’s own attorneys and the judge assigned to the case have encouraged her to accept a token settlement offered by the Church just to get rid of the suit.

Marissa Alimata and Richard Wolfson v. Church of Scientology of California, etc., et al.: This case, of Marissa and Richard Wolfson, furnishes an excellent example of how any fruitcake can file a civil suit. The Wolfsons sued for $1 billion alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the conduct of the Church was “outrageous, fraudulent, malicious, abusive, indecent, intentional, unduly influential, willful, wanton and beyond bounds of common human decency.” They claimed to have been subject to “undue influence” and to have suffered “violation of fiduciary relationship,” interference with prospective economic advantage, loss of consortium and fraud. Before winning summary judgment on all of the Wolfsons’ claims, the church was required to endure the public airing of delusional charges and suffer through such bizarre conduct as Mr. Wolfson appearing at his deposition dressed as Mrs. Wolfson.

Sherry Fortune v. Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley: This case was brought by Sherry Fortune against the Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley, her former husband, an independent contractor who had been a computer programmer at the Church. The case was essentially a domestic dispute between Fortune and Tingley that involved the rights to some computer software Tingley had developed. Fortune believed that naming the Church in her suit

10-26
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152041

would give her additional leverage over her former husband so she alleged that the Church was guilty of intentional interference with economic advantage, fraud and misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion. The frivolous claims against the Church were dismissed and Fortune and Tingley reached a settlement between them.

Gary and Susan Silcock v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake, et al.: The Silcock’s received some religious services from the Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake in 1984 and then asked for a refund. The refund amounts requested were paid to the Silcocks and the suit was dismissed in September 1986.

Pedro H. Rimando and Irene Marshall v. The Church of Scientology of San Francisco, et al.: This suit was a suit brought by the parents of Rodney Rimando, a former Church staff member who committed suicide in November 1986 by jumping out of a window of a Church of Scientology building. The suit’s claims were wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and outrageous conduct. The suit claimed that Rimando came to the Church of Scientology of San Francisco for spiritual guidance and that no precautions were taken to prevent his suicide or see that he got psychiatric help. This suit only came about because a CAN attorney incited the parents to file it. The parents did not really believe the Church to be responsible for their son’s suicide. The suit was never served and was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Wendy and William Rabel v. Eric Rising, Jane Doe Rising, Church of Scientology Mission of University Way, et al.: As described previously, this suit involved an incident where a stereo speaker placed in the window of the University Way Mission in Seattle, Washington fell out of the window and struck Wendy Rabel on the head. A settlement payment was negotiated and the case was dismissed in January 1988.

Francine Necochea, a minor child, by her Guardian Ad Litem Cecilia Garcia v. Church of Scientology, et al.: This was an insurance suit dealing with an incident in 1983 when a girl on a motorized bike hit a Golden Era Studios Bus. She sustained a broken leg and other minor injuries. The girl’s family sued the Church and the Church’s insurance company handled the case and settled it for $5,000.

Roxanne Friend v. Church of Scientology International, et al.: Some background leading up to the filing of this suit will help make it understandable.

Shortly after breaking away from the Church of Scientology, Roxanne Friend became romantically involved with a non-Scientologist. After an on-again, off-again relationship, they

10-27
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152042

finally broke off the relationship in August 1989. For months after this Friend experienced what she later characterized on a medical questionnaire as a “nervous breakdown.”

Documents authenticated by Friend in her own hand illustrate her state of mind during this period, and outline the series of bizarre and violent acts that she admits were preceded and prompted by the break-up with her non-Scientologist boyfriend. She first secretly absconded with her former boyfriend’s young son and molested him sexually. She next tried to persuade a karate instructor to murder her former boyfriend. Failing this, she wrote letters to the ex-boyfriend claiming that he had drugged, hypnotized and forced her to perform lewd sexual acts for he and his friends. When all of this further alienated the man, her conduct became more bizarre. She scrubbed her mare’s vagina with bleach causing the animal severe pain and then physically assaulted and injured the proprietor of the stable when she tried to intercede on behalf of the horse. A bit later Friend was stopped for dangerous reckless driving and resisted arrest by assaulting a police officer.

Church staff who knew Friend and Friend’s brother, nonetheless attempted to help by taking her to doctors in Los Angeles and then escorting her to Florida to be in a less stressful environment where she could also be examined by doctors. Once in Florida, Friend refused help, and went to the police with the hallucinatory claim that someone put crack cocaine in her cigarettes to account for her bizarre behavior. She was taken to a hospital at her insistence. The Church attempted to get her to submit to a full medical examination, knowing that most such behavior episodes are initially prompted by some undetected and untreated physical ailment. Friend refused.

Friend was then taken to her mother along with a written recommendation from the Church that she receive a full medical examination.

Friend’s mother ignored the recommendation and Friend was later arrested, incarcerated in a mental hospital and sent for counselling at a Jewish support group. A psychiatrist at that group turned her over to the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). As they do in every such case, CAN promptly pumped Friend full of false and derogatory information about the Church and turned her over to their attorney Plevin. Up to that point, when CAN became involved, Friend had never considered the efforts of the Church members to help her as anything other than help, and despite her agitated state, had never accused the Church of causing the condition — indeed she recognized that the break-up of her ill-fated romance was what brought it on. After being manipulated by CAN, however, Friend decided the Church was to blame and should pay her damages.

10-28
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152043

Months after the Church had its last communication with Friend, she finally received two medical examinations. The first found nothing wrong with her. The second found that she had a large lump in her abdomen and it was diagnosed as a very rare form of cancer. Friend’s CAN attorneys, the same attorneys who had represented the Aznarans (see description of the Aznaran litigation in the response to your prior Question 10.d) considered this the next best thing to a plane crash, and suddenly saw in Friend the prospect of a circus trial with a dying woman to play on the emotions of a jury. Her attorneys rushed to court with a lawsuit that claimed the Church was responsible for her cancer not being earlier detected by not allowing her to see a doctor, and that all her psychotic episodes stemmed from this undetected physical condition. The attorneys characterized the efforts of Church members to help her as examples of assault and battery, wrongful imprisonment, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit also claimed the Church was guilty of fraud and false advertising and breached express and implied covenants in representing it would refund money to those not satisfied but then failing to do so.

These claims were completely unfounded as discovery proved that Friend had seen many doctors on a regular basis during the period that she was at the Church, both at the Church’s direction and on her own, and thus the Church took the appropriate measures to see that she got the care and diagnosis needed. Her own doctor testified that the type of cancer Friend contracted was very rare and virtually undetectable by modern medical science until well developed and spread. The doctor testified that the only way to detect such cancer was for the patient to complain of a lump and then have a biopsy performed. Friend subsequently testified that she had felt a lump developing for two years, but never mentioned it during that time to the several doctors she did see.

The Church settled this case for nuisance value, for less than the cost of a trial, even if the Church prevailed. David Miscavige met with Friend in settlement talks as he was concerned that her attorneys would leave her destitute when doctor reports were submitted in court stating she only had several months left to live. Once settlement terms were generally agreed upon, the first thing Friend did was ask whether if she miraculously recovered, could she get back into the Church and take services. Thus, in the final analysis Friend herself acknowledged that her frightening claims against the Church were contrived.

To our knowledge, despite the claims that were made by Friend and her attorneys of imminent death, she is still alive.

Bruce and Lynnel Arbuckle v. Skip Pagel M.D., Church of Scientology Celebrity Center Portland, et al.: This suit was brought by the parents of Chris Arbuckle, a former Church

10-29
CSI Prod 11-4-83
152044

parishioner, who died of kidney failure. The suit’s claims were wrongful death against Scientologist Dr. Skip Pagel and the Tuality Community Hospital, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre Portland, Church of Scientology of Portland and Church of Scientology Mission of Fairfax. Arbuckle, a 25-year-old chiropractor, participated in the Purification Rundown after first receiving a physical examination by Dr. Pagel. Subsequent to this Arbuckle died, in August of 1986, of a heart attack resulting from a kidney failure which followed a dying liver, with the cause of the dying liver attributed to “probably hepatitis” on the death certificate. The complaint alleged that the Purification Rundown caused this to occur. What was found on further examination was that Arbuckle was known to be abusing steroids for body building purposes, that he had undergone a bout of hepatitis prior to doing the Purification Rundown (which he did not disclose to Dr. Pagel), and that a pathologist familiar with Arbuckle’s death stated that his liver died as a result of Hepatitis B, and that there was no way the Purification RD could have caused this to occur. The suit was settled and dismissed in August 1990.

In re Dynamic Publications Inc.: Dynamic Publications was a company owned by two now-expelled former Scientologists, who filed for bankruptcy in early 1987 in United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. The trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by the court to collect all the assets of the company, determined that these individuals had made donations to Churches of Scientology and Scientology-related organizations through the company and sought to get some of this money back as having been fraudulently conveyed when the company was in debt. The suit was settled in January of 1991.

Ted Patrick, et al. v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al.: The Church of Scientology of Portland filed a suit against the deprogrammers of Julie Christofferson in September, 1980, suing them for barratry and practicing medicine without license. Ted Patrick, a convicted felon, was one of the deprogrammers. He filed a counterclaim in September 1980 alleging abuse of process and claiming that the Church’s suit was frivolous and vexatious. The attorney on the suit was an associate of Michael Flynn associate. The counter-suit was ultimately dismissed.

Gregory F. Henderson v. A Brilliant Film Company, et al. and Gregory F. Henderson v. Marvin Price, et al.: Henderson had a contract with Brilliant Film Company to shoot a movie written by L. Ron Hubbard. Brilliant Film went bankrupt and Henderson filed suit on May 14, 1982 against a series of defendants, including L. Ron Hubbard. It raised financial claims and also that there had been a conspiracy to induce Henderson to agree to a loan that would not be repaid and to keep him from pursuing his legal remedies. He

10-30
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152045

also filed a second suit, against Marvin Price, an ex-Scientologist who had was the mission holder of the Church of Scientology Mission of Stockton stating claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary relationship and conspiracy to defraud. The suit with Brilliant Film Company was settled and the other suit was then dismissed with prejudice in July 1984.

Peter Siegel v. Religious Technology Center, et al.: Peter Siegel is a “sports hypnotherapist”, doing business as “Achievement Plus Institute”. Siegel used a logo similar to a trademark owned by RTC. Attempts were made prior to litigation to settle Siegel’s confusion as to the ownership of the mark, which was registered by RTC in December 9, 1986, and to obviate the need for litigation. Siegel was uncooperative in this and RTC and CSI filed suit. Siegel filed a pro per cross-complaint on December 20, 1989 for registration of the mark in his name, cancellation of RTC’s registration, trademark infringement, intentional infliction of emotional distress and revocation of RTC and CSI’s tax-exempt status. Siegel has no valid claim to this trademark and RTC’s summary judgment motion is presently pending. Although Toby Plevin   came in at the last minute to represent the defendant at the summary judgment hearing, the court, after hearing her argument, told Plaintiff’s counsel to propose an order on the summary judgment motion to be written from the viewpoint that the court was ruling in Plaintiff’s favor. The court has also asked for more detailed information concerning RTC’s pending motion for attorneys’ fees.

Steve Dunning v. Church of Scientology, et al.: Dunning was a Church staff member for three months in 1983 and came and went for very brief periods after that. He is currently in a half way house for psychiatric patients where he committed himself because he could not function in the outside world, has an outstandingwarrant for his arrest in North Carolina for assault with a deadly weapon and another arrest for threatening someone with a knife. He filed a suit against the Church asking for over $5 billion claiming breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit was completely groundless and it was dismissed in favor of the Church in August 1987 when Dunning failed to appear at the hearing on the Church’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment.

Jeff and Arlene Dubron v. Church of Scientology International, et al.: This suit which named 21 defendants and 50 “John Doe” defendants, alleged claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The suit stemmed out of an incident where some Church staff posted a notice around Scientology churches calling for Scientologists to report unethical conduct and used some facts concerning Dubron as an example. The suit was voluntarily dismissed.

10-31
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152046

Vicki Adler v. American Sun, Inc., Church of Scientology of Los Angeles: This suit alleged emotional distress as a result of Adler’s alleged brainwashing by American Sun, a business owned and operated by several Scientologists. The suit was essentially an employment dispute between Adler and American Sun where Adler made Scientology an issue to intimidate the company. The suit was settled and dismissed in 1988.

Benham v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Dallas This was a personal injury case in Dallas, Texas. Vicki Benham alleged that she was injured while on the Purification Rundown and that she had emotional distress. The case was settled in 1991 for a refund and nominal nuisance fee which was paid by the insurance company.

Michael Burns v. The Recording Institute of Detroit, Inc., et al.: This case was filed on July 25, 1991 against the Church of Scientology of Michigan, Church of Scientology Flag Service Org and several individual Scientologists, and a recording school owned by a Scientologist. Burns claimed that he was subjected to mind control by the Scientologist from the recording school and that this induced Burns to become involved with Scientology and join Church staff, which prevented him from pursuing his studies in the recording field. The case alleged fraud, breach of contract, intentional interference with a contractual relationship, intentional infliction with emotional distress, and conspiracy. The suit has no merit and is expected to be dismissed shortly.

Clay Eberle and Eberle & Jordan Law Firm v. Church of Scientology of California: Eberle is an attorney who formerly represented refund/repayment claimants suing the Church. His suit alleges that he was damaged when CSC settled directly with some of the claimants as the claimants then did not pay him attorneys’ fees. In April 1988, the Court granted the Church’s summary judgment motion dismissing the case and ruled that there was a qualified privilege for the Church to deal directly with its former members notwithstanding the retention of an attorney by the former member, and there was no evidence that the Church intended for the persons to breach their attorney/client contracts with Eberle, and no evidence that the Church caused the attorney/client contracts to be breached.

Mario Metellus v. Church of Scientology of New York, and Linda Barragan: Metellus was a non-Church member who responded to an advertisement placed by the New York Church for part-time help. After working less than a day, on November 29, 1989 he was dismissed. Metellus refused to leave and the police had to be called in to remove him from the premises. Metellus even refused to respond to the police officer’s directions to leave and

10-32
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152047

was arrested. When Metellus refused to allow the police to take his fingerprints, he was held in custody. The complaint, claimed that Metellus was falsely accused of criminal trespassing and falsely arrested. Metellus also sued the City of New York. The complaint against the New York Church was settled for a nominal amount.

Subparagraph 10.e(ii)

In this subparagraph, the Service has asked for a copy of any verdict, decision or judicial finding that any Scientology-related organization or individual was involved in the commission of an intentional tort or violation of criminal law. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 10-P. There were verdicts, or decisions with judicial findings of intentional torts in only four of the cases discussed on the pages of the prior submission referenced in this question, and all of these cases were discussed in the response to Question 4.d of the Service’s May letter — the Stifler case, the Christofferson case, the Wollersheim case, and the Armstrong case, discussed at pages 10-12; 10-15 to 10-16; 10-16; and, 10-12 respectively, of our prior response.

The Service has asked the Church to state whether it agrees with the findings of the Courts in each of the above decisions. The Church’s response to this part of the question follows:

Lawrence Stifler v. Church of Scientology of Boston:

The Stifler case was, for all practical purposes, won by the Church, as the only money judgment in the case was entered against an individual Church member for $979 in medical bills. This was one of Michael Flynn’s stable of cases described in our prior response at 10-12. Lawrence Stifler accosted a staff member of the Boston Church, Roger Sylvester, on the streets of Boston, Massachussetts in the early 1980’s. Stifler verbally abused Sylvester for attempting to disseminate his religion. Both men lost their tempers and came to blows. As a result of the altercation Stifler suffered a minor injury to his knee. Stifler filed suit claiming $4,250,000 in damages.

During the 1984 trial, Flynn attempted to show that the altercation was part of a nefarious Church of Scientology scheme. Flynn sought to introduce his standard retinue of professional anti-Church witnesses in order to reap a large punitive damages award. The Court refused to go along with this charade, bifurcated the Boston and California Churches from the trial and prohibited Flynn from introducing any of his general Scientology issues or “evidence.”

10-33
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152048

Stifler claimed to have suffered major trauma to his knee which had permanently incapacitated him. Yet, when the evidence was presented at the trial, the defense showed that whatever injuries he may have suffered at the time of the altercation with Sylvester were extremely minor. Evidence supporting this defense included photographs of Stifler engaging in competitive stair climbing up skyscrapers at the very time he claimed to be incapacitated. The jury awarded a mere $979.00 against Sylvester to cover Stifler’s medical costs, and the Church defendants were dismissed from the case.

The Church disagrees with the fact that Stifler was awarded any money at all. The Church agrees with the dismissal of the Church of Scientology of Boston and the Church of Scientology of California from the case.

Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong:

We have included some background information here and an epilogue to the decision in question. That is because the Service has continuously thrust the Armstrong case at us, demanding an explanation. The Armstrong case decision was so inflammatory and intemperate that it was used to stigmatize the Church in the legal arena and make other outrageous decisions possible. As we shall demonstrate below, all this decision ever involved was Armstrong’s state of mind, which subsequently obtained evidence proved conclusively to be one sordid, sado-masochistic nightmare. Furthermore, Armstrong’s state of mind horror stories have fallen on deaf ears in recent litigation. Relying on Armstrong or the Armstrong decision is wholly unjustified.

During the later years of his tenure as an employee of the Church, Gerald Armstrong was placed in charge of a huge quantity of documents that belonged to Mr. Hubbard that contained private and personal information regarding Mr. Hubbard. Part of his duties included research to support the work of an author who had been retained to write an authorized biography of Mr. Hubbard.

In late 1981 after the initial clean out of the higher levels of the Guardian’s Office, and when investigations were turning toward identifying those in alliance or sympathy with the GO, Armstrong suddenly vacated Church premises and left its employ, taking with him huge numbers of confidential documents that belonged to Mr. Hubbard or his wife which the Church was holding as bailee. It was no coincidence that Armstrong left at that time because he had repeatedly expressed his ambition to join the GO and work in Bureau 1 (Information Bureau), the same area of GO that had been responsible for the criminal acts of the 70’s. Armstrong also had been a long-time friend and confidant of Laurel Sullivan. Just prior to the take over the GO taking place, Sullivan had made a

10-34
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152049

proposal to place convicted GO members into corporate positions of control throughout the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. She was also found to be spying on the CMO for the GO during the early days of the CMO’s investigation into the GO. Armstrong assisted and supported Sullivan in her efforts.

In the summer of 1982 the Church received evidence that Armstrong had stolen thousands of documents from archives when he left the Church. Church counsel wrote to Armstrong, demanding that he return them. Armstrong denied the theft.

Once the demand for return of documents was made, Armstrong turned the stolen documents over to Michael Flynn, with whom Armstrong decided he could make a lot of money.

In August 1982, the Church sued Armstrong for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and confidence, and invasion of privacy based on Armstrong’s theft of extensive amounts of private papers owned by the Church or the Hubbards. The Church sought return of the papers and the imposition of a constructive trust over them, and any proceeds derived from them, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against dissemination or disclosure of the private documents.

In September 1982, Armstrong, represented by Flynn, answered the complaint and raised the defense that he was justified in stealing the documents entrusted to him as a fiduciary because he wished to make public information about Mr. Hubbard and the Church out of fear for his safety and well-being. His defense was stricken on four different occasions by three different judges.

In April 1984, the case was assigned for trial before Judge Paul Breckenridge, Jr. At that time, the Church presented motions in limine to prevent Armstrong from introducing the stolen, confidential documents since their introduction into evidence would vitiate the very rights of privacy the action sought to protect. The Court not only allowed Armstrong to introduce the confidential documents, but also allowed him to raise his four-times stricken defense with a new perverted twist. He would not have to prove there was anything to fear from the Church, but only his state of mind when he stole the documents. The Church was completely ambushed in the trial by these documents, as in most cases Armstrong had stolen the only copy that existed. Then, after he and Flynn had ample time to prepare their case from them, the documents were placed under seal in the Court. Although the inflammatory allegations that Armstrong made and purported to support with these docments could have been shown to be false or grossly distorted by other evidence, the Church had no chance to prepare and put on that evidence before being hit with the documents in court.

10-35
CSI Prod 114-93
152050

During the trial, Armstrong presented testimony from numerous witnesses who testified for the purpose of establishing Armstrong’s supposed “state of mind” with regard to his alleged justification for stealing the documents. Each of the witnesses was hostile to the Church and, in fact, was a plaintiff against or taking a position adverse to the Church in other litigation in which Flynn was the counsel. Each witness gave general testimony about his or her own viewpoint on relationships with the Church in an effort to bolster Armstrong’s state of mind justification defense.

The Court did not allow the Church to put on evidence to rebut the testimony of those witnesses. The Court also declined to allow the Church to put on evidence explaining the confidential documents and precluded the Church’s proffered rebuttal evidence on the ground that the adverse testimony was admitted only for the purpose of establishing Armstrong’s state of mind and not for the truth or falsity of the matter testified about.

On July 20, 1984, Judge Breckenridge issued a Statement of Intended Decision which became final a month later, which held that the Church had “made out a prima facie case of conversion…, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence” (as the former employer who provided confidential materials to its then employee for certain specific purposes, which the employee later used for other purposes to employer’s detriment). Judgment, however, was entered in favor of Armstrong. The Statement of Decision adopted as the facts of the case the allegations which Armstrong had made in his trial brief. These allegations included the statements on which Armstrong premised his justification defense; i.e., that defendant “… became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits.” The judge went on to pontificate on the psychological mind-set of not only Mr. Hubbard, but Scientology at large. The only lawsuit that there was to fear was the one that was ultimately filed for return of the stolen documents. It never would have been brought had Armstrong voluntarily returned the documents when asked, despite the theft.

The IRS CID, however, absorbed Breckenridge’s findings as the definitive statement of what Scientology is, and used this decision and the Flynn witnesses who testified at the trial as the nucleus of their investigation. The Church tried repeatedly to explain to the IRS that the Armstrong decision was nothing more than a statement concerning Armstrong’s state of mind. The CID and EO weren’t interested, as they found in Armstrong a kindred spirit who echoed their own sentiments. They therefore embraced Armstrong and the Flynn witnesses and used their fabrications as the basis for their investigations and denials of exemption.

Evidence found after the Armstrong trial proves not only that Armstrong never was afraid of the Church as he claimed at trial,

10-36
CS1 Prod 11-4-93
152051

but that he was engineering a plan to infiltrate and take over the Church at the behest of the CID.

Shortly after the trial, Armstrong’s conspiracy against the Church surfaced when he sought, at the behest of IRS CID agents Al Lipkin and Phillip Xanthos, to recruit Church employees and organize them against the Church. To this end Armstrong contacted a Church member and former friend to enlist his aid in recruiting a group of dissident Scientologists to overthrow Church management. After this individual, however, informed the Church of Armstrong’s plan, it obtained permission from the Los Angeles Police Department to conduct undercover surveillance of Armstrong. The Church then used two “undercover” persons to collect evidence of Armstrong’s machinations.

Videotaped conversations show that Armstrong intended to recruit additional persons to create “as much shit for the organization as possible.” Armstrong intended to foster this plan by creating sham lawsuits against the Church, seeding the Church’s files with forged and “incriminating” documents which would then be seized in a raid by the Internal Revenue Service as part of the then ongoing CID investigation, taking control of the Church after such a raid, and lying under oath to prevent discovery and to protect Armstrong’s co-conspirators.

Armstrong admitted on videotape that there was no basis in fact for his justification defense since he had no fear that anyone associated with the Church could or would harm him. Speaking with an undercover operative known to Armstrong as “Joey,” Armstrong revealed his “justification” defense for the fraud it was, and that his only “fear” was that his conspiratorial plans would be discovered:

JOEY: Well, you’re not hiding!

ARMSTRONG: Huh?

JOEY: You’re not hiding.

ARMSTRONG: Fuck no! And. . .

JOEY: You’re not afraid, are you?

ARMSTRONG: No! And that’s why I’m in a fucking stronger position than they are!

JOEY: How’s that?

ARMSTRONG: Why, I’ll bring them to their knees!

(Exhibit 10-Q).

10-37
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152052

Armstrong requested that the undercover persons give him Church documents so that he could forge documents in the same style. In particularly revealing language with respect to the documents he stole and later relied on at trial, Armstrong stated with respect to forgeries that he can “create documents with relative ease” because he “did it for a living.” (Exhibit III-10-Q).2

Armstrong then planned to “plant” forged, incriminating documents in the Church’s files so that those documents could be later discovered and used to discredit the Church. Armstrong planned to “tip off” investigators for the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service once the phony documents were safely planted so that they could be “discovered” in a later IRS raid.

JOEY: (Laughs) Great, so what kind of stuff are we going to want to create and who’s going to get it?

ARMSTRONG: That’s what we need to talk about!

* * *

JOEY: — and what do the agencies want on this?

ARMSTRONG: O.K. Well, the agencies have asked for some specific things, that’s all they asked for. Now – – * * *

JOEY: Now, who wanted this?

ARMSTRONG: CID.

(Exhibit III-10-Q).

The videotapes also reveal Armstrong’s true motivations and his systematic and fraudulent sabotage of the trial. Armstrong stated he would bring the Church to its knees and that the fomentation of litigation was one of the prime vehicles for accomplishing this objective. He stated:

ARMSTRONG: That they’re going to lose in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. They’re going to lose, they’re going to lose, they’re going to lose (tapping his palm each time he said it). And they’re going to start losing (shrugs) 1985. They only even have to lose one, and attorneys all over the country are going to jump on the fucking bandwagon. And watch, you know, all of a sudden you’ve got precedents being established, which are incredible.

(Exhibit III-10-Q).

10-38
CSl Prod 11-4-53
152053

Armstrong further explained that, from his perspective, neither the truth nor good faith play any significant role in litigation. He instructed the undercover Church member that facts mean nothing to a civil litigant and that truth is merely an avoidable obstacle. Armstrong explained how a civil claim can be pursued despite an absence of a claim or essential facts:

ARMSTRONG: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.

MIKE: So they don’t even have to have the document sitting in front of them and then —

ARMSTRONG: Fucking say the organization destroys the documents

* * *

ARMSTRONG: Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddam thing. We don’t have to prove shit; we just have to allege it.

(Exhibit III-10-Q).3

As to Armstrong’s “dedication to the truth,” for which he is complimented in the trial court’s decision, Armstrong took the opportunity to instruct both “Joey” and “Mike” separately on the need and desirability of lying under oath:

ARMSTRONG: . . . . By the way, no one will ever get any names, any communications, any times, any dates or anything out of me, that’s just the way it is. I’ll go to prison before I ever talk, okay. So you have to know that, because they’re wanting to depose me every couple of months. I’m simply saying no, anyone I talked to that’s, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this lawsuit, the causes of action in my lawsuit began in 1969 when I was enticed into the Sea Organization and it ended in 1981, or they actually they continue on because you guys have continued to harass me but you…

MIKE: Not us, hey!

ARMSTRONG: No, I’m telling you what I would tell them in deposition, but they don’t get anything else, go ahead.

MIKE: Okay, so that, that’s fine, we have an agreement on that point.

10-39
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152054

ARMSTRONG: Right. And you guys also have to have your agreements marked out between yourselves too, like, I don’t know who knows I’m involved but, I’ll deny it!

MIKE: Okay, well, we haven’t said anything either.

ARMSTRONG: Good, Good.

(Exhibit III-10-Q).

Armstrong was even more direct in discussing the fine points of perjury when speaking with Joey:

ARMSTRONG: OK. What are our conversations, should it come down to it?

JOEY: What do you mean?

ARMSTRONG: What do we talk about. You’re deposed. You walk out there, and there’s a PI hands you paper, saying you’re deposed Jack, and not only that, you’re out of the organization. And what do you say in deposition. Well,Armstrong and I talked about this, and he had a whole bunch of ideas about how to infiltrate the communication lines and spread turmoil and disaster, you know! What are we doing here? That’s my question, before I tell you my ideas on documents.

* * * *

ARMSTRONG: OK. So as far as the doc… Let me just say ah, you and I get together, we get together because I have a goal of global settlement. You have felt that the turmoil and abuses and so on have gone on too long… Hence we get together and discuss things. We have not discussed anything about a destruction of the tech, or Scientology is bad, or anything like that. Are we agreed?

JOEY: Yeah.

(Exhibit III-10-Q).

The evidence shows Armstrong’s state of mind, not to be fear, but instead to be of a calculating, aggressive and dishonest character.

Armstrong’s own writings illustrate Armstrong’s state of mind to be sickly and twisted. Attached are two examples of Armstrong’s writings illustrating Armstrong’s psychosis and his plan to entrap a senior Scientologist in a compromising sexual situation, as previously presented but not provided to the Service. (Exhibits III-10-R and III-10-S).

10-40
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152055

We do not enjoy even reading much less repeating Armstrong’s demented ramblings. However, we have tried to explain to the IRS at every level that the Armstrong decision only stood for what Armstrong’s feigned state of mind was during the trial. Yet, the allegations kept getting raised for us to have to deal with as some sort of fact. And they are being raised here again.

The Armstrong case was reviewed by the California Court of Appeal in summer 1991. The Court of Appeal refused to accept the evidence that the Church had discovered after the trial as outlined above, on the technicality that the trial court never got to see it first (an impossibility since it was obtained after the trial). The Court of Appeal upheld Breckenridge’s decision on the legal technicality that it believed a justification defense is available to defend against theft in California. As to the Church’s protest to the gratuitous and condemning language of the Armstrong decision, the Court of Appeal ruled there was not a problem of stigmatization because Breckenridge was only reciting Armstrong’s purported state of mind – exactly what we had been telling the IRS from 1984 to this writing.

In December 1986, Armstrong entered into a settlement agreement with the Church as part of the overall Flynn case settlement. The agreement was designed to resolve all present and future issues between the parties. Armstrong agreed not to insert himself into future legal proceedings regarding the Church absent legal process. Within a short time after receiving the Church’s money, however, Armstrong embarked on a course of conduct in direct, intentional violation of that agreement.

Upon entering into the agreement, Armstrong acknowledged that he understood the provisions of the settlement and had received legal advice thereon. Armstrong now states, however, that he found these provisions to be “not worth the paper they were printed on.” He now says that he “put on a happy face” and “went through the charade” of signing the settlement agreement. The Church recently sued Armstrong for his blatant disregard of his obligations under the settlement agreement. After a full hearing, in which Armstrong was able to fully air his “justification defense”, essentially replaying his 1984 case, another Superior Court Judge was not impressed and slapped Armstrong with a preliminary injunction. So, history has proven Breckenridge wrong. Armstrong is anything but frightened. As he so clearly said – “just allege it.”

There is a compelling body of evidence that suggests that Armstrong case was manufactured and arranged by the IRS prior to it even going to trial. The following is brief synopsis of some of that evidence:

– The IRS was part of Armstrong’s attorney Flynn’s FAMCO plan from the very beginning. FAMCO documents disclosed plans to create

10-41
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152056

“Federal and State attacks” with the objective of “closing orgs”. Flynn conducted a FAMCO conference in May 1981 that included “representatives of Internal Revenue Service”

– The IRS was the recipient of attorney-client privileged audio-taped conferences that were stolen by Armstrong. The IRS pleaded at one point during the US v. Zolin proceedings (see more about this below) that they had received a copy of the tapes from a “confidential informant” whom they refused to identify. This revelation shows the CID had a very strong vested interest in Armstrong being found justified, after they were in receipt of stolen property. This is evidence of motive for tampering with the outcome of the Armstrong case. It also explains their conduct in illegally and secretly obtaining a “legitimate” copy of the tapes from the Superior Court after the Breckenridge decision had been rendered.

– Despite the fact that communication with the IRS or any other federal agency was never an issue in the Armstrong case, Breckenridge’s ruling inexplicably invited Armstrong to discuss the contents of the sealed archives documents, and share them, with “any duly constituted Governmental Law Enforcement Agency”.

– During post trial proceedings, Armstrong’s counsel let slip a mention to Judge Breckenridge that “The IRS is interested, as the court probably knows. An investigation is ongoing right now with respect to the IRS criminal office concerning the testimony in this case and the evidence that was introduced at trial.” However, the Church knew of no such investigation and was not informed of such for 2 months. In fact, the CID to this day claims the investigation did not begin until July. Apparently, the IRS saw fit to inform Armstrong, his attorneys, and a sitting Judge about their investigation before informing the Church or the individual targets. The only explanation for this is ex parte communication with the judge on the part of the IRS to the exclusion of the Church.

– Discovery in the Canadian case revealed that Armstrong’s video taped statements concerning Flynn, the IRS CID and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) actively conspiring to create the “collapse” of the Scientology religion were borne out. Detective Ciampini’s notes revealed constant communication with Armstrong, Flynn, and LA CID agents. The CID agents travelled to Canada in late 1984 to coordinate. Canadian documents and agent testimony also revealed that Ciampini and his associates travelled to LA to coordinate with Armstrong and LA IRS in April 1984 – one month BEFORE the Armstrong trial.

– The CID’s own Special Agent’s Report of May, 1985 also corroborated that they were working in alignment with the FAMCO plan and Armstrong’s video taped aims. The report stated that the

10-42
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152057

objective of the investigation was to cause the “ultimate halt” to and “final disintegration” of the Church of Scientology.

– In the David Miscavige v. IRS FOIA case covering the IRS CID files, the IRS has strenuously evaded acknowledging the name of a single informant, despite the fact Mr. Miscavige has provided public documents irrefutably proving two dozen of them are Flynn clients. In fact, every single witness for Armstrong was an IRS CID informant. The CID has gone so far as to knowingly file a forged document in order to prejudice the court in the effort to prevent the disclosure of any documents generated by informant contacts.

– LA CID agents have sworn under oath several times that the CID investigation started as the result of a 11 July, 1984 New York Times story that covered the Armstrong case. Yet, the New York Times story itself quoted an IRS spokesman as claiming the “Internal Revenue Service has been investigating Mr. Hubbard’s financial arrangement with the Church of Scientology for more than a year.”

– On Sept 26, 1984 David Miscavige met with several high ranking IRS officials in Washington D.C. including Al Winbourne, Charles Rumph, Joe Tedesco, Marvin Friendlander, and Bill Connet, to answer to allegations made in the New York Times article since that was what purportedly caused the CID investigation. When Mr. Miscavige began by asking how the NY Times article could be the impetus for the CID investigation when the same article states it has been going on for a year, none of the IRS personnel could answer and in fact ended the entire discussion on the article – yet an explanation of the article is precisely why they asked for someone to attend this meeting.

CID agents continuously dispute evidence that their investigation began earlier than the 11 July, 1984 New York Times article. If the investigation started before 11 July, then it would clearly show there was no “reason” for it, other than the reason that has been clearly emerging in evidence obtained through discovery in Canada, and in FOIA cases – to wit, the CID started the investigation much earlier, orchestrated the Armstrong case and N.Y. Times article as a pretext to justify their concerns, with the aim to bring about the “final halt” to and “ultimate disintegration” of Scientology.

The Church contends the 1984 Armstrong decision was brought about by IRS agents illegally working in collusion with private litigants. The Church vigorously disagrees with the 1984 decision and with Judge Breckenridge’s observations about Scientology. The Church agrees with the 1992 Armstrong decision preliminarily

10-43
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152058

enjoining him from injecting himself into other private and government actions concerning the Church.

—————-

Among the fall-out from the Armstrong case has been litigation for most of the past decade over the IRS’s use of some of the fruits of Armstrong’s theft. In addition to Mr. Hubbard’s private and personal papers, Armstrong stole a tape made of a GO attorney conference in 1980. This conference was attended by Laurel Sullivan (later an IRS informant) who headed a project called Mission Corporate Category Sort Out (MCCS). The purpose of MCCS was to align the Church’s corporate structure with its expanding ecclesiastical hierarchy. MCCS was disbanded in early 1981, coincident with the overthrow and disbandment of the GO, when it was learned that Sullivan was attempting to place some of the indicted GO criminals in high corporate positions and also in control over the trade and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.

The IRS gained illegal possession of these tapes through a secret summons served on clerk the Superior Court (Frank Zolin) without notice to the Church. A Federal Court later ruled the IRS must return the tapes back to their sealed position in the Superior Court. In defiance of the court order, the IRS made a copy of the tapes, transcribed them, and sent the transcripts to IRS agents around the country. Several CID and EO agents working on Church cases fully reviewed the transcripts, while the Church itself never had access to them.

The IRS has used the existence of the stolen tapes against the Church both in court and in the exemption proceedings. Knowing full well that the Church did not have access to them or knowledge of their contents, the IRS has demanded the Church provide copies of them in virtually every 1023 proceeding.

This ploy was taken to its most outrageous extreme in the CST declaratory judgement case before the Court of Claims in Washington DC. The Department of Justice attorney representing the IRS in this litigation vehemently asserted the bald face lie that CST failed to establish its entitlement to exemption by not providing copies of the MCCS tapes during its exemption proceedings. He used that as the stepping stone for the rest of his argument in which he speculated that nefarious purposes for the establishment of CST were evident in the MCCS tapes, and that these inferences had to be accepted since CST failed to produce them. Not only were the tapes unavailable to the Church, contrary to DOJ assertions, but the IRS had possession of them and knew they didn’t contain the inferences put forth to the court. The big lie was pressed so insistently and forcefully that the judge bought and premised his entire ruling on it.

10-44
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152059

These tapes are still the subject of ongoing litigation. The most recent decision was rendered by the United States Supreme Court on November 16, 1992 in (U.S. v. Zolin which acknowledged that the IRS had access to the tapes in 1984 and had access in 1991 up through present time. In fact, the IRS argued unsuccessfully that because they had the tapes, the Church’s appeal of the ruling granting the IRS access was moot.

Christofferson v. Church of Scientology:

The Christofferson case, described at pages 10-15 and 10-16 of our prior response, went to trial twice, had two jury verdicts and both verdicts were overturned. The case ultimately was settled as a nuisance.

Julie Christofferson made her claims against the Church only after being kidnapped and deprogrammed by convicted felon and CAN founder Ted Patrick, and after being induced to file suit by unethical attorneys as part of Michael Flynn’s FAMCO scam, as described in the response to Question 10.d of our prior response. Christofferson’s attorneys were FAMCO members.

Christofferson claimed that she had been defrauded, brainwashed and subjected to emotional distress. The first trial of the case, conducted in 1979, was a free-for-all, in terms of Scientology bashing. The judge at that trial allowed Christofferson’s counsel to parade a string of former members and store-bought psychiatrists through the court room and essentially put the Scientology religion on trial, as seen through their hate-filled eyes. This resulted in a verdict against the Church of Scientology of Portland and other Church entities in the Portland area, of $2 million.

The Oregon Court of Appeals resoundingly reversed the verdict on the ground that it was a runaway, heresy trial prohibited by the First Amendment. The case was remanded for a new trial.

Given the admonitions of the Court of Appeals in remanding the case, the second trial should have been better controlled. It was not. If anything the second trial, conducted in 1985, was worse, as by that time Michael Flynn had put together a regular traveling circus of apostates that he exported to his allied FAMCO attorneys who were trying the case. All the witnesses had three things in common. One, they had never met Julie Christofferson. Two, they were all represented by Flynn and had a stake in the outcome of the litigation. Three, they were CID informants. This was the same turn-key arrangement used in the Armstrong case.

None of the witnesses had a single thing to say about Christofferson. They were simply summonsed to rant about the

10-45
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152060

“evil” Church for days on end. Gerald Armstrong, an IRS informant whose love poem to a pig was written at plaintiff attorney Gary McMurry’s farm-home between days of testimony, spent several days denigrating the Church and its beliefs.

On cross examination Armstrong was questioned about the facts disclosed in the video tapes outlined earlier in the Armstrong section of this answer. True to his premeditated pledge to deny any of it, even under oath, he proceeded to do just that. Thus, he denied that he had ever been involved in any planning to take over the Church or to seed its files with phoney documents in preparation for a CID raid, and other similar facts that the tapes clearly documented. He was asked if he ever met with anyone to discuss anything like this. Armstrong vehemently denied it. His blatant perjury then was exposed when the Los Angeles police department sanctioned video tapes were put into evidence.

Within two hours of this testimony, CID agents and District Counsel attorneys were in Portland in the Judge’s chambers, and in a clear attempt at intimidation, demanded access to and sealing of the tapes. Simultaneously, CID agents Lipkin and Ristuccia visited the Chief of the Los Angeles police department to arrange cover for their operation. This case should have exploded in the plaintiff’s face with a summary perjury conviction of her star witness. Instead, as a result of IRS CID interference it was allowed to run its full course as a modern-day heresy trial against the Scientology religion.

Not only was Armstrong not charged with perjury, but other CID informants such as Laurel Sullivan, Bill Franks, Eddie Walters and Howard Schomer, were also allowed to disparage the Scientology religion to their heart’s content; and CAN psychologist Margaret Singer, whose theories on “cults” and “brainwashing” have subsequently been completely discredited in several courts, was allowed to expound upon those theories making Scientology out to be something entirely evil and diabolical. This went on to the point where once again Scientology was on trial and the jury was overwhelmed by the poisoned atmosphere and the inflammatory accusations.

The resulting $39 million verdict was so outrageous that a public outcry went up, not just from Scientologists but from the religious community at large. The judge himself was shocked, and in admitting that the case had gotten out of hand in violation of the court of appeals ruling in the first case, declared a mistrial and nullified the verdict completely.

The Church thus does not agree with the verdict reached by the jury but does agree with the mistrial declaration that nullified that verdict exactly 60 days after it was entered. Lawrence Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California.

10-46
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152061

The Wollersheim case, discussed on page 10-16 of the prior submission is still under consideration by the California Supreme Court. The original $30,000,000 verdict was reached after months of testimony by Michael Flynn’s regular stable of witnesses, including Laurel Sullivan, Eddie Walters, and psychiatrist Margaret Singer, none of whom had even met Larry until the eve of trial. The trial was no different than Christofferson – same witnesses, same documents – except that it lasted for an additional two months. The entire trial was five months of unrestrained ridicule and attack of the Scientology religion.

On appeal the verdict was reduced by the California Court of Appeal to $2.5 million. The Court of Appeal characterized the amount of the verdict as “preposterous.” Although clearly shocked by the outrageous verdict, the court of appeal went out of its way to recite a factual record absolutely unsupported by the record below to justify Wollersheim receiving the $2.5 million they arbitrarily decided he was entitled to.

Both Wollersheim and the Church filed petitions with the United States Supreme Court. Wollersheim’s petition was denied, but the United States Supreme Court granted the Church’s petition, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the state appellate court for further proceedings. On remand, the Court of Appeal issued a new decision giving Wollersheim a choice of accepting a $2.5 million award or having the case remanded for a new trial. When Wollersheim refused to accept the award, the Court of Appeals changed their decision and, instead of sending the case for a new trial as required, amended the decision to affirm their original award of $2.5 million.

That decision was superceded as a matter of law by the California Supreme Court’s grant this summer of CSC’s Petition for Review. The matter is pending before the California Supreme Court. The final adjudication of this case is yet to be made.

However, the only thing the Church of Scientology was ever guilty of with respect to Larry Wollersheim was trying to help him, which is why he kept coming back for over a decade, even after being expelled for unethical conduct. The Church obviously disagrees with the jury’s treatment of the Wollersheim case as well as the dishonest manner in which the California Court of Appeals dealt with the case on both occasions on which that court acted. The Church agrees with the US Supreme Court’s decision vacating the judgment, and the California Supreme Court’s decision to review the case.

Wollersheim, an attendee at numerous CAN functions, has   recently communicated directly with Church counsel. This is

10-47
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152062

significant because the communication from Wollersheim confirms what the Church has asserted about Wollersheim the entire time — he is deranged and delusional. As can be seen from the attached correspondence (Exhibit III-10-T), Wollersheim’s current position is that the Church of Scientology is some sort of massive United States government intelligence experiment run amok. Wollersheim’s theory even has the Internal Revenue Service, along with the FBI, Justice Department and the Judiciary, having their actions with respect to Scientology dictated by the CIA:

“If you were sitting as director in one of the super-secret intelligence agencies or think tanks would you hesitate for a moment to run interference on the outer agencies, the FBI, the Justice Dept., the IRS or the Judiciary if this would insure that national security interests in this valuable thought reform field experiment would not be terminated. Wouldn’t you also periodically let the lower agencies publicly rough up Scientology to help maintain the great religion cover and release some of the pent up victim and social back-pressure.”

Wollersheim’s letter is plainly the ramblings of a decayed mind, but it illustrates the sort of persons against whom the Church has been forced to defend itself and further illustrates that any reliance by the Service on the claims of anti-Church plaintiffs like Wollersheim and other CAN members is seriously misguided.

CONCLUSION

As you no doubt expected, we don’t agree with the negative decisions concerning some Scientology corporations in the 1980s. More importantly, through the passage of time we are being vindicated.

The Service has criticized the Church for being over-litigious in fighting dissidents. In virtually every instance, however, it has been the Church that in the first instance was required to defend itself in litigation commenced by these dissidents; litigation packaged, marketed and sold by cynical merchants of religious intolerance like Michael Flynn, CAN and a significant element of the IRS.

As detailed in this and our previous submission, we have to litigate seriously because we have been subjected to great persecution. Perhaps those in the Service who complain about our “litigious nature” do so because we didn’t just fold under the onslaught of IRS sponsored attacks and this upset the best laid plans of the IRS Scientology-haters. The Service exhibits remarkable temerity to ask us to “explain” such cases when it was so integral in creating them.

10-48
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152063

The Service also has directed the support these dissidents receive. An LA district counsel attorney encouraged Vicki Aznaran to “take a stand” against Scientology, and her lawyer discussed her civil case strategy at length with LA District Counsel and EO agents. Once Aznaran was on board her ten year old personal income tax dispute with the IRS magically disappeared. Laurel Sullivan was represented by the U.S. Attorney’s office (on the justification she was an IRS informant) in a civil case brought by the Church against her for violating the attorney-client privilege. Mayo’s perverted version of Scientology principles received tax exemption as soon as he became an IRS informant. Even Flynn’s “Scientology Victims Defense Fund” which raised “donations” to fund his contingent fee litigation against the Church received tax exemption.

Cult Awareness Network received exemption as soon as they stated in writing that they would actively refer innocent inquiries about Scientology to lawyers. No cases remain in existence that were not started or maintained by Cult Awareness Network, which continues to operate under the IRS’ imprimatur. If the IRS were to withdraw its support, CAN and its instigated cases would disappear.

Our consistent view has been that the civil litigants are solely motivated by greed. The exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic. During the 1980’s, the IRS used every single civil litigant against Scientology as an IRS witness. The government, however, has no business in taking sides in a religious or civil dispute. It is indeed ironic to note that once the Flynn civil litigation in the 80’s was settled, with the exception of Armstrong, we hear no more of their “horror stories” from these paragons of virtue claiming to be interested only in “principle” and “what is right.”

But there is a more important point to be made. You are still holding us to a higher standard in these proceedings, which is not a fair and impartial administration of tax law. These decisions –Armstrong, Christofferson and Wollersheim– concerned CSC. Even putting aside whether we were right or not in the court room, how could these decisions have anything at all to do with these current proceedings? CST, RTC and CSI did not even exist when these individuals left the Church and the decisions in the aforementioned cases are not against these corporations.

We have more than answered your questions on the subject of litigation and we want you to understand how unfair we think this is. After all, as we have shown, significant elements within the IRS have actively participated in the litigation with a vested interest in the outcome. So you are asking us to defend ourselves against unfair attacks that your own agency has had a hidden and illegal part in creating. To understand why we have had to engage in so much FOIA litigation, you need only look at the bizarre

10-49
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152064

occurrences in our general litigation. So why continue this war of attrition? Who keeps pushing to ask us questions about our civil litigation? It isn’t relevant to these proceedings and this should be the end of it.

Everybody today knows Pontius Pilate was a toady who rendered a dishonest decision to curry favor from the Roman establishment. Judge Breckenridge is of the same ilk. The true story of his decision is in LA CID files – provided they haven’t been destroyed to avoid our FOIA litigation.

It is time to end this shameful IRS involvement in trying to destroy Scientology. Why must the Service follow in the footsteps of the Nazis, who spread black propaganda about the Jews so that the German people would be inured to the massacre of millions. This is the same tactic used by significant and powerful elements within the Service in their dissemination of false information and active participation in attempting to destroy us.

We have no doubt that the IRS officials involved in unreasoned hatred and war against us are morally certain of their correctness that this isn’t the same as the early Roman attacks on Christianity, that it isn’t the same as the Nazis’ genocide against the Jews. No doubt, the Romans and Nazis also showed the same moral certainty. Many such dogmas have borne the imprimatur of government–the indestructibility of the Roman Empire, the supremacy of the Aryan race, the inevitable triumph of communism over capitalism, the legal segregation of the races. History, however, always has proven otherwise: Rome fell, the Nazis were defeated, communism collapsed and apartheid was unmasked for the evil it is. History is on our side today.

* * * *

10-50
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152065

QUESTION 10.e.iii

iii. The Service understands that criminal legal proceedings are pending in Canada. Please provide a full description, including the current status of the proceedings.

In the preceding subparts to Question 10 and the response to Question 10.d of your second series of questions, the Church has described in detail litigation involving Scientology-related organizations or individuals in the United States. This final subpart broadens the scope of the Service’s public policy inquiry to include Canada. While the relevance of this inquiry is perhaps more attenuated than those concerning U.S. litigation, at the same time it provides a fitting conclusion because the Canadian case mirrors much of what occurred in the U.S., including a leading role played by the IRS. We are providing a full description of the Canadian proceedings below, and have also attached as Exhibit III-10-U, a memorandum prepared by counsel for the Church of Scientology of Toronto, setting forth his perspective on this case in response to this question.

Canadian Criminal Proceedings:

The acts that were at issue in Toronto occurred nearly 20 years ago, from 1974 to 1976. Canadian law, however, has no statute of limitations to bar anachronistic prosecutions such as occurred in this case. All the acts at issue were committed by Guardian’s Office members during the same time period as similar acts in the U.S. These included a conspiracy of infiltration and theft of documents in Canada similar to that which lead to the trial and convictions of GO members in the U.S. Yet, it was not until March of 1983, when the GO criminals in the U.S. had long since been convicted and sentenced, that the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) conducted the largest raid in the history of Canada against the Church of Scientology of Toronto.

The Guardian’s Office Clean-up:

In our prior response, the Church’s response to Question 3-d provided a detailed description of the actions taken by the Church to investigate and disband the Guardian’s Office (“GO”). This included sending missions from CMO INT to Guardian Offices around the United States and in other countries to investigate involvement by GO staff in illegal activities and, based on the findings, to purge offending staff from Church employ. The Guardian’s Office Canada, located in Toronto, was one of those offices investigated. A CMO mission found that some of the GO staff had been involved in

10-51
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152066

illegal activities. Actions were therefore instituted to weed out and discharge those involved. Church executives insisted that all wrongdoers make up for damage done to society by full and appropriate amends. During the thorough clean-up process, those who earnestly complied through thousands of hours of community-based charitable works, although barred from Church staff, were allowed to otherwise retain their membership in the Church. Those who refused to take responsibility for their actions were expelled.

A clique of the most high level GO members in Canada, lead by Brian Levman and Marion Evoy, who ran the Guardian’s Office in Canada and, in fact, were the ones originating criminal activities and ordering them carried out, refused to take any responsibility for their acts and were expelled from the Church. Their refusal to cooperate with investigations into the extent of the criminality made it impossible for the CMO missions to find out just how pervasive the crimes committed by GO Canada were.

By January of 1983 it was well known to the OPP that the Church had dismissed from staff all people even tangentially involved in criminal activities committed in the mid 70’s, and no one then currently on staff had the slightest inclination to commit crimes, and could not be induced to despite the best efforts of OPP informants. In February 1983, after 2 years of reorganization, a CMO mission fired to GO WW to begin the disbandment of the entire GO network. By late February 1983, GO WW no longer existed, and in the last week of February 1983, GO Canada was disbanded. This drove Ciampini and the OPP into a frenzy of activity.

Just two weeks later, as if fearing that the clean-up and elimination of the GO would completely undermine any case against the Church, the OPP conducted the largest raid in Canadian history, smashing Church property with sledgehammers and axes, and seizing two million documents, including confidential priest-penitent confessional materials from 641 parishioners. All together a total of 950 banker’s boxes full of materials were carted off from the Church.

Why did the OPP do this, almost a decade after the alleged acts occurred, six years after the FBI had raided U.S. churches and punished the masterminds of this activity in the US? It was at least in part pursuant to the goal of destroying the Scientology religion. It was also in large measure aimed at aiding U.S. attackers, including Scientology-haters in the IRS.

The IRS, Michael Flynn and his clients Gerry Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan, were key sources who had supplied the OPP with information for the warrant used in the raid. Indeed, a large portion of the Toronto warrant dealt with allegations of fraud (saying Church services did not result in spiritual betterment) and tax fraud against the Church based on information provided

10-52
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152067

by these IRS witnesses. The warrant predicted broad charges being laid, not only against the Toronto Church, but against the religion’s Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and senior Scientologists such as David Miscavige and Lyman Spurlock.

The two other main informants for the warrant were former Church members John and Nan Mclean. Documents received under the Freedom of Information Act evidence that during the 1970s and early 1980s while the Mcleans were assisting the OPP infiltrate the Church, they were at the same time acting as agents for the IRS. The Mcleans were also plaintiffs in one of the many Flynn FAMCO lawsuits. Other FOIA documents revealed that the OPP had arranged for government legal assistance in the form of money for the Mcleans’ attorneys in order to prosecute their civil claims.

Immediately following the raid, Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry told the news media that a US government agency was coordinated with and served to help spearhead the investigation leading to the raid. Subsequent discovery showed the US agency working hand in glove with the OPP was the IRS. After the raid, IRS agents in LA CID became regular communicants with Detective Ciampini to get information seized in the raid and share with him information from their investigation. In August 1984, CID agents Al Lipkin and Stephen Petersell went to Toronto and met with Ciampini and the forensic accountants who had examined seized Church financial records.

Because of an agreement made with Church counsel, none of the seized documents could be given to foreign agencies. Nevertheless, the Crown allowed IRS agents Lipkin and Petersell to be briefed for several days on the information from the documents, including extracts from the documents themselves. CID agent Lipkin advised Ciampini that if the OPP indicted L. Ron Hubbard and others, the IRS would assist in locating them. Clearly the IRS was encouraging the OPP to go forward with charges despite the stale nature of the evidence, hoping to bolster their own chances to bring charges of some kind in the U.S.

In March 1984, Church representatives went to Toronto to offer the Church’s cooperation to the Crown law offices in prosecuting the GO criminals responsible for the criminal acts in Canada. The Crown categorically rejected the Church’s good faith offer saying they held all the cards. Instead, the Crown Law Office twisted the Church’s offer of good faith cooperation as a threat by the Church against the GO criminals and used this to convince the criminals to accept immunity from prosecution and attack their former religion and the very subordinates they had ordered to commit the crimes in question.

10-53
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152068

Initially, the Toronto GO criminals were so uncooperative that the Crown could not even communicate with them directly. The Crown Law Office approached apostate IRS informant, David Mayo, for help in gaining support from the criminals. The OPP also utilized Mayo as a middleman to approach the expelled former Church members, as they knew Mayo was a GO supporter and part of the same splinter movement. The government chose sides in a religious dispute and went with those demonstrably guilty of criminal acts because they were willing to denounce the religion of Scientology.

In December 1984, 18 months after the raid, the OPP brought charges against the Church of Scientology of Toronto and 19 named individuals alleging theft of confidential information and property, breach of trust, and possession of stolen information and property. None of the other charges against the Church as set forth in the search warrant that authorized the raid – tax fraud, consumer fraud and conspiracy to commit indictable offenses – were raised in the indictment. After an extensive review by forensic accountants and Revenue Canada agents of all Church finance records and correspondence which had been seized in the raid, no evidence of any financial crime was ever found and no charges proceeded from these allegations. The only charges brought concerned the breaking and entering, and the infiltration activities by the GO.

The Crown gave immunity to the real culprits who actually ordered the activities of the charged individuals. Those given immunity were the GO staff who had been at the top-levels of the Guardian’s Office in Canada and who had planned out and ordered the criminal activities. Those who were prosecuted were the lower-level staff who were following these orders. In an unprecedented move, no member of the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of Toronto was charged, but rather the entire corporation itself was – a clear move by the Crown to attempt to stigmatize the entire religion for the acts of a few long-since-expelled criminals.

During the preliminary hearings from 1988 to 1990, the Crown produced no evidence that the Church as a corporate entity had advocated the illegal actions of those charged. Evidence that was produced showed that the Church forbade actions which violated the law, was not aware of these individuals’ activities and that when they were discovered, the Church removed these people from staff and disbanded the Guardian’s Office. Several charges were dropped as a result of the preliminary hearing.

The individuals who were indicted offered to plead guilty if the Crown would drop the charges against the Church, because neither the Church nor its directors nor Church members had any idea that the criminal acts in question were being committed.

10-54
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152069

The Crown refused to change its position, insisting that the Church plead guilty as well.

In the litigation of this case, which spanned most of a decade, during which time government officials expended $15 million in attempts to “get” the Church of Scientology. As described below, of 19 original charges, only 12 proceeded to trial and of those the Church was acquitted on 10. The remaining two are on appeal. The case was ill-intentioned from the outset and fell apart in court.

In November 1991, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the search of the Toronto Church premises was unlawful and violated the Church’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which affords protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Church had shown in the months-long evidentiary hearing that the OPP timed the raid to coincide with press deadlines of the international media; that many of the searching officers acted with no specific instructions or were left unsupervised, seizing everything in sight.

The judge ruled that the OPP failed to respect the terms of the search warrant that safeguarded against a general rummaging of the premises. Although the Crown argued that the police had acted in “good faith,” the judge found that the police either were unaware of this limitation or chose to ignore it, and he could not find they had acted in good faith. The judge found that the instigator of the raid, Detective Al Ciampini, was not a credible witness.

The judge cited as a significant example of the massive over-seizure, the large amount of religious confessional material respecting Church members taken by the police, noting that confessional material from 641 parishioners was unlawfully seized in violation of their privacy rights.

The judge also found it ironic that for two years prior to the raid, the two OPP officers, placed inside the Church as plants, had stolen hundreds of documents without authorization and without a warrant. These stolen documents then were used in the Information section of the warrant as the justification for the raid. The fact that the information came from documents the OPP had unlawfully stolen from the Church was withheld from the Justice of the Peace who issued the Warrant. The judge also observed the ironic fact that the OPP’s undercover police officers had done the very thing that was now the subject of charges against the Church and some of its members. The judge’s ruling resulted in acquittals on 7 of the remaining 12 charges, and the elimination of all theft charges. The remaining five charges for Breach of Trust were left for trial. The crime was that certain GO members had worked for Ontario government agencies, had signed confidentiality agreements and then

10-55
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152070

breached those agreements by passing on information concerning the agencies’ activities outside the agencies.

The trial judge allowed the Crown to keep the Church in the case as a party on a tenuous legal theory. The law that was used to support the Crown’s position is called the “Dredge & Dock” case, in which a court had ruled that a corporation can be held criminally liable for the actions of its employees. This case was relied on even though it clearly pertained to a profit-making, commercial enterprise, had never been applied to, nor is applicable to, a church and had never been applied to an organization that had thoroughly and demonstrably taken responsibility to rectify the actions of the miscreants.

The trial proceeded in April and May 1992. The Crown put on several ex-GO criminals, all of whom had been expelled by the Church in the early 80s. They testified under immunity even though they were the masterminds of the Canadian criminal activity. These criminals testified against their erstwhile juniors, whom the criminals had ordered to commit criminal acts. The criminals also were allowed to manufacture justifications for their own unconscionable conduct, laying the blame on the Church’s doorstep with tortured and false stories about their states of mind.

The Toronto Church had no local witnesses testify as there was no one locally in good standing who knew the first thing about the criminal activity from the 1970s. Senior Scientologists from California did travel to Toronto to testify. David Miscavige, who Ciampini had earlier threatened to indict solely for the purpose of getting ex-GO criminals to testify, voluntarily testified. He told the entire story of the GO take over, what lead to it, how it was carried out, and how the Church was so offended by the GO’s crimes that it was the only entity or individual that volunteered its services to the Crown to prosecute the wrongdoers. None of the Church witnesses attempted to justify a single act of the GO. Instead they outlined how the GO had covered up their criminal activity from Church management, and when management found out about the acts, it acted, swiftly and responsibly.

Once the evidence was all in, the trial judge, misusing the “Dredge and Dock” case essentially directed a verdict for the Crown. The Judge stated that whether the GO was separate and autonomous or not, and whether or not they withheld from the Church what they were doing, and whether or not the Church cleaned house long before the OPP and Crown were even interested in any criminal charges, did not matter. He told the jury that despite the unrefuted nature of the evidence of the Church witnesses mentioned above, they must return a verdict against the Church on certain counts. Notwithstanding the de facto directed verdict, the jury found the Toronto Church innocent on 3 of the 5 counts tried. It

10-56
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152071

was convicted on two counts of breach of trust. 3 ex-GO individuals were convicted on between one and two counts of breach of trust each.

No jail terms were given to any of the individual defendants. One was fined $5,000 and two others were each fined $2,500. No probation or community service work was ordered, in acknowledgment of the fact that they had already done thousands of hours of community service at the direction of the Church. The Church was given a fine of $250,000, one quarter the sum the Crown pleaded was an appropriate minimum.

The judge acknowledged that the alleged criminal acts had taken place more than 15 years ago and that all those responsible were removed by Church officials from positions of authority. He also recognized that not a single member of the present Board of Directors was a director at the time of the offenses, and that most present parishioners were likely not even members of the Church then. He specifically found that in light of those facts, deterrence was not required of the Church.

Following the decision, Church counsel immediately served the government attorney with a Notice of Appeal on the two counts upon   which the Church was found guilty. The Church and Church counsel fully expect these convictions to be overturned. Not only was a novel extension of the law used to find corporate responsibility, but the trial was fraught with numerous other errors. The fact that the directing minds of the GO criminality, who testified for the Crown under grants of immunity, were allowed to go on week after week denigrating the beliefs and practices of the religion in their attempt to lay the blame for their own acts on the Church’s shoulders, made for an inquisition-like, heresy trial.

On September 15, 1992, the Church filed notice of a $19 million Constitutional Damages suit against the Ontario Provincial Police and the Crown law office for the unconstitutional search and seizure in the 1983 raid. At the center of that suit are the discriminatory and violent acts manifested by the OPP’s raid; a raid that has already been ruled to have been illegal and conducted in bad faith.

The Toronto case began with dozens of charges being proposed in the early 1980’s. Internal OPP memoranda obtained through discovery have shown that the aim of the case was to complement the plans of IRS CID and US private litigant to physically overthrow leadership of the mother Church and to wipe out the religion of Scientology. It began with infiltration and attempted entrapment, followed then by an unconscionable physical assault on the Toronto Church, later ruled illegal and unconstitutional. The case was pressed by the OPP and Crown, despite the Church providing evidence it expelled the culprits and was willing to cooperate in their prosecution. The individuals who were convicted, GO underlings of

10-57
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152072

the Crown’s immunized witnesses, had already made up for their wrong-doing years prior to trial at the Church’s insistence. The Crown’s animus against the Church was so strong that notwithstanding the failure of the IRS CID’s takeover plan, and the failure of the US litigants against the Church, they pressed forward by dismissing dozens of capital crime cases in order to make room for their several week heresy trial against Scientology.

The fact that the OPP and Crown walked away with 2 counts of breach of trust, a fine less than 1/4 of what they argued was the minimum possible, and no jail time for any of the individual defendants amounts to one of the biggest embarrassments in the entire history of Canadian jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the Church will continue to fight until justice is completely served. And that means reversal of the two breach of trust convictions, and full recompense awarded for the OPP’s vicious and illegal raid on the Toronto Church.

* * * *

10-58
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152073

Notes

 

  1. This document in PDF format. Source image files: https://web.archive.org/web/20090927222617/http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/irs/1993-1023-csi-questions-3-10.pdf
  2. Transcript excerpts from the illegal videos submitted as Exhibit III-10-Q on archive.org. Cf. court transcripts and illegal videos.
  3. Exhibit III-10-Q: Transcript excerpts of illegal videos on archive.org. Cf. court transcripts and illegal videos.

CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question II-10 (a-d) [Re: Public Policy Violations] (June 2, 1992)

Question 10(a)1

10(a). The Service has expressed its concerns relating to violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations. What assurances can the Service be provided that these violations are not continuing as of December 31, 1989, and that those who were involved in the commission of the acts described in the CSC case are no longer affiliated in any capacity or employed by the Church of Scientology, including any Scientology-related organisation?

The Service’s ongoing concerns about “violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations” appear to be based on the Tax Court’s decision in CSC. The misconduct that gave rise to the Tax Court’s public policy findings in CSC was the criminal misconduct of individuals within the Guardian’s Office. As discussed in detail in response to question 3(a), the Guardian’s Office has been disbanded, the principal wrongdoers removed from staff permanently barred from ever serving on staff of any Scientology church in any capacity, and other former GO staff with lesser involvement removed and retrained. The procedures instituted that prevent recurrence of misconduct by Church staff in their official capacity apply equally here — the legitimate functions of that office now are carried out under full and direct ecclesiastical supervision, and there are no organizations or groups performing church functions in the practice and propagation of the religion of Scientology or its affiliated social welfare and public benefit activities which can operate independently of CSI and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.1/

1/ Church of Spiritual Technology is autonomous from the CSI hierarchy. CST has its own unique activities and purposes which require it to be autonomous. CST’s autonomy does not create a risk of a recurrence of the Guardian Office misconduct, because CST is not involved in any way with the ministry of religious services to the public, the proselytization of the Scientology religion, or the performance of its social welfare and public benefit functions.

10-1

Question 10(b)

b. The term “Snow White” referred in the 1970s to a covert operation carried out by the Guardian’s Office under which illegal acts were perpetrated, including burglarising the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Is any operation known as “Snow white” still in existence? If not, please describe and document the method by which it ceased operations. If an operation under the name still exists, please describe the operation and provide supporting documentation. In addition, please describe any operation of whatever name that may be designed to achieve goals similar to the “Snow White” operation that existed in the 1970s.

As discussed in our responses to Questions 3(d) and l0(a), during the 1970s the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) carried out a series of operations to infiltrate government offices, including the National Office of the IRS, to obtain copies of documents concerning the Church. While the GO used various names to refer to those operations, we do not believe it ever used the name “Snow White” to designate those operations. However, we understand that the term Show White may have been misused within a program involving infiltration of government agencies. This may be the source of the misconception about this program conveyed by the Service’s question. The term “Snow White” correctly refers to a program written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 for the purpose of correcting false governmental reports about the Church of Scientology through strictly legal means.

Mr. Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program because several countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea had denied entry to their ports to the ship Apollo, which at that time housed the Church’s senior ecclesiastical management bodies, as a result of false reports concerning the Church that were being distributed primarily by certain governmental officials in England and the United States. Mr. Hubbard wanted to correct the record and to seek redress for religious persecution. Accordingly, Mr. Hubbard wrote:

To engage in various litigation in all countries affected so as to expose to view all such derogatory and false reports, to engage in further litigation in the countries originating such reports, to exhaust recourse in these countries and then finally to take the matter to the United Nations (that now being possible for an individual and a group) and to the European Commission on Human Rights, meanwhile uprooting and cancelling all such files and reports wherever found.

10-2

This program did not contemplate anything illegal whatsoever, and in fact expressly stated its “Ideal Scene” to be “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged . . ..” (Emphasis added).

An example illustrating the use of the Snow White Program, why it was necessary and its results, concerns the country of Portugal. Between 1969 and the first half of 1974 the Apollo frequently docked at ports in Portugal with no problems and good relations with the people and local governments. In July 1973 a rumor was first heard in the port of Oporto that the Apollo was a “CIA ship.” This same rumor had first surfaced at ports in Spain in 1972 and as a result of this and other false reports the ship had been denied entry into some Spanish ports. Although the rumor continued to surface in 1973 and 1974 in Portugal, the Apollo nonetheless continued to be welcome in Portuguese ports without major incident.

On October 3, 1974, when the Apollo was docked at the port of Funchal on the island of Madeira, Portugal, it was attacked by a large crowd throwing rocks and shouting “CIA ship.” The local police and army stood by and watched, doing nothing to hold the crowd back. As a result some Church staff aboard the ship were injured and property was damaged or destroyed. Cars and motorcycles belonging to the Church and Church staff were thrown off the dock into the bay. The ship crew had to fight off the attackers with fire hoses while the ship made an emergency departure to escape the violence, without being able to take on food, fuel or water. The Apollo and her crew were forced to wait miles offshore for over a day while order was restored so she could return to load fuel, food and water and sail to a safe country.

Documents obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information act pursuant to the Snow White Program, trace the “CIA ship” rumor to a State Department telex in April of 1972 sent to various European countries that contained this and other false reports. Following the Snow White Program procedure of locating and expunging false reports and seeking redress for religious persecution, a suit was filed in Lisbon by the company that owned the Apgllg, Operation Transport Corporation (“OTC”), against the government of Portugal seeking damages as a result of this riot. In June of 1985 the Administrative Court of Lisbon awarded damages to OTC finding that the riot in October of 1974 had been sparked by the CIA ship rumor, and that this rumor was false. These damages were sustained by an appellate court in 1987.

Based on these decisions and clearing up of the false

10-3

information originally generated by the U.S. government, in April of 1988 the Minister of Justice in Portugal officially authorized the registration of the Church of Scientology in Portugal, accomplishing the Snow White Program’s objective for that country. The principal activities in the United States under the Snow White Program have consisted of filing Freedom of Information Act requests with all Federal governmental agencies and public record requests at the state and local level, pursuing litigation to compel disclosure of records being withheld, and the filing and prosecution of a large lawsuit in 1978 against a number of federal government agencies for the purpose of expunging all false reports on the Church and Mr. Hubbard contained in their files. Other activities under the aegis of Snow White, both in the UZS. and abroad, had to do with investigating and exposing Interpol as an autonomous police agency serving as a conduit for false reports on the Church and others.

The Osler Decision:

The Service need not simply rely on our representations about the Snow White Program as we are providing a copy of the original program with this write-up as Exhibit 10-A. Additionally, Justice Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, reviewed this program in 1985 to determine whether an Ontario Provincial Police officer should be cross-examined on an affidavit he had sworn in support of a search warrant against a Church of Scientology in Canada. The officer had characterized the Snow White Program as calling for illegal actions.

In an opinion dated January 23, 1985, after reviewing the Snow White Program document and other related evidence, Justice Osler noted that

“. . . it is not without significance that the affidavit of Fletcher Prouty, appearing in Volume 8A of the record at tab KK, makes it appear that he formed the conclusion, as a highly placed official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States that since 1950 there has been a definite campaign of harrassment against this organization (Scientology) for nearly thirty years primarily by means of the dissemination of false and derogatory information around the world to create a climate in which adverse action would be taken.against the Church and its members. Defense against this type of activity was, of course, the stated objective of the SNOW WHITE program.

10-4

Decision of Supreme Court of Ontario, Osler, J., pp. 33-34.

Concluding that the document on its face called for actions to “legally” expunge files and that the word “legally” appeared to have been purposely left out of the officer’s affidavit, Justice Osler ordered that the cross-examination of the officer go forward. Following the cross-examination, on February 7, 1985, Justice Osler issued a second opinion stating that while he did not believe that the officer’s mischaracterization of the Snow White Program rose to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation, he did find that the officer had made “errors in judgment” in characterizing the program as calling for illegal actions.

Current Snow White Activities:

The Snow White program is not being executed today. It was a very specific program tailored to a particular state of affairs at the time it was written. However, over the years the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. So the term may be heard in connection with this activity from time to time. The Church’s legal bureau, working with Church counsel, utilize the Freedom. of Information Act and similar statutes around the world to locate false reports on Churches. When located they seek cooperation of the agencies involved in expunging and correcting such reports. These staff and attorneys carry out no activities that are in any way illegal, and neither does any other unit or function in the Church.

A copy of the Snow White Program as issued in 1973 is attached as Exhibit II-10-A.

10-5

Question 10 (c)

Please state whether, to the best of your knowledge and belief, there are any pending United States or state or local governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by a Scientology-related organization or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization. For purposes of this question, please include any information relating to any Class V Church or Mission without regard to whether such Church or Mission is required to be listed in your response to question 1. Please include any pending criminal charges (and/or any pending court action including relevant docket number(s) against such entity or individual. Include in the description the investigating agency and any knowledge and/or documents known by you, or in your possession, or known by a Scientology-related organization or in the possession of such an organization regarding the investigation (e.g., what the allegations are and the date the acts were allegedly committed). In addition, please list all positions held by the individual listed in response to this question in any Scientology-related organizations at the present time and at the time the activity in question allegedly occurred.

There are no known pending governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by any Scientology-related organizations or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization.

*   *   *   *   *

10-6
152077

Question 10 (d)

d. Please provide a list of all civil or criminal litigation commenced on or after January 1, 1980 in which it is alleged that any Scientology-related organization (as that definition has been modified in c. above) or any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization, has violated any criminal law or has committed an intentional tort. The list should contain parties’ names, the docket number(s) of the litigation, the court in which the matter is or was pending, a short description of all claims (and any counterclaims) by the parties, including any additional facts you believe would be relevant to allow us to understand the bases of the suit, and the status of the action. The list need not contain litigation in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a named party.

Background

Although only litigation that commenced on or after January 1, 1980 has been requested, background information is necessary to put those cases in context. In the 30 years prior to 1980 there were only a handful of alleged intentional tort cases in the United States. These were principally cases involving a disgruntled former member wishing a refund of his or her donations, and who included tort causes of action as a litigation tactic. Such cases were typically dismissed without a trial or settled for a refund of the donations made.

The response to Question 3 (d) describes in detail how during the 1970s the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) acted as an autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy.

Although these activities involved a very small number of Guardian’s Office staff members operating autonomously in violation of Church policy and the law, their actions provided ammunition for those who would attack the Church and damaged the Church’s credibility with courts and the government. The GO carried out several years of secretive, questionable and often illegal activities before they were exposed and stopped. Much of this was recorded in documents that were seized in FBI raids on GO offices and made publicly available during the criminal prosecutions of GO members. The Commodore’s Messenger Organization

10-7
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152078

 investigated and disbanded the GO in the early 1980s, dismissing a large number of GO members from Church staff along with a few GO sympathizers in Church management. The GO documents and the activities that they revealed, along with a small group of rabid apostates, came to the attention of Boston personal injury attorney Michael Flynn, who concluded that this combination made the Church an easy litigation target in cases which he hoped to position for large monetary settlements.

Michael Flynn

Flynn, whose practice had theretofore centered on medical malpractice, launched his litigation assault on the Church of Scientology in 1979. His formula, which he repeated in all of the cases he brought, was to: (1) locate someone who had left the Church, had been purged or who could be induced to leave the Church; (2) convince the person to file “cookie-cutter” fraud and emotional distress claims; and (3) commence an action through an inflammatory complaint, relying on documents from the Guardian’s Office to give an air of false credibility to the claims.

Flynn, however, did not sue the GO; instead, his targets were Churches of Scientology generally and L. Ron Hubbard. As part of his design, Flynn enlisted the aid of ousted GO sympathizers and former GO members as witnesses, thus enabling him to orchestrate a highly prejudicial portrayal of Scientology for judges and juries and for the media.

On a separate front, Flynn set out to create broader problems for the Church in the hope both of spreading Church resources thin and imparting a false air of credence to his civil claims. This he accomplished by instigating governmental investigations and attacks on the Church, often through IRS personnel who were more than willing to cooperate.

The Van Schaick Action

Flynn’s first step was to file a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1979, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.. No. 79-2491-G. In that action, Van Schaick, purporting to act as a supposed class representative, alleged an array of torts and sought $200 million in damages. However, no class certification was ever pursued by Flynn. Instead, he used the lurid allegations and huge prayer of the Van Schaick complaint as a tool for soliciting additional clients to sue the

10-8
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152079

 

Church. Ultimately, Flynn recruited 28 plaintiffs to file virtually identical actions in various jurisdictions.

Flynn Associates Management Corporation

In 1980, Flynn created a corporate entity to promote his burgeoning business of suing the Church. Flynn Associates Management Corporation (“FAMCO”) was formed, in the words of a FAMCO document, to promote four basic goals:

  1. Closing Scientology organizations (Churches)
  2. Adverse media
  3. Adverse public reaction
  4. Federal and state attacks (on religion)

FAMCO was merely a front designed to generate money to finance Flynn’s litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme outlined in one FAMCO document actually promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares. FAMCO was essentially a franchising scheme through which Flynn solicited co-counsel in various other jurisdictions to join in the Church litigation through a fee-splitting system. Flynn’s plan was “. . . to position ourselves such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” He forecast “One thousand lawsuits (against the Church of Scientology) . . . by the end of 1981.” Flynn provided attorneys with “turn-key” lawsuits. He promised other attorneys that, “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery.”

Flynn’s Probate Gambit

A particularly outrageous tactic employed by Flynn was his attempt to steal Mr. Hubbard’s estate by inducing Mr. Hubbard’s estranged son, Ronald DeWolfe, to bring a probate action in November 1982, falsely alleging that Mr. Hubbard was missing and that DeWolfe should be appointed to control the estate. At the same time, of course, Flynn was representing a group of former Scientologists who had named Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in civil suits against the Church, alleging that Mr. Hubbard controlled the Church as its managing agent. Flynn thus achieved the unique distinction of going into one court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard controlled the day-to-day operations of the Church through a constant stream of orders to Mr. Miscavige, and then crossing the hall to another court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard was ill and dying and that he was being manipulated by his close advisors, especially Mr. Miscavige. By being willing to speak out of both sides of

10-9
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152080

 

his mouth, Flynn was seeking to get rich by trying to gain control of the very estate he was simultaneously seeking to plunder./1

After Flynn’s probate action was dismissed on summary judgment in June of 1983, Flynn shifted gears and announced that his “real” purpose in bringing the probate action had been to force Mr. Hubbard out of seclusion so he could be served in Flynn’s other cases.

One of Flynn’s clients, Paulette Cooper, graphically described in an affidavit how Flynn detailed to her his strategy to “quickly and easily win” cases by “conducting an attack against Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard” by naming him as a defendant in her pending lawsuits. Flynn specifically told Cooper that he believed that “Hubbard would never appear” in those suits because “by approximately 1979, Mr. Hubbard had severed his ties with the
Church.” Flynn boasted that such a ploy would result in quick money judgments because the litigation could be “quickly terminated, either by obtaining a default judgment against Mr. Hubbard,” or by forcing “settle[ment] in order to protect Mr. Hubbard.” Cooper further affirmed that Flynn filed sworn statements by Cooper in her cases alleging Mr. Hubbard’s control when Cooper lacked any evidence whatsoever of the claim, “solely for strategic reasons in pursuit of default judgment.”

Government Support for the Flynn Campaign

As noted above, Flynn obtained government assistance to lend credence and momentum to his attacks and to bring additional pressure on the Church. Tactics, strategies and the goal of the destruction of the Scientology religion were shared and carried out by Flynn in coordination with some parts of the IRS and Department of Justice. The clearest examples of this collusion were in the fall and winter of 1984.

In August of 1984, in civil litigation between churches of Scientology and the IRS and other federal government agencies that had been in progress for some years, the government worked with Flynn in importing one of Flynn’s principal tactics into the Church’s government litigation, namely seeking the deposition of L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of the Church and then seeking dismissal or default as


1/ It was during that same time period that Charles Rumph of the IRS National Office told Mr. Miscavige that he lacked credibility because he was an “automaton” who only did and said what L. Ron Hubbard told him to do and say.

10-10
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152081

a sanction if Mr. Hubbard failed to appear. The evidence used to support the government’s motions to compel those depositions were declarations by individuals who were clients of or had been witnesses for Flynn. Simultaneously, the government launched an “unclean hands” defense in these same suits based on allegations and claims that mirrored those that Flynn had asserted in his redundant lawsuits nationwide.

Two of the government’s principal declarants were Flynn’s client Laurel Sullivan and Flynn witness Dede Reisdorf. Sullivan had been removed from her position and later left the Church because she conspired with the GO to place GO members who had committed crimes in positions of corporate authority within the Church. She was a loser in the purge. Flynn provided her to the IRS who used her as a government witness represented by DOJ attorneys in Flynn litigation. Dede Reisdorf was also a GO sympathizer who was removed from her post in 1981 when she tried to block the investigation in the GO.

In March of 1985, based on the declarations of Sullivan and Reisdorf, Judge Joyce Hens Greene ordered the Church to produce Mr. Hubbard for deposition or face dismissal of a civil suit against the government which was in the process of exposing 20 years of false reports and harassment against Scientology and Scientologists. Unable to comply with the order as Mr. Hubbard was not running the Church or even accessible to anyone in the Church, the Church’s suit was dismissed in April of 1985 as a discovery sanction.

A few courts saw through the charade and refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. One such Judge was District Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer, who, on January 24, 1986, just hours before Mr. Hubbard’s passing, refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer held that, while Mr. Hubbard was “accorded reverence and respect by Scientologists,” he was not the managing agent of the Church corporations.

IRS CID Support of Flynn

It was during this same period that the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Los Angeles commenced a criminal investigation of L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and various churches of Scientology and other Scientologists. According to the testimony of CID Branch Chief Phillip Xanthos, the impetus for the investigation was a newspaper article detailing allegations made by Flynn and a number of his witnesses and clients. In fact, the majority of the individuals who were interviewed and used as informants by the CID in their investigation were from Flynn’s stable of

10-11
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152082

witnesses and clients, among them Gerry Armstrong. In a late 1984 police-authorized video tape surveillance, Armstrong — a Sullivan ally who had made several attempts to join the GO’s intelligence office — was recorded plotting a take-over of the Church. The plan included planting phony documents that would then be seized in a CID raid, the filing of a new lawsuit by Flynn which was designed to wrest control of the Church from its legitimate leaders and to set up the sexual compromise and blackmail of a senior Scientologist.

Just as Flynn expressed his goal of destroying the Church in his original planning papers, in the Special Agents report prepared at the end of the CID investigation, the agents expressed the same aim — “the final halt” and the “ultimate disintegration” of the Church of Scientology.

Resolution of Flynn Cases:

Between 1980 and 1986, Flynn was either counsel of record, of counsel or coordinating counsel on 40 virtually identical lawsuits against the Church. Flynn’s plan to incite 1,000 lawsuits never came to fruition, and his plan to break the Church financially, failed. By 1986, only one of Flynn’s cases had gone to trial. That case, Stifler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, involved an altercation between Stifler and a Church disseminator in which Stifler claimed injuries.2/ He found his way to Michael Flynn and filed suit, alleging various tortious conduct on the part of the Church and sought $4,250,000 in damages. Flynn took the case to trial and Stifler was awarded the amount of his medical bills ($979) in a judgment against the individual Church member. There was no judgment or damages against either of the Churches.

Realizing his plan had failed, Flynn approached the Church in 1986 offering a settlement. The Church decided to pay nuisance value to get rid of the distraction created by these cases, begin a new era of expansion for Scientology and to settle matters with the IRS. The first two of these objectives were achieved and all of the Flynn-related cases, as listed below, were settled if they had not been previously dismissed already. A new era of expansion did begin for Scientology.

2/ The only other “Flynn” case that went to trial was Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, a suit the Church brought against Armstrong, over Armstrong’s theft of Church archival materials. Armstrong brought a counter-suit with intentional tort claims which was never tried and was part of the Flynn settlement.

10-12
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152083

 It also appeared that a settlement with the IRS would be possible, but after years of good faith efforts and cooperation by the Church in its efforts to settle with the IRS, agents in the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation Division and hardliners against Scientology in the National Office, such as Marcus Owens, sabotaged those efforts causing the negotiations to break down, as is covered in more detail later.

The following is the list of the Flynn-related suits that were either dismissed or settled: Gerald Armstrong v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., (cross-complaint), No. C 420 153, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Jose Baptista v. Church of Scientology Mission of Cambridge, No. Civ. 81010, Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Mark D. Barron v. Church of Scientology of Boston, No. 5110, Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Donald Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 81 Civ. 6864 (MJL), United States District Court Southern District of New York; Peggy Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York et al.; No. 81 Civ. 4688 (MJL) United States District Court Southern District of New York; Phillip Bride v. Church of Scientology of Portland, Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al.. No. A 8003-01189, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County; Eileen Brown for Kevin Brown v. Delphian Fdn., et al. No. 81-435 (FBL); United States District Court of New Jersey transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 28, 1982; Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 80-501-Civ-T-K, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology. No. 82-886-Civ-T-15 United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. 81- 3472-CA-OI, Circuit Court Seventh Judicial Circuit Volusia County; John G. Clark, Jr. v. L. Ron Hubbard No. 85-356-MCN, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Bent Corydon and Mary Corydon, Mark Lutovsky, Phil Black, Mark Chacon, Church of Sciologos v. Church of Scientology Mission of Riverside, et al., No. 154129, Superior Court of the State of California County of Riverside; Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al., No. 81 681 MC United States District Court, District of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn, Lucy Garritano, Steven Garritano, James Gervais and Peter Graves v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., (counter-claim), No. 40906 Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J.

10-13
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152084

 Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 54258, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, et al., CV 85-4853, United States District Court, Central District of California; Michael J. Flynn v. L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, No. 83-2642-C, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Carol A. and Paul Garrity v. Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and L. Ron Hubbard, CV 81-3260 RMT (JRX), United States District Court Central District of California; Hansen, Marjorie J. v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Church of Scientology of California, No. 47074, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Betsy Harper v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, No. 65262, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Ernest and Mary Adell Hartwell, v. Church of Scientology of California et al., No. 196800, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for County of Clark; Thomas Jefferson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-3261, United States District Court Central District of California; Deborah Ann Keck v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., CV-81-6060 R, United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dana Lockwood v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-4109 CBM, United States District Court Central District of California; Nancy and John McLean, v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 81-174-Civ-T-K United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division; Steven R. Pacca v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 12076-81, Supreme Court New York County; Jane Lee and Richard Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, CV 81-3259 CBM (KX), United States District Court Central District of California; Patrick R. Rosenkjar v.  Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, and Mary Sue Hubbard, No. 81-1350, United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Martin Samuels, v. L. Ron Hubbard, A8311-07227, In the Circuit of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah; Howard D. Schomer v. L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. CV 84-8335, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; Michael W. Smith v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47236, Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts; Manfred Stansfield, Valerie Stansfield, Franklin Freedman et al. v. Norman Starkey, et al., No. CA 001 012, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles; Lawrence Stiffler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Roger Sylvester, No. 44706, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Gabor Szabo v. Church of Scientology of California and Vanguard

10-14
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152085

Artists International, No. C 312 329, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Janet Troy v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 41073, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Kim L. Vashel v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47237, Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Margery Wakefield v. Church of Scientology of California, No. 82-1313 Civ-T-10 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. C 694401, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Other Categories of Cases:

Although the cases generated by Michael Flynn comprised the majority of tort litigation against the Church of Scientology between 1980 and 1986, there were some other cases that arose during the same period of time that were not entirely “Flynn” cases although they were generally of the same ilk. Flynn shared information, witnesses, tactics and sometimes acted as coordinating counsel for other attorneys involved in similar litigation against the Church. In other instances, while there was no apparent direct link between Flynn and a particular plaintiff or attorney in a suit, the similarity of claims and tactics suggests that these individuals or attorneys were copying Flynn’s strategy. The following cases fall into this category: Alberto Montoya v. L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology, et al., No. 450094, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; Joan Edin v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al., No. 287191, Rita Engelhardt B. v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 312 692, Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Each of those cases was dismissed.

There are a few cases where Flynn’s influence was felt that deserve separate discussion as they are cases that actually went to trial and were adjudicated.

Christofferson:

The Christofferson case was actually originally filed in 1977, prior to the period covered by the Service’s question.

In 1977, after taking a few elementary courses at the Church of Scientology Mission of Portland and working for a short time at another organization, Julie Christofferson was kidnapped and, over a four day period, deprogrammed to give up her religion by convicted felon Ted Patrick. She was

10-15
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152086

then turned over to attorneys by the anti-religion group involved so she could bring suit against the Church on a contingent fee basis.

At trial, Christofferson’s attorneys derided and distorted Scientology’s beliefs and practices to such an extent that the Oregon State Court of Appeals overturned the $2 million verdict, finding that Scientology is a religion and that the trial had been rife with First Amendment violations. Upon remand, Christofferson’s lawyers — by then FAMCO members — applied Flynn’s tactics and inflamed a jury into a $39 million verdict that led the trial court to declare a post-verdict mistrial in May of 1985. There never was another trial. The Christofferson case was part of the 1986 global settlement with Flynn.

Wollersheim

Larry Wollersheim had been in and out of churches of Scientology for over a decade before he finally left for good in 1979. While in the Church he was continually in trouble over his unethical business practices. He filed suit against the Church for a variety of claims, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, No. C-332-027, in State Court in Los Angeles in 1980, represented by attorney Charles O’Reilly, a participant in the original FAMCO planning meetings.

During the five month trial in 1986, O’Reilly applied the FAMCO tactics and relied upon Flynn’s stable of witnesses and obtained an absurd verdict of $30,000,000.

While the Wollersheim case is still going through the appeals process, the jury verdict has been reduced to $2,500,000 from its original $30,000,000, and further appeals are pending.

GO Criminal Activity Fallout Litigation:

Another category of cases involved Guardian’s Office members or stemmed from GO illegal activities. This included, for example, proceedings to compel testimony before a grand jury convened in Florida to investigate GO activities and an action by the State of Florida to disbar Merrell Vannier, an attorney who was also a GO operative and who violated the canons of ethics as an attorney. It was this kind of activity that was rooted out and condemned in the disbanding of the GO. Nonetheless a certain amount of fall-out litigation from the years of GO criminality had to be expected. Cases falling into this category — i.e., cases which were not against the Church but which present allegations about the GO — are as follows: The Florida

10-16
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152087

Bar v. Merrell G. Vannier,. No. 61,691, Supreme Court of Florida (Vannier was disbarred); Merrell and Francine Vannier v. Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 60 478, Supreme Court of California (Vannier lost an appeal against an extradition order); In re Charles Batdorf; United States v. Batdorf, No. 80 CV Misc (MM-188), United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Batdorf convicted); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Mitchell Hermann, Peggy Tyson, Richard Weigand, and Duke Snider), Nos. 80-5 Misc-T-H and 80-614 CIV-T-H, Municipal District State of Florida — Tampa Division (investigation dropped); United States v. Stephen E. Poludniak. Libby Wiegand, No. 80-00143 CR (1), United States District Court for the Second District of Missouri (defendants plead guilty).

The Mayo Cases:

Mayo was removed from a senior post in 1982 due to unethical conduct and the discovery that he had altered Scientology religious practice and Scriptures. Mayo then left the Church and along with a few other ex-Scientologists established the Church of the New Civilization, dba Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara, California, where he delivered his own version of Scientology religious services to ex-Scientologists. He also sought the defection of Church members in order to build his membership. Mayo then acquired copies of certain confidential advanced Scientology Scriptures which had been stolen by some of Mayo’s confederates from a Church facility in Denmark.

As a result, in 1985, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology of International and Church of Scientology of California sued David Mayo and others in a suit alleging RICO causes of action based on the conspiracy to acquire the secret confidential materials of the Scientology religion and use them for the economic advantage of Mayo’s organization and other related splinter groups. This litigation consists of the consolidated cases, including counter-claims, of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Dal. 1988), No. CV 85-711 JMI (Bx) and Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Wollersheim, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1985) No. CV 85-7197 JMI (Bx).

Although this litigation is still ongoing, Mayo’s Advanced Ability Center has long since ceased to operate and the various individuals who had been associated with it have for the most part scattered to different areas.

The IRS has been supportive of Mayo’s efforts. Mayo became an IRS informant during the CID investigation of the

10-17
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152088

 mid-80’s. Whereas Scientology organizations have been unable to obtain exempt status, the IRS granted exempt status to Church of the New Civilization – even though it had closed its operations and its sole remaining business was to contest this litigation. Further, much of this litigation is financed by wealthy psychiatrist Sarge Gerbode. In 1986, Gerbode formed a trust known as the “Friends of the First Amendment.” The IRS granted exempt status to this anti-Scientology fundraising entity, and Gerbode has funnelled in excess of $1.4 million dollars to fund Mayo’s litigation through that trust as charitable tax deductions for himself.

The Aznaran/Yanny Litigation:

Vicki Aznaran is the former President of Religious Technology Center and her husband, Richard, is a former Church staff member. Vicki was removed from her position by the Trustees of RTC in March 1987 as she had betrayed the trust of her position and was not acting in the best interests of the religion. By her own testimony, she first got in trouble when she sought to place an ex-GO criminal in RTC’s personnel department. Vicki and her husband then left the Church after Vicki’s removal.

Joseph Yanny served as an attorney for RTC and various churches from 1983 until November of 1987. His primary contact with the Church was with RTC and Vicki Aznaran, with whom he developed a close personal  relationship.

After Vicki’s departure, the new officers of RTC examined Yanny’s performance, determined it to be sub-standard, and learned that he was a user of LSD. He was then discharged.

Upon his termination, a billing dispute erupted between Yanny and the Church, and Yanny enlisted the aid of the Aznarans in supporting him in his billing dispute and, in exchange, acted as de facto counsel for the Aznarans in helping them prepare and file a lawsuit against his former clients. The Aznaran suit, Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1988), No. CV 88-1786 JMI, was filed on April 1, 1988. Despite Vicki Aznaran’s high ecclesiastical position as the head of RTC for a number of years, her suit portrays her as a victim who didn’t know for all these years that she was really “brainwashed” and under “mind control” – plus the other stock inflammatory allegations that characterize this sort of litigation. It seeks $70,000,000 in damages and is still pending.

Shortly after the Aznaran complaint was filed, Yanny

10-18
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152089

received from Vicki Aznaran a declaration by her as the former President of RTC supporting Yanny’s claim that a retainer he received in 1985 was “non-refundable.” Yanny used this declaration in his fee dispute over the retainer which is now in litigation along with claims against Yanny for his breach of his fiduciary duties.

Even before the Aznaran case was filed, Al Lipkin, one of the agents who conducted the IRS’s CID investigation in 1984 and 1985, was in contact with Yanny and the Aznarans. It was Lipkin who arranged for the Aznarans to be interviewed by Exempt Organizations agents from Los Angeles who were conducting an on-site review of Church records, ostensibly the final step in negotiations concerning tax exempt status for Scientology churches. The day after issuing summonses to the Aznarans to be interviewed and to produce documents relating to their lawsuit, the same agents issued document requests to Religious Technology Center asking RTC to produce Vicki Aznaran as a corporate officer of RTC.

While the allegations of the Aznaran complaint serves as the purported reason for the summonses and interview, in reality the taped interview was a contrived setting for an IRS/Aznaran diatribe against the Scientology religion and L. Ron Hubbard, with the IRS agents urging the Aznarans to press their litigation and the Aznarans urging that the tapes of the interview be furnished to Lipkin and LA IRS CID.

It was the Church’s discovery of this event which precipitated the breakdown of the earlier negotiations between the Church and the IRS.

Coincident with their interview with the IRS, the Aznaran’s personal tax problems evaporated and their private investigation business was retained by Guess? Jeans — the large jeans manufacturer that Al Lipkin befriended during an earlier IRS CID investigation (which also involved tampering with civil litigation and was the subject of a Congressional investigation).

The Aznaran suit is still pending at this time and has not yet gone to trial. Meanwhile Yanny has pursued an agenda to cause as much harm as possible to the Church by repeatedly betraying his fiduciary duties as former Church counsel by providing information concerning the Church to the Aznarans and a number of other litigants against the Church, as well as to the IRS and the FBI.

10-19
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152090

 Other Current Litigation:

Several other suits are pending against Churches of Scientology that allege some form of tort claim. Although there are variations in the claims and different attorneys representing the plaintiffs, there is one common  denominator underlying most of these suits: the influence of the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”).

CAN, which the IRS has recognized as exempt under section 50l (c) (3) as an educational organization, is in fact a bigoted hate group that targets and tries to destroy churches and religions. CAN’s principal activities are negative propaganda campaigns, covert dissemination of false information for purposes of subversion and acting as a referral service for deprogrammers on a fee sharing arrangement. Although complaints have been made to the IRS about CAN’s continued exempt status in light of its true activities, no action has been taken.

The Church of Scientology is presently CAN’S principal target for attack, and CAN’s favorite tactic is to spread false and defamatory information about the Church through all available means while holding itself out as an authority on the subject. When contacted by anyone with a complaint about the Church, CAN manipulates them to attack the Church either through the media or by referring them to an anti-Scientology attorney.

The majority of the suits against Churches of Scientology recently filed and presently pending, that have not been otherwise discussed above, fall into this category. None has gone to trial. The following are cases instigated or influenced by CAN either directly or as a result of one of CAN’s spread of false information: Terry Dixon v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Portland, et al., No. 9010-08200 Multnomah County – Circuit Court of Oregon (in arbitration); John Finucane, David Miller, Alexander Turbyne v. Emery Wilson Corporation, et al., No. C 045216, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (pending); Dorothy Fuller, an individual v. Applied Scholastics International, et al., No. 92K 11466, Municipal Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (just filed); Lisa Stuart Halverson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al., No. 92K11186, Municipal Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (settled); Thomas and Carol Hutchinson v. Church of Scientology of Georgia, et al., No. D90315, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia (pending); Mark Lewandowski v. Church of Scientology of Michigan, et al., No.

10-20
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152091

 91-421716-LZ, State of Michigan in the Oakland Circuit Court (pending); Peter and Francis Miller v. Church of Scientology et al., No. 027140, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (case abated re the Church and in arbitration re Sterling); Ted Patrick, et al. v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., State Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah (dismissed); Dee and Glover Rowe v. Church of Scientology of Orange County, et al., No. BC 038955, Superior Court of California (pending); Frank and Joan Sanchez v. Sterling Management Systems, et al., No. 91-224-CV, 4th Judiciary District Court San Miguel County, State of New Mexico (pending); Thomas Spencer v. The Church of Scientology, et al., BC 026740, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (settled); Irene Zaferes v. Church of Scientology, Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles (dismissed); Jo Ann Scrivano v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 87-1277, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (in discovery stage); Marissa Alimata and Richard Wolfson v. Church of Scientology of California, etc., et al., No. C 650 988, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (judgment entered for the Church).

Personal Injury, Medical-Related Suits:

Another category of lawsuits involve claims by individuals who have been injured on Church premises or in some way attributed responsibility to the Church for an injury or death. For example, in the Rabel case listed below, a stereo speaker accidentally fell out of the window of a Scientology mission and hit someone on the street below. The case was settled. The Arbuckle case was brought by the parents of an individual who died while a parishioner of a church of Scientology. Although his death from kidney failure was traceable to his use of steroids, the case was settled to avoid expense of litigation. Each of this group of cases was either settled or dismissed. Mira Chaikin v. Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. 81 Civ 7525, United States District Court of the Southern District of New York; Gary and Susan Silcock v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake, et al., No. C 86-7213, Third Judicial District Court for the Salt Lake County, Utah; Rimando, Pedro H. Irene Marshall v. The Church of Scientology of San Francisco, et al., No. C 669015, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Wendy and William Rabel v. Eric Rising, Jane Doe Rising, his wife; Church of Scientology Mission of University Way, et al., King County Superior Court, Washington State; Francine Necochea, a minor child, by her guardian Ad Litem

10-21
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152092

Cecilia Garcia v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 165360, California Superior Court for the County of Riverside; Roxanne Friend v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. DC 018 003, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Bruce and Lynnel Arbuckle v. Skip Pagel M.D., Church of Scientology Celebrity Center Portland, et al., No. 8907-04119, Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court.

A final category of lawsuits includes cases that have arisen out of financial or property disputes or transactions involving individual Scientologists, their businesses or creditors or organizations or individuals that Churches of Scientology or related organizations have had financial dealings with. Often the Church is named in such cases simply as a perceived “deep pocket” or as a tactic to try to coerce a settlement. Such cases are typically dismissed or settled. These cases are as follows: In re Dynamic Publications Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maryland (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. A Brilliant Film Company, et al., No. 164213, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. Marvin Price, et al., No. 165165, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Peter Siegel v. Religious Technology Center, et al., CV 89-5471, United States District Court, Central District of California (pending); Steve Dunning v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. 060613, California Superior Court County of Los Angeles (dismissed with prejudice); Jeff and Arlene Dubron v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. NCC 29267B, Superior Court of California Burbank Division (settled); Sherry Fortune v. Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley, No. C 099061, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (dismissed as to the Church and settled as to Tingley); Vicki Adler v. American Sun, Inc., Church of Scientology of Los Angeles, SWC 81874, Torrance Superior Court of California (settled); Benham v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Dallas, No. 91-08216, 9th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (settled); Michael Burns v. The Recording Institute of Detroit, Inc., et al., No. 91-422334-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, State of Michigan (pending); Clay Eberle and Eberle & Jordan Law Firm v. Church of Scientology of California, No. NCC 166486, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles in the City of Glendale (dismissed in favor of the Church); Mario Metellus v. Church of Scientology of New York, Linda Barragan, No. 01133-89, Superior Court of the State of New York, County of New York (settled).

10-22
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152093

CONCLUSION:

The civil litigation campaign against the Church in the 1980’s was unscrupulous in its creation and execution. Using the crimes of the GO and the GO’s documents, Flynn and others have manufactured meritless claims and secured the survival of those claims against the very people and organizations which uncovered the GO’s crimes and harrassment, put an end to GO misconduct, and rid Scientology of the criminals who were responsible for the GO’s terrible legacy. In that regard, the unsettling truth is that what can correctly be characterised as the GO’s last operation, was the litigation campaign the GO criminals, Flynn and his confederates and their IRS allies launched against the people and organizations which put an end to the GO.

* * * *

10-23
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152094

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format. Text sources: gerryarmstrong.org; xenu-directory.net; archive.org

Aznaran v. Scientology: Brief for Appellees (August 22, 1990)

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.1

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Appellees VICKI J. AZNARAN and
RICHARD N. AZNARAN

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

NO. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE REQUIRED THE NINTH CIRCUIT _________COURT OF APPEALS RULE 28-2.1_________

 

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 CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF CASES…………………… vii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ……. 1
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………… 3
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court …….. 3
B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have
Jurisdiction Over This Appeal ………..
3
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
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………….. 13
A. Nature Of The Case…………… 13
B. Factual Background …………… 14
C. The Substance Of The Releases………. 23 23

– iii –

Page
III. THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS …………… 25
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 –

Page
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
IV. SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED…………. 45
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . …….. 46
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 –

Page
VI. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION …………..
54
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 ……….
56
2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below
17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction ……..
57
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
VII. THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS………….. 80
CONCLUSION 80

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

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…………………..
29
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
Statutes
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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

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,

1

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.”

2

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?

I.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

3

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

4

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:

5

“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.]”

6

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,

7

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. §

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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

13

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.

__________
2
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.]

14

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]

15

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.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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,

22

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

23

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

24

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.)

III.

THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS
THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS

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

25

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.

26

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

27

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 .

28

[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;

29

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

30

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.

31

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:

32

”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

33

discreditable.

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

__________
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.]

34

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.)

35

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

36

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.”

37

¶ 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.'”

38

“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.)

39

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.”

40

¶ 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

41

[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

42

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.]

43

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.]

44

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.

IV.

SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED

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.”

45

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

V.

STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

46

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

47

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.]”

48

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

49

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

50

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:

51

“(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.]”

52

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).

53

VI.

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

54

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
stated:

“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

55

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

56

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.

57

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.)

58

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,

__________
9
On October 25, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Record No. 133.)

59

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])

60

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.

61

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,

62

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

63

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.

64

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

65

37.)

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

66

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:

67

“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

68

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.”

69

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

70

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

71

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

72

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

73

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

74

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

75

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

76

”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

77

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

78

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
States
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

79

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.

VII.

THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

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.

80

CONCLUSION

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

HUB LAW OFFICES

By: (signed) Ford Greene
FORD GREENE
Attorney for Appellees
RICHARD N. AZNARAN and VICKI J. ANZARAN

81

Aznaran v. church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
PROOF OF SERVICE
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

LAURA PERRY

Legal Secretary

82

Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
SERVICE LIST No. 90-55288

HONORABLE JAMES M. IDEMAN
United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard.
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

MICHAEL L. HERTZBERG
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

EARLE C. COOLEY
Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

KENDRICK L. MOXON
Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard, suite 2000
Hollywood, California 90028

* One (1) copy of Brief for Appellees

83

Notes

IRS: Final Adverse Ruling (July 8, 1988)

[CT 6240]

Internal Revenue Service
Church of Spiritual Technology
419 North Larchmont, Suite 162
Los Angeles, Ca 90004
Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC 20224
Person to Contact:
Mr. M. Friedlander
Telephone Number:
(202) 566-6701
Refer Reply to:
E:EO
Date: [stamp] JUL 8 1988

Employer Identification Number: 95-3781769
Form:1120
Tax Years: All Years

Dear Applicant:1

This is a final adverse ruling as to your exempt status under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

This ruling is made for the following reasons:

1. You have failed to establish that you are operated exclusively for exempt purposes as required by section 501 (c (3) of the Code. You have not demonstrated that your activities and purposes conform to exempt purposes and activities as required by section 501 (c (3) of the Code.

You are one of a number of organizations which were created pursuant to a reorganization of the Church of Scientology which took place in 1981 and 1982. The reorganization was undertaken after the Service revoked the exempt status of the Church of Scientology of California, the former “Mother Church” of the denomination. The basis of the revocation was that the California church was an ordinary commercial enterprise, the Church’s income inured to L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion, and the Church had violated public policy by conspiring to impede the Service from assessing and collecting taxes which were lawfully due. Church of Scientology of California v. C. I.R., 83 T.C. 381 (September 1984). The revocation was sustained by the Tax Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 823 F. 2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987).

An earlier case involving a Scientology organization had also resulted in a finding of private benefit to Mr. Hubbard and members of his family.Founding Church of Scientology v. U.S., 412 F. 2d 1197 (Ct. C1. 1969),cert. den., 39 U.S. 1009 (1970).

In the Church of California case, cited above, the Tax Court described how the Church attempted to frustrate the Service’s efforts to examine its financial affairs. The Church maintained no books or journals to record

[CT 6241]

-2-

Church of Spiritual Technology

and systematize its financial transactions. Therefore, the examination had to proceed on the basis of millions of separate checks, invoices, and disbursement vouchers. The Church’s accountant saw to it that these documents were provided in no semblance of order. He advised another church to “give the IRS agent a bunch of records in a box in no semblance of order, to place the agent in a dark, small, out-of-the-way room, [and] to refuse to give practical assistance locating records.” In the face of such tactics, the IRS spent approximately two years in an unsuccessful attempt to audit the Church’s 1958 and 1969 financial operations.

In addition to the above tactics, the Church knowingly and purposely misled the IRS concerning extensive operations it conducted in the United Kingdom. It concealed from the examiners the fact that it regularly received debit advices from foreign banks in lieu of canceled checks. It never produced canceled checks from some of its accounts which it maintained in the name of another corporation. When checks were produced, they were sometimes detached from their stubs. Boxes of records were mislabeled. The Church intentionally delayed in providing requested records and in some instances it never provided the records at all.

In order to establish whether the reorganized Church of Scientology was operated exclusively in furtherance of exempt purposes, we sought to obtain detailed information from you and from the other newly created entities which had filed applications for recognition of exemption. Although some information was initially provided, the information was incomplete or partial. Eight of the organizations eventually withdrew their applications without providing the information we had requested.

While the applications were pending, witnesses gave testimony in court cases involving churches of Scientology. See Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, No. C 420153 (Calif. Super. Ct., July 20, 1984);Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc., et al. v. Director, Federal Bureau or Investigation, et al., 802 F. 2nd 1448 , cert. den., 56 U.S.L.W. 3231 (October 6, 1987). The testimony was to the effect that L. Ron Hubbard continued to control the Church of Scientology for his private benefit. Witness testimony in the Armstrong case alleged that the project known as Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out (MCCS) had been undertaken by the Church of Scientology of California in 1980. The alleged purpose of the MCCS project was, according to the testimony of Laurel Sullivan, to devise a new organizational structure to conceal L. Ron Hubbard’s continued control of the Church of Scientology. In the Founding Church.v. Director, F.B.I. case, to which the Service was a party, the government successfully argued that L. Ron Hubbard should be required to appear and be deposed because he was a managing agent of the Church. Mr. Hubbard did not appear and the case against the government defendants was dismissed with prejudice.

[CT 6242]

-3-

Church of Spiritual Technology

We asked the remaining applicants who had not withdrawn their applications to comment on the matters noted in the Armstrong and Founding Church v. Director F.B.I. cases. They responded that the testimony related to other organizations and time periods, attacked the credibility of the witnesses, and stated that L. Ron Hubbard did not hold any position of control in any church of Scientology even though he was still revered as the founder of the religion.
We were told that the present corporate structure had been designed after those responsible for the MCCS project had been dismissed from the church and that the work done on the MCCS project was not considered or consulted in designing the new organizational structure presently in place. At the same time, we were furnished for the first time a chart showing levels of authority and departments within the new organizational structure. One of the departments, the Commodore’s Messenger Organization (International), exists within the corporate structure of Church of Scientology International, the new “Mother Church” of the denomination. According to allegations made in the Armstrong case, L. Ron Hubbard controlled the church through the Commodore’s Messenger Organization utilizing David Miscavige, Pat Broeker and Anne Broeker to carry out his orders. David Miscavige, Anne Broeker, and Lyman Spurlock were the original trustees of Religious Technology Center. Mr. Miscavige enjoys a position of influence in the reorganized Scientology structure which we have been informed derives from”moral authority” rather than from any official position in the corporate structure. Lyman Spurlock is president of Church of Spiritual Technology and, along with Mr. Miscavige, is an employee of Author Services, Inc. Author Services, Inc., is a for-profit corporation formed to provide services to L. Ron Hubbard in connection with exploitation of patents and copyrights which Mr. Hubbard owned.

On January 7, 1986, we issued an initial adverse ruling on your application. You submitted a written protest to our initial adverse ruling. In your protest we learned for the first time of the existence of still other organizations which were related to the new Scientology operating structure. Following your protest conference, which was held in January, 1987, we asked you to provide more detailed information about these new “international” organizations, including International Association of Scientologists, International SOR Trust, SOR Management Services, Ltd., Scientology International Missions Trust, and International Scientology Religious Trust. In a letter dated November 24, 1937, we noted that you had previously agreed to supply that information to us. However, you did not supply the information.

In support of the protest to our initial adverse ruling, we were supplied with copies of affidavits dated December 4, 1986, from Gerald Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan was the person in charge of the MCCS project. The affidavits state that the new church management “seems to have returned to the basic and lawful policies and procedures as laid out by the founder of the religion, L. Ron Hubbard.” The affidavits conclude as follows:

[CT 6243]

-4-

Church of Spiritual Technology

“Because of the foregoing, I no longer have any conflict with the Church of Scientology or individual members affiliated with the Church. Accordingly, I have executed a mutual release agreement with the Church of Scientology and sign this affidavit in order to signify that I have no quarrel with the Church of Scientology or any of its members.”2

The history of Scientology’s operations detailed in the Church of California case includes a lack of adequate financial records, public policy violations, deceptive practices and the maintenance of enemies lists against whom any actions, however illegal, were justified. The California case also demonstrates inurement of net earnings and benefit to the private interest of Mr. Hubbard, operations that primarily furthered commercial purposes conducted amid continuous representations denying control by and benefit to Mr. Hubbard, and a tenacious denial of the actual state of the organization’s affairs in the face of overwhelming evidence establishing the true nature of the organization’s operations. More recently, attempts to conceal Mr. Hubbard’s ongoing control of Scientology were alleged in the Armstrong case. Utilizing testimony any witnesses from the Armstrong case, the government successfully argued that Mr. Hubbard was a managing agent of the Church of Scientology as late as 1984. See the Founding Church v. Director, F.B.I. case, cited earlier.

The events detailed in these court cases, which span almost the entire period of Scientology’s history, create an inference that Scientology, even after reorganization, is not operated exclusively for exempt purposes. The fact that Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Sullivan elected to settle their personal differences with Scientology does not detract from the relevance of the statements they previously made concerning Mr. Hubbard’s use of Scientology organizations to serve his private interest. Our experience with your organization similarly reflects a continuation of the pattern of inurement and benefit to the private interest of Mr. Hubbard, operations that primarily further commercial purposes, and denials of control by and benefit to Mr. Hubbard for periods prior to his death despite contrary judicial and Service findings. Blanket denials that Mr. Hubbard personally profited from his position of influence in Scientology and assertions that your operations exclusively further exempt purposes do not dispel this inference.

Mr. Hubbard died on January 24, 1986. But, his death did not alter the history of Scientology’s prior operations or make available complete information about your actual operations. Moreover, the same individuals who controlled Scientology operations prior to Mr. Hubbard’s death, and who participated in arrangements which resulted in inurement and private benefit, continued to control your operations and those of the other top level Scientology organizations after Mr. Hubbard’s death. Thus, the possibility of inurement and private benefit continued after Mr. Hubbard’s death and more complete information about your operations and financial affairs was required to assure that your operations had changed to eliminate any further private benefit.

[CT 6244]

-5-

Church of Spiritual Technology

For the reasons explained above, in a letter dated March 17, 1988, we proposed to review your books of account and records and those of Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center. As explained in our letter of :March 17, 1983, the purpose of this review was twofold. First, to determine the integrity of your financial and accounting systems so we could verify that the information you had provided was accurate. Second to verify that no part of your net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and that there is no other disqualifying activity.Church of Spiritual Technology, Church of Scientology International, and Religious Technology Center agreed to participate in the financial reviews pursuant to the letters of March 17, 1988. Church of Spiritual Technology, Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International informed us by letter dated June 24, 1988, that they would no longer participate in the review. The refusal to continue the review, concentrating on those areas of concern, and their failure to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988, agreement, prevents us from concluding that Scientology’s operations have changed and that activities previously found to be disqualifying for purposes of section 5O1(c)(3) of the Code have been discontinued. Therefore, we conclude that you have not established that you are operated exclusively for exempt purposes as required by section 501(c) (3) of the Code.

2. You are operated for a substantial non-exempt commercial purpose.

In our initial adverse ruling of January 7, 1936, we concluded that you were operated for a substantial non-exempt commercial purpose because your activities assisted other organizations in maximizing sales of goods and services associated with the practice of Scientology.

In your protest and subsequent submissions you argued that your activities were engaged in for religious rather than commercial purposes. You contended that the provision of goods and services for a fee, which is characteristic of Scientology, was a permissible means of providing funds necessary for Scientology to support its operations, provide reserves for renovations and expansion, and to attract potential new members to the religion.

[CT 6245]

-6-

Church of Spiritual Technology

We have carefully considered your arguments, but fail to see that sales of goods and services for a fee by Scientology organizations under policies and directives which emphasize sales and profits does not result in a primary purpose of engaging, in activities similar in nature to those of an ordinary commercial enterprise, in which profits are the primary goal, rather than in advancing religious purposes. The fact that the fees provide a source of funds for operating expenses and future expansion and dissemination does nothing to distinguish these fee-for-service operations from similar activities of ordinary commercial enterprises. Therefore, by assisting and aiding in the marketing of Scientology, you are engaged in activities which further a substantial non-exempt commercial purpose.

Your archival activities relate to the materials constituting the scriptures of Scientology. These materials consist of the written and spoken works of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of Scientology. Prior to his death, Mr. Hubbard held the copyrights on these materials. The works you collected were being commercially exploited by Mr. Hubbard and some of the organizations licensed by him. You were supported by income paid to you by some of the organizations engaged in this exploitation, notably Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., a subordinate of Church of Scientology International. You were thus performing functions which benefited these organizations and furthered their objective of marketing Scientology products and services.

After Mr.. Hubbard’s death, Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International and its subordinates have continued to market Scientology products and services. Your collection of original Hubbard writing and tape recordings enhances their marketing efforts because the products they market are derived from these original writings and tape recordings. Therefore, you are operated for a substantial non-exempt commercial purpose.

In addition, the refusal to continue the review agreed to in the letters of March 17, 1988, to Church of Spiritual Technology, Church of Scientology International, and Religious Technology Center, concentrating on those areas of concern, and their refusal to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988, agreement prevents us from concluding that Scientology’s operations have changed and that activities previously found to be disqualifying for purposes of section 501(c) (3) of the Code have been discontinued. Therefore, we conclude that you have not established that you are operated exclusively for exempt purposes as required by section 501(c) (3) of the Code.

[CT 6246]

-7-

Church of Spiritual Technology

3. You are operated for the benefit of private interests and your net earnings inure to the benefit of private individuals.

In our initial adverse ruling, we concluded that your operations furthered the private interest of and resulted in inurement of net earnings to L. Ron Hubbard because he received royalties on the sales of products associated with the practice of the religion he founded. We also concluded that your activities served Mr. Hubbard’s private interest through your participation in a plan to exploit Mr. Hubbards’s trademarks, trade names, service marks, copyrights, and patents through licensing and assignment arrangements. We also concluded that your activities served the private interests of and resulted in inurement of net earning to organizations associated with Mr. Hubbard.

In your protest you called our attention to the fact of Mr. Hubbard’s death and noted that his estate is in probate. Church of Spiritual Technology is the principal beneficiary of the estate and will receive the royalty income formerly received by Mr. Hubbard if it is determined to be exempt under section 501(c) (3). Based on these facts, you contend that private benefit, if there was any, ceased upon the death of Mr. Hubbard on January 24, 1986.

Mr. Hubbard’s death does not erase the benefit and inurement to his private interest that occurred.

Further, both before and after Mr. Hubbard’s death, you made the original writings and other materials formerly owned by Mr. Hubbard available to Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center in exchange for so-called “contributions” from Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology Flag Service Org, Inc., a subordinate of Church of Scientology International. Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International engage in marketing Scientology to the public in a manner indistinguishable from that of an ordinary commercial enterprise. Therefore, your provision of the original Hubbard Materials to Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International serves the private interests of Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International.

In addition, the refusal to continue the review agreed to in the letters of March 17, 1988, to Church of Spiritual Technology, Church of Scientology International, and Religious Technology Center, concentrating on those areas of concern, and their refusal to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988, agreement prevents us from concluding that Scientology’s operations have changed and

[CT 6247]

-8-

Church of Spiritual Technology

that activities previously found to be disqualifying for purposes of section 501(c) (3) of the Code have been discontinued. Therefore, we conclude that you have not established that you are operated exclusively for exempt purposes as required by section 501(c) (3) of the Code.

4. You have failed to establish that you are not operated for the benefit of private interests and that your et earnings do not inure to the benefit of private individuals.

Trusts and corporations can be used to siphon income from allegedly exempt organizations for the benefit of private individuals. This happened in the Church of California case. An allegedly religious trust and dummy Panamanian corporations were used to funnel money to L. Ron Hubbard.

Although the organizational structures employed by Scientology have changed since the California case, you have not clearly established that your relationship with the new entities furthers your exclusively exempt purposes. The past history of Scientology’s operations suggests that the purpose of these organizations may be to disguise the fact that private interests are the ultimate beneficiaries of the reorganized operating structure.

An example of an organization which may serve private interests is International Publications Trust (IPT). Prior to the formation of IPT, L. Ron Hubbard granted licenses to New Era Publications (NEP) to produce Scientology books and E-meters. NEP sublicensed Bridge Publications, Inc. (BPI). The license and sublicense agreements provided for royalty payments from BPI to NEP and from NEP to L. Ron Hubbard. Then, IPT was formed to act as the holding company parent of BPI and NEP.

You informed us that IPT has two foreign trustees, Church of Scientology Religious Education College, a corporation, and Geoffrey Clunie, an individual. Our requests for additional information about IPT and its trustees and their relationship to the reorganized Scientology structure have not been answered. So, we see in place an entity that controls Scientology publications and E-meter production controlled by persons about whom no information has been provided. In the absence of any other explanation for this arrangement, we have no alternative but to conclude that the holding company’s real purpose could be to benefit Mr. Clunie’s private interest or the private interest of the College, just as intervening trusts and corporations were used to mask benefits to the private interest of L. Ron Hubbard.

[CT 6248]

-9-

Church of Spiritual Technology

It is also clear that NEP and BPI share in the commercial exploitation of these properties to benefit their own private interests. Mr. Hubbard’s death did not effect the rights that NEP had already received from Mr. Hubbard prior to his death. Therefore, NEP and BPI are continuing to benefit from their part in the commercial exploitation of these properties even though Mr. Hubbard is no longer sharing in the benefits of the commercial exploitation. Even if Church of Spiritual Technology does eventually become the owner of the patents and copyrights formerly owned by Mr. Hubbard the licenses granted to NEP will still be in effect. Thus the private benefit to NEP and BPI is ongoing even though Mr. Hubbard is dead and even though a number of new Scientology organizations have been created. Further, it has not been established that other new and old organizations about which our requests for detailed information remain unanswered are not sharing in private benefit. The potential beneficiaries include Author Services, Inc., SOR Management Servies, Ltd, International Scientology Film Trust, and International Scientology Religious Trust.

The same persons who were in charge of Scientology prior to Mr. Hubbard’s death hold positions of control or influence in some of these new organizations. For example, persons who hold positions of influence in the reorganized Scientology structure also hold positions in Author Services, Inc., a for-profit corporation formed to benefit L. Ron Hubbard, Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, Greg Wilhere, Terri Gamboa, Marion Meisler, Maria Starkey, and Becky Hay, persons who hold influence in the reorganized Scientology structure, also hold positions in Author Services, Inc. Author Services, Inc., is now performing the same function of “collecting royalties” for the beneficiary of L. Ron Hubbard’s estate. Thus, as happened in the Church of California case, the income of an allegedly exempt organization (Church of Spiritual Technology should it obtain recognition of exemption) will be passed through a for-profit corporation which is controlled by persons who also hold positions of influence in the Scientology structure.

A similar problem exists with regard to the “central reserves” of Church of Scientology International and its subordinate churches. A nonexempt foreign entity, SOR Management Services, is being paid under a contract to “manage” these reserves. Again, the income of allegedly exempt organizations is being passed through a nonexempt organization controlled by persons who hold positions in, or act as nominees for, organizations in the topmost levels of the reorganized Scientology structure.

[CT 6249]

-10-

Church of Spiritual Technology

Moreover, a newly revealed organization, International SOR Trust, about which our inquiries remain unanswered, has an ongoing relationship with some of the organizations engaged in the exploitation of the properties formerly owned by Mr. Hubbard. For example, at one time International SOR Trust purchased the stock of Bridge Publications, Inc., from Church of Scientology of California and later disposed of the stock to International Publications Trust.

Furthermore, individuals closely associated with Cancorp Investment Properties, a for-profit British Columbia corporation allegedly formed to serve the private interests of L. Ron Hubbard, about which we inquired, have been in positions of influence in the reorganized Scientology structure. You refuse to provide detailed information about Cancorp Investment Properties or Religious Research Foundation, another organization allegedly formed to serve the private interest of L. Ron Hubbard, about which we also inquired.

The proliferation of associated entities also includes a number of other new “international” organizations, about which we have inquired but you have not responded to our inquiries. Since the Scientology operating structure is the only funding source for these organizations, they and the persons who control then are also sharing in the income generated by the activities of. Church of Spiritual Technology, Church of Scientology International, and Religious Technology Center.

In light of the past history of Scientology’s operations, this continuing sharing in the net earnings of Scientology by nonexempt entities is sufficient by itself to raise serious concerns about private benefit and inurement. Nonetheless, you have chosen to ignore these concerns or have provided incomplete or partial information which is not adequate to establish that private benefit and inurement are not flowing to nonexempt entities, some of which employ and are directed by the same people who hold positions of influence in the new Scientology operating structure. Such self-dealing does not lose its identity as private benefit and inurement merely because it is conducted through intermediary individuals and/or organizations.

Accordingly, we find that you are not exempt because you have failed to establish that you do not operate for the benefit of private interests and that your net income does not inure to private individuals contrary to the prohibition contained in section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the refusal to continue the review agreed to in the letters of March 17, 1988, to Church of Spiritual Technology, Church of Scientology International, and Religious Technology

[CT 6250]

-11-

Church of Spiritual Technology

Center, concentrating on those areas of concern, and their refusal to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988, agreement prevents us from concluding that Scientology’s operations have changed and that activities previously found to be disqualifying for purposes of section 501(c) (3) of the Code have been discontinued. Therefore, we conclude that you have not established that you are operated exclusively for exempt purposes as required by section 501 (c) (3) of the Code.

Furthermore, the Service considers your failure to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988, agreement as constituting a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by section 7428(b) (2) of the Code.

Contributions to your organization are not deductible under Code section 170.

You are required to file federal income tax returns on the above form. Based on the financial information you furnished, it appears that returns should be filed for the tax years shown above. You should file these returns with your key District Director for exempt organization matters within 30 days from the date of this letter, unless a request for an extension of time is granted. Returns for later tax years should be filed with the appropriate service center as indicated in the instructions for those returns.

If you decide to contest this ruling under the declaratory judgment provisions of section 7428 of the Code, you must initiate a suit in the United States Tax Court, the United States Claim Court, or the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia before the 91st day after the date that this ruling was mailed to you. Contact the clerk of the appropriate court for rules for initiating suits for declaratory judgment. Processing of income tax returns and assessment of any taxes due will not be delayed because a declaratory judgment snit has been filed under code section 7428.

If you have questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed) E. D. Coleman
E.D. Coleman
Director, Exempt Organizations
Technical Division

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.
  2. See Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (December 6, 1986); Armstrong Declaration (12-25-1990)

Declaration of Michael Flynn (September 24, 1985)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. FLYNN1

I, MICHAEL J. FLYNN, swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that the following is true and correct.

1) I am the attorney for Gerald Armstrong. In April-June 1984, I appeared for Mr. Armstrong as trial counsel in the case of Church of Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court.

2) During the Armstrong trial, extensive evidence was introduced, both documentary and testimonial, relating to the fraudulent and criminal conduct of L. Ron Hubbard in connection with his relationship with the Church of Scientology. This conduct began in the 1950’s and continued at least up until November 1982 as established by the evidence in the trial.

3) There was also extensive evidence in the Armstrong trial relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s background, which for the most part, had been completely falsified by the Church and by L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Hubbard’s professional, educational, health, military career and marital background qualifications and credentials. Literally thousands of documents in the form of hundreds of exhibits supported an overwhelming testimonial record that Hubbard was in fact, a “pathological liar” as eventually ruled by the Trial Court, and that he had in fact, manipulated and absconded with Church funds.

4) During the trial, specific issues arose relating to the “MCCS Mission” which was a Scientology/Hubbard program to conceal Hubbard’s control of Scientology, shield him from liability, shield him from the fact that millions of dollars of Church funds had been funnelled to him, and to perpetuate this fraud in the future without Hubbard incurring liability for it. Although the Court actually sealed the “MCCS” tapes containing such evidence, there was evidence relating to Hubbard’s control of Church funds in the trial itself and in an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong that had previously been filed in the case of Burden v. Church of Scientology. This affidavit specifically relates to the MCCS Mission. The affidavit is not under seal and has never been under seal. This affidavit specifically quotes from the MCCS tapes which are under seal. In one of the tapes as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, the highest legal official of the Church of Scientology is quoted as saying that Hubbard’s taking 2.1 million dollars of Church funds “was a classic case of inurement, if not fraud.” The tapes also reveal, as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, that throughout the history of the Church, while it was holding itself out as an entirely legitimate, separate and distinct religious corporate entity,

-2-

5) As a result of the foregoing evidence and an abundance of additional extremely detailed evidence, for the most part supported by documents including cancelled checks, Swiss bank account numbers, correspondence and miscellaneous other documents, it became obvious that Hubbard had in fact, engaged in criminal and fraudulent conduct with respect to his control of the Church of Scientology. Much of this evidence and the conclusions about Hubbard’s conduct were reported extensively in the media in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Clearwater Sun and additional publications. It is my assumption that as a result of this extensive media coverage, at some time after the Armstrong trial, and after the Court had issued its findings of fact, the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS began an investigation. After the Armstrong trial, I was contacted by several investigators from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Los Angeles office of the Internal Revenue Service.
6) I was first contacted by Mr. Al Lipkin, Mr.Daniel Rocha, and Mr. Al Restuccia of the C.I.D. These gentlemen informed me that they were conducting an
-2-

investigation in connection with the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and they sought my cooperation. I told them that I would give them my full cooperation and provide copies of any documents, affidavits, exhibits, etc. which were not under seal and which related to the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I also told them that my clients, which included numerous former high level Scientologists, including Gerald Armstrong, William Franks, Laurel Sullivan, Howard Schomer, and others would give their full cooperation in connection with the investigation of the C.I.D. Mr. Lipkin and either Mr. Ristuccia or Mr. Rocha came to my office and spent several days examining documents relative to this subject. They thereafter contacted many of my clients.

-3-

 

7) At no time did Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Lipkin, Mr. Rocha or any other member of the C.I.D., or for that matter any other state or federal agency ever provide any information to me as to the course of their investigation, the evidence that they had collected, their conclusions, or anything else. In fact, Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Rocha and Mr. Lipkin conducted themselves with the utmost professional courtesy and discretion, and never disclosed any information to me of any nature or description during the course of their investigation.

8) Subsequently, pursuant to its written policies,

-4-

including the “Fair Game Doctrine,” “Attack the Attacker” and its “Black Propaganda” policies, the Church of Scientology engaged in a world-wide smear campaign, through press conferences, news releases, and publication of its Freedom magazine claiming that myself and several of my clients including Gerald Armstrong were in a massive conspiracy with the IRS, the FBI, the United States Government, the Canadian Government, the United States Attorney’s Office, and sundry others to destroy freedom of religion in America. These claims are absurd on their face. Among the more specific and ridiculous allegations of Hubbard and Scientology are that C.I.D. agents offered or promised various benefits to myself and my clients in exchange for manufacturing evidence and in effect framing L. Ron Hubbard and his Church. Suffice it to say that these allegations are completely unfounded, totally false and have no basis in fact or reality. Indeed, the allegations themselves reflect the paranoid condition of both Hubbard and the Church which was noted by the trial judge in the Armstrong. The judge specifically ruled that the  Church and Hubbard were “paranoid and schizophrenic,” were actually utilizing the “Fair Game Doctrine” right up to the time of the trial to “destroy” Hubbard’s perceived enemies, and that it had engaged in forms of blackmail and extortion.

9) Upon information and belief, the present campaign of the Church of Scientology alleging the conspiracy between

-5-

myself and various governmental agencies, is simply an effort to divert the ever-increasing compendium of legal decisions which have reached the same conclusions as the court in the Armstrong case with regard to the background and activities of Hubbard and his Church. In order to avoid civil and criminal sanctions for their past conduct, Hubbard is now engaging in his classic Black propaganda campaign to attack and discredit those who are engaged in litigation against him. In fact, there is no truth in the absurd claims of him and his agents.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 24th day of September, 1985 under the laws of California, Massachusetts, and Florida.

[signed Michael J. Flynn]

-6-

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

The Oregonian: Founder of Scientology faces default judgment (May 1, 1985)

1985-05-01-Oregonian

The Oregonian: Ex-Scientologist testifies of ‘insulation’ effort (April 27, 1985)

1985-04-27-Oregonian

The Oregonian: Witness says Scientology founder veiled income (April 26, 1985)

1985-04-26-Oregonian