Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!!!modemac Tue Jul 18 10:03:48 1995 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Path:!!!!!modemac From: (Modemac) Subject: Document #8 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:21:47 GMT Lines: 409 Sender: ------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:A2 SECURITY CODE:GP DISTRIBUTION CODE:PD NAME FOR BBS: BRIEF FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND MARY SUE HUBBARD, INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. GERALD ARMSTRONG DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT (CIV.#'s B025920, B038975) SORT TO: LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: IMHO-Lawrence Wollersheim LOC. OF ORIG: Contact Lawrence Wollersheim NOTES: This version has lost or mistranslated footnotes. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE (CIV.#'s B025920, B038975) ---------------------------------- THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND MARY SUE HUBBARD, INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. GERALD ARMSTRONG DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT--------------------------------------------- ------------------- JOINDER OPPOSITION OF LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM TO MOTION TO SEAL RECORD ON APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION ---------------------------------------------------------------AP PEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JUDGE BRUCE R. GEERNAERT (SUPERIOR COURT # C 420 153) --------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM IN PROPRIA PERSONA PO BOX 10910 Aspen, Co. 81612 February 10, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................2 THE ARGUMENTS................................................2 INDIVIDUAL SECURITY..........................................3 THE LITIGATION OF CURRENT OR FUTURE FRAUD....................3 THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY..........................4 CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT......................................6 OTHER REASONS................................................7 CONCLUSION...................................................9 APPENDIX 1 SCIENTOLOGY'S HISTORY OF CRIMINALITY..............1 APPENDIX 2 SCIENTOLOGY'S POLICIES TOWARD ITS ADVERSARIES....13 APPENDIX 3 FINANCIAL FRAUD AND SCIENTOLOGY..................20 APPENDIX 4 COERCIVE PERSUASION AND SCIENTOLOGY..............31 APPENDIX 5 PERVASIVE PRETEXT, RELIGION AND SCIENTOLOGY......44 INTRODUCTION I am filing this Opposition brief because I believe this Appellate Court misunderstood an important issue in my original February 10, 1990 Amecus Curae brief. This issue has critical bearing in the opposition to Scientology's new request of September 11, 1991 to seal the Armstrong record on appeal. On page 15 in footnote 5 in this court's previous decision filed on July 29, 1991, the court interprets my Amecus brief to be focused "primarily to the documentary exhibits," which had been previously returned to Scientology. In my Amecus brief, it was not primarily or exclusively those particular documentary exhibits that I sought to keep open to the public but more particularly the information read into the record from those documents. The Armstrong court record is the distillation and concentration of the most important information from those documents and other reliable sources. As such, I submit this brief as additional argument and opposition. THE ARGUMENTS The documentation I will present will conclusively prove specific and compelling state interests which counter and far outweigh sealing the Armstrong court record on appeal. These interests involve the protection of, or irreparable harm to: 1.) Mr. Armstrong's individual security, 2.) The litigation of ongoing or future lawsuits involving criminal fraud and financial fraud against Scientology, 3.) The protection of public safety, personal liberty, and private property, and 4.) Our most fundamental constitutional principle. INDIVIDUAL SECURITY In Gerald Armstrong's "Opposition to Motion to Seal Record on Appeal" of October 14, 1991, Mr. Armstrong shows how his individual security has been effected, (see footnote 8, page 10 of Armstrong opposition.) 1.) The court should understand that Gerald Armstrong is near the top of Scientology's enemies list. If the Armstrong court record is sealed its deterrent publicity value to inhibit revenge against Armstrong will be greatly reduced if not completely eliminated. To assist this court in evaluating just how serious this potential threat is, please see the provided Appendices 1 and 2. 2.) In Armstrong's October 14, 1991 Opposition he states and fears that if the record is sealed, he will again become the victim of a greater effort at character assignation, fair game harassment, and the misstatement and confusion of what actually is in the Armstrong court record. The documentation in Appendix 2 details the actual depth of danger he and others face. THE LITIGATION OF ONGOING AND FUTURE FRAUD AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY It becomes readily apparent why Scientology is desperately trying to paint Mr. Armstrong as a thief, an agent provocateur, and to seal the Armstrong record. The information in the Armstrong record helps prove in other ongoing or future litigation, several simultaneous types and levels of criminal fraud. (See appendix 3.) Appendix 3 details the crucial role of the Armstrong record to further expose and help punish Scientology's financial fraud. The Armstrong record establishes foundation and motivation for this fraud and its connection to other fraud. The information contained in the Armstrong case clearly and authoritatively shows the actual intentions, motivations, state of mind, history, and nature of L Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology. These authoritative documents also evidence the actual origins, nature, and reason for the creation of his alter ego, Scientology and Dianetics. They also help to show the fraud surrounding Scientology's claimed religious activities. These documents detail a massive, critical, and fundamental contradiction and insincerity in what Scientology and L Ron Hubbard publicly claim themselves to be, namely a bonafide, charitable, and humanitarian religious organization. There has already been significant effort to deny and disestablish Scientology's claimed religious status. There are going to be more such efforts and the information of an unsealed Armstrong record will be critical to those ongoing efforts. (See appendix 5.) THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY Above and beyond the 5 appendices included with this brief it is impossible not to recognize the clear, convincing, and grave danger to public safety, liberty, and property when one reads various quotes from the Armstrong record itself, such as: 1 "[Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect." 2 The kind of blackmail mentioned in the Armstrong record has an aspect which additionally multiplies the level of danger to the public's safety, freedom, and assets. That aspect is Scientology's use of the Coercive Persuasion technology under the guise and the immunities of a religious practice. The Armstrong record shows the motivation and intent behind Scientology's use of this dangerous technology. Contained in the Armstrong record are the telling statements showing Hubbard's desires to mercilessly enslave his fellow man, to use membership confessions for blackmail, and other evidences which supports future liability for Scientology or liability in other cases currently being litigated. The public safety implications of individuals exposed unknowingly to this technology is shown in United States v. Lee 455 U.S. 252,257,258 (1982). The California Supreme court found that: "when a person is subjected to coercive persuasion without his knowledge or consent ...[he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide." To hide this information from those who have to evaluate their participation in, their support for, or liability for Scientology is unthinkable. (See appendix 4.) CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT Besides the freedom of the press arguments discuses in earlier opposition briefs the most fundamental of constitutional principles is involved in this case. It is the very assumption upon which our democratic society and system was founded. This principle is contained in the Jeffersonian concepts that man is a rational animal and that if he\she is allowed to be rational our system will work. John Dewey distilled this underlying essential principle even further when he said, "The human power to respond to reason and truth protects democracy." Democracy and our constitution cannot work without this underlying assumption of rationality. And since rationality depends in significant part on the availability and quality of information, it follows naturally that if we do not protect the very processes for establishing rationality we could eventually elect, empower, or be the effect of those who would destroy us, our democratic system, or put us in grave danger. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be," (Thomas Jefferson.) To protect this fundamental constitutional assumption of rationality we have established checks and balances like free press, open court records, outlawing subliminal advertising, and other procedures or laws to allow our population to become as fully and openly informed as possible. In the case at hand to seal the Armstrong record would be an archetypical worse case example of the violation of our constitutional checks and balances to protect this rational, informed consent process. OTHER REASONS TO REFUSE SCIENTOLOGY'S REQUEST TO SEAL While on one hand Scientology is one of the greatest users and proponents of the public's right to know and "Freedom of Information" requests, on the other hand it is seeking to suppress vital information concerning itself. It is not doing this on inherent merit but as part of its ongoing policy to subvert the public's informed consent process. When it concerns "freedom of information" or free press rights exposing Scientology, Scientology is at war with the outside world. In addition to what is mentioned in appendix 2, this war has consisted in part of: A.) Repeated usage of frivolous and expensive lawsuits to deter individuals or the media from stating anything hostile to Scientology, whether factual or not. B.) Attempting to use federal trade secret laws designed for business usage to try to silence anyone trying to expose information similar to some of the contents of the Secret Scientology section in appendix 5. C). Attempting to establish new interpretations of copyright laws to silence or suppress factual information hostile to Scientology or free press rights. The recent "Hubbard biography" copyright precedent contains some new restrictive copyright interpretations. D). Attempting to, or successfully sealing court cases and records during or after litigation, i.e. Church of Scientology v. Armstrong. Scientology cannot be allowed to avoid social censure and correction by hiding its crimes and abuses. If Scientology is allowed to continue to effectively use these various sealing tactics AND its other tactics towards its adversaries no one will be informed enough to make rational decisions about Scientology to be safe. "As long as the organization's opponents and victims are successfully squelched, Scientology's managers and lawyers will keep pocketing millions of dollars by helping achieve its ends."(From Time Magazine May 6, 1991.) 2 Keeping the Armstrong documents unsealed also serves the public interest of justice in that the mere continued public availability of these documents will help serve a correctional influence upon Scientology itself. The body of its membership will be continually confronted with authoritative information that will eventually compel corrective change and increased social responsibility from within. For justice to serve its correctional and healing social "safety valve" purposes it must have all relevant information placed before it. The Armstrong information is information that is critically relevant and must be open to society. CONCLUSION From the documentation of this brief and its accompanying appendices the superior rights in this case lie clearly in keeping the court record in Armstrong open. Law, constitutional principle, and one's innate sense of justice and compassion demand it. Millions of dollars in taxpayer money has been spent globally to expose the dangers and contradictions in Scientology's presentations of itself, L. Ron Hubbard, its actions, its nature, and its intentions. The Armstrong documents represent the single most unifying hub of all this information. After the disclosures of the F.B.I.'s authorized search of Scientology's headquarters the Armstrong case is the most critical and focal single piece of the Scientology puzzle that ever has become available. It is the key missing piece. It is the completing piece of the mosaic from which one can finally ascertain with certainty, just what one is really looking at. The rights of the convicted felon, Mary Sue Hubbard, and an organization with an extensive criminal history, Scientology, desiring to keep their frauds and abuse of the public secret for unfair financial gain or to inhibit legitimate future liability do not supersede the rights of the many for informed consent, peace, protection, and safety. Thus, the Armstrong record must remain open. 11\9\91 Lawrence Wollersheim Pro Se PO Box 10910 Aspen, Co. 81612 nal investigation history of Scientology. preme Court. case. Jonestown, Guyana Tragedy," (1979). ecclesiastical trust and policies they are claiming to be protecting. of information laws. religion.) under the Freedom of Information Act. tion. mafia-like manner." (Time magazine May 6, 1991.) ================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARD CATALOG ENTRY DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\WOLLER\PROSEOP4.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: NOTES: For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: ================================================================= -- +---------------------------------------+ | Reverend Modemac ( | +-----------+ First Online Church of "Bob" +----------+ | "There is no black and white." "Boingy! Boingy! Boingy!" | | URL: | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ FINGER for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank