Scientology loses in court with Caberta
December 12, 2001
Yesterday the Scientology organization failed in its attempt before the Hamburg administrative court to have Ursula Caberta, the sect commissioner of the Interior Ministry, relieved of her duties. Scientology's application was rejected as impermissible. Because the decision concerned homeland security, the Scientologists have no right to appeal.
Summary - In Denmark Scientology charges Hamburg resident Caberta
January 17, 2001
Copenhagen/Hamburg (dpa/lno) - The Copenhagen Center of Scientology has filed charges of libel with the Danish authorities against Ursula Caberta, the Director of the Hamburg Interior Agency's Scientology Task Force. The woman from Hamburg, who has for years been making a name for herself as a critic of the organization, had discussed measures with the local officials and verbally attacked Scientology's Copenhagen camp for re-education of apostate and critical members as attempted brainwashing.
Caberta had no initial response. A Scientology spokeswoman in the Wednesday "Jyllands-Posten" newspaper referred to comments made by the Hamburg resident in the previous Sunday's edition. The Danish Scientology spokeswoman, Anette Tefstrup, commented on the charge that "Ursula Caberta spread insulting and irrelevant propaganda so that the Danish authorities will take stringent measures against us like the Germans." The Scandinavian country, because its liberal legal provisions, is home to Scientology's European Central.
Denmark's Church Minister Johannes Lebech said immediately after Caberta's statements that the authorities would only step in if there were a definite charge. The Minister stated in the "Jyllands-Posten", "In Denmark we generally have a very high tolerance level. If possible I do not want to seem to be a defender of Scientology. Bet we also have to respect the right of each individual to freely decide for a movement such as Scientology." Caberta included in her report that German children were being sent to a private Scientology school in Denmark which alleged was a "training camp for the Scientology movement."
The organization was founded in 1954 by American science fiction author Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. The organization is said to have more than 20 million members worldwide. In Germany its number is estimated at between 20 and 70 thousand.
Scientology Organization sues Interior Agency and "sect commissioner"
October 5, 2000
by Peter Mueller
The Scientologists are showing that they are lawsuit-happy. They intend to prohibit the Hamburg Interior Agency from letting their sect commissioner Ursula Caberta continue her research and information work on the Scientology Organization. A cease-and-desist application was filed yesterday by Munich attorney Wilhelm Bluemel in the Hamburg Administrative Court to that effect, verified court spokeswoman Angelika Huusmann.
The reason for the new attacks against Caberta: the director of the Interior Agency's Work Group on Scientology (AGS) was said to have accepted a private loan from U.S. millionaire and Scientology opponent Bob Minton. Two weeks ago the Scientologists had filed complaints for accepting bribes and favors with the state attorney's office. Now the Hubbard disciples are trying to force the Interior Agency to put Caberta on hold. At the least they want the AGS director to be prohibited from performing her function of information work outside of her job.
Caberta disputes the accusations. She said she had only accepted Minton's invitation to an informational trip to the USA after Minton had been the guest of the Interior Agency in April. "The matter has been given to the Department of Internal investigations," said Interior Agency spokeswoman Susanne Fischer. She is not surprised that the Scientologists, who fight their critics with all legal and illegal means, have now taken the "legal administrative stage." And that can last a while, "The court will send the agency the complaint for a position," said Huusmann. Then the complaint will be taken up in the normal business schedule. "Nobody can count on getting that decision in less than a year."
It was just last April that Scientology failed in its attempt in the administrative court to have the AGS prohibited from distributing its "Technology Statement." Businesses can use the "sect filter" to distance themselves from the "practices and technologies" of Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard.
Serious accusation against Ursula Caberta: the Director of the Work Group on Scientology of the Interior Agency, according to statements by the sect, has accepted private money from American businessman and Scientology opponent Bob Minton. The Scientology organization has, as a result, filed a criminal complaints at the Hamburg State Attorney's Office for suspicion of accepting favors and bribes, et al.
Caberta did not want to make a statement on the subject herself. She gave the matter over to the Department of Internal Affairs for investigation, she told the "Abendblatt," and would not say anything until the investigation was closed. The Scientologists also filed a complaint against Minton for suspicion of soliciting for favors and offering a bribe.
The story behind the incident occurred in Caberta's trip, at the end of July, to Clearwater, Florida, where Scientology has one of its headquarters. Caberta stated that she went on the trip during her vacation at Minton's invitation. She paid the ticket herself and Minton paid the hotel bill.
The purpose of the trip to the USA was to report on her anti-Scientology work in Germany and to support Minton in his fight against the organization. But that was not all that happened. Caberta, completely unexpected for her, had to subject herself to a court-ordered five-hour interrogation by three Scientology attorneys. A non-disclosure agreement was made as to the content of the hearing.
Now Scientology has published an alleged excerpt from it. "Bob Minton have me a loan," Caberta allegedly conceded. The Scientologists demonstrated yesterday with about 80 people in front of the Interior Agency and demanded "frank explanation of the accusations of corruption against Caberta."
Caberta deposed in U.S. Consulate
Interior agency sect expert was sued by an American company for 75,000 dollars in damages
August 2, 2001
The proceedings were as rare as they were unusual: Ursula Caberta, director of the Task Force on Scientology in the Interior Agency, was interrogated on US American soil in the middle of Hamburg by American attorneys of a German citizen. Several hours of deposition took place in the US Consulate on Alster at the wish of a judge from Tampa, Florida.
The story leading up to this: at the end of July 2000, a German employee of an American software business, Hubert H., had sued Mrs. Caberta in Florida for at least 75,000 dollars in damages. The reason was that H. had failed in getting business from a Germany company because he answered "yes" to the question of whether he was a Scientologist. In the lawsuit H. is asking not only for damages, but that this "sect filter" be prohibited.
Even though Caberta is of the opinion that H. would really have to sue the City of Hamburg or the Senate, for whom she has been working since 1992 and for whom she developed the "sect filter," among other things, she showed up at the deposition. Although she was under no obligation, she wanted to show the judge in Tampa "that I'll cooperate in clearing up the matter."
In the hearing itself, she said the Scientology attorneys were obviously less concerned about H's lawsuit than they were about learning about the work in the Interior Agency, even wanting to know how files were dealt with. They were following a pattern, said Caberta, but her permission to testify only applied to H's case.
Actually the Scientologists are very interested in discrediting Caberta. They think they have the goods on her with the charge of soliciting favors that they have accused her of. The background is that in the same case, Caberta had commented that she had privately accepted money from US businessman Bob Minton. Since Bob Minton also combats Scientology and Caberta had dealt with him in an official capacity, the Scientology organization filed a charge with the state attorney's office on suspicion of soliciting for favors. Caberta was said to have had a relationship with Minton in which she was dependent upon him, according to Frank Busch, spokesman of the Hamburg Scientologists, who also said that she could no longer be neutral. The Scientologists are saying that Minton has not disputed that the amount was more than 100,000 marks. Caberta would not say anything about it because the state attorney's office was still investigating. (scho)
Scientology sues sect tracker
July 29, 2000
A software corporation from the USA, according to the Hamburg Scientology center, is supposed to be suing Hamburg's sect commissioner, Ursula Caberta. The involved woman from Hamburg introduced the "sect filter" which is used in Germany to the U.S. and with which it is possible for companies to avoid falling into the clutches of the Hubbard disciples. The corporation, so it is said, had a deal slip through its fingers because of that.
At first there was some irritation in the Scientologists' Hamburg center, obviously over the amount of the sum being sued for. First Scientology reported, "5 Million Dollar Suit!" But then a female telephoned, "Please destroy that press release." A revision followed: suddenly it was apparently only a matter of "more than 75,000 dollars."
U.S. Lawsuit against Caberta
July 29, 2000
Ursula, fighter against the Scientology Organization, has been sued in the USA for damages of 75,000 U.S. dollars. The complainant is the American RTI software corporation from Sacramento. The basis of the suit says that the corporation lost a major contract to a Germany company after a corporate representative was confronted with "Caberta's sect filter." The "sect filter" is a piece of paper on which the applicant specifies whether he operates using the technology of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Many companies which do not wish to have anything to do with Scientology avail themselves of this document, the essentials of which were worked out by the work group on Scientology under Caberta in the Interior Agency. The timing of the lawsuit, not coincidentally, was so that it would fall during Caberta's trip last week to Florida where - to the displeasure of the Scientologists - she presented her work against the organization to the press. As far as Scientology was concerned, that was the call to a boycott against them which justified asking for damages. The Interior Agency viewed the lawsuit calmly. It was not foreseen that a legal procedure such as this would be conducted before a U.S. court because both Caberta and the corporation which invoked the sect filter upon itself are German. Besides that, reference was made to a (not yet legally enforceable) decision by the Hamburg Administrative Court which upholds the technology declaration as permissible.
Hamburg Security Declaration against Scientology legally permissible
Administrative Court dismisses charge -
Distribution of form may be continued -
Thousands in use
April 8, 2000
by Insa Gall
It was a model trial of nationwide importance - and ended with a defeat for the Scientology Organization. On Friday, the Hamburg Administrative Court was to decide whether the so-called "technology declaration," with which corporations can protect themselves from infiltration by Scientologists. was permissible. After a short exchange of blows in the verbal proceedings, one thing is clear: Hamburg's active Scientology opponent, Ursula Caberta, may continue to distribute the declaration.
In the early '90s, Caberta, the Director of the Work Group on Scientology developed the document with her time in the Interior Agency; since then the form has been used thousands of times across Germany. Corporations and private individuals are able to have business partners certify that they do not operate according to the technology of L. Ron Hubbard and that they also reject in in their management. It is not possible for Scientologists to sign this form.
The court's decision was anticipated with tension by the organization: for instance, one of the German chiefs of the Scientology organization, Helmut Bloebaum traveled with his staff in order to be in the court hall. His legal representative, Wilhelm Bluemel, had wanted Ursula Caberta threatened with 2,000 marks punishment in the event she was prohibited by the court from circulating the "technology declaration," recommending it as part of consultation, or using it in general.
That is the manner in which the Scientologists intended to join in on the suits filed by two business operators. These believed their business situation was at risk because their customers has cancelled contracts after they had refused to sign the "technology declaration."
The Administrative Court dismissed all three complaints: the Scientologists because the case was about the exercise of business by the women, not about freedom of religion or association. Neither in the case of the two business operators did the court see a direct connection between the distribution of the "technology declaration" by the agency's work group on one side and a corporation's free decision to not do business with Scientologists by actually using the "technology declaration." This behavior was not directly attributable to the agency, according to the judges.
The arguments shot back and forth in the verbal proceeding: attorney Bluemel complained about discrimination against Scientologists in Germany and reminisced about the persecution of Jews during the Third Reich and about today's alienation of Turks and even touched on the Human Rights Convention. He said that employees who had been doing their work for decades were suddenly confronted with "the sect filter" and were losing their jobs day after day only because they were Scientologists, according to Bluemel. "When someone is exposed as a Scientologist, then that is it for him." He said there was a "fearful counter-mood" being stoked and that Ursula Caberta was co-responsible for it - an accusation which the accused took with visible satisfaction.
"This is not about discrimination against religion, because that is not what Scientology is," countered Ruediger Hintze, legal representative of the agency's work group. "We are only carrying out our official mission to inform people about the dangers of this group and to develop a device by which people affected can protect themselves." He said that whether somebody used the "technology declaration" was up to him. As a rule, corporations had made the decision not to engage Scientologists long before they came for consultation. "The work group is not responsible for that," according to Hintze. He said it was not the belief of the Scientologists that was being combatted, but Hubbard's technology.
The Scientologists can submit an appeal to yesterdays' decision in superior administrative court.
April 8, 2000
The Scientology Organization has failed in its attempt to take action in court against the Work Group on Scientology commissioned by the Interior, "Arbeitsgruppe Scientology" (AGS). The Administrative Court dismissed their complaint that the so-called "technology statement" of the Work Group was inadmissible. The statement can be ordered from the agency by companies to find out if staff have connections with Scientology. The statement includes a question as to whether the person filling it out operates according to the "technology of (Scientology founder) L. Ron Hubbard."
Scientology defeated by Interior Agency
April 8, 2000
Scientology has failed in its attempt yesterday in its attempt to have the Interior Agency's distribution of the so-called "technology statement" prohibited. The administrative court dismissed the complaint of two Scientology women as "unfounded, and the request of the "Scientology Church, Inc." as "inadmissible."
For several years, the Interior Agency's "Work Group on Scientology" (AGS) has been counseling companies who are concerned about the practices of Scientology firms. Because of data security laws, the agency may not give out information about membership, but the AGS advises interested companies to present people with whom they do business with the "technology statement." That makes it possible for the people concerned to distance themselves from the "practices" and "technologies" of Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard.
A Scientologist woman and a proprietress of a hair studio sued because a drug company wanted that sort of statement from them. Scientology joined in as an association in this suit, which has a high profile in the media. Nevertheless, the court held the complaint as unjustified.
Reason: when a businessman is sounding out the practices of a partner, no direct causality exists to the agency's counseling, since this would be an "autonomous" decision which does not interfere with freedom of religion or association, either.
Previously Munich Scientology attorney Wilhelm Bluemel had used this as a forum to preach that the "sect filter" was "discrimination" and a "violation of human rights." He said that a "mood" had been created in Germany in which profession to Scientology had led to disrespect and personal destruction. He said that Scientology was regularly persecuted through state proceedings. Bluemel's analogy was that "don't buy from the Scientologists" was the same as the Nazi solution's "don't buy from the Jews." Bluemel said, "The state has no right to call for a boycott."
After the decision, the AGS can continue its work in peace. Representative Ruediger Hintze said, "It is a state mission to warn people of the business practices which Hubbard propagated." Scientology has announced it will appeal.
I, the undersigned, declare
1) that neither I nor my company work according to the technology of L. Ron Hubbard,
2) that neither I nor my staff are trained according to the technology of L. Ron Hubbard, nor are we taking any courses or seminars in the technology of L. Ron Hubbard and
3) that I reject the technology of L. Ron Hubbard in the management of my business (in the execution of my seminars).
Scientology sect loses in court
Complaint against Interior Agency dismissed
April 8, 2000
Defeat for the Scientology sect, victory for the Interior Agency's Work Group on Scientology: on Friday the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of the sect and of two private persons against the Interior Agency as inadmissible and/or unfounded in the primary hearing. The decision means that the security and technology statement developed by the Work Group and in use all over Germany may continue being distributed. By using the form ("I declare that neither I nor my business works/operates according to the technology of L. Ron Hubbard"), companies can learn, indirectly, whether staff or companies with which they do business belong to Scientology.
The sect and two women who support the organization had sued the Work Group to keep it from distributing the form - in expedited hearings they lost on two counts. They claimed a violation of freedoms of religion and practice of profession: they said the technology statement in private business dealings was counter to Basic Law and that the risk that the people involved would be have professional, financial injury was imminent. "When someone is uncovered, that is his civil end," stated Scientology attorney Wilhelm Bluemel passionately in the hearing. Bluemel also said that the Work Group, which uses "the sect filter to boycott Scientology," was "discriminating" against a minority. The judge dismissed the Scientology Organization's complaint, (they had joined in the complaint after it had already been filed) as inadmissible because expanding the complaint to include the organization was "not relevant."
The complaints by private persons, in contrast, were said to be unfounded. The judges went along with the Interior Agency's argument that the distribution of the statement was not tangibly causative for any kind of financial harm to the complainants, neither did recurring risk exist. Ruediger Hintze, attorney for the Work Group, expressed the legal position: he said it was "the free decision of autonomous corporations" to protect themselves from Scientology's adherents and to keep the Hubbard technology from finding its way into their corporations. Hintze, "It is our duty to observe the justified interests of people who turn to us for help." The battle continues. Helmuth Bloebaum, President of Scientology Germany said, "We will appeal, if necessary, all the way to the European Court."
Scientology loses to Hamburg Interior Agency in court
April 7, 2000
Hamburg - The Scientology Organization failed in their attempt to take court action against the Hamburg Interior Agency's Work Group on Scientology (AGS). On Friday, the Administrative Court dismissed their complaint as inadmissible against the Work Group's so-called "technology declaration". Companies can order the statement from the agency and give it to their employees to obtain information about their membership in Scientology. It includes a question as to whether the person "operates according to the technology of (Scientology founder) L. Ron Hubbard."
The complainant was the organization as represented by the President and two involved members. The two women had refused to sign the declaration, after which they were let go. "The 'technology declaration' is clearly a call to boycott. It is distributed for the purpose of discrimination," stated the Scientologists' attorney. According to the court's decision, no causal connection exists between the distribution of the declaration and the dismissal of the female complainants. Besides that, no objective connection was said to exist between the women's complaint and the organization's request. Scientology announced that further legal steps would be taken. According to a statement by Hamburg Scientology Commissioner Ursula Caberta, the Senate of the Hanseatic City [of Hamburg] also employs the form in certain areas, such as training.
Scientologist's complaints dismissed
From: "Hamburger Abendblatt"
May 25, 1998
A complaint by the well-known Scientologist and real estate dealer, Gotz Brase, against Ursula Caberta, the director of the Work Group on Scientology, was dismissed by the administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht). The complaint had to do with Brase's demand that the court forbid Caberta from allegedly advising banks not to do business with Scientologists, and allegedly recommending that they ask for a statement of a business's relationship to Scientology before they have dealings with them as customers. Caberta declined Brase's demand. She had only recommended to the banks, at their request, that they keep a written record of their impartiality to Hubbard, the sect founder.
Federal Constitutional Court decision of January 29, 1998
BVerfG, 1 BvR 2422/97 para. 1-22 from http://www.bverfg.de/
Free for private use, commercial use only with permission of the court
[Note: German documents sometimes use initials instead of names as a data security measure for individuals or corporations.]
Federal Constitutional Court
- 1 BVR 2422/97 -
In the proceedings concerning the constitutional complaint
of [blacked out]
- represented by [blacked out]
a) the decision of the Hamburg Superior Administrative Court
of November 7, 1997 - OVG Bs III 53/97 -,
b) the decision of the Hamburg Administrative Court
of May 13, 1997 - 16 VG 1778/97 -
and application for issuance of a temporary restraining order
the 1st Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court, through court Vice President Seidl and Judges Grimm and Hoemig,
in accordance with § 93 b in conjunction with § 93 a BVerfGG in the wording of the publication of August 11, 1993 (BGBI I p. 1473), unanimously decided on January 29, 1998:
The constitutional complaint will not be taken into consideration for a decision. That settles the application for issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The constitutional complaint concerns an expedited proceeding by the administrative court against an official recommendation on so-called "technology statements" to be applied in commercial life in regard to the Scientology organization.
1. In the Agency of the Interior of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, the opponent of the initial proceeding, a "Work Group on Scientology" (AGS) is established whose mission it is to obtain and evaluate information about the practices, influences and expansion of the Scientology Church, to coordinate official activities in this area, to perform public information work and to report to the "Buergerschaft" [area of government] the findings it has obtained. In September 1995, the AGS submitted an "Interim Report on the activities of the Scientology Organizations" to the Buergerschaft. That report found, among other things, that "the risk of gradual infiltration of the economy" by businesses allied with Scientology existed.
In the course of its information work, the AGS addresses groups including chambers of commerce and business associations and warns them of the risks, in their opinion, associated with businesses allied with the Scientology Organization. In doing that, the AGS points out an option of protecting oneself contractually from working in cooperation with businesses of that type and sends to companies which ask about it a so-called "technology statement" which the AGS recommends the companies when they do business with others. The signer of the statement attests that he does not operate using the technology of L. Ron Hubbard, that neither he nor his staff take courses or seminars in this technology and that company management rejects that technology.
2. The lead complainant describes herself as a member of the Scientology Church, whose teachings she perceives as mandatory religious truth. In the studio which she operates commercially to solve problems of weight and figure, she dispenses to her customers, among other things, a vitamin concentrate which is distributed by the B. company. In order to be able to act as an intermediary agent in dispensing this preparation, the lead complainant submitted a so-called consulting application with the business at the end of 1996. The business had a requirement to sign the above-mentioned statement or to exclude herself; the lead complainant did not comply. Instead of that she took the legal alternative in administrative court,
of prohibiting, by way of temporary restraining order, the application opponent from expressing a recommendation to third parties that they use the above named statement in business transactions, from putting it into circulation in business dealings or otherwise advertising the use of the statement.
In neither court hearings were the lead complainant's desires satisfied. The Superior Administrative Court essential detailed the basis of its decision:
As far as the lead complainant's wishes to secure a claim for a cease-and-desist order in accordance with § 1004 BGB to protect her right to establish and run a business operation and to protect her basic rights of Art. 4 Basic Law, a required, direct, causal connection between the expressions of the application opponent and injury to the lead complainant is lacking. Her legal sphere was affected by company B.'s autonomous decision to break legal relations with Scientology adherents, which was made before company B. approached the application opponent. It is not evident that the application opponent promoted the decision by the company. The company made a request for its own information as to the methods which could be used for a purpose which already existed.
It is irrelevant that the application opponent was said to have contributed to the introduction into business and management of the practice being objected to. The connection between the application opponent's expression which were meant to inform the public and the concrete measure taken by company B. against the lead complainant is too vast to be rated as a connection adequate for cause.
Even if one were to presume that the application opponent had interfered with a protected legal area of the lead complainant, the risk of it happening again is not evident. The application opponent's further expression having an influence upon business dealings can be anticipated only as a theoretical possibility with a probability which can be disregarded from real experience. Neither the lead complainant's manner of doing business nor the reporting done in the media cause concern that someone who wants to do business with the lead complainant could be instructed to arrange his business activities by a recommendation from the application opponent.
Issuing a temporary restraining order would also not be necessary to avert disadvantages for the lead complainant. She could pursue her claim in civil court. According to her presentation, the first case of the kind described happened several months ago.
3. With her constitutional complaint the lead complainant is objecting to violation of Art. 1 sect. 1, Art. 2 sect 1, Art. 3 sect. 1 and 3, Art. 4 sect 1 and 2, Art. 12 sect. 1, Art. 14 sect. 1, Art. 19 sect. 4 and Art. 103 sect. 1 of Basic Law by the two administrative court decisions. Furthermore she is applying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The constitutional complaint is not accepted for decision. The provisions for acceptance of § 93 a sect. 2 BVerfGG are not presented.
1. Insofar as the lead complainant perceives constitutional violations of material rights (violation of the above mentioned rights with the exception of those from Art. 19 sect. 4 and Art. 103 sect. 1 Basic Law), her objections are inadmissible. Admissibility is opposed in regards to the principle of the subsidiarity of the constitutional complaint. According to that, the lead complainant, who so far has only conducted expedited proceedings through the administrative court, is bound to exhaust the legal routes concerning her objections in primary hearings in order to bring about any correction to the claimed violation of basic rights without laying claims before the Constitutional Court; in primary hearings, these material rights then pose questions (of basic rights) which the lead complainant poses here as alleged violations of the Constitution (see BVerfGE 77, 381 <401>; 79, 275 <278 f.> 80, 40 <45>).
It is expected of the lead complainant that she take the legal route of primary hearings. In considering the whole time in which the application opponent has been recommending the use of technology statements of the existing type in its discussion with businesses, and that this is the first time the lead complainant - in the case of company B. - had been confronted with one, then the probability that the lead complainant will suffer serious and irreconcilable disadvantage while primary hearings are being carried out is so slight (see § 90 sect. 2 para. 2 BVerfGG), that it does not justify passing up the exhausting of the legal route of primary hearings.
Moreover, fundamental court preparation is required in dealing with Constitutional questions from both a factual and legal perspective, which is routinely possible in expedited administrative court hearings essentially only with a summary review.
Taking this up as a constitutional complainant is also not indicated in regard to the legal procedural objection, which does not raise a fundamental, legal constitutional question.
a) So far as the lead complainant objects by making use of the guarantee of effective protection of rights (Art. 19 sect. 4 Basic Law), the Administrative courts had not been prepared to recognize that, which the lead complainant perceived as an existing dangerous situation and fundamentally misunderstood as being of significance to Basic Law, as the material valuation of the case by the primary court. In objecting to the superior court's argumentation, the lead complainant responded that she was being confronted by the security statement in dispute for the first time, and submitted that both courts made a misjudgment as to actual events. As far as the objections about material constitutional violations should be put into effect, that was already covered under the argumentation in II 1. So far as the complaint submitted against the actual and simple court valuation is concerned, in particular the Superior Administrative Court, on whose decision it competently depends, review by the Federal Constitutional Court is basically disallowed (see BVerGE 18, 85 <92 f.>). Whether a causal relationship between the recommendations of the AGS and harm to the rights of the lead complainant exists and whether a threat of repetition as regards further activities of the AGS would affect the lead complainant, thereby leading to a presumably dangerous situation for her is chiefly a matter for the primary courts. It is no longer evident that this justifies a requirement for legal protection will happen in the realm of the potential findings of an expedited administrative proceeding.
Insofar as the lead complainant, finally, applies for the claim to a legal hearing (Art. 103 sect. 1 Basic Law), her submission is already inadmissible because it does not meet the fundamental requirements of § 23 sect. 1 para. 2 part 1 and of § 92 BVerfGG. The lead complainant objects insofar as the Superior Administrative Court had not valuated previously unknown events in its decision that no type of contact worth mentioning had taken place between the AGS and company B. However it cannot be reviewed, based on the submission of the complaint, whether the Superior Administrative Court had utilized information as to the type, extent and time of such contacts on which the complainant could have taken a position. In particularly, there is a lack of constitutional complaint insofar as concrete statements on the presentation of the participants in the administrative court proceedings.
Moreover, permissibility of the hearing stands opposed to the fundamental of subsidiarity of the constitutional complaint. That requires - in addition to the mandatory exhaustion of legal routes - that a lead complainant observe all available procedural alternatives to prevent a violation of basic right and to remove the violation without laying claim in Constitutional Court (see BVerGE 81, 22 <27>; 81, 97 <102f.>). That is where the lead complainant has the opportunity, through an application in accordance with § 80 sect. 7 VwGo, to obtain in court a correction of the hearing violation she has applied for (see BVerfGE 70, 180 <187 ff.>; decision of the 1st Chamber of the Second Senate of August 23, 1995, NVwZ attachment Nr. 9/1995, p. 65; see further orders of the administrative courts, in proceedings of §. 123 VwGo of past final expedited decisions to change or overturn, Kopp, VwGO, 10. 1994 edition § 123 Rn. 39; Redeker/v. Oertzen, VwGO, 12 1997 edition, § 123 Rn. 29; Schoch, in: Schoch/Schmidt-Assmann/Pietzner, VwGO, as of: May 1997, § 123 Rn. 174 ff. <177>; m.w.N.). It is not evident and has not been submitted by the lead complainant that this route would be unavailable to her.
Further bases are not found in accordance with § 93 d Abs. 1 para. 3 BVerfGG.
With the non-assumption of the constitutional complaint, the application for issuance of a temporary restraining order is disposed of.
This decision in incontestable.Seidl Grimm Hoemig
Scientology Three Million in Debt
From: "Hamburger Abendblatt"
December 22, 1998
Additional payment of social security contributions
Bad news for Hamburg Scientologists: before year's end they are supposed to receive a demand for a hefty contribution for unpaid social security. According to information from the "Abendblatt" the amount is around three million marks.
One year ago, the sect was presented with a demand for payment in the amount of 870,000 marks for retirement, unemployment and health insurance contributions. This money is now due. The organization, according to a statement by its speaker, Gisela Hackenjos, has filed an objection and agreed to a payment plan. It will also take action against the anticipated second request for money.
The additional payments are based on a Federal Administrative Court decision confirmed in 1995 by the Hamburg Superior Administrative Court, whereby the Scientology Center on Steindamm does business as a book seller and as a provider of courses and seminars. The Federal Labor Court found in 1995 that Scientology is not a religious congregation, and that its staff workers are therefore employees for whom social security payments are due.
The Scientologists continue to deny that that they run a commercial business. Independent of that, they dispute the amount of payment demanded. According to a statement by Hackenjos, in the best case only a portion of the 150 staff workers would be obligated to pay social security. Because of that, suit will be brought in the Social Court: "then we'll get our money back - with interest."
Measures of the Bavarian state government against Scientology
Federal Labor Court:
Scientology is not a religious denomination
March 22, 1995
- "Scientology Church Hamburg, Inc." is not a religious or weltanschauung community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law, Art. 137 WRV.
- Full time (actively employed) associate staff members of Scientology are employees in the sense of § 5 I 1 ArbGG.
- The argument of an obligation to work in an association may not lead to bypassing mandatory protection decisions in labor.
Decision of March 22, 1995 - 5 AZB 21/94 (Hamburg)
On the issue of religious denomination the Federal Labor Court concluded:
"The accused (Scientology Church Hamburg, Inc.) is not a religious or a weltanschauung community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law or Art. 137 WRV.
According to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, the self-perception and the assertion that one is part of a religion and a religious denomination does not, by itself, justify the group and its members invoking the guaranteed freedom of Art. 4 I, II of Basic Law. It must also be a religion in actuality, according to spiritual content and external appearances, in order to be regarded as a religion and religious denomination (BVerfGE 83, 341 = NJW 1991, 2623). ...
The courts have to decide whether it is a religion or a religious denomination. However, they do not exercise a free determination on this, but have to base their decisions on religion as provided for and meant by the Constitution, corresponding to the sense and purpose of fundamental guarantees. Things which could be relevant in this are the current reality of living, cultural tradition and general as well as theological concepts (BVerfGE 83, 341 (353) = NJW 1991, 2623). ...
... An association is then perceived as a religious or weltanschauung community in the sense of Basic Law when their members or adherents, based on common religious or weltanschauung convictions, produce among them an existing agreement about the sense and administration of human life. ...
... If the religious or weltanschauung teachings serve only as a pretext for the pursuit of commercial goals, then there is no longer any question of there being a religious or weltanschauung community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law, Art. 137 WRV) (BVerwGE 90, 112 (116) = NJW 1992, 24496).
One such case is dealt with here. ...
... The accused is not a religious or weltanschauungs community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law, Art. 137 WRV. The business activities do not just make up a considerable portion of the total activities of the accused. Business and other activities of the accused also are inseparably linked to each other. The accused is an institution for marketing defined products. The religious or weltanschauung teachings serve as a pretext for the pursuit of commercial goals. ...
... The accused and other Scientology organizations indeed describe themselves generally as churches, ... . But this is not sufficient. They must actually operate as a religion or religious community."
Subsequently the Federal Labor Court came to the following conclusion:
"The accused operates a business in the sense of § 14 GewO. ...
... The fact that realization of profit is a primary purpose of the accused is shown in places including the "Code of Ethics" of Scientology (Hubbard, "Introduction to Scientology Ethics, pp. 78), a "disciplinary code," which has the character of "an explicitly fixed directive." This book delineates "four general categories of crimes and offenses: mistakes, misdemeanors, crimes and high crimes." Crimes include "offenses which are normally perceived as criminal." In addition, crimes also include "negligence or omission in reference to the protection of copyrights, marks, trademarks or registered names of Scientology" (Hubbard, "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", p. 88, 90). ...
... Such a commercialization, even in regards to internal "church" instructions, is highly unusual for religious or weltanschauung communities. ...
... The membership and the "religious" services are commercialized. ...
... The accused and its sister organizations have their members pay them considerable amounts of money. ...
... The accused and its sister organizations make it difficult for its members to leave from a financial perspective. According to the determinations of the Munich State Court I in its decision of March 4, 1986 ... It said there: ...
... "The procedure by which payment is returned requires personal hand-routing of a comprehensive, multi-staged checksheet through church offices. Refund of payment has the condition of being expelled from the church."
So those who balk at personally hand-routing the checksheet through church offices have no entitlement to refund, and that is independent of whether they have received the "church services" for which they paid or not. ...
... Scientology runs an intensive business ad campaign. ...
... The advertising for books and courses directed at non-members ... overwhelmingly reveal no religious references. ...
... Advertisement for a religious community with no reference to it being a religious community is unusual. Using the narrative of law (law against unfair competition) one can describe that as being unfair. ...
... Even back in its decision of 8 Nov 1960 (BVerfGE 12, 1 (4f.) = NJW 1961, 211), the Federal Constitutional Court stated that it was an abuse of Basic Law Art. 4 I, II "when someone directly or indirectly made the attempt, with the help of unfair methods or morally reprehensible means to alienate others from their beliefs or move them to leave the church." The protection of Art. 4 I Basic Law has been denied to those who have promised or given an incentive for leaving a church while making use of special relations created in the commission of a punishable offence. Just as an individual member of a weltanschauung community could use unfair methods in advertising on his own without consultation with the responsible members of the community, unfair methods of advertising by Scientology can come about in principle. An institution which - like Scientology - pays commission for recruiting members and for advertising to get people to participate in courses for which they have to pay money, cannot be a religious or a weltanschauung community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law, Art. 137 WRV."
Referring to an attached series of quotations, the Federal Labor Court continued:
"The concept that Scientology is not regarded as operating as a religious or weltanschauung community, but as a commercial enterprise, is proven by other statements by its founder Hubbard. It says in the Hubbard Communications Office "Policy Letter" of May 9, 1965, for example (published in "The Handbook for volunteer ministers" p 649 (656)) [note: All quotes in this translation are non-literal quotes ... trans.], "Many came after me asking them to audit them, but I am a rather overworked man. I was only saved by the founding of the church, to which I was able to give my customers." In a HCO Policy Letter of 9 March 1972 R Issue I, revised 4 August 1983, as cited in Hamburg Superior Administrative Court ( NVwZ 1994, 192 = DVB1 1994, 413), it says:
"Make Money. Make more Money. Make other People produce so as to make Money."
In regard to the cynical views and practices of Scientology, the decision of the Federal Labor Court states:
"The Scientology organizations cynical views stand in a close relationship with the commercial character of the accused."
For instance, it says in the description of section 1 - division of routing and personnel in the Flag Division Directive of March 13, 1991, "An Org was found to have a large number of staff, but which, at the same time, was struggling with low statistics on all the decisive points ... The Org had not installed people from the personnel pool as per directive. As a result of that, the Org was manned with young people skipping school, customers of the nearby soup kitchens, tramps and other unpleasant fellows ..." No such "official" opinion of a religion or weltanschauung community which disparages the social weaknesses of its members is known to this court.
The accused's act and manner of driving of its staff to ever higher standards of performance is also cynical. This can be seen in places including the "HCO Policy Letter of 8 Feb 1972 R, revised on 21 Oct 1980," in which is says, among other things, "To increase the quota, a new target can be given daily and weekly. The Director of Training, for example, can set a quota of 5 letters more than that of the day before. That would mean that he writes 45 letters on one day, 50 the next day, 55 the day after and so forth." Anyone who lets such "snowball systems" be used on himself runs the risk of suffering serious damage to health.
In addition to that, the Federal Labor Court even believed that totalitarian tendencies were present:
"Finally, the totalitarian tendencies which are described in significant writings and practices of Scientology need to be pointed out.
High crimes are described as suppressive actions (Hubbard, "Introduction to Scientology Ethics," 1981, pp. 96). These, in turn, are defined as "actions calculated to hinder or destroy Scientology or to hinder or ruin a Scientologist in his studies or spiritual counseling or to negatively influence his welfare."
Under high crimes are listed, among other things:
Attacks against Scientology and Scientologists. (1) Legislation or codes, regulations or laws which suggest, recommend or are meant to suppress Scientology ...
(4) Reporting on Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities or the threat of such reporting in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists, or to suppress the practice or receipt of standard Scientology.
To continue to follow a person or group which has been declared to be a suppressive person or suppressive group in a correct and precise manner by the Hubbard Communication Office ...
Finally, in this regard, there is the consideration that the accused requires its staff to get a "security check" and a "leave of absence" before every trip.
With the requirement for a leave of absence, the accused wants to prevent "full-time employed" staff members, who are only marginally supported financially, from wandering off. The accused does this with methods which are not compatible with human dignity (Art. 1 I Basic Law) nor with the concept of a human being maintained by Basic Law. The circumstance that members "voluntarily" subject themselves to these interrogations do not alter the matter."
Therefore the Federal Labor Court came to the conclusion:
"It can be concluded from all this that the accused is not a religious or weltanschauung community in the sense of Art. 4, 140 Basic Law or Art. 137 WRV.
As has been detailed, the accused runs a business. The religious and weltanschauung teachings serve only as a pretext for the pursuit of commercial goals. From that can also be concluded that the accused is an association with commercial goals."
[Note: "xxx" represents a name which was blacked out in my copy of the original document. Also, this is a personal, unofficial translation.]
State Attorney's Office of the
State Court of Hamburg
141 Js 194/91
a) Process Subject
The investigative process is directed against the accused Franz Riedl (1), Sabine Titzel (2), xxx (3) and other, presently unknown people to be held accountable of the "Scientology Church Hamburg, reg." of Hamburg 76, Steindamm 63 (4).
The subject of the process results, in essence, from an interpretation of criminal charges of March 8, 1991 (7) by the former people's representative and the current director of the "Work Group on Scientology" ["Arbeitsgruppe Scientology"] (AGS) which was established by Senate decision of September 8, 1992 (5) by the office for the Inner Senate.
According to the charges, the Scientology organization, contrary to its statements, is not a religious congregation, but a camouflaged business enterprise with an authoritarian-hierarchical ideology which pursues anti-constitutional goals with criminally relevant methods (8).
A total devotion from the members was said to be required in their dealings. Methods of conduct which were said to be characteristic of a criminal and terroristic association were being openly propagated. The objective was alleged to be criminal and instructions for mafia-like behavior were allegedly being given. The internal system of the Scientology organization was alleged to be based upon the execution of these operating instructions down to the personal, day-to-day lives of the members (9).
It is supposed to be a "high crime" to publicly leave the Scientology organization. People who do are declared to be "suppressive person" and are subject to deeds of violence as fair game. (10). People who believe otherwise would be persecuted and defamed to the point of coercion and incitement to murder (11).
Members of the organization were alleged, in the financial interests of the organization, to have been forced into unhealthful practices such as spending hours in the sauna along with the simultaneous intake of large doses of vitamins. (12)
The attorneys of Wiech and Wolter had, with their letter of April 11, 1991 to the Office of the Attorney General at the Federal Court, instituted charges against those held accountable at the "Scientology Church Hamburg, reg." on suspicion of the formation of a criminal association (13). The Scientology Church was alleged to be an organization which commits extensive criminal acts using the cloak of religion in order to spread its influence.
The Scientology organization was said to be conducting alleged therapy for high goals and healthful effects, but which actually makes people dependent, and was said to be practicing usury with unbelievably high prices for services harmful to health (14).
The Attorney General's Office did not assume responsibility, since an actual condition which would be injurious to inner security and the liberal democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany by accountable people of the Scientology Church was neither asserted in the charges nor perceptible in some other fashion. (15) The proceedings have therefore been stopped.
The criminal charges specified on page 1ff of the enclosure brought about by RA Abel representing Pastors Weisspflog, Westphal and Bendrath of February 25, 1991 (16) and the Campaign for Mental and Psychological Freedom / Parents Initiative Work Group [Aktion fuer geistige und psychische Freiheit / Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Elterninitiativen e.V. (AGPF)] of February 19, 1991 (17) of transgressions (PP 185ff StGB) by individual publications of the Scientology organization have been withdrawn (18).
This process does not address other accusations of individual criminal acts which do not have a conceivable connection with the discussion of a criminal association (19).
Further Investigative Procedures
The criminal charges brought by attorney xxx on January 22, 1990 (20) against accountable individuals of the "Scientology Church Hamburg, reg." of fraud and the formation of a criminal association (PP 263, 129 StGB) have already been the subject of an investigative process in StA Hamburg 65 Js 60/98, which, on May 6, 1991, for lack of sufficient evidence for the discussion of a criminal act in accordance with Para. 170 Sect. 2 StPO, has been suspended (21).
In the State Attorney's Office of the State Court of Munich I, in whose area of jurisdiction, besides Hamburg and Stuttgart, the Scientology Organization has had its seat since at least 1971 or so, extensive investigations were conducted in several proceedings against people being held accountable at the local Scientology organization. The suspicion of a criminal association was not confirmed (22).
In a process conducted against organizationally accountable people of the Scientology organization in Munich for tax evasion, fraud, coercion, violations of the medical practice laws, et al., extensive evidence was accumulated and evaluated from the organization's center. Concerning the structure of the Scientology organization, it was determined:
The "Church of Scientology," founded by deceased science fiction writer L. R. Hubbard and active worldwide, presents itself internally as a service operation which sells materials such as books, cassettes, a device similar to a lie detector called an E-meter, and services such as courses and auditing (24), which is mental counseling in the form of psycho-therapy, to the public ...
The services start out with free introductory lectures, a personality test, and an introductory course. With the exception of the free introductory services no other services are provided free of charge. The prices for the services are very expensive. They exceed any normal psycho-therapy by far. (25) The services for higher grades of deliverance, in particular, have astronomical prices. If these astronomical prices serve as the basis of attacking the fundamentals of existence of their customers and members, this does not disturb the Scientology organization, since charitable considerations are completely alien to it, and it recognizes no obligation for the welfare of its members (26).
The individual parts of the Scientology organization ("churches" or "missions," as the case may be) are connected together as a multi-national business concern through a hierarchical system of financial license contracts, at whose (27) head is the so-called "Flag Services Organization" in the USA.
Corresponding to the number of services which the customer or the member of a Scientology organization has taken, he attains another degree of Scientology deliverance, and, as a rule, also the ability to use and apply the Scientology training and the mental counseling (auditing) himself. (28)
The management of the organization and of the training and counseling processes used by it are strongly regulated by numerous internal instructions. There is a sophisticated reporting system through which the top managers are continuously kept up to date as to eventualities. (29) A unique group vocabulary and concept drill (30) are further methods of control and leadership of the organization, with which the world view and the value system of Hubbard are also dispensed. (31)
A "qualification department" is responsible for staff control; besides that, further control is also provided by the ethics commissioner, who deals with anything from possible disturbance up to "suppressive persons." (32). In doing this, secret intelligence methods are also used (33).
According to an opinion by the Munich Institute for legal medicine, the Scientology procedures are a type of dilettantish psycho-therapy which they see as practice of medicine in the sense of the medical practice law. (34) The use of the Electrometer blatantly contradicts the pertinent opinion of the StA Munich as to its concept of Basic Law.
The overall view of the evaluated documents founded the suspicion, in the estimate of the StA [State Attorney's Office of] Munich, that the Scientology system, which promises absolute freedom to Scientologists, is used to exert total control which deals with an ideology characterized by basic totalitarian principles. The goal of the organization is commercial exploitation of its customers, for whom ideas of science, goals and practices of the Scientology organization are in many respects not compatible with the value system of Basic Law. (36)
The complaint of the Scientology organization against the decision of the StA of the State Court Munich I had been dismissed. (37)
The investigation in the course of this process and of processes dependent upon this one do not offer any reason to deviate from the determinations of the StA of the State Court Munich I.
In the process conducted against organizationally responsible people of the Scientology organization in Munich, StA Munich I 301 Js 14070/84, according to information from the StA of the State Court Munich I (38), suspicion of a criminal organization was not confirmed. It had been ..................................................... issued (39).
A hearing on the topic of youth sects took place on October 9, 1991, before the Committee for Women and Youth of the German Federal Assembly which was concerned with essential parts of the Scientology organization. On the topic of Scientology, opinions were voiced from people including D. Abel, RiOLG Dr. Keltsch (Munich) (40) and Norbert Potthoff, who has been active as an advisor to the "Aktion Psychokultgefahren e.V.). The records of this hearing are found in Special Volume XVI, Part II [Sonderband XVI, Teil II].
A hearing of experts on the Scientology organization took place (41) before the Legal Committee of the Hamburg Citizenry on May 26, 1992.
In a process by the State Attorney's Office of the State Court of Stuttgart initiated as a result of extensive charges pressed on March 9, 1992 by Renate Hartwig, representing the "Robin Direkt" campaign, no proceedings resulted in preliminary suspicion of criminal conduct, according to information of the department responsible (42).
The determination of a criminal structure which is incompatible with the system of values of the Basic Law does not necessarily mean that a criminal association in the sense of PP. 129 StGB is at hand. The provisions for this are actual evidence that a long-term, tightly organized union of people have established the goal of planning and committing crimes, and that an awareness exists of belonging to a criminal association. It does not suffice that the commission of crimes is of subordinate importance in purpose or in deed. (43) It also does not suffice if individual members of the association commit crimes.
On the basis of charges brought forward and available findings as to goals and activities of the Scientology organization, the suspicions of usury (PP. 502a StGB) and other financial offenses ranging from the sale of progressively dependent courses, associated material such as books, etc. to psychically dependent people under the influence of so-called "auditing" and electrometers to extremely high, disproportionate prices, should be followed up as possible criminal actions in the sense of PP 129 StGB.
The suspicion of duress should also be checked (PP. 240 StGB) in regards to the purchase of further courses pp. through the threat of withdrawal of advantages and the so-called purification grades which have already been obtained. In this regard, there is also the suspicion of tax crimes, based on, particularly, the investigations conducted by the StA of the LG Munich I.
The proceedings are to be considered separately from the suspicion of criminal acts by the Scientology organization in the legal tax and business concerns of the orders of June 25, 1992 and September 2, 1992 (44), and be given to the technically responsible dept. 15.
The proceedings introduced in department 15, 151 Js 278/92 have been suspended (45). As regards the suspicion of usury, proceedings were instituted on the basis of a judgment of the State Court of Frankfurt am Main (46). The topic of the proceedings before civil chambers of the State Court of Frankfurt am Main was the complaint of a former member against the Scientology Church of Frankfurt, reg., who had wanted refund of payment for cassettes, writings, courses and "spiritual consultation." The complainant based his demand on the view that the contract with the Scientology organization was void due to usury in accordance with PP. 138 BGB (47).
The court dismissed the complaint as unfounded. It could not be determined that the conditions for legally usurious business or an illicit usurious type of business had been met. It could not be seen that the subjective provisions for the commission of usury, those of finding oneself in a coercive situation, one of inexperience or some other alternative, had been fulfilled. (48)
Neither was there a disproportionate difference recognizable between the payments demanded and those made by the complainant. The value of the payments made could not be determined due to a shortage of market offerings with which they could be objectively compared. The complainant had wanted to fill a highly personal spiritual and mental need with the writings, cassettes and the participation in courses and counseling sessions. The value of having such a highly personal need fulfilled could not be measured objectively; much more decisive is the personal assessment of the one receiving the offering (49).
No negligible intention on the part of the Scientology organization could be determined. No facts were presented which would lead to the conclusion that the accused had intentionally given the complainant worthless or useless services or material which would not have been able to serve the perceived needs and wants of the complainant as perceived by the Scientology organization (50).
After the investigations conducted by the special branch of dept. 15 -OstA Friedrich- on various companies in the realm of the Scientology organization, there was no premise for conducting an investigation of a criminal association as defined by PP. 129 StGB in the area of commercial law (51).
As theme of the process at hand, there remains to be discussed the possible suspect acts of a criminal organization:
- the suspicion of bodily harm in regards to the "Purification Rundown", which is uniformly prescribed for all members and potential members, which entails intensive sessions in the sauna and intake of a considerable amount of vitamin preparations and niacin,
- the suspicion of coercion and other misdeeds through threat of revocation of advantages and "purification grades" which are constantly being demanded as well as through the use of personal information obtained in "auditing" during attempts by the person to leave the Scientology organization,
- the suspicion of misdeeds against critics of the Scientology organization.
The suspicion of criminal acts by the Scientology organization as a possible criminal organization as defined by PP. 1129 StGB has already been reviewed in the findings of investigations by other agencies and offices and the evaluation of publications from both the Scientology organization and its critics (52), particularly the testimonies of witness Caberta Y Diaz (53), Seifert-Dreyer (54), Leyendeck-Schweitzer (55), Hartwig (56), [xxx] (57), [xxx] (58), [xxx] (59), [xxx] (60), [xxx] (61), [xxx] (62), [xxx] (63, [xxx] (64), Traeger (65), Sautter (66) und [xxx] (67). The statements of these witnesses take on a special significance since, without exception, they are from people who critically oppose the Scientology organization, especially because of their own negative experiences.
There was not enough actual evidence to make a case of a criminal organization as defined by PP. 129 StGB.
Influences upon health
As concerns the health effects which have appeared following completion of the processes taught by the Scientology organization, particularly the consequences of the "Purification Rundown", which includes extensive time in the sauna and the intake of vitamin preparations, there are various statements by witnesses:
A lagging plumber, U[xxx] S[xxx], who was taken into the Neustadt state hospital in December 1984 stated that he had been recruited by Scientologists and brought into a "College for Applied Philosophy." He told them that he would take three programs offered at half price for 12,694.64 DM to increase his self-confidence and strengthen his personality. (68) In order that he might sleep well, he was given vitamin preparations and a white powder. After taking these, he collapsed at home in a complete apathy, and had a feeling of bodylessness (69).
When his parents, who knew him as a loner and a reserved person, visited him in the hospital, the witness stated that he had felt all-powerful, that he was a genius, and that he could exercise great influence over other people (70).
The analysis of the substance found on the witness, S[xxx], by the scientific lab -FD 661- of the Hamburg Police revealed that it was a vitamin preparation mixed with bonemeal, as stated on the package label (71). The effects which it had on the witness S[xxx] could not be connected to the ingested preparation by the expert opinion of the University Hospital of Eppendorf (72) or the Health Department (73).
During the scope of the present proceeding, a social science teacher had stated confidentially to an officer of KK 11 that she had experienced "a real enthusiasm" upon graduating her first course of instruction with the Scientology organization (74). Because of her conviction and enthusiasm she often paid more than had been demanded (75). Finally, after she had paid a total of 120,000 DM over the course of the years to the Scientology organization, she came to the conclusion that most of the courses had done nothing for her that would have been of any value.
The witness, G[xxx], had stated that she had found spiritual meaning at the beginning of her contact with the Scientology organization in Hamburg, and that she had been looking for help. To improve her spiritual condition, she had taken various courses, at the suggestion of Scientology, for a total of 25,000 DM (76).
Before a Purification Rundown which is done for "detoxification", as with every other "preclear" she was introduced to a doctor and checked out by him. In a one-week Rundown with daily sauna sessions, which was associated with the intake of high doses of vitamins and niacin, she had physical reactions like attacks of dizziness, palpitating heart, skin reactions, hallucinations and anxiety attacks, which had been diagnosed by the doctor as normal, healthy reactions. She had been told that the length of the Rundown was to be determined by the person himself. The point at which it succeeded was to be personally detected. The purpose and goal of the Rundown was said to be a feeling of well-being which came over the person all of a sudden. (77) During the hearings by the state prosecutor on October 26, 1992, the witness withdrew her charges (79) of bodily harm (78) made against the "case supervisor" and the doctor responsible on September 8, 1992.
According to the statement of the witness, K[xxx], in the treatment with the E-meter, she detected an "itching in her hands and broke out in a sweat," which had been described as normal. Then she had disturbances of her vision (80). In one such auditing session a pathogenic stress occurred which led to increased hormone level and to the forming of adrenaline as well as to the release of endorphins. Along with that was associated a relief of pain and effects similar to that of a 'high' after which she felt unencumbered and happy (81).
The witness, P[xxx], a healing practitioner, who was involved in degree work on the subject of Scientology (82) had gone to the Scientology organization to gather material for her work. During auditing she had felt herself to be in the same state as hypnosis and in autogenic training (83). The contact with the E-meter put her in a euphoric state which lasted for three days (84). In this euphoric state she was led into an office where it was suggested to her that she take more courses (84).
The witness Z[xxx] stated that she had been introduced to a doctor by the name of Dr. [xxx] before the Purification Rundown in Hamburg (86). The sauna sessions, according to the instructions of a Scientology, were only to be conducted until one was feeling well (87). Besides temporary skin irritation, she detected considerable heart palpitation and shortness of breath.
The witness M[xxx] testified that he had no physical complaints while in the sauna. To be sure he had taken much fewer [vitamin] preparations than foreseen (88). He experienced that other course participants had complained about severe headaches. Others had to throw up (89).
After all is said, it cannot be concluded from this that the health complaints of individuals in connection with Purification Rundowns (sauna sessions) and auditing sessions with an e-meter have something to do with goals set by the Scientology organization. The purpose of these measures apparently has much more to do with producing a hormone-induced state of well-being in order to make the person dependent as an object of future economic exploitation on the Scientology organization. Physical impairments of the individual are not intended; they are taken as part of the deal.
The health impairments of the witness S[xxx] against Scientology staff members G[xxx] K[xxx] (90), R[xxx] R[xxx] (91), G[xxx] L[xxx] (92) and Dr. G[xxx] L[xxx] (93) in connection with the investigative proceedings of StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 concerning the suspicion of violation of the medical practice law was suspended, with the agreement of the health department, in accordance with PP. 170 Abs. 2 StPO (94).
The case proceedings resulted in the "Scientology Church Bavaria, reg." on December 10, 1984, being denied the carrying out of the business of "conducting individual therapeutical discussions, personality tests, courses and seminars, film-showings as well as wholesaling and retailing printed matter"
an independent dealer in ongoing business (95).
Conduct of the Scientology organization against former members
The investigation conducted has not yielded any actual evidence which verifies the opinion circulated that the Scientology Organization uses personal secrets (96) gained as a result of its auditing processes to the disadvantage of those who wish to leave.
According to statements made in a confidential hearing from a social pedagogue (97) at KK 11 in January 1991, things were made very difficult by the Scientologists for someone who left. One heard of accusations from the Scientologists and was made to feel like an unruly child. Feelings of guilt were produced in those who left. The good things in common were harmed. The "massive pressure" asserted by many has taken place in this form. They have not experienced anything worse (98).
The witness Leyendecker-Schweitzer, who became a "Life time member" in the course of her Scientology career and was said to have been trained (100) as an auditor for the achievement of OT grades (99), was declared to be a Suppressive Person (SP) after criticizing the conduct of Scientologists in February 1992. she took the offensive with the Scientology organization in April 1992. She was unsuccessfully sued for payment of recompensation in the amount of 150,000 DM (101). Other reactions were not reported by the witness.
The witness, Hartwig, who has been involved as the chairperson of the Robin Direkt Association since 1989 with the theme of Scientology (102) and with the problems of departure, had given witness Leyendecker-Schweitzer as a real example of the pressure which the Scientology organization uses upon its departees. She did not name further real examples at her hearing.
The witness, Z[xxx], testified that after her separation from the Scientology Church Hamburg in September 1984 she had demanded money back for which services had not been rendered (103) from the organization. She finally got back the amount of 14,000 DM. Before her separation, she had been constantly pressured into appearing for a final meeting. This meeting consisted of "auditing" held on her by [xxx] [xxx], who is said to have tried to make out that the witness was having problems through her break with the "church." At that point she broke off the auditing (104). The witness did not report of further reprisals.
Witness M[xxx} testified that he had made no secret of his increasingly critical attitude towards the Scientology organization (105). He was ordered to the Ethics Department and required to study texts on the theme of obedience. Those did not make an impression upon him. He left the Scientology organization and was declared "Freeloader" (fair game).
Then, over a period of from 4-6 weeks, he was telephoned by several people who wanted to get him to return. It was gotten across to him that he should be careful and that he would have to consider as to whether he really didn't want to go back. He was not threatened with direct consequences.
It was made clear to him, however, that money would be demanded from him for the courses he took (106).
In transmitting the "Freeloader Bill" (107) of 15,573.80 DM, it was indicated to the witness that the obligation for payment of the amount was only a moral and an ethical obligation, and did not represent a liability in the legal sense (108).
In November 1991, the witness M[xxx] received a letter from the Scientology Church, Hamburg (109) which stated that because of the great profits, an "amnesty" would be granted for all Scientologists. It was up to him to accept this amnesty. His ethics folder would then be emptied. In further letters to the witness, the alleged advantages of the Scientology organization were commended (110). There were no reprisals.
The witness V[xxx] (111), who, according to what he said, had been a high-ranking Scientologist in the Munich and International Scientology organizations, and had already testified at the BfI/AGS on June 10, 1993 to everything "in order to give the Scientology sect the stamp of 'criminal association'" (112), stated that the extensive information archived by the Scientology organization on private, intimate secrets of individuals was "almost an invitation to blackmail."
From his auditing activities ONE such case of blackmail was known. It had to do with a Mr. L[xxx] from Neustadt/Weinstrasse, who had been motivated to make a monetary payment by means of a sexual indiscretion which he had revealed (113).
The witness V[xxx] had knowledge of over 30,000 hours of auditing activities (114).
Combatting the Critics
The presumption that the Scientology organization proceeds against their publicly appearing critics with criminal actions up to and including murder has not been confirmed.
Witness Layendecker-Schweitzer testified that she has been on the offensive in the battle against the Scientology organization since April, 1992 (115). The witness did not report any criminal acts in connection with her experience.
Neither can any actual evidence of measures punishable under law be found in the statements of witness P[xxx], whose graduate work was very critically involved with the Scientology organization (116).
No criminal acts have been attributed to the Scientology organization in the case of former Scientologist Potthoff, who is one of the most prominent critics of the organization.
The only available witness at this point in time is in temporary custody in JVA Aichach, Ms. Sautter, who asserted in the beginning of 1993 that she had been a member of the Scientology organization, and that she had been assigned to make a murder attempt on Hamburg peoples representative Caberta Y Diaz by cutting through the brake lines of her vehicle (117).
The witness, in an interrogation by agents of the federal office for Constitutional Security, had asserted that the Scientology organization was developing access codes to break into the computers of the Federal Republic of Germany and eavesdropping devices to listen in on telephone conversations without being detected. Besides that she said she knew of surveillance and extortion of leading German politicians being carried out by the Scientology organization as well as of a murder attempt on Renate Hartwig, the Scientology critic (118).
When asked about specific details concerning perpetrator, scene of the crime, etc., the witness refused to say anything further and said that, by doing so, she would be incriminating herself (119).
The assertions of witness Sautter are not credible. An inspection of the vehicle used by witness Caberta Y Diaz revealed nothing out of place (120). No further facts which could be investigated were asserted by the witness.
Witness Sautter, in an indictment by StA Memmingen (121), was charged with 2 specifications of forgery, 5 counts of fraud, grand theft, as well as driving without a license. The results of expert opinion as to her ability to stand trial made in November 1992 (122) indicate that the witness is disposed to fraud and other misuse of professional characteristics. In an earlier opinion the witness was depicted as a neurotic personality in the form of pseudologia phantastica. The witness has a tendency to exaggerate untruthfully and not be put off by contradictory statements. This personality flaw, a neuroses with hysterical personality traits, is said to have developed over years and is defined as an ingrained mental deviation (123).
In a psychiatric interview in November 1992 the witness did not say that
she was a member of the Scientology organization (124). The interviewing physician described the witness as having the classic characteristics of hysteria with an enormous need for acknowledgment and support and a tendency to dramatize events and re-enact facts according to fantasy (125).
The statements of former high-ranking Scientologists who were at the disposal of the BfI/AGS as witnesses against the Scientology organization also contradict the assertions of witness Sautter.
Witness Traeger also stated that in his opinion, people who persist in effectively attacking Scientology in public are physically threatened in every case (126). He knows, however, of no actual criminal conduct here or in other areas (127).
The actions reported by witness V[xxx] against critics, such as the disruptions of critics' gatherings (128) by interruptions and provocations or the gathering of evidence of financing weapons purchases by Swapo in South Africa by the EKO are not judicially relevant.
The deaths of H[xxx], O[xxx] and R[xxx] in the USA (129) addressed by witness V[xxx], just from the witness' report, allows firm conclusions to be drawn neither about the existence of attempted murder nor the culpability of Scientologists.
In the confines of the proceedings at hand, this can remain undecided. A criminal association, as defined by PP. 129 StGB, can only come about as the result of facts which justify the assumption that certain criminal deeds are being regularly committed by the majority of persons in accordance with the collective intention of their organization.
Individuals who commit crimes in the course of internal organizational power struggles are not sufficient to assume the existence of a criminal association.
The investigations have revealed that the Scientology organization goes to considerable personal and financial expense in having it out with its critics. The individual offenses mentioned here (PP. 185ff StGB) have been followed up in Hamburg in several criminal procedures against members of the Scientology organization (130).
At the end of the investigation are the records of the process of the OVG Bf VI 12/91 and OVG Bf VI 2/92 before the Hamburg Superior Administrative Court between the Scientology Church Hamburg and the Hamburg Central district office in which the issue of the utilization of advertising ordinances upon the Scientology organization (131) will be evaluated (132). There was no actual evidence of the existence of a criminal association.
In the review of the OVG folders, a reference was made to the witness R[xxx] (133) who had not been previously mentioned here. Further investigations revealed that this witness had already been questioned in March 1993 by LKA 221 (134). The proceedings which resulted from her statements were carried out by the StA Hamburg - OStA Friedrich- and passed to the StA Kiel, whose jurisdiction they fell under, and were suspended there on 23 June 1993 in accordance with PP 170 Abs. 2 StPO (135).
The StA Rostock had been asked about transmitting their folders 342 Js 199/92 against the senior SC functionaries [xxx] and [xxx] so that it could be judged as to whether both would be able to contribute details
to further charges in the present proceedings. The StA Rostock transmitted over a copy of the indictment of 9 Feb 1993 (136) along with the judgment of the Rostock LG of 8 July 1993 (137) and stated that transmitting the folders was not in accordance with PP. 30 AO (138). However, the technical department chief stated that the circumstances in criminal proceedings conducted there did not contain evidence of a criminal organization formed by Scientology (139). [xxx] and [xxx] continue to account to the Scientology organization and carry out high-ranking assignments. Therefore a contribution to a statement of charges is not to be expected from them.
According to a communication from the StA Hamburg, Abt. 15 (OStA Friedrich) of 24 Feb. 1994, the evaluation for the proceedings by the StA Rostock 342 Js 199/92 of a diskette seized during a raid of the [xxxxxxxxx] company did not result in any sort of evidence of criminally relevant findings of fact (140).
The questioning of witnesses S[xxx] R[xxx] (Bl. 288 d.A.) and C[xxx] K[xxx], which had already been started (141), has been carried out. No further findings resulted in reference to charges of a process according to PP 129 StGB (142).
The Hamburg Police, LKA 222, replied to an inquiry on 23 March 1994 that they had further findings at the LKA station regarding the alleged existence of a criminal association in the area of the Scientology organization (143).
There are no proceedings outstanding in the Stuttgart LKA jurisdiction against members of the Scientology organization in accordance with PP. 129 StGB (144).
No actual indications for the existence of a criminal association are present in the letter from the Hamburg state agency -AG Scientology- of 3 Dec. 1993 (145). The indictment containing the charges which initiated the proceedings on an offence in accordance with PP 1129 StGB has been reviewed in the present proceedings with the available investigative options. Further investigative options which could yield results are not anticipated.
The present investigative proceedings are therefore suspended due to the lack of sufficient actual evidence for the existence of a criminal association in accordance with PP. 170 Abs. 2 StPO.
The inspection applied for by the "Work Group Scientology," which was established by the state authorities, of the investigative records is not granted, since that would be a violation of tax privacy (147).
One of the exceptions regulated in PP 30 Abs. IV for allowable publication does not exist. The AGS request is based on neither law nor ordinance. They have not been given a definite assignment by law or ordinance in the Senate decision of 8 Sep. 1992 (148). The mission of the AGS consists much more of observing and coordinating the activities of the state officials in the area of the Scientology Church complex.
Forwarding investigation results to the BfI-AGS, which is not part of the police, is not required for the investigation of crimes or ordinance violations. The Hamburg police are assigned to the current investigation and the contents of the folders are committed entirely to them for their safekeeping.
The communication of information or the transmission of the present decision, however, causes no objection. By doing that, the principles of data security on one side and the recognizably justified interests (Nr. 185 RiStBV) of the AGS on the other side are satisfied.
The investigative proceeding are suspended due to a lack of sufficient actual indications of the presence of a criminal association according to PP 129 StGB.
About the Register
The results of this judgment (in which sentence 2 of the 1st paragraph on page 7 will be omitted due to tax confidentiality) shall be sent to each of the following
a) the Hamburg Police, LKA 222.
b) to the Work Group on Scientology (see page 823 of the enclosure)
One copy each of this judgment (see nbr. 4) to be transmitted to
District Office of Hamburg Central district
Business and Codes office
-Attn: Administrative Director, o. V. i. A.-
Information is requested from the results of the current investigations.
The Hamburg Superior Administrative Court determined, with its judgment of 6 July 1993, that the "Scientology Church Hamburg," in conducting business in the sale of books, e-meters and courses, was obliged to report its earnings for tax purposes.
It can be concluded from the findings of the present proceedings and others which have already been held in the federal jurisdiction that the business carried out by the Scientology organization has the goal of making people who express an interest in it dependent by exerting psychological influence in a totalitarian direction which is not compatible with the value system of Basic Law, and that it practices exploitation with no regard for the endangerment of the financial existence of those whom it affects.
It is therefore requested that a review be held on the necessity of prohibiting the business conducted by the Scientology Church Hamburg.
It is requested that this office receive a copy of those records.
No copy to Rae Wiech because of retirement (p. 52 of the enclosure).
7. Copy to Caberta y Diaz: Re.: Your charge of 8 March 1991
against the "Scientology-Kirche Hamburg e.V."
for offense of PP. 129 ff StGB
Enclosure: Process Suspended
Dear Mrs. Caberta y Diaz,
The investigative process has been suspended due to a lack of sufficient actual indications of the existence of a criminal association.
Individual details are contained in the enclosed record of process suspension of June 17, 1994. The deletion in the first paragraph on p. 7 of the final record was required for tax confidentiality.
Very respectfully,8. Wv (BAen, Einst.-Mitt., AE pp.) Hamburg, den 17.6.1994 Klein, OStA /signature/ /seal/
Notes: (These were at the bottom of each page in the original German, but have been moved to the bottom of the entire document in this English translation. No translation is provided for the notes except to say that Bl. [##] d.A. stands for "Blatt [Nummer] der Anlage", which signifies "Page [number] of the enclosure".)
1) zur Person vgl. Bl. 121, 135 d.A. 2) zur Person vgl. Bl. 122, 125, 136 d.A., Verteidiger: RA Seischab, Vollmacht Bl. 93-95 d.A., RAin Gottschalk Vollmacht Bl. 116, 118 d.A. 3) zur Person vgl. Bl. 120, 134 d.A., Verteidiger: RA Roepke, Vollmacht Bl. 93, 96 d.A. 4) Bevollmaechtigte: RA Bluemel, Vollmacht Bl. 35f d.A., RA Poppinga, Vollmacht Bl. 32f, 54 Rs. d.A. 5) Bl. 822 d.A. 6) Bl. 719 d.A. 7) Bl. 16-23 d.A. 8) Bl. 18 d.A. -------------- 9) Bl. 19 d.A. 10) Bl. 20 d.A. 11) Bl. 20f d.A. 12) Bl. 21f d.A. 13) Bl. 71ff d.A. 14) Bl. 73 d.A. -------------- 15) Bl. 62-67, 97f d.A. 16) Bl. 1ff d.A. 17) Bl. 26ff d.A. 18) Bl. 141 Rs., 343 d.A. 19) vgl. Bl. 53, 69 d.A. (betr "Freiheitsspiegel"), Bl. 170-172, 310f, 452 d.A. (betr. Ganz-Unternehmen), Bl. 220ff, 452 d.A. (betr. Steuerhinterziehung), Bl. 472Rs., 882f d.A. (betr. Vergewaltigung z. Nt. Wulf), Bl. 542a, 545-547, 568-571 d.A. (betr. Fa. Wuensche), Bl. 159f, 161, 452 d.A. (betr. Fa. ARC-Musik), Bl. 886-924 d.A. (betr. Sonderpaedagogische Vereinigung e.V.) sowie Bl. 574f, 622, 812-815, 816-818 d.A. -------------- 20) Bl. 38ff d.A. 21) Bl. 52 d.A. 22) vgl. Bl. 173 d.A., Bl. 63 d. BA 900 Js 7/85 (StA Muenchen I 338 Js 10439/84 wegen Betruges, Wuchers pp.) 23) S. 9f der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 24) zu den Details des Dienstleistungsangebots s. S. 32ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II -------------- 25) S. 35f der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 26) S. 36ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 27) S. 11f der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 28) S. 15f der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 29) S. 16 der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 30) zu den zentralen Begriffen vgl. S. 42ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 31) S. 17ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II -------------- 32) S. 20ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 33) S. 25ff der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 34) S. 55 der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 35) S. 68 der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 36) S. 73f der Vfg. der StA Muenchen im Sonderband II 37) Bl. 175-190 d.A. -------------- 38) Bl. 173 d.An. 39) Bl. 221-237 d.A. 40) zur Person vgl. Bl. 173 d.A. 41) Bericht s. Bl. 725-732 d.A. 42) vgl. Bl. 162-164, 172 Rs. d.A. -------------- 43) Dreher/Troendle, StGB, 45, Aufl., PP. 129 Rdnr. 3 m.w.Hw. 44) Bl. 170-172, 220ff, 310f, 312-317, 452-454, 545-547, 568-571 d.A. -------------- 45) Bl. 803f d.A. 46) vgl. Bl. 283, 334-342 d.A. 47) Bl. 335f d.A. 48) Bl. 337 d.A. 49) Bl. 337f d.A. 50) Bl. 338 d.A. -------------- 51) Bl. 803 d.A. -------------- 52) vgl. Bl. 17, 18-23, 40, 71-80, 103-112, 200-219, 579ff d.A. 53) Bl. 165-169, 193 156f d.A. 54) Bl. 238f, 251 d.A. 55) Bl. 258-267, 343, 449f d.A. 56) Bl. 269-271 d.A. 57) Bl. 308f d.A. 58) Bl. 310f d.A. 59) Bl. 321-332 d.A. 60) Bl. 345-352 d.A. 61) Bl. 353-357 d.A. 62) Bl. 362-382 d.A. 63) Bl. 398-448 d.A. 64) vgl. Bl. 465ff, 468ff, 477, 499-528, 551-562, 578f, 610-616, 628f, 882-884 d.A. 65) Bl. 587-592, 624-627, 631-634 d.A. 66) vgl. Bl. 636-638, 646f d.A. sowie Sonderband XVI, Teil I 67) Bl. 854-881 d.A. -------------- 68) Bl. 19ff der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 69) Bl. 26f der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 70) Bl. 7ff der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 71) Bl. 66f der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 72) Bl. 70 der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 73) Bl. 79 der Beiakte StA Hamburg 900 Js 7/85 -------------- 74) Bl. 45 d.A. 75) Bl. 45 d.A. 76) Bl. 322ff d.A. 77) Bl. 324 d.A. 78) Bl. 329 d.A. 79) Bl. 332a d.A. -------------- 80) Bl. 347ff d.A. 81) Bl. 350f d.A. 82) vgl. Sonderband III 83) Bl. 354f d.A. 84) Bl. 356 d.A. 85) Bl. 356 d.A. 86) Bl. 377 d.A. 87) Bl. 377f d.A. -------------- 88) Bl. 402f d.A. 89) Bl. 404 d.A. 90) zur Person s. Bl. 85 d. BA. 900 Js 7/85 91) zur Person s. Bl. 89 d. BA. 900 Js 7/85 92) zur Person s. Bl. 89 d. BA. 900 Js 7/85 93) zur Person s. Bl. 89 d. BA. 900 Js 7/85 94) Bl. 103. Rs. d.A. -------------- 95) Bl. 63 d. BA. 900 Js 7/85 96) vgl. Bl. 262 d.A. 97) vgl. Bl. 43ff d.A. 98) Bl. 47 d.A. 99) Ein "OT 8" is nach Aussage der Zeugin Leyendecker-Schweitzer (Bl. 262 d.A.) im Princip ein Gott, d.h. ein Wesen mit uebersinnlichen Faehigkeiten, das z.B. in der Lage ist, sich durch die Kraft seines Geistes an andere Orte zu begeben, zu schweben, den eigenen Koerper zu verlassen und feste Materie -------------- zu durchdringen 100) Bl. 259, 262 d.A. 101) Bl. 263f d.A. 102) vgl. Bl. 268f d.A. 103) Bl. 376 d.A. 104) Bl. 376f, 380f d.A. 105) Bl. 420f d.A. -------------- 106) Bl. 420f d.A. 107) Bl. 432 d.A. 108) vgl. Bl. 431-436 d.A. 109) Bl. 439 d.A. 110) Bl. 441-448 d.A. 111) zur Person vgl. Bl. 854-858 d.A. 112) Bl. 855 d.A. 113) Bl. 875f d.A. 114) Bl. 875 d.A. -------------- 115) Bl. 264 d.A. 116) Bl. 353ff d.A. 117) Bl. 636ff, 646ff d.A. -------------- 118) Bl. 1f, 9 des Sonderbands (Sb.) XVI 119) Bl. 2, 12f, 18 d.A. 120) Bl. 719, 721 d.A. 121) Bl. 39-44 d. Sb. XVI 122) Bl. 45 ff d. Sb. XVI 123) Bl. 48 d. Sb. XVI -------------- 124) Bl. 55 d. Sb. XVI 125) Bl. 58f d. Sb. XVI 126) Bl. 627 d.A. 127) Bl. 627 d.A. 128) Bl. 860 d.A. 129) Bl. 870f d.A. -------------- 130) vgl. Bl. 4, 617f, 619f d.A. 131) zum Gegenstand des Verfahrens vgl. das Urteil Bl. 1093- 1133 d.A. sowie die Ablichtungen im "Sonderband VG-Verfahren Gewerbeanmeldung 132) vgl. hierzu Bl. 1139f, 1155 d.A. 133) vgl. Bl. 1155-157 d.A. 134) vgl. Bl. 1164-1189 d.A. 135) Bl. 1161f d.A. -------------- 136) Bl. 1273ff d.A. 137) Bl. 1293ff d.A. 138) Bl. 1271 d.A. 139) Bl. 1272 d.A. 140) Bl. 1134-1138 d.A. 141) vgl. Bl. 288, 318, 343, 361 d.A. 142) Bl. 1069f, 1072, 1074f, 1160, 1069f, 1245 Rs., 1246-1268 d.A. 143) Bl. 1070, 1077 d.A. 144) Bl. 1077 d.A. -------------- 145) Bl. 1081-1089 d.A. 146) Bl. 716ff, 823, 848 d.A. 147) vgl. Bl. 222ff d.A. 148) Bl. 822 d.A. --------------
Scientology Bosses Before the Judge
February 28, 1998
Management outing for Hamburg Scientology Chiefs: on Friday four Hamburg board members of the sect had to report to district court. In their magazine "Freiheit" ("Freedom") the *masthead was missing: violation of the press law.
Besides which medical professor Hermann Arnold (85) was slandered in an issue with the title "Psychiatry - the malicious Monster which tears Germany to Pieces." The author made the claim that Arnold was a student of concentration camp doctor Josef Mengele and recommended the forced sterilization of ethnic minority women.
Because the Scientology page was printed and manufactured in the USA, Hamburg Scientology President Mark Lizer, "spiritual assistant" Franz Riedl, Speaker Sabine Weber and treasurer Jurgen Brock received a fine of 2,000 marks (about $1,500) apiece. They had all declared that they earned only about 1,500 marks per month. The Munich attorney who represented the sect members promised to print a retraction for Professor Arnold in "Freiheit."
*masthead is the little blurb that gives the publication's name, name of owners and staff, etc.
Legal Proceedings Suspended
Scientology: Process suspended
"Go On" - All the News for Berlin and Hamburg
February 27, 1998.
The judicial proceedings against four Scientology members was ended last Friday with a fine of 2,000 DM apiece. The three board members and the press agent of the Scientology organization had been accused of violations of the freedom of speech law and of slander. The item in question was the magazine "Freiheit" ("Freedom") of October 1995. It contained, according to the charges, a false published claim and illicit contents. It was stated in "Freiheit" that Professor Hermann A. was a student of the Auschwitz doctor, Josef Mengele. The professor preferred charges. All concerned agreed to the end of the proceedings.
Ingo Heinemann: Critical of Scientology
Scientology Functionary convicted for masthead violation
Hamburg Municipal Court decision 142b - 367/96 text
to Ingo Heinemann's Homepage Addresse of orignal German page: http://home.t-online.de/home/Ingo.Heinemann/impres1.htm last updated 29 Jan 2000
On this Page:
Masthead of the "Freiheitsspiegel" Nr. 36 March 1986: Correct
"Freiheit" of 1996: incorrect
The chairman of the Hamburg Scientology association was convicted for failure to provide complete information in publication masthead [Law requires a contact person be listed]. The masthead only made reference to a legal entity in America.
What is noteworthy is that the Scientology Organization had formerly used a complete, correct masthead in accordance with the law.
Masthead of "Freiheitsspiegel" Nr. 36 March 1986: Correct
The independent newspaper, published by the Scientology Church
Editor and author responsible for editing and advertisement sections:
Claudia Kauer, Beichstrasse 12, 8000 Munich 40
Editing: Maria Stoffel, Juerg Stettler, Beichstrasse 12, 8000 Munich 40, Telephone 089/3991 89
Published in house:
Owner and Publisher:
Scientology Church Germany,
headquarters: 8000 Munich 40, Beichstrasse 12
President: Helmuth Bloebaum
Copyright © 1985
by the Scientology Church Germany
On Weidenbach 8, 8120 Weilheim
*Scientology and Dianetics are marks owned by Religious Technology Center, L. A., and are used with its permission.
1999 in masthead of magazine as "Editor responsible in Germany":
Helmut Bloebaum. I have already reported on his experience with the German Justice department:
The Scientology Sect and its Cover Companies
This magazine and the large masthead on its back cover was taken into judgment by the court. The text of the masthead in judgment.
Hamburg Municipal Court
Case Nr.: 142b - 367/96
142b Ds/141 Js 455/96 OWi
In the name of the people
In the matter of the fine
Mark Chapman Lizer
born 20 August 1949 in Los Angeles, California USA
the Hamburg Municipal Court, Department 142b in setting the fine
in the session of 15 December 1997 in which the following participated:
1. Judge [Name] of the Municipal Court as Chairman,
2. Attorney [Name] as official of the State Attorney's Office,
3. Attorney Bluemel as Defense,
4. Justice Department Chief Secretary [Name] as case recording official,
has found to be just:
A fine in the amount of DM 2,000.00 is set against the accused for violating masthead obligation, a code violation of negligence.
The accused is permitted to pay the fine in monthly installments of DM 200.00, beginning the 1st of each month following that in which the judgment goes into effect.
This privilege is revoked if the accused falls more than four weeks in arrears.
The costs of the proceedings and the required expenses of the accused are born by the accused so long as he has been convicted.
§§ 8, 9 I Nr. 1, 21 I Nr. 1 HmbPresseG.
The subject person, who is now 48 years old, is employed with the Church of Scientology. He speaks the German language inadequately, but speaks English and French fluently. He states that he has an income of DM 1,500 per month. He is married and has two daughters, ages 17 and 20 years. His wife has her own income, and the younger daughter is supported by the couple.
The following facts of the case were determined in the main hearing:
The subject man has been President of the registered association of the "Scientology Kirche Hamburg e.V." (hereafter called SK) since June 6, 1995. According to the excerpt from the association register in Hamburg, only the President is entitled to represent the association. In accordance with § 14 nbr 10 of the association charter, the board can produce and distribute church literature, books, magazines and other written works, in agreement with the purposes specified therein. Since 1972, the SK has been distributing the "Freiheit" magazine. The magazine is distributed free of charge in German-language areas in editions of from one to two million. Distribution is performed by members of the SK to agencies, churches, media and citizens. The magazine appears two to three times a year at intervals of from four to six months. In 1996, the magazine appeared in March, August and November, in 1997 in April and November. An exact date of appearance cannot be discerned in the magazine.
One edition of the "Freiheit" magazine appeared at the end of March 1996 and was, according to an SK press release of 2 Apr 1996, distributed in Hamburg. The title page contains the words "Germany's standing - how good is it really?". The court has inspected a copy of this edition. The magazine is written in the German language. The article concerns itself with matters of issues of German politics and the behavior toward the SK as well as the goals and problems of the SK. On the inside of the cover under the heading "From the publisher," Aron Mason, as editor responsible, wrote to the readers. The leading article on page 4 ff. as well as articles on pages 14 ff. and 22 ff. are concerned with discussion of German politicians, particularly Norbert Bluem and the SK. Other articles of the magazine address the decisions of German courts which affect the SK. On pages 44 and 45, the magazine covers the financing of the church office in Germany. On pages 46 to 69, there are articles about SK Deutschland.
The magazine's masthead is found on the back page in the English and German languages. It runs as follows:
Published in the
Church of Scientology International
6331 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90028-6329, USA
Editor in Chief [in German: Editor responsible]:
Church of Scientology International
Correspondents [the German says Foreign Correspondents:
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Valentin Beato 24
The subject person concedes to the facts of the matter, but contests his responsibility for the production and distribution of the magazine in the Hamburg vicinity. He admits that he is responsible for the administration of SK Hamburg, but says he has nothing to do with the publication and distribution of the "Freiheit" magazine. He says the magazine is published and distributed by the Scientology Church International with offices in Los Angeles, California, USA. He says he does not know how that would happen.
The subject man's admission is confirmed, in part, by statements of the witness, Weber. The witness testified that the production and distribution of the "Freiheit" magazine was directed by the Scientology Church International out of Los Angeles. She said that she herself sent the articles which she wrote or which were given to her to America, in any case. The lay-outs are put together there and sent to Madrid for publishing.
The printed work is then brought to the Federal Republic and to Hamburg by truck. The witness, Klusmann, is on staff at the SK Hamburg and has verified that he was informed by the government authorities responsible about the deficient masthead and was served the papers as required by law. He said that, without speaking to the subject person, he sent the papers to Los Angeles. In regard to distribution of the magazine in Hamburg, the witnesses are invoking their right to refuse to give information.
The government agency representative, Mr. [Name], stated in the main hearing that he had informed the witness, Klusmann, about the masthead requirements in the Hamburg press law and provided him with laws and forms. He had asked him to address these problems in the SK Hamburg.
The statement that the magazine appeared in the USA and that the place of distribution was Los Angeles is contradicted by the press release of April 2, 1996 in which the office of the SK in Hamburg was listed. It can be concluded from this press release that the magazine was produced for German-speaking areas and was to be distributed there. Distribution of the magazine in Hamburg occurred through members of SK Hamburg. As chairman of the association, the subject person is responsible for the conduct of his association members. This also goes for the distribution of magazines as stated in the association charter § 14 Ziff. 10. This responsibility is not reduced by the distribution of the magazine in other countries. As far as the subject man saying that he does not know how the "Freiheit" magazine is distributed in Hamburg, this statement is untrustworthy. As association chairman, he, at least, has the duty to monitor the activities of the association.
According to the facts of the case, the subject man has incurred guilt upon himself by violating mandatory masthead requirements iaw. §§ 8, 9, 21 Abs. 1 HmbPressG.
Along with other member of the SK, in March and April 1996 he distributed an edition of the "Freiheit" magazine with the cover lines of "Germany's standing - how good is it really?" in Hamburg. As chairman of the association, he is perceived as publisher for the Hamburg distribution area. He knows that the SK distributes the magazine and he agrees with that.
The magazine is regarded as periodical printed matter which appears in steady sequence at intervals of not more than 6 months. In accordance with § 9 Abs. 1 Ziff. 1 HmbPressG, a responsible editor cannot be employed if he does not have permanent residence under the jurisdiction of Basic Law. So far as the subject person has stated, Aron Mason is the responsible editor, but he cannot be heard; Mr. Mason does not fulfill the requirements for responsible editor iaw. § 9 Abs. 1 Ziff. 1 HmbPressG because he has permanent residence in the USA. Other indications of a responsible editor with permanent residence under the jurisdiction of Basic Law cannot be discerned from the masthead of the magazine March 1996 edition.
Even if the subject man testifies that he was not informed about the distribution of the magazine and the legal masthead restrictions, he has, at the least, behaved negligently. As association chairman he has the duty to inform himself of the activities of his staff members and association members. He must have had the press release of April 2, 1996 submitted to him. Furthermore, he would have had to ascertain that he was informed about the meeting between the witness, Klusmann, and the presiding authorities concerning a licit masthead. The subject man transgressed that obligation.
The subject man has committed a codes violation of negligence iaw. § 21 Abs. 1 Ziff. 1 HmbPressG.
As publisher of the "Freiheit" magazine, he violated the masthead regulations in that he had an edition of the periodically appearing magazine "Freiheit" distributed in which no name of a responsible editor whose permanent residence was in the Federal Republic was given. This codes violation can be punished with a fine of up to DM 5,000. In determining the amount of the fine it should be considered that the subject man has only been responsible for the association in Hamburg since June 1995. In the main hearing he showed insight by having his defender state that the deficiency should be remedied. However, it cannot be completely ignored that the articles in the magazine contained sharp attacks on German citizens. In consideration of the business relations, the court, after weighing this and all other circumstances, levies fines in the amount of DM 2,000.00. This punishment is fitted to make it clear to the subject man that in case of a legal dispute, a responsible person must be available in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Cost decision come from § 465 StPO.
[Name of the judge]
Author: Ingo Heinemann, 1. Version 29.1.2000
From the Converters of Scientology
October 10, 1995
by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Copyright contrapress media GmbH
The list of [real estate] conversion companies alined with the Scientology sect which has been compiled by the Berlin Renters Association may continue to be distributed. This is the decision reached by the Hamburg State Court. A Hamburg mortgage broker, whose name was on the list, had applied for a temporary restraining order against [its distribution by] the Berlin Renters Association. The company had argued that distribution of the list was creating a situation whereby the professional and commercial advancement of the named companies was "susceptible to impairment." The Hamburg court ruled against that argument, saying that the right to freedom of expression had overwhelming significance in cases of disagreement, and refused the application of the Scientology-alined broker.
Ex-Scientologist On Her Own
January 21, 1998
Judge refuses cost of legal proceedings, cites lack of successful outcome
Ex-Scientologists can demand a refund of their money if they are not satisfied with the performance of the controversial organization. That has not only been publicly explained by Franz Riedl, the Hamburg Vice President of Scientology, but also has been transformed into fact by a judge. This is the way Ralf Burmester, a Hamburg attorney, gained an order from the 9th chamber of the Hamburg District Court (LG) in April of 1997 for the refund of 45,882 marks (about $35,000). But things are not always that smooth. The most recent case is that of a former member, who wanted to be awarded legal fees for the refund of a five figure payment. The 30th Chamber of the District Court refused her proposal based on the determination that her demand "offers no attainable prospect of success."
What the judge detailed as a basis has brought about satisfaction for the Scientologists in Steindamm. It says "that the exploitation of a particular spiritual position alone is not enough to base the annulment of a legal transaction because of a contrary position." Scientology is recognized "as a religious society," which bases its financing on donations not on commercial enterprise. The confirmation that Scientology is a religious association is met with protest by the Ursula Caberta, the leader of the Scientology Work Group. For her the matter comes down to the fact that the "Scientology Kirche Hamburg e.V." ("Scientology Church of Hamburg"), according to German Federal Court, is neither religious nor a philosophical society, she said. The Federal Court had categorized the organization as a business for profit. District Attorney Burmest will now go before the Superior District Court.