Ingo Heinemann: Criticism of Scientology

Federal Welfare Court:
Permit for Scientologists to act as employment agents requires prognosis on danger to those seeking employment
Claudia Engel's Au-Pair case

Address of the original German: last updated on 15 Dec. 2000
Contents of this page:

Permission for private employment agency

Until 1994 only the Federal Labor Agency was permitted to serve as an employment agency.
Then private persons were also allowed to act as employment agencies.
But to do that private persons were required to have a permit.

In September 1994, the Federal Labor Ministry issued an instruction to the Federal Labor Agency according to which these permits were not to be issued to Scientologists.

Upon that permission was refused or revoked in several cases.
That resulted in several law suits.
The most important of those is the Au-Pair case (below).

au pair: [at equal (worth)], work for room and board and spending money as the case may be

Dr. Norbert Bluem was the Federal Labor Minister at that time.
Bluem had expressed himself in a particularly critical manner about the Scientology Organization:

Informing those seeking employment
From: AGPF-Info 5/97

Acting as employment agency 
Those seeking employment will be informed if they are being referred to a Scientology company. Minister Bluem: "That is some of the information which the agencies are required to give." To that end these companies are recorded separately. Scientology spokesman Jentzsch from the USA said Bluem's "bigotry and fanaticism would have been well taken in Hitler's cabinet of 1933." German Scientology spokeswoman Sabine Weber stated, "This practice is the equivalent of a computerized Star of David."
 Scientology:   "We do not own a single share of any company in Germany." The Federal Labor Agency was probably more concerned about the application of Scientology methods than it was with who owned stock.

Misuse of Labor offices and deceiving the unemployed

Regret expressed over incident

Another Scientology recruiter's name handed out by Labor Office

"Aktion Bildungsinformation" presumes those seeking work are a new target group.

Stuttgart, Germany
April 29, 2000
Sindelfinger Bote, also Stuttgarter Zeitung and others

by Annette Mohl

Nuertingen - Through oversight a staff member from the Goeppingen Labor Office gave out the name of a recruiter from the Dianetics Stuttgart Association, Inc. That had happened in the business offices of Leinfelden-Echtedingen in October 1999; this time a staff member in Nuertingen slipped up.

Behind Dianetics Stuttgart, Inc. is concealed the Stuttgart Scientology center. Apparently, that is not known to several staff members of the labor office. That also went for the employee who had just been hired to work in the Nuertingen Labor Office the first part of April, and who sent the address of the corporation to an applicant via fax. The woman had made an inquiry in the Employer Information Service (AIS) to find an opening.

Instead of reporting to Dianetics, as the Labor Office recommended, the woman called up the charitable association "Aktion Bildungsinformation" (ABI). Their chief, Eberhard Kleinmann, had already had sharp words of criticism for the Goeppinger Labor Office (to which the business offices of Leinfelden-Echterdingen and Nuertingen belong) because it had forwarded an office cleaning lady from Filderstadt an online offer from Dianetics. Now the ABI has again made the president of the labor office aware of events. "We are getting the impression that Scientology has been increasing advertisement to target those who are looking for work." In another instance, a job seeker was also sent to Dianetics in December. She did not receive anything about work there, though, but instead was offered personality training for cash.

There were explicit apologies from the Goeppingen Labor Office for the error. The current director of the employment agency, Werner Schreiner, apologized for the oversight by saying it was due to a high turnover of personnel. Basically, however, all staff were made aware of Scientology and instructed not to hand out the names of their recruiters. Presumably the address had slipped by in the course of daily business, "Dozens of inquiries are made every day through AIS." When the mistake had been noticed by the supervisor, four of the five agency personnel were comprehensively informed about the failure. The one could not be reached by telephone.

The director of the Nuertingen business office, Harald Osswald, also expressed regret over the incident. Basically, people are only referred to Dianetics if they explicitly express an interest for such a position.



Unemployed referred to Scientology

Filderstadt, Germany
October 11, 1999
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

ABI chief Kleinmann criticizes "negligence" in the Goeppingen employment office.

Filderstadt - Eberhard Kleinmann had strong criticism for the Goeppingen employment office because it sent an unemployed office sales lady in Filderstadt an on-line job offer from the "Dianetics Stuttgart" of the Scientology Center.

by Annette Mohl and Guenther Jungnickl

"That's a kicker," the chairman of "Aktion Bildungsinformation" in Stuttgart, who had been warning people about Scientology for years, was upset. In his long career, he had never run across a case in which the employment administration referred people to jobs from Scientology. In a letter to the president of the Baden-Wuerttemberg state employment office, he complained about this turn of events. Alfred Sorg, press spokesman for the Goeppingen employment office, has apologized for the procedure and called it a "slip" by the technical staff in the Leinfelden-Echterdingen placement office.

The woman from Filderstadt had reported to unemployment in the summer, and her professional profile was fed by employment office into the AIS program ("Arbeitgeber/Employer Information Service." She was more than a little surprised to receive in the mail from Leinfelden-Echterdingen a "Notice to Applicant" which told her that she should telephone the "Dianetics Stuttgart" company for a sales position.

The company itself ("Do you like to help other people, and are you looking for a new, exciting job?") had no special requirements for its future staff member. "Technical training is not absolutely necessary," it said, "since you can get training with us." There were several conditions, though: that the applicant "liked to complete new assignments," and would like to "increase her abilities." This phrasing alone, for sect chaser Eberhard Kleinmann, is more than just a clue as to what kind of employer this is from. The staff at the employment office would have had to have noticed it, in his opinion.

The current director of the placement department at the Goeppingen employment office, Werner Schreiner, verified the fact of the matter for our newspaper. "We are bombarded with all kinds of employers and have to examine each one closely to see who is behind them," he responded. Especially when it has to do with worldview organizations like churches, the applicants are explicitly instructed to get additional information from the employment office.


The Au-Pair Case

Why name names?
Right-click on picture to view

The German press had previously not mentioned the name of the complainant in the Au-Pair case.

But Claudia Engel has long been mentioned by name on the Scientology web sites.

Therefore there is no longer any reason not to mention her name.

Obviously the photo was taken at a public hearing.
That also makes a case for no longer keeping the complainant anonymous.

Though it should also be determined if the location given "from Frankfurt" is supposed to mean that Claudi Engel was sent from Scientology Frankfurt.

Her residence during her hearings up through Summer 2000, at least according to the telephone book , was 55583 Bad Muenster in Stein-Ebernburg.

Provisional Legal Protection, 11 Dec. 95
State Welfare Court Rheinland-Pfalz L 6 EA-Ar 30/95 Decision of 11 Dec 95  (Mainz S 7 EA-Ar 34/95)  v. Federal Labor Agency in the matter of revocation of permit to act as employment agent: delaying effect of appeal is reinstated. 
Decision: The untrustworthiness of the applicant to act as a private employment agent is not a result of the Federal Labor Ministry's technical instruction of September 1994. This instruction, according to the process opponent's statement: "A permit is not to be issued to members of the SC, since they do no have the trustworthiness required by § 23 Abs. 3 S. 1. Permits already issued are to be revoked."  

     ... Instructions are not legal standards and are not binding in court ... 

    Neither can untrustworthiness for the applicant be derived from the factor that the Au-Pair employees are young people who particularly need protection. So far as they are of legal age, are actively and passively entitled to vote and are in possession of all other rights and obligations of citizenship so that the law can conclude that these are people of the necessary maturity, all Au-Pair employees not of age are protected by their legal representative an adequate degree..  

Decision of the first hearing

Mainz Welfare Court S 7 Ar 168/95 Decision of 10 Nov. 97
Complaint of Claudia Engel against revocation of permit to act as employment agent overturned.

From the facts of the case: The process opponent "in any case is concluding that the Au-Pair employment agency run by the complainant and the legal procedure at hand is part of the total strategy of the Scientology Organization."

From the judgment: "According to the employment promotion law of 1994 (BeschfG 1994) v. 26 July 94 the monopoly on employment agencies is lifted, private agencies will be issued permits to deal in employment if they possess the characteristics and trustworthiness required. That permitted "observing a state mission with the means of private law."
  The permission may be "issued when and only when" it has been (positively) determined that the requirements are present. The applicant has to prove trustworthiness and "remove any existing doubt as to trustworthiness." Prognosis decision, therefore no tangible determination is needed for the applicant to be untrustworthy: "this moreover is hardly possible because human behavior is surely not predictable."
  Dealings between employers and employees requires non-partisanship. That especially applies to dealings with young people from foreign countries in "Au-pair" work relations.
  Membership in the Scientology Organization does not particularly lend itself to such non-partisanship, especially according the complainant's own presentation.
  "While she vehemently contested dealing in employment between Au-Pairs and Scientology families and vice versa, her verbal testimony is in stark contradiction to that."
  In the facts of the case pertaining to that: "In her oral testimony, the complainant responded to inquiry that it was correct that she had arranged for an Au-Pair girl to go to the Berrang family from Unterschleissheim. Besides that she said other arrangements also took place for families who were Scientologists. Part of her conviction is that it would not be appropriate for her to refuse to arrange an Au-Pair girl for a family who themselves were Scientologists."

  The religious freedom of the complainant was not violated. "Consideration of the decision in this case is based on the Scientology Organization itself - although it generally calls itself a church - is not qualified as a religious or weltanschauung community. To that extent the court agrees with the ... decision of the Federal Labor Court.

AGPF on the judgment of the 1st hearing
AGPF-Info 2/98

Scientology Organization:
Revocation of permit to act as employment agency was in accordance with law

The Mainz Welfare Court dismissed the complaint of a Scientology adherent against the revocation of a permit to arrange Au-pair work relations. (S 7 Ar 168/95 decision of 10 Nov. 97). 

The Scientology Organization has reported on this legal proceeding on more than one occasion. In "Freiheit" magazine for instance, shortly after the suit was filed:  "If the German courts dare not decide against the "almighty" Labor Minister, the case will certainly land before the European Court for Human Rights." 

The complainant first applied for provisional legal protection by delaying the effect of the revocation. The Rheinland-Pfalz State Welfare Court (L 6 EA-Ar 30/95, decision of 11 Dec. 95) granted her application.  

The Scientology "Freiheit" magazine of 1996 read, "Bluem's Orwellian dreams are not standing up to review by the courts in an individual case as of December 1995. The court rejected the entirety of the Bluemian argumentation politic on the theme of professional bans for Scientologists." In another article in the same edition, "On 18 December 1995 the State Welfare Court in Mainz overturned an order initiated by Minister Norbert Bluem to the Federal Labor Agency which would have forbidden Scientologists to be employed as private employment agents. In the 19-page judgment the judges refuted the assertions about the Scientology Church submitted by Norbert Bluem and his lackeys." In that version the date is not even right 

The Mainz Welfare Court has now determined in its decision the permit for acting as employment agent contained the qualification of "observing a state mission with the means of private law." Therefore the permit may be "issued when and only when" it has been (positively) determined that qualifications have been met. The applicant has to prove trustworthiness and "remove any existing doubts about trustworthiness." The arrangement between employers and employees demand non-partisanship. That especially applies to arrangements with young people from foreign countries in "Au-pair" labor relationships. Membership in the Scientology organization does not lead one to expect such non-partisanship according to the complainant's own presentation: "While she vehemently contested in writing having arranged any Au-pairs for Scientology families, her oral testimony on record is in stark contrast to that."  

It says in the facts of the case of the decision, "Upon being asked in the oral proceedings, the complainant replied it was correct, that she had arranged an Au-pair girl for the Berrang family from Unterschleissheim. She said that other arrangements had been made in families which were also Scientologists. In her conviction, it would not be appropriate for her to refuse to arrange an Au-pair girl for a family which themselves were Scientologists." 

The agency being sued submitted to the court that it "worked on the assumption that the complainant's Au-pair arrangements and the legal proceedings at hand were a part of the Scientology organization's overall strategy." 

Part of this overall strategy since the 1970s is to present any criticism against the Scientology organization or its methods as religious persecution and, by making comparisons to the Nazi's systematic murdering of the Jews ("Holocaust"), to give the impression that Scientologists' lives were being threatened. Luise and Hubert Berrang contributed to that strategy:  

As Luise Buhl, Luise Berrang was the driving force of the "Gesellschaft zur Foerderung religioeser Toleranz und zwischenmenschlicher Beziehungen e.V., Muenchen" ["Association to Promote Religious Tolerance and Interpersonal Relations, Inc., Munich"] (Association Register 9344 initial entry 13 July 78). In 1979 the association distributed a brochure, "Kommt ein neuer Holocaust?" ["Is a new Holocaust coming?"]. At the same association address in Munich the "Union fuer Humanitaet gegenueber Religionen und Minderheiten" ["Union for Humanity facing Religions and Minorities"] had incorporated. The person listed as being legally responsible for that was Scientology multi-functionary Juerg Stettler ("Clear" Nr. 7890). However, Luise Buhl answered one of the inquiries directed to his organization.  

As late as 1991 Luise Berrang participated in the "First Conference on Religious Freedom and Human Rights" in the Hotel Kempinski in Berlin, as well as in the the second one in Frankfurt. With her at those events was Franz Riedl for Scientology, Norbert Thiel for the Unification (Moon) Church, Michael Holznagel for Krishna/ISKCON and Swami Dhyan Satyama for Bhagwan/Osho.  

Hubert Berrang ("Clear" Nr. 11609) introduced a new organization to the public in 1992: "MUT - Menschen gegen Unterdrueckung der Toleranz (later: Mitbuerger unterstuetzen Toleranz) - Initiative scientologischer Buerger." MUT functioned as publisher of the 8-page Scientology recruitment magazine "Fakten aktuell" of which 5 million copies were distributed in 1995. MUT is apparently not registered as an association and thus is not a legal entity.  

Federal Welfare Court:

Scientologist must prove trustworthiness
BSG: Scientologists must prove trustworthiness

Kassel, December 14 (AFP) - Members of the controversial Scientology organization have to practically prove their trustworthiness themselves if they want to run an employment service. The fact that there is no indication of untrustworthiness in membership alone is not enough, the Federal Welfare Court decided in Kassel on Thursday. (AZ: B 11/7 AL 30/99 R) Private persons or companies who intend to run employment services need permission from the Federal Labor Office. In this case, the Federal Office issued such a permit to the woman, 38 years old at the time, to arrange Au-pair labor relationships. Five months later the Federal Office revoked this permission when it learned that the woman is a member of the "Scientology Church." By that membership she lacked the trustworthiness demanded by law. The labor office was concerned that the Scientologist could use the data from the Au-pair forces for later influence in Scientology households. From the view of the Rheinland-Pfalz State Welfare Court, however, there was no sign of that kind of misuse; so it decided in favor of the woman. The Federal Welfare Court overturned the decision of the previous hearing and referred the dispute back. The trustworthiness is now a matter of the applicant's entire approach to life. In particular the next hearing is to review whether the "connections and standards of conduct" of the Scientology organization actually allows the claimed separations of personal and professional lives. 
© AFP 
141718 Dec 00 

No wholesale employment ban on Scientologists

Risk of work security violations must be reviewed on a case by case basis

Kassel, Germany
December 14, 2000

au pair: [at equal (worth)], work for room and board and spending money as the case may be
[Also, Estonians speak an Uralic language which is related to Finnish and Hungarian.]

Kassel - Members of the Scientology Organization, which describes itself as a church, are not permitted to be employed in every case as au-pair employment referrers. The eleventh senate of the Federal Welfare Court in Kassel decided on Thursday that the necessary permit from the federal labor agency for au-pair employment referrers had to be considered on a case-by-case basis as to how far the referring agent was associated with the organization and whether that could constitute violation of employment security agreements.

The complainant is a 44-year-old woman from Bad Kreuznach who referred au-pairs from Estonia to German families and who had received a three-year permit from the federal labor agency in December 1994. The agency learned from press reports of the complainant's membership in Scientology and revoked her referral permit. The 44-year-old woman says she is an auditor, a clergywoman of the organization.

The labor agency argued that membership alone was evidence of a lack of trustworthiness needed for referral service. It was said the danger of misuse of the personnel data attained existed for proselytizing.

The senate determined that a wholesale referral ban on Scientologists was not permissible. It said the agency could take preventive action, but would have to produce a founded prognosis of potential risks for each individual case.

The senate did not agree with the complainant's contention that denial of a referral permit would be the same as a professional ban. It said that the overwhelming common good in this case was labor security. The senate referred the case back to the Rheinland-Pfalz state welfare court. They are supposed to review the degree to which the complainant would pose a risk as auditor.

(Case number: B 11/7 AL 30/99 R)

Federal Welfare Court overturns judgment on Scientologists as employment agents

Kassel, Germany
December 14, 2000

Kassel - The Federal Labor Agency may not disregard membership in the Scientology organization in licensing a commercial employment agency (AZ: B 11/7 AL 30/99 R), according to the Federal Welfare Court. In making this decision on Thursday, the Federal Welfare Court contradicted Rheinland-Pfalz State Welfare Court. That court had decided that legal commercial untrustworthiness could not be derived solely from membership in Scientology.

The actual case was about the complaint of a 44-year-old masseuse who had obtained a permit to be an au-pair placement agent in 1994 from the Federal Labor Agency. The permit was revoked one year later after the federal agency learned that the woman was a Scientology member. The revocation was supported, among other things, by a corresponding instruction from the Labor Ministry. In the legal dispute that followed the masseuse indeed commented that she had a "proselytizing mission," but that she only carried that out in her private life. She rejected the concerns of the federal agency as unjustified, that personal data from au-pair personnel could be misused for recruitment purposes or that the personnel would be assigned to and put under the influence of Scientology families.

The state welfare court required the Federal Labor Agency to issue the permit. The Federal Welfare Court has now overturned this decision and referred the case back to the state welfare court for review.


Ingo Heinemann  1. Version dieser Seite am 15.12.2000

Ingo Heinemann: Criticism of Scientology

Complaint of a former Scientology staff member

The complainant was employed with the Scientology Organization from 1984 to 1997
he demands DM 625,470 for payment of wages

Address of the German page from which this translation was taken:
last updated on May 24, 2000

Items addressed in this page

Problems of the statute of limitations

Labor Court Berlin 35 Ca 37139/99


In the legal dispute
[name of the complainant]
Scientology Church Berlin, Inc., 51/52 Sponholz Str., 12159 Berlin, represented by the board
- the accused -

we represent the complainant and ask that an appointment be set during which time we will make the following


The accused will be sentenced to pay the complainant DM 625,470.00 gross with 4% interest from the net contribution resulting from the legal outcome.

The complainant requests of the accused association compensation for his employment as full-time professional staff of the accused.

With its decision of 22 March 1995 (NJW 1996, 143 ff.), the Federal Labor Court (FLC) has already determined that full-time professional Scientology staff are employees in the sense of § 5 sect. 1 para. 1 of the labor law, and that labor obligations of associations may not lead to circumventing mandatory labor protection decisions. In the named decision, the FLC detailed (NJW 96/146F.) that Scientology used religious and philosophical teachings only as a pretext for pursuing commercial goals. The FLC further spoke of a very detailed basis for a decision of "cynical views" of the Scientology Organization (NJW 96/149). More on that will be gone into below. The federal government also detailed in its information booklet on Scientology that it is an organization which commercially aims at "absolute profit maximization" and whose ideology bears "totalitarian traits." Because of the absolute top priority of its pursuing commercial goals, the Scientology Organization in Bavaria has already had its legal status as a registered association withdrawn (judgment of the Bavarian Association Court of Munich of 2 June 99, Az: M 7 K 96.5439). The labor for a commercial corporation, which the accused, in end effect, is, always has to be compensated, and never occurs on a voluntary basis.


About the employment of the complainant for the accused, the following specifics are outlined:

1. July 2, 1984 until January 3, 1985 employment in Berlin

The complainant was full-time staff of the accused and was employed as such July 2, 1984. From that point in time to January 3, 1985, he was employed with the accused as director of the department of public information (Scientology designation: Public Executive Secretary; PES). In the scope of that assignment he had the following missions, which took him an average of at least 45 hours per week to accomplish. He contacted people who had expressed an interest in Scientology, invited them to introductory films and test evaluations, and registered them for auditing and Scientology courses. In addition he conducted so-called "Book I Auditing", i.e., by Scientology's standards, non-professional auditing in accordance with the "Dianetics" book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. The latter activity totalled 350 to 400 hours during the months mentioned. The complainant defrayed his own living expenses during this period by working from about 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. outside of Scientology, then was engaged in the above-named activities for Scientology from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. for six and sometimes for seven days a week.
Statements from the following witnesses are submitted as evidence of the extent and the type of the activity in employment

  1. [name of witness]
  2. [name of witness]
  3. [name of witness]
  4. [name of witness]
  5. [name of witness]
  6. [name of witness]
  7. [name of witness]
  8. [name of witness]

The witnesses named consist of former Scientology members and "colleagues" of the complainant who, to the knowledge of the complainant, are still at least members of Scientology today.
Compensation was not paid to the complainant for his employment from the 2nd of July, 1984. The principal activity of the complainant, however, could only be expected for pay. Therefore what is owed, in the absence of any other sort of agreement, is the usual compensation iaw. § 612 II BGB.
For the above-named employment activity, which is the equivalent of at least a middle level employee, a monthly compensation of at least DM 3,500 gross is customary and appropriate, given the time frame of the complainant. The amount of hours spent working, which are proportionally enormous and far above the maximum determined by the labor law (in any case in the reckoning of working hours for required sustainment), which were also performed in subsequent employment time frames by the complainant (see below), are causally linked with the Scientology methods, described by BAG (NJW 96/149) as "cynical," which are used to drive staff members to ever higher records of performance. The enormous amount of work hours therefore is not based on the self-determination of the complainant, it is more built in to the Scientology system and is so intended by the accused Taken all together, at least DM 21,000 gross (6 months @ DM 3,500) should be paid for this segment of employment.

2. January 4, 1985 to June 24, 1987 Training in Clearwater, Florida

In January 1985, the complainant was sent by the accused for training in the so-called "Flag Service Organization" (FSO), or "Flag" for short, in Clearwater. That is where the central training establishment is located for the Scientology Organization, which operates worldwide. In Clearwater, the complainant was trained for two years to be a so-called "Class V auditor" and "case supervisor." The accused describes this function as "Senior Case Supervisor." The training in Clearwater lasted until June 24, 1987. During that time, demands upon the time of the complaints were at least 70 hours per week. The complainant's training in Clearwater took place everyday; only Saturday mornings were free. Other than that "study" took place daily from 9 in the morning to 10:30 at night with an hour for lunch break and an hour for supper. The essential content of the training included fundamental Scientology auditor and case supervisor training up to "Level V Graduate." The complainant also graduated a course in Scientology's so-called "False Purpose Rundown." That deals with the clarification of allegedly anti-survival goals, motives and intentions of the "client" receiving therapy from the auditor / case supervisor. Techniques are applied in that which include direct recall, repetitive techniques, time regression, exchanging roles, etc.

After making an appropriate deduction for the room and board provided of DM 1,000 per month, the remainder of the usual and customary compensation is at least DM 2,500 a month, even if the completely unusual and illegally high burden of time made upon the complainant are disregarded. The compensation is also owed independently of whether "training" was involved. In any event, it was "internal operational" training in the framework of the contract relations between the complainant and the accused. During continuing education [provided for by a company], the money owed the employee by the company usually continues being paid.

Therefore, compensation owed the complainant for his activity in Florida at the rate of DM 2,500 a month comes to a total of DM 74,150.- (29.66 months at DM 2,500.00).

Activity in Berlin from July 3, 1987 to March 9, 1993

As a result of his "training" in Clearwater, the complainant, himself, also worked as a so-called auditor for the accused in Berlin and supervised the auditing of other auditors for the accused (as a "Senior Case Supervisor"). This included the supervision of courses for auditor training. The average weekly work time of the complainant during his activity there from 1987 to 1993 was at least 60 hours. His work day began at 1 p.m. and ended, mostly, about 11 p.m., often even later than that.

His work usually took place six days a week; Fridays were free. However, some of these days off were shortened and Fridays had to be worked. The complainant did not receive compensation for that. He had only received spending money of between DM 150 and DM 200 per month, but that was frequently not paid, either.


  1. [name of witness]
  2. [name of witness]
  3. [name of witness]
  4. [name of witness]
  5. [name of witness]
  6. [name of witness]

All the witnesses named were staff for the accused during the time in question. The witness [name of witness] had been an Executive Director for the accused. She "authorized" the spending money.

That spending money has no character of compensation for work. It is not contained in a documented mutual work contract for the complainant. This, presumably, is the reason that the accused himself concluded that the work he did was solely on the basis of volunteer association work Therefore, probably no social security was paid by the accused for full-time workers like the complainant. The fact that the activity of this member is to be viewed as employment, and is therefore to be compensated and social security is to be paid, has already been clearly determined in the Federal Labor Court in in the decision mentioned above.

The complainant, besides working for the accused, also earned his - modest - wages by working at various part-time jobs in the morning. For example, besides his employment for the accused, he worked for a time as part of an office force in the real estate office of a Berlin Scientologist from 9 a.m. to noon five days a week so that he would have enough money for rent, food and clothing

Evidence: [name of the witness]

Mr. [name of the witness] is the manager of the above-named real estate office in which the complainant was employed as an assistant.

The daily routine of the complainant during his activity from 1987 to 1993 as an auditor and "Senior Case Supervisor" was arranged so that he had sessions with three or four of the so-called clients who wanted to attain Scientology's so-called state of "Clear" by auditing, in order to have "therapeutic discussion" with them to make them aware of, and thus able to erase unconscious impulses, fears and pressures. In doing that, techniques used by the complainant included recall, repetitive techniques, traveling back into the past, exchanging roles, etc.


  1. [name of witness]
  2. [name of witness]

. The witness were, at that time, long-term, so-called "clients" of the complainant, and were audited by him.

The above mentioned techniques can be traced back to L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction author and founder of the "Scientology teachings."

Auditing is a basic source of income of the purely commercially employed accused. In addition, this commercial activity was engaged in by other auditors and their work was supervised for the accused. Therefore, the complainant was performing highly valuable commercial activity for which he had obtained special intensive training in the Scientology organization's training center in Clearwater, Florida. From 1987 to 1993, the complainant performed at least 10,000 hours of auditing for the accused. This translates to a value to the accused of approximately DM 4,000,000.00.

As evidence of the "fees" and therefore the value of the auditing for the accused, a so-called "intensive" (about 12.5 hours of auditing) costs "clients" about DM 5,000. This price corresponds to the usual Scientology fees (about DM 400 per hour). The brochure provided for the court is from the federal government, and mentions on page 27 a judgment of the Frankfurt State Court (Az: 2/4 O 471/88) in which a Scientology member paid DM 13,728 (DM 418 per hour) for 33 hours of auditing.

Evidence: witnesses to be named;
Expert Opinions

In consideration of the enormous amount of time the complainant spent working, his special education and the huge profit which was drawn from his activity, a suitable compensation for the complainant's employment from July 1987 to March 1993 is at least DM 5,000 gross per month. Divided by the complainant's average hours worked per day, this results in an hourly wage of about DM 20 gross, and that is still low compared to what it was really worth. Since no compensation was paid, in accordance with § 612 Abs. 1 BGB, this amounts to a silent agreement, and since no amount of wage was agreed upon, the customary compensation is owed.

This comes to at least DM 5,000.00 per month for the entire time period from July 3, 1987 to March 9, 1993. Altogether, the total owed for this time frame is therefore DM 340,000.00 gross for wages from the accused. (68 months at the rate of DM 5,000 per month).

March 10, 1993 - June 15, 1994 Training in Copenhagen

During this time interval, the complainant graduated from the first part of "Class VIII Auditing" in the so-called "Advanced Organization Europe" in Copenhagen, namely the so-called "Class VI Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. This course consists of 16 steps of 4 weeks duration each. Specifically, it was planned at that point in time that the complainant be the first German ever to have trained by Scientology to be a so-called Class VIII auditor.

Besides that, the complainant graduated in Copenhagen from the so-called "Solo Auditor Training" and the OT levels (Operating Thetan levels: advanced auditing steps) I, II and III. In any case, those are prerequisites for admission to the "Class VIII course" which the complainant was then supposed to take in Clearwater. The amount of time used matches that mentioned above, so that, with the appropriate deduction being made for room and board in the amount of DM 1,000 per month, a total amount of compensation owed for the training period in Copenhagen comes to DM 60,000.00 gross (15 months at DM 4,000 a month).

Berlin from Jun 16 1994 to October 3, 1994

In these three and a half months, the complainant graduated the so-called OEC course (Organization Executive Court: Scientology's internal administration and management course) for the so-called "technical department" and the "qualification department," of which the complainant was later to head.

Also for this period, the demands made on the time of the complainant corresponded to that with the accused from 1987 to 1993, so that DM 5,000 per month compensation for these 3 1/2 months are also demand. Altogether that comes to DM 17,500.00 gross.

6. Second training period in Clearwater from October 4, 1994 to July 1996

From October 4, 1994 to July 1996, the complainant was again in Clearwater, Florida for purposes of training. During this period of further training, the complainant was provided with room and board in Clearwater. For this time period, a monthly wage of DM 4,000 has been set. This again is regarding "training" for the activity engaged in at the time, as already mentioned above, and it is customary for "internal company" training that the staff member continue to be paid the same wages. Namely, they still have to continue to care for themselves and their families and follow up on their outside financial obligations. Non-compensation for this period, in spite of being for purposes of training, does not come under consideration.

This second period of training is to be regarded as so-called advanced auditor/case supervisor training up to Class VIII. In taking this training, the complainant was to be put in the position of solving all the client cases through applying the so-called "standard technology" of Scientology. As already outlined in detail above, the complainant would have been the first German auditor/case supervisor with this high classification inside of Scientology. The accused had a considerable financial interest in the complainant's training. Auditing with a so-called "Class VIII" auditor is, of course, basically more expensive than the already extremely cost-intensive auditing of a lower classed auditor (about DM 400 per hour there at the time). The time requirement made upon the complainant again came to at least 70 hours/week and contained continuing training in the above Scientology auditing techniques already mentioned. Besides that, the complainant also had staff duties in a so-called Work/Study Program in which he performed about 800 hours of work during his second stay in Florida (garden, office and menial work) which was supposed to finance his "training." This activity was obligatory for the complainant. Besides that, the complainant also performed, during this time frame, about 1,200 hours of paid auditing for the Flag Staff Organization. That had a total worth to the FSO of at least DM 750,000.

Evidence: witness [name of the witness]
Other witnesses to be named

Therefore, for the second training period in Clearwater, the complainant demands a total compensation of DM 88,000 gross (22 months at DM 4,000 per month). Demands for indemnity or payment for damages for the reprisals and the physical and psychic torture suffered as described below are reserved for the future.

During the second training phase in Clearwater, the complainant got acquainted with a female Scientologist from the USA in the scope of the above named work/study program. Both of them soon came to know each other better and decided to marry a few months later. That, however, was not possible in accordance with Scientology policies. After graduating their training, the two of them were supposed to be employed for five years in their current Scientology organizations in the USA and in Berlin, respectively. Both of them were prepared to completely fulfill the 5-year contracts they had signed with their respective Scientology Organizations. But afterwards, they wanted to live together in Berlin, marry there, and work together for the accused. In no way did this plan conflict with the internal Scientology policies which were produced by the founder of the organization, L. Ron Hubbard and which are mandatory for every sincere Scientologist

Despite that, the "church management" was not in agreement with the plans of the complainant and his girl friend because, even though it included fulfilling the woman's five year contract in the USA, it would have required three years of training to qualify a successor for the the female Scientologist's position. Essentially, that expense was apparently too large for the "church management" since it was uneconomical and therefore undesired. An obstacle in Scientology's path "to make more money."

The complainant and his female friend were therefore put under pressure in various ways to distance themselves from their plans, in particular they were threatened with what for them was the harshest punishment of them all, expulsion from the "Scientology Church." For the complainant, that was the strongest threat that anybody could make to him.

Reprisals by the "church management" came to a peak in June/July of 1996 in that the complainant, because he and his female friend still would not back off from their marriage plans, was held prisoner for two weeks in an approximately 6 ft cubed windowless room in Clearwater specifically for psychic torture. He was held in isolation, he was not spoken to, and even in leaving the cell he had to be escorted by a guard to go to the toilet. When the complainant said something or wanted to know anything, he was not answered. This was part of the method in use to treat him like "air." After 14 days of isolation torture, a trial using Stalinistic methods was conducted before a so-called "Committee of Evidence," consisting of four uniformed Sea Org staff in which "church management" presented the most diverse statements to the complainant for signature, which included a statement releasing Scientology from all legal claims. The complainant was immediately ready to sign any statement that was put in front of him in order to finally escape the isolation torture. He even asked to be able to do "Mest work," i.e., heavy physical labor, just in order to be able to escape the isolation of his 6 ft. cubed cell. In his "trial," the complainant was charged primarily with "squirreling," i.e., mixing Scientology techniques with other practices or techniques in auditing. That, however, was quite obviously only a fabricated charge, because the hours of interrogation were almost completely concerned with the relationship of the complainant to his fellow student from the USA. Under the agonizing interrogation, the complainant finally involuntarily collapsed and admitted, in order to avoid risking expulsion from the "church," that he was "guilty" on all specifications of the charges.

Evidence of the isolation torture, its duration and effect:

Witness [name of the witness]
Witness [name of the witness]
Acquisition of an expert opinion

7. Forced labor in Copenhagen from July 24 1996 to January 5, 1997

The torture described above was not adequate, though, to "purify" the complainant, from the view of "church management" of his criminal tendencies. From July 1996 to January 1997, the complainant was sentenced to so-called "ethics punitive measures" in Scientology's "Continental Liaison Office" office in Copenhagen. He had to perform forced labor there. That was simple, manual activity like taking up and laying down of floors, paint work, finishing plaster walls, masonry, pipe repair, etc. At that point in time, the complainant was still a completely convinced Scientologist and therefore accepted this forced labor as necessary punitive measures in accordance with the internal Scientology policies of his own "purification" in order to avoid expulsion from the "church," which would have been, to him, the worse punishment.

The complainant was not compensated for his work in Copenhagen, either. He had to perform work under humiliating conditions and was also employed in Copenhagen with Scientology working 60 to 70 hours per week. Even deducting a suitable amount for the, in any case, inadequate boarding and clothing, a compensation of at least DM 3000 per month is viewed as appropriate. The complainant had put in between 250 and 300 hours of work monthly for Scientology during this time period. This only yields a student wage of DM 10.90, the absolute minimum which is usual and customary, even taking into consideration the care and primitive living conditions. The complainant was housed in Copenhagen in the Scientology-owned "Hotel Corona," a very run-down building in the center of Copenhagen, in an approximately 9 x 15 ft. room together with four other Scientology "criminals." There were only several showers available there for about 30 people.

The treatment of the complainant during his "punitive measures" in Copenhagen was not only humiliating, but thoroughly comparable to a stay in a "gulag." Not only did he have to perform forced labor, but he received insufficient nourishment. In his first month there, the complainant was put on night work from 4 in the afternoon to 7 in the morning. Lunch had to be missed in order to get the necessary sleep and breakfast was not all that luxurious, in any case, if the complainant was to receive adequate sleep until 4 p.m. It does not have to be further stated in detail that deliberate withholding of nourishment in time of strenuous physical activity is a form of torture.

Evidence: expert opinions

After that the complainant was transferred to day work, the nutrition situation improved slightly. The complainant, however, as a so-called "Querulant" and "Critic" was always the last one permitted to "the pots," which were already empty on more than one occasion.

Evidence of the condition of the punishment camp in Copenhagen

  1. [name of witness]
  2. [name of witness]
  3. [name of witness]

Both of the named witnesses, in any case, have multiple months of penal experience with the same "methods of treatment" in Copenhagen. A total of DM 16,000 is demanded for the complainant's work in Copenhagen for 5 1/3 months (at DM 3000 per month).

8. Employment with the accused in Berlin from January 8, 1998 to August 4, 1997

From August 1, 1997, the complainant was again employed for the accused as staff member of the lowest rank in the public relations department. He was not allowed to work any more as an auditor because his auditor license had been revoked as part of the "ethics punitive measures" taken against him. The work took up about 20 hours a week of his time. The complainant, who was supposed to have been the first German Class VIII auditor, was not even permitted to do auditing any more because his marriage plans with a female student from the USA had gotten in the way of the profit maximization intentions of "church management," thereby turning him into a "criminal." It was not enough for him to atone for his "crime," however, by being locked up and tortured in Clearwater, nor by a stay in the penal camp in Copenhagen. A "criminal" who has not been completely rehabilitated cannot, according to "Scientology teachings," perform any "valuable" auditing to bring regular members along on their way to "clear."

Evidence: expert opinions

The complainant worked about 20 hours per week as receptionist, message-runner and also part time as telephonist for the accused. At this point, the accused was still an absolutely convinced Scientologist. He intended to continue his career and to make progress on the "Bridge." He even applied for "Amnesty," Scientology jargon for having his so-called "technical crimes" being taken off the books. Approval of amnesty was made conditional upon several courses being taken. Naturally, these course were not cheap, so the accused not only could not afford them because of a lack of money, but neither could he take them anyway, because, as an "ethics case" (criminal), he had no right to enter the course spaces. He found himself in a typical Scientology quandary from which no escape was possible.

The complainant ended his employment for the accused on August 4, 1997. On that day he terminated his staff member contract, but continued on as a simple member with the accused. For the complainant's seven month employment in 1997 at 84 hours a month, we calculate that a student's wage of at least DM 15 per hour totals to DM 8,820 gross (7 month at DM 1,260).

After terminating his primary employment, it was brought to the complainant's attention by the "ethics officer, " [Name], that his behavior towards Scientology was viewed as a breach of contract. The complainant was told that he had prematurely ended the five year contract which he had signed in January 1997. He was told that, because of this breach of contract, the entire cost of his second training phase from 1994 to 1996 in Florida would be demanded from him (about DM 100,000, according to what the ethics officer said). He also received a letter from the ethics officer in which he was required to come to the accused and to have a so-called "Leaving Staff Routing Form" filled out. That is a form for departing Scientology staff to bring to different stations, which also includes the finance department. That is where the departing staff members receives his so-called "Freeloader Bill."

That is the amount which the departing staff member has to pay if, in spite of his breaking off his work relationship, he wants to continue on the so-called "Bridge." If he refuses to pay, there is no chance of continuing up the "Bridge." Mandatory retribution is printed on every single bill for the many courses taken by any staff member. It says on the bill, "I promise to pay back in case of contract breakage." The complainant, who was still an absolutely convinced Scientologist at the time (attempting amnesty!), was suddenly confronted with a very large mountain of debt. At the same time, he saw virtually no chance meeting the demands made against him. Besides that, as a convinced Scientologist, he also wanted to be "religious" progress on the so-called "Bridge." That is what Scientology calls the gradiated training program whose final step consists of the state of "clear" (total cost for the "religious" instruction to reach "clear" is about DM 250,000, not a religion for the poor, the troubled or the weak).

Evidence: Witness [Name of the witness]

So the complainant found himself in a dilemma which was unsolvable for him. On the one side, as a convinced Scientologist, he wanted to continue making progress toward the state of "clear" in the frame work of the Scientology program (but which, in any case, was not possible at that time on account of the ethics and punitive measures, since he was not allowed to take courses as a part of these measures), on the other side he could not have paid for the expensive courses anyway since he could hardly pay for his own upkeep and was confronted with a demand from Scientology for his training costs during his second training visit to Clearwater amounting to DM 100,000. He finally escaped this dilemma by leaving with a letter of March 1, 1998. In this letter he wrote the following, among other things, to the accused:

"I owe you nothing, exactly as little as you owe me."

This statement by the complainant was connected to demands being made on him by the "ethics officer" which he would not be able to pay in any case, and with the extensive legal releases he had signed back in July 1996 after weeks of psychic torture. This is now being constructed by the accused as a release by the complainant of all demands, specifically of those of compensation. But no such release has been presented. As a precaution, the complainant has contested this in his attorney's letter of September 16, 1999.

Evidence: letter of September 16, 1999, copy as attachment K 1

In that letter he contests all statements, including the statement coerced from him in 1996 in Clearwater, which the accused intends to use as a release from legal claims.

Besides that, the statement of March 1, 1998 was gotten from the complainant through deception. The deception consists of the accused's "ethics officer" pretending like the accused really had valid financial claims upon the complainant for services performed in Florida. An actual claim, of course, would be illicit and would never be enforceable, so that the statements to that effect by the ethics officer amount to malicious deception. The complainant became aware of the deception by the accused only after legal counseling in 1999 and because of the current proceedings. This is the first time that he is completely aware that not only can the accused make no claims against him, but that he, himself, can makes claims for compensation against the accused.

Sect experts and psychologists report that former Scientology members need about two years after having been diversely psychically manipulated by Scientology to be able to regain normal relations and an understanding of Scientology.

Evidence: Witness [name of witness]
Expert opinion

[Name of the witness] was herself formerly a Scientologist, and is a Scientology exit counselor. In the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" by L. Ron Hubbard on pp. 150, a copy of which we provide for the court, the Scientology founder wrote the different, increasingly severe measures to be taken so that a member feels guilty and then can even become insane through "guilt," that is to say how a member can be systematically brought into psychic dependence upon Scientology. It is easily understandable that it takes a longer time to wean oneself off Scientology after such a dependency has been established.

Evidence: Expert opinion

This period of weaning from Scientology took the complainant only a year. But it was not until the end of this period that the complainant was generally in the situation to recognize the deception used against him by the Scientology staff member. This contestation is therefore legally within the contestation deadline in accordance with § 124 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 BGB.

Evidence: Expert opinion

The statement signed in 1996 in the USA does not need to be contested, because it was signed after weeks of isolation torture and he, in accordance with § 105 Abs. 2 BGB, was in a state of transitory reduced mental ability. The only intention of the complainant at the time was to escape the isolation torture and reprisals. The complainant was even happy, at the time, to be able to escape the isolation torture by reporting for forced labor. In that situation he would have done whatever what was asked of him, including signing any piece of paper set before him. He was completely indifferent to the content of whatever he was signing. He only wanted to escape the gloomy isolation of his cell. The statement legally releasing the accused from any claims are therefore either null in advance because of transitory mental illness or can be viewed as null and void at the beginning through effective contestation in accordance with § 142 I BGB.

Evidence of the effectiveness of isolation torture in the above sense:

Victims of isolation torture to be named:
Witness [name of witness]
Witness [name of witness]
Expert opinion

In addition, the complainant's statement of March 1, 1998 is not a unilateral obligatory statement, but is a part of a general contract. The contract offer is itself not a valid claim for the DM 100,000 demands. But this offer was not and still has not been accepted by Scientology or the accused within an appropriate time limit (1 month maximum). Now acceptance is no longer possible because of the ensuing contestation.

9. Regarding problems of statute of limitations

a) If, in the performance of employment activities iaw § 611 BGB, neither an agreement about compensation ensues nor has compensation been paid at all, this is at least as illicit as paying compensation which is illicit because it is too low. The excuse that the complainant performed his entire employment on an "association basis" and "voluntarily" is therefore invalid. The complainant may demand the usual and customary compensation for his employment with the accused using the legal form of unjustifiable enrichment § 611 BGB in connection with § 612 II BGB. The statute of limitations for claims of unjustifiable enrichment iaw § 195 BGB are 30 years. This has to also apply here.

b) Even with the assumption of the short statute of limitations iaw § 196 BGB the validly made claims of the complainant would not have expired. Expiration would be restricted at least insofar as iaw § 202 BGB.

Pactum de non petendo

The restriction rests on a so-called pactum de non petendo. In § 8 of the charter of the accused is a comment that the writings and works of L. Ron Hubbard are the doctrines, codes and policies of the Scientology "religion." Therefore this is regarded as the "law" of Scientology. A portion of this "law" is detailed by the BAG [federal labor court] in the above-mentioned decision in order to bring attention to the totalitarian tendencies of Scientology. "Crimes" viewed by Hubbard include "Putting Scientology or Scientologists in danger" (NJW 1996, 149). What exactly a danger or even an extreme danger is is then expressed in the "High Crimes" section. All attacks against Scientology or Scientologists are regarded as "High Crimes." This does not just include only actual, violent attacks, but also an unfavorable, but absolutely true, press article.

The "High Crimes" also include a civil lawsuit against any Scientology organization or any Scientologist, and that includes, in turn, the non-payment of bills or a demand for refund (even with obviously clear-founded claims, NJW 1996/149). Scientology demands from its members total agreement in "teachings," "laws," and the "Scientology system." Critics are regarded as criminals. From Scientology's perspective, enforcing an involuntary claim, even if it is clearly grounded in state law, is a "crime" or, if made in court, a "high crime."

Evidence: Witness [name of witness]
other witnesses to be named
expert opinions

According to the laws and teachings of the accused, a person who makes legal claims justified under state law is a person who deviates, makes claims of inadmissible criticism and commits a "crime." These regulations, which are binding upon every Scientologist, were described by the BAG [federal labor court] quite deliberately, not as illicit or crassly disadvantageous, but as totalitarian. Scientology is a system which demands absolute obedience and which is not prepared to subject itself to the applicable state laws in case of a conflict with its own ideology. It is clear from this that, as far as the complainant was concerned during the time of his employment and also for his membership in Scientology, bringing a law suit before the labor court would have been absolutely impossible. That would have been incompatible with his obligations as a member and his "beliefs." We submit to the court pages 195 ff. on misdemeanors, crimes and high crimes in the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" by L. Ron Hubbard. In the section entitled "High Crimes," it explicitly mentions conducting a civil law suit against Scientology or Scientologists (p. 212).

The above named witness [name of witness] has, herself, been declared by Scientology to be a so-called "Suppressive Person" because she conducted civil proceedings against another Scientologist. The Suppressive Person Declare means nothing else for Scientologists than "fair game." Any Scientologist may, without sanction, attack (even physically), harass or insult anyone who has been declared a Suppressive Person.

1. Witness [name of witness]
2. Submission of a copy of the "Suppressive Person Declare" as attachment K2

As a convinced Scientologist at that point in time, therefore, a law suit was out of the question. Even in his own eyes, he would have been committing a "high crime." Instead he would even accept the absurd Scientology punishment for his alleged transgression or crime (planning to marry an American Scientologist; disrupting profit maximization) in order to avoid being expelled from the Scientology "Church."

The mere acceptance of Scientology's principles and policies is a (silent) agreement that the claims of a member against a Scientology organization like the accused, even if they are founded, may not be made valid before a legal court of law. Therefore there is a pactum de non petendo. Such a pactum de non petendo can absolutely come about even silently (Palandt, 58th edition, § 202 Rn. 8). It only has to be significant that the will of the party is directed against the right of a debtor to refuse payment or to temporarily exclude the applicability of the claim. The "crimes" and "high crimes" of Scientology contain both. For one, claims made which are clearly founded on state laws are not at all taken into consideration, therefore a right to refuse payment is not granted, and for another, the ability to sue before a legal court is excluded if the membership is to maintained intact in Scientology. Expulsion from Scientology can be used as a sanction for a so-called "high crime."

Evidence: "Scientology, Irrgarten der Illusionen," p. 140, copy as attachment K 3;
expert opinions

It is therefore clear that for the complainant, as a devout Scientologist at the time, was restricted in implementing his demand at least until his departure from Scientology on March 1, 1998. In consideration of the above information as to the psychic after-effects of a membership in Scientology, a postponement of the deadline could be made up to at least March 1, 1999. Namely, the application of the statutes of limitations provide for the possibility of making these demands valid (Larenz/Wolf AT 8. Aufl., § 340 Rn. 19). It would therefore not be legally proper if the time of membership, particularly the active cooperation of the complainant with Scientology, were to be included as part of the time used in limitation.

Trust and Faith

Furthermore, the accused's invocation of time limitations is also a breach of faith. It cannot be accepted that Scientology, on one side, makes rules, laws and dogma which totally contradict basic, general legal positions, namely, to bring about restrictions even upon obviously clearly founded legal claims, but on the other side, claim the advantages of the legal system, namely the statute of limitations, in dealing with the creditor. The statute of limitations only has a place if the debtor as well as the creditor are aware of the applicability and use of our civil law, including the right to a civil trial, and are basically aware of and agree in principal about the validity of resulting claims. Invoking the statute of limitations is impermissible (venire contra factum proprium) if the debtor, through his own conduct, has kept the creditor from pressing charges in a timely manner. Such conduct can be seen in the codified list of Scientology crimes.

Evidence: expert opinions


Therefore the claim for compensation by the complainant has not expired in any case, because it matured, at the earliest, when the complainant left Scientology. Time for limitations can only begin after a claim has matured. A mature claim is one which merely can be made (Larenz/Wolf AT 8. Auflage, page 340). The "crimes" and "high crimes" (filing and pursuing legal claims) in the Scientology "Code of Ethics" can at least be considered a delay in the maturity of the claim. Law suits for convinced Scientologists, just because of the possible negative consequences on continued membership in Scientology (backsliding on the "Bridge") or the ending of their membership, are not an option. In his delusion, the convinced Scientologist does not recognize that he could file a financial claim against his "church" for his intensive work.

Evidence: expert opinions

The maturity of a validly made claim therefore came about, at the earliest, with the departure of the complainant from Scientology.


The representatives of the accused turned down the demands of the complainant with out-of-court letters of Sept. 7, 1999 and Sept. 14, 1999, and, among other things, alleged that an unofficial legal claim was a completely unacceptable offer of settlement and made reference to a time limitation. Therefore suit is filed.


The following items of claim are summed up:

  1. period from 7/85 to 1/85 = 6 months x 3,500 DM = 21,000 DM
  2. period from 1/85 to 6/87 = 29.66 months x 2,500 DM = 74,150 DM
  3. period from 7/87 to 3/93 = 68 months x 5,000 DM = 340,000 DM
  4. period from 3/93 to 6/94 = 15 months x 4,000 DM = 60,000 DM
  5. period from 6/94 to 10/94 = 3.5 months x 5,000 DM = 17,500 DM
  6. period from 10/94 to 7/96 = 22 months x 4,000 DM = 88,000 DM
  7. period from 7/96 to 1/97 = 6.33 months x 3,000 DM = 16,000 DM
  8. period from 1/97 to 8/97 = 7 months x 1,260 DM = 8,820 DM
  9. Total 625,470 DM gross

In the above amounts, it can be taken that they refer to the absolute least amounts which do not take into consideration any kind of "overtime pay," but are calculated only on the basis of a full-time or part-time wage.

We providently and helpfully base the above claims of the complainant on §§ 847, 823 BGB. In the above described stay in the penal camp in Copenhagen and the internment and solitary confinement in Clearwater, there were clearly limitations put upon liberty and, in addition to that, violations of the person and health of the complainant (deprivation of food, sleep deprivation, etc), which, because of their severity, justify damages of at least DM 100,000. As concerns time limitations on this claim, we refer to the information detailed above.


Besides that we apply for financial aid in the first hearing with the undersigned as legal counsel. The complainant, with his personal and economic relationships, is not in the situation to bear the cost of the legal dispute himself. The legal financial aid application is attached.


Ingo Heinemann 1st Version of this page - May 24, 2000

Additional news from a.r.s.

 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
    Subject: German sues cult
       Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 

Short excerpt of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten 02-08-2000 (

German ex-member Andreas Zantrop from Berlin relates how bad the conditions in the RPF in Denmark were; not enough food, heavy physical labor and not enough sleep. Zantrop wanted to marry a female scieno but as punishment he was first put two weeks in isolation before he got deported to Copenhagen were he was from July 1996 until January 1997.

Danish PR-chef Annette Refstrup says "Andreas was landed morally on the wrong side of the road because he practiced our spiritual counseling in a wrong way and because he had and affair with a married woman."

The allegations of German ex-member Zantrop are part of a claim he has filed with the German Labor court. Andreas demands 2.4 mil DKR (about 300K USD?) as compensation for his labor during his total of 13 years he worked for Scientology plus for the deception, fraud and pain inflicted upon him during his stay in Copenhagen and in Scientology's US headquarters.

Three Danish women have also filed claims for lost income of 650.000 DKR (90K USD?). Their suit probably starts October before the Court in Copenhagen.

Mike Gormez
Scientology & Dianetics
Tax-exempt child abuse and neglect?