UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND



INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; NICHOLAS

MILLER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; ALEX

COLVIN; HANALYN COLVIN, DAN

FEFFERMAN; SUSAN FEFFERMAN;

MICHAEL ROSCHUNI; and LLOYD EBY

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; BOARD OF

REGENTS, UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF

MARYLAND; PARRIS GLENDENING;

WILLIAM WOOD; and DOES 1-10.

Defendants.

_____________________________________

Case No. ____________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS



INTRODUCTION

1.For more than three centuries, the State of Maryland has been a staunch

supporter and defender of religious liberties. Since the 17th century, institutes

of higher learning have been chartered and established within the State for the

free flow of ideas, differing views and differing philosophies. However, an act

of the Maryland State Legislature and the concurrence of defendants and the

University System of Maryland, have undertaken to negate this history.

Through a legislative act, the "Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult

Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions," Maryland has

commenced a religious inquisition, targeting and vilifying minority religions

with the inflammatory denomination of "cult," derogating targeted religions

with government imprimatur and utilizing funds acquired through public

taxation.

2.Based upon lobbying by anti-religious organizations such as the former "Cult

Awareness Network" and the "American Family Foundation," and individuals

with undisguised religious prejudices and contempt for the ability of persons

to make personal choices in their own best judgment, the legislature has acted

to censor and suppress the promotion and propagation of certain religions.

Such inquisition, as ordered by the legislature, is to consult with organizations

and individuals of known religious prejudice to investigate "recruitment and

organizational practices of cults."

3.The Maryland Resolution, House Joint Resolution HJR 22, provides

disingenuous justifications for its unconstitutional conduct: that university

students are too "vulnerable," too "anxious about their futures" and too

"overwhelmed with new responsibilities" to investigate and choose their own

paths of religious belief, conscience and practice. The legislature has thus

determined that some religious beliefs and philosophies must be censored

from college students lest they become "involved" with vilified religions and

"become alienated from their families and friends" absent the intervention of

the state to inform students which religions are "cults" and which religions are

- in the view of a selected panel - entitled to religious recognition and respect.

Professing to know what is best for university students to believe, the

legislature has, in effect, determined that it is both unnecessary and harmful

for students to think for themselves.

4.Maryland was established in the 17th century because Catholics were being

persecuted in England by the government in power. Since the year 1649 when

Maryland's famous Act of Tolerance was passed into law, resulting in the

immigration of those seeking religious freedom from less enlightened

colonies, Maryland has had a deserved reputation for the promotion of

religious liberties. The anti-cult Task Force Resolution threatens to reverse

that status, and constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional act of government.

5.The legislative enactment and the resultant activities of the government funded

"Task Force," including a public report on its study of "cult activities,"

"manifest a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

and the Maryland Constitution, and federal statutes, constituting a prohibited

religious preference for some religious organizations and some religious

practices, while condemning and denigrating other religious practices and

beliefs not so preferred and creating a substantial chilling effect upon the free

exercise of religion in the Maryland University System.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.Jurisdiction of this action arises out of 28 U.S.C ñ1331, in that this action

challenges the constitutionality of a state legislative act and its subsequent

enforcement; and 28 U.S.C. ñ1343, and 42 U.S.C. ñ1983 and ñ1988, to

redress the deprivation under color of state law, of rights and privileges

secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; and under the Maryland Constitution. The acts set forth herein

arise in and have taken place in the District of Maryland.

PARTIES

7.Plaintiff International Coalition for Religious Freedom is a non-profit

educational organization located in Falls Church, Virginia, dedicated to

defending the religious freedom of all people, regardless of race, gender,

creed or nationality. Several of plaintiff's officers and members are residents

of the State of Maryland, participated in the State University system, and are

directly affected by the governmental conduct at issue in this case.

8.Plaintiff Nicholas Miller, Executive Director of the Council on Religious

Freedom, is an individual and taxpayer residing in Montgomery County,

Maryland, who wishes freely to propagate his religious faith and who objects

to his tax dollars being spent to single out for discriminatory discussions and

treatment, minority religious groups.

9.Plaintiff John Alexander Colvin is an individual residing in Anne Arundel

County, Maryland, and is an enrolled student in the University of Baltimore,

Maryland University System. Mr. Colvin is also an employee of the System

who believes that his employment is being jeopardized by the activities of the

Task Force and the chilling effect created by the University System's

investigation into the religious affiliations of its employees.

10.Plaintiff Hanalyn Colvin is an individual residing in Anne Arundel County,

Maryland, and is a high school student who is considering enrolling in the

Maryland University System. As a result of the Task Force proceedings, Ms.

Colvin has been intimidated from pursuing these potential college plans and

may be forced to travel out of state to continue her education because of the

chill to her free exercise of religion, the detrimental effect the activities of the

Task Force portend for her future employment opportunities and the

prejudicial atmosphere being established in Maryland arising out of the

activities complained of herein.

11.Plaintiffs, Dan Fefferman and Susan Fefferman, are individuals residing in

Prince George's County, Maryland, concerned that their 17 year old daughter,

who is planning to attend a Maryland University System institution of higher

learning upon graduation from high school, will, because of the atmosphere of

"cult activities" generated by the defendants, be subject to harassment and

scrutiny arising out of her parent's religious beliefs.

12.Plaintiff Michael Roschuni is a resident of Prince Georges County Maryland,

and is a current undergraduate student at the University of Maryland at

College Park. Mr. Roschuni is member of a religious organization targeted by

the unlawful acts of the defendants as set forth below, whose right to practice

and promulgate his religious beliefs has been chilled by defendants' conduct.

13.Plaintiff Lloyd Eby is an individual residing in Prince George's County,

Maryland, who has three children, ages 15, 10, and 7, attending public schools

in that county. Dr. Eby holds a Ph. D. in philosophy, with interest and

professional training in ethics, logic, theory of knowledge, and theory of

religion, and is a member of the humanities faculty of the University of

Maryland University College. He is also a member of a religious group that is

frequently denigrated by being called a "cult" by defendants and those acting

in concert with them. Because the Task Force is unlawfully and illogically

attempting to single out and attack, investigate, or otherwise harass some

religious belief and activity by calling it "cult activity," his ability to continue

with his profession and to promulgate and practice his religious beliefs is

chilled and threatened by the existence and activities of the Task Force and the

acts of the defendants set forth below.

14.Defendant State of Maryland is one of the United States of America.

15.Defendant Board of Regents, University System of Maryland is the executive

and operational body in control of and in charge of the University System of

Maryland, and is responsible, in part for the actions and violations of law set

forth below.

16.Defendant Parris GLENDENNING is the Governor of the State of Maryland,

and is responsible for the implementation of the unlawful statute and acts set

forth below.

17.Defendant William Wood is a member Board of Regents, University System

of Maryland, and is the Chairman of the Task Force, responsible for the

implementation of the illegal acts complained of below.

18.Defendants Does 1-10 are persons and entities which on information and

belief, are acting in concert with and in conspiracy with the named defendants

to carry out the unconstitutional and illegal acts set forth below. Such persons

or entities will be identified and named as defendants during the course of this

litigation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Text of the Resolution

19.Maryland House Joint Resolution 22, entitled, "Task Force to Study the

Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions,"

passed into law on May 21, 1998, states that its purpose is to establish such

Task Force and to report thereafter to the Governor and the General

Assembly.

20.The resolution opens with the statement that "WHEREAS, A 'recent' mass

suicide in California, cult motivated murders in Mississippi and Florida and a

subway gassing incident in Japan have increased national awareness of the

destructive nature of cult activities." None of these alleged incidents is

explained and none alleged to have any connection with any interest of the

State of Maryland. The resolution thereafter states several opinions and

generalities without attributing any source to the opinions:

"WHEREAS, It has been estimated that there are as many as 2,000 cults

operating in the Unites States with 4 million to 6 million members."

"WHEREAS, Cult recruitment activities are often directed towards students

on college campuses."

"WHEREAS, College students are particularly vulnerable to cult recruitment

because they are often grappling with becoming independent, overwhelmed

with new responsibilities and relationships, adjusting to new environments,

and anxious about their futures."

21.Having promulgated such derogatory opinions about "cults" and the inability

of college students to understand and appreciate the threat "cults" manifest, the

Resolution postulates dire results when students become involved in "cults":

"WHEREAS, College students who become involved with cults undergo

personality changes, suffer academically and financially, are alienated from

their families and friends and are robbed of the very things universities were

designed to encourage: freedom of thought, intellectual growth and personal

development."

22.Finally, the Resolution notes that "Although the United States Constitution and

Maryland Constitution clearly and properly limit the ability of any

government entity to interfere with the free exercise of religion," the State has

a "right and responsibility to examine the behavior" of groups "who violate

State or local law or campus policies regarding deception, harassment or

fraud, or who threaten the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the

citizens of Maryland or students enrolled in the University System." Thus,

despite recognition that it is constrained by the First Amendment to impinge

upon religious belief and practice, the legislature justifies the Resolution

through subjective determinations regarding its opinion of the effect of "cults"

on the minds of students.

23.The Resolution requires that the Task Force be composed of two members of

the Maryland House of Delegates, two members of the Maryland Senate, three

state university and college presidents or their designees, the chancellor of the

University System of Maryland or designee, a member of the Board of

Regents of the University System, a member of the Maryland Higher

Education Commission, "two parents of current or former cult members,"

two parents from school parents associations, and two student government

representatives.

24.The Resolution then instructs the Task Force to investigate and acquire

information regarding the "the recruitment and organizational practices of

cults... the response of college administrators in Maryland and around the

nation to cult activities, and the effect of cult involvement on students." The

"cults" are not identified as sources of information on their own alleged

activities and organization. Rather, the Task Force is instructed to

communicate with "cult awareness organizations, former cult members,

college administrators ... families of cult members and other interested

parties" for such information. Indeed, "cults" are not identified or defined in

the Resolution at all, leaving the scope of the inquisition solely in the hands

of the Task Force.

B. Legislative History of the Resolution

25.On February 19, 1998, House Joint Resolution 22 was introduced to the

Maryland House of Delegates by several legislators, urged by members of the

aforesaid "cult awareness organizations."

26.A sponsor of the Resolution, Delegate C. Anthony Muse, supplied his own

written testimony in support of the Resolution, which stated that the "cults" he

was seeking to restrain were religious organizations. Asserting his preference

for some religious practices over others he denominates as "cults," Delegate

Muse stated, in part:

Cults can be defined from and by many different disciplines.

Here, I am not defining cults from a theological perspective as I

always believe in freedom of religious expression. But I am

aware that even religious practices can be designed to be

manipulative, harmful and have as its goal to prey on naive

persons rather than praying for the good of one.

The committee meetings in which the passage of the Task Force legislation

was proposed were neither fair or broadly known to the public. No witnesses

were invited to speak who opposed the Resolution, despite the fact that many

such witnesses have come forth once the Resolution was publicized. In

particular, no representatives of the groups proposed to be studied (namely

the purported "cults") were afforded the opportunity to refute public

allegations against their religious beliefs and practices during the hearings or

to give reasons for their opposition to the resolution. Moreover, in the second

and third readings of the bill before the Maryland Senate, the clerk

incorrectly read the bills as establishing a Task Force on "Cultural" Activities,

not "Cult" Activities. Thus, many Senators, during the rush of considering

approximately 200 bills at the close of the legislative session, may not have

realized the true nature of the bill they passed.

27.Prior to Delegate Muse's proposal of the Resolution, he received a lengthy

memorandum and letter from Washington, D.C. attorney David Bardin, on

behalf of his clients, Les and Nora Baker who complain that their daughter

was converted to a religious organization while attending the University of

Maryland. Mr. Bardin was a registered lobbyist for two professed "anti-cult"

organizations: the Cult Awareness Network and the American Family

Foundation.

28.The Cult Awareness Network ("CAN," originally called the Citizen's Freedom

Foundation), was the primary American anti-religious group of the second

half of this century. The Citizen's Freedom Foundation changed its name to

the Cult Awareness Network in 1986 to capitalize on the powerful images it

created itself by redefining the term "cult" in American lexicon as something

dangerous and sinister and, invariably, a "false" religion. The term "cult" is,

at best, only vaguely defined even by CAN and other hate groups, because, in

essence, the term simply means a minority religious organization with

practices and beliefs disapproved by the speaker. As stated by author Tom

Wolfe, "A cult is a religious organization without political influence" - a

definition particularly appropriate here.

29.However, another organization denominating itself the "sister organization" of

CAN, the American Family Foundation ("AFF") survived and continued its

anti-religious programs. Written materials from AFF were also provided to

the legislature by Mr. Bardin or others as part of the lobbying for passage of

the Resolution, and form a portion of the legislative record. Like literally all

of the statements supporting the Resolution, the materials provide muted

complaints regarding religious belief and practice. Mr. Bardin's client, Nora

Baker, also submitted a written statement dated March 5, 1998, which argues

that although she complained to the University that her daughter was

converted to an alleged "cult," a member of the University President's staff

referred to the experience as having provided potential "spiritual nourishment

and a meaningful life philosophy" for the student's consideration. Mrs. Baker

disagreed with that particular religion's philosophy, thus raising sufficient

complaint with her state delegate and purchasing sufficient representation to

assert that the religion at issue was unacceptable.

30.Roger and Sandra Stephon, the parents of a member of the International

Churches of Christ, and who stridently disagreed with their adult child's

involvement in the religion, have particularly taken credit for passage of the

Resolution. A letter and written "Statement to the Appropriations Committee"

from the Stephons dated March 5, 1998, is included in the legislative record.

The Statement makes generalities regarding the existence of manipulative

"cults" on campus without specifically stating what these "cults" are or

identifying the alleged cult which they claim caused their son to drop out of

school. However, the Statement makes clear that the entity about which they

complain is the International Churches of Christ, a religious organization

which their son joined.

31.Another undated statement in the legislative history, is from one Laura Ann

Weber, who, in inflammatory terms asserts that her life changed for the

worse after she attended a Bible study group which lead to her deep

involvement in a religious organization she referred to as a "cult."

32.Additional written testimony is from a University of Maryland Chaplain,

Holly Ullman, who acknowledges that she is an ordained Presbyterian minister

actively "involved in cult awareness education." Rev. Ulmer relates the

"harassment" of having been approached by a person inviting her to attend

Bible studies or worship services and claims that this sort of incident occurs

from time to time on campus, noting, "[u]nfortunately, the presence of

destructive groups on campus is contributing to the overall 'religious climate'

at Maryland." Rev. Ullman thus urges passage of the Resolution so that these

[obviously not Presbyterian] groups are not allowed to lead students to a

"path of personal and spiritual destruction."

33.A Lutheran Chaplain, Elizabeth Platz, testified prior to passage of the

Resolution that one of the problems in dealing with "intrusive groups" is the

lack of definition of a "cult." Rev. Platz does not therefore define "cults," but

again, such a group is presumably not the Lutheran Church. Rev. Platz

recommends a publication which she identifies as a "University of Maryland

publication, Friends Are Everywhere: A Guide to Making Judgments About

Groups," which cautions students about getting involved with groups that

teach insidious "ideas" designed to "tempt you ...[to] ... reject previously held

values." The pamphlet is provided by AFF to campuses throughout the nation

and produced by some of these campuses at public expense (including the

University of Maryland at College Park).

34.Another Lutheran minister, Richard Dowhower, also submitted an article he

wrote and published in The Lutheran magazine, derogatory of the

International Churches of Christ. The article recommends that "when someone

you love joins a suspicious group," that a person should call the Cult

Awareness Network (of which he was a leader), to "verify that the group and

its leader are known to be dangerous;" and one should "learn the enemy" by

purchasing a book from the Cult Awareness Network written by a

deprogrammer, and "enlist an exit counselor ... so a plan can be prepared to

help extricate and rehabilitate your loved one" and asserting that "reputable

exit counselors no longer do kidnappings and deprogramming." Rev.

Dowhower further provided a written statement in the legislative record

asserting that he is the Chair of the AFF's Clergy Committee and was on the

Advisory Board of "the late, great Cult Awareness Network." Rev.

Dowhower's testimony included many derogatory comments concerning

"cults" and claims that purported former members thereof are allegedly

"confused about ... their own spirituality and personal theology" - a matter

which he purports to resolve through his own counseling as a Lutheran

minister. Dowhower supplies definitional characteristics to the Legislature

regarding "cults," one of which is "the need to be on the Messianic cutting

edge of God's saving work on earth" as well as other vague generalities of a

religious and/or social nature.

35.Following receipt of the testimony set forth above and other anti-religious

lobbying, the Joint Resolution was passed by the Maryland House of Delegates

on April 9, 1999 and by the Senate on April 12, 1999. The Governor signed

the Joint Resolution on May 21, 1998.

Task Force Meetings

36.After the Resolution became law, Members of the Task Force were appointed

as required by the Resolution. One of the two State Senators appointed to the

Task Force was Ida Ruben, who had supported and promulgated CAN's

message of religious intolerance for at least the past 15 years. Senator Ruben

previously sponsored four bills on behalf of CAN and other anti-religious

groups to diminish the religious rights and freedoms of minority religions:

HJR 107 in 1980, HJR 67 in 1981, SJR 22 for the establishment of a "Cult

Awareness Week" in 1988, and Bill No. 1725 in 1982 entitled, An Act

Concerning the Special Guardianship of the Person," relating essentially to a

legalized form of kidnapping. Although each of these efforts was unsuccessful,

Mrs. Ruben received an honorary award from CAN as its "top legislator" for

these acts of religious prejudice.

37.Also appointed as a member of the Task Force as a "parent of a former or

current cult member " representative, was Ms. Patricia Rausch, a parent of an

individual who had attended several meetings of the International Churches of

Christ, who was highly disturbed over her adult daughter's choice of religion.

Other members of the Task Force were overtly critical of purported "cults."

Frantz Wilson, an "anti-cult" activist, was also appointed to the Task Force as

a "parent" representative, although his daughter joined the Black Hebrews, a

religious group 19 years ago having no relation in or to the State of Maryland

or its universities. During one of the Task Force meetings, Mr. Wilson saw fit

to make a threat of physical violence against a member of a religious minority

attending the public meeting. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Rausch - the two most

outspoken "anti-cult" activists on the Task Force - were appointed the

"sub-committee" to select the speakers at Task Force meetings. They selected

all "anti-cult" advocates. Mrs. Rausch was also appointed the chairperson of a

sub-committee to work on language describing the alleged "destructive

behaviors" of "groups." She is on record stating that "a cult is not a religion."

The appointment of these two persons as "parents of current or former cult

members," demonstrates that the Task Force formally viewed Black Hebrews

and members of the International Churches of Christ, two minority religious

organizations, as "cults." Such act prefers certain religions over other

religions in violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States

Constitution and the Maryland Constitution.

38.The Task Force therefore followed its legislative mandate of seeking

information from "anti-cult" representatives and other persons with an

"anti-cult" agenda, rather than from balanced sources. At the first meeting of

the Task Force on May 25, 1999, one of the persons invited to speak was

Ronald Loomis, the former Executive Director of the national office of the

Cult Awareness Network. Mr. Loomis' speech was entitled, "Overview on

Cults" as a purported expert on the subject. Other persons invited to testify at

the Task Force's first meeting were the head of the local former Cult

Awareness Network office in Baltimore, Doris Quelet, and Lutheran minister

Rev. Platz mentioned above. Several "former members" offering derogatory

opinions on their former churches were also invited to testify. No active

members or representatives of any of the targeted "cults" were asked to

testify, and no representatives of civil rights groups or advocates were invited

to testify. The International Churches of Christ and the Unification Church

were specifically targeted in the first and subsequent meetings of the Task

Force.

39.Substantial time was expended in the first meeting to define the type of group

the task Force was instructed to investigate, i.e., endeavoring to define the

term "cult." The Task Force was unable to define the term and its Chairman

expressed concern that the Task Force not become involved in religious issues

in light of the obvious anti-religious direction the Task Force must necessarily

take to consummate its responsibilities under the Resolution. The definition of

"cult" was therefore not the subject of agreement at the first meeting.

40.At the June 7, 1999 meeting of the Task Force, the International Churches of

Christ continued to be targeted as the primary "cult" of concern. Ronald

Loomis, presently representing himself as the "Education Director" of the

AFF, distributed a flyer which claimed that the International Churches of

Christ was banned from a number of campuses, and thus apparently that it

should be banned in Maryland. Several other minority religions were also

mentioned in the context of being "cults."

41.Further meetings of the Task Force have gone forward. The conduct of the

Task Force meetings has been extremely unfair and unbalanced, further

demonstrating the intention to derogate "cults." "Anti-cult" viewpoints are

fostered and promoted while those with opposing views are actively

discouraged or denied reasonable opportunity to speak. Each subsequent

meeting continues a parade of derogatory assertions regarding "cults" and

more recently, statements from a number of religious scholars indicating that

the inquisition mandated by the Resolution is illegal, unconstitutional and

based upon views of prejudice and bigotry rather than legitimate concerns.

The Resolution and the Conduct of Task Force Members is

Unconstitutional

42.Nearly every person to testify regarding the scope of the Task Force's inquiry

and the nature of the alleged problem addressed, spoke to the religious

practices sought to be examined and restrained. Several of the Task Force

members have publicly commented at the meetings of their intention that their

activities not

43.In the several months of its existence, the Task Force has been unable to

fashion even a definition for the term "cult" because every definitional criteria

is obviously religious or in seeking to avoid religion, is ridiculous. Even its

Chairman recognized that it is problematic to investigate religious "cults."

44.Any doubt as to whether or not the Resolution calls for an investigation of and

potential targeting of religious groups is reasonably dispelled by such

recognition of this fact by the State of Maryland. The State maintains a

webpage of legislative enactments and proposals, indexed to specific topics.

Under the topical heading "RELIGION - see also - CHURCHES," is listed the

Resolution at issue.

45.The acts of the Task Force are also unconstitutional in that they seek to

derogate certain religions in preference to others. The persons whose

testimony gave rise to the Resolution and many of the persons invited to

testify before the Task Force promote obvious religious preferences for

longer established religions which would, through the inquisition into "cults,"

enjoy a governmental preference over the targeted groups.

46.In the context of the Task Force investigation the Maryland University System

has distributed a questionnaire seeking to learn if any of its employees as

resident assistants are "cult members." Further, the Task Force has not limited

itself to deliberations in chambers, but has held meetings at several Maryland

University System campuses - spreading the prejudices created by its mandate

by promoting it as an investigation through the System.

47.A second questionnaire, this one created by the Task Force itself, asks

counselors to divulge confidential information volunteered by students about

their religious associations, in effect turning psychological counselors into

agents of the state to collect damaging intelligence about religious

organizations. These activities create a serious chilling effect upon the free

exercise of religion both by students and employees of the University System,

and also tend to dis-establish or restrict the ability of minority religions both

to exercise religious belief and to promote and establish their religion in the

face of such official antagonism. Such activities also constitute violations of

the rights of association and privacy of members of the targeted religious

organizations.

48.The issuance of a report by the Task Force would constitute a substantial

infringement of the free exercise of religion by those persons who belong to

religious minorities seeking to practice freely their faith, by chilling their

desire and ability freely to do so, and impinging upon and restricting their

rights of association and privacy. Similarly, the issuance and publication of

any "findings" of the Task Force derogatory of religious minorities would

tend to dis-establish or prevent the establishment of such religions.

49.The State legislature has acknowledged that funding for the activities is

derived from existing general state funds and the Resolution designates

employees on the state payroll to administer the activities of the Task Force.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of

the United States Constitution

50.Plaintiffs incorporate herein all paragraphs set forth above as if re-pleaded in

this Count.

51.By investigating the religious beliefs and practices of targeted religious

minorities, by mandating preferences for some religions over other religions,

by chilling the rights of adherents to certain religions to the practice of their

faith, and by utilizing government funds, government employees, government

facilities and government pronouncements in such endeavors, the defendants

have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United

States Constitution.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of

the United States Constitution

52.Plaintiffs incorporate herein all paragraphs set forth above as if re-pleaded in

this Count.

53.By investigating the religious beliefs and practices of targeted religious

minorities, by chilling the rights of plaintiffs and others from practicing their

religions, by impeding the right of dissemination and promulgation by

adherents of certain religions, and by utilizing government funds, government

employees, government facilities and government pronouncements in such

endeavors, the defendants have violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Article 36 of the Declaration of Rights of the

Maryland Constitution

54.Plaintiffs incorporate herein all paragraphs set forth above as if re-pleaded in

this Count.

55.By investigating the religious beliefs and practices of targeted religious

minorities, by impeding the right of dissemination and promulgation by

adherents of certain religions, by mandating preferences for some religions

over other religions, by chilling the rights of adherents to certain religions to

the practice of their faith, and by utilizing government funds, government

employees, government facilities and government pronouncements in such

endeavors, the defendants have violated Article 36 of the Declaration of

Rights of the Maryland Constitution.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of International Law Respecting Human Rights

56.Plaintiffs incorporate herein all paragraphs set forth above as if re-pleaded in

this Count.

57.The Resolution and subsequent implementation by the Task Force is

inconsistent with and violates the prescriptions and proscriptions of several

international treaties to which the United States is a signatory and thus is in

violation of the supreme law of the United States pursuant to Article VI of the

United States Constitution. The treaty provisions which are violated include

Articles 2, 7, 18, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

adopted and proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 217A(3) on

10 December 1948; Articles 2(1), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted and opened for signature by

the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2200A(XXI) on December 16, 1966

and entered into force on March 23, 1976. These two United Nations

instruments require nondiscrimination, equality before the law, and equal

protection of the law without any discrimination as to all religious

organizations, including those which are newly established, nontraditional,

and/or originating or based in other countries.

58.The Maryland Resolution and its implementation are also in derogation of

Articles 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights

signed by the Organization of American States on November 22, 1969 and

entered into force July 18, 1978.

59.The Resolution and its implementation are also inconsistent with the principles

set forth in Articles 13(f) and 16 (including sections (a) - (k)) of the

Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the

Participating States in Europe adopted in Vienna on January 17, 1989.



Relief Sought

Wherefor, plaintiffs seek:

1. A declaration that the Resolution is facially unconstitutional and

void;

2. A declaration that the conduct of the Task Force is unconstitutional;

3. A preliminary and permanent injunction against defendants from

implementation of the Resolution;

4. A preliminary and permanent injunction against defendants from

issuing any "report" or "findings" in the name of the Task Force.

5. Reasonable costs and fees arising out of this action.

Dated: August 16, 1999

Respectfully submitted,



______________________

Kendrick Moxon

MOXON & KOBRIN

3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900

Los Angeles, CA 90010

(213) 487-4468

Lee Boothby

4545 42nd St. NW, Suite 201

Washington D.C. 20016

(202) 363-1773

Eric Lieberman

RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY &LIEBERMAN,

P.C.

740 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10003

(212) 254-1111

Counsel for Plaintiffs