Title: McPherson Case Civil: Response to Flag's motion that scientology is a religion and IR is a religious practice
Author: LMT News
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:38:26 -0500

	IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
	IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
	GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and
through the Personal Representative, 
DELL LIEBREICH

	Plaintiff, 

vs. 								Case No.
97-01235
								Section "H"
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG		
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; 		
JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI;		
and DAVID HOUGHTON					
							
	Defendants.						
_________________________________/                   


	PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO FLAG'S MOTION THAT SCIENTOLOGY 
	IS A RELIGION AND THAT THE INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN
	 IS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

	COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON by and through  the
Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, through its undersigned
attorney and hereby files its Response to FLAG's Motion that
Scientology is a Religion and that Introspection Rundown is a
Religious Practice as follows:
	Any group can call itself a religion. Only the sincerely held
religious beliefs of a bonafide religion are protected by the
constitution and statutes.  Was Flag operating as a religious
organization or a hotel when it practiced medicine without a license,
falsely imprisoned, abandoned, and killed Lisa McPherson  in its hotel
for the last 18 days of her life?   Since no  religion can escape
liability for these tortious actions, then why address the issue of
religiosity?  The following memorandum will demonstrate that
Scientology is not a religion.  If it is, then not all of Scientology
technology can be claimed as being religious.  In fact most of its
technology, such as the Introspection Rundown and Isolation are
secular in Hubbard's own words, involving no treatment at all.  Most
if not all of Scientology is secular in the sense that Dianetics and
Scientology are psychological sciences according to Hubbard. 
Therefore, Scientology should not be blessed with an all encompassing
blanket of religiosity. Case law discussed below requires that the
sincerity of the religious claim must be determined and each material
writing of Hubbard must be examined to recognize its status: secular
or religious. 
	Scientology's claim of religion is pretextual. It is a religion of
convenience.  It changes from a secular to a religious status
depending upon the legal or societal or business circumstances it
finds itself in and how it can exploit those circumstances to its
benefit.  In essence, Scientology is a fraud, a false religion. 
Unlike any other true religion, Scientology did not redefine itself as
a religion in order to address mankind's ultimate concerns in the
universe.  It puts on its religion hat only when it serves its purpose
to be protected by the Religion Clauses and Florida's RFRA.	

	As a result of being declared a religion by default, courts have
reluctantly, but narrowly, defined Scientology to be a religion (only
to the specific case), since its founder appropriated metaphysical and
religious trappings and nomenclature from other well established
religions.  Due to the way that Scientology founder L.  Ron Hubbard
decided to establish Scientology as a religion, that the Scientology
non-amendable  "scripture" are the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, and the
testimony of former and current Scientologist's, as detailed below, 
the Plaintiff will not concede that Scientology is a religion entitled
to constitutional protection for all intents and purposes. The Estate
will stress to this court that even if it is a bonafide religion, not
all of Scientology "technology" falls within the definition of
religion, and therefore not all of Scientology, including Church of
Scientology Flag Service Organization Inc., Flag, is protected by the
Federal or State constitutions or statutes.  Even if they were, the
claim to religious status is not sincerely held to the extent for
entitlement to First Amendment or RFRA  protection.
I.	 INTRODUCTION
	Defendant Flag Service Organization (Scientology) has asked this
Court to take judicial notice that it is entitled to constitutional
protection as a religion under the First Amendment.  The Court
declined the invitation.  Now, Scientology implores the Court to grant
summary adjudication on the issue and to find that the Introspection
Rundown merits First Amendment protection as well.  Scientology seeks
such adjudication as part of a litigation strategy which seeks to
import constitutional protection for what otherwise is indefensible
conduct. The strategy is that if Scientology can annex religious
status to itself in this case, it can then claim that its right to
believe in the Introspection Rundown and to condemn all mental health
professions is absolutely protected.  Seeking to craft a
constitutional immunity for itself, Scientology will next seek to
sweep its conduct within the scope of the absolute protection granted
to religious belief.   
	Under the facts and circumstances of this case, in conjunction with
Scientology's characteristic conduct in the larger society, plaintiff
will not defer by default to Scientology's religious claims. 
Plaintiff chooses to put Scientology to the test of its bona fides.  
	Plaintiff will argue that it is inappropriate and unconstitutional to
grant religious protection to an organization whose conduct features
hatred, keeping an incompetent woman in captivity, while keeping her
in captivity subjecting her to medieval treatment which is the modern
equivalent to torture, watching her while she deteriorates to the
extent that she dies, and then trying to cover up the cause of her
death by lying so as to deny that her abuse, deterioration and death
were part and parcel of what otherwise Scientology would claim to be
religious belief and practice.
	Whether Scientology merits religious protection or not can be no more
determined on summary adjudication that it can be pursuant to judicial
notice.  It has imprisoned, tortured, killed and lied.  Plaintiff
challenges Scientology to prove that this  is bona fide religious
belief and practice. 
	In order to illustrate to the Court the importance and the depth of
this challenge, particularly to illustrate Scientology's myriad forms
of abuse and lying, plaintiff's statement of facts is, perforce,
lengthy.  Had Scientology treated her as one would expect a bona fide
religion to do, Lisa McPherson's life would have been likely to be
lengthy as well.
II.	SEEKING DETERMINATION OF RELIGIOSITY IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE ATTEMPT
TO GAIN AN ADVISORY OPINION.  

	 This court should not succumb to the public relations strategy
demand of FLAG to  render an advisory opinion to determine Scientology
is a religion and the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice
for the following  reasons:
		1.	Lisa  McPherson was not participating in any claimed
religious
service during her stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel which is operated by
Flag.

		2. 	Even if Scientology and Flag are totally and sincerely
religious
and the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice, (a), neither  
the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Florida's constitution,
nor Florida's RFRA will protect coercive conduct resulting in injury,
and (b), nothing in Scientology permits forced medical services upon a
member by unlicensed care givers.		       

		3 	 Based upon all of the above, Scientology's demand to
determine
the  religiosity issues is nothing more than seeking an impermissible
advisory opinion. 
Whether or not Scientology is a religion is not dispositive of the
issues of this case involving torts, since  Lisa McPherson was not
engaged in any claimed religious services or activities, and if she
were, there is no protection for the Defendants based on the
religiosity of Scientology. Cantwell.    Flag never raised the
religion issue in its filed answer to the original complaint. After
the instant suit was filed, on February 22, 1997, attorney Sandy
Weinberg, counsel for Flag in this case and the related criminal case,
also wrote a letter to the Clearwater Police Department stating that
Lisa McPherson was not at the Ft. Harrison for religious services:
	"you have also asked for the person who was in charge of Lisa's stay
at the hotel in November and early December.  Lisa was not at the
hotel for services and therefore there was no auditor or case
supervisor from the Church in charge.  However, Alain Kartuzinski and
Janice Johnson periodically received information on her status.
(emphasis added)  
	In fact, during depositions in the instant case, FLAG's counsel
strenuously objected to any questions of parishioners concerning
claimed religious practices or beliefs on the basis that "inquiring as
to religious beliefs....has nothing to do with this lawsuit." (3-24-99
Deposition of staff member Paul Greenwood, p. 39:14-16.) 
	 Robert Johnson, the corporate attorney and resident agent for Flag,
wrote a letter a year before the above letter in February of 1996 to
the Clearwater Police Department, which was investigating the
suspicious death of Lisa McPherson. There he stated that Lisa
McPherson was merely a hotel guest "for rest and relaxation" at the
Ft. Harrison Hotel.  In that letter, attorney Johnson also
misrepresented to the police that the personnel of the Medical Liaison
Office, MLO, were not performing any medical functions but were only
there to refer members or staff to a doctor or dentist.
	 On a television news show, Inside Edition, airing in January of
1997, Elliot Abelson, chief corporate legal counsel for all of
Scientology, also stated that Lisa was there as a hotel guest for rest
and relaxation.
	In essence, Flag is seeking an advisory opinion from this court which
is not permitted since the religiosity of Scientology and Flag has
absolutely no bearing upon the issues of this case. In the interest of
the Baby Boy G.  v. Prospective Adoptive Parents, 703 So. 2nd 1103
(Fla. 2nd DCA ,1998), where the prospective adoptive parents sought a
declaratory judgment to seek an opinion or factual findings on matters
that would be determinative in other pending cases, which are not
before the trial court, found to be an attempt to seek an
impermissible advisory opinion.  In State v. Schebel,  723 So. 2nd 830
(Fla., 1999), seeking a court opinion on speculative facts would
necessarily be advisory in nature and therefore impermissible.
	Janice Johnson, a deputy in the Medical Liaison Office, who was
responsible for handling staff employees in their dealings with health
related professionals, told the police during her attached interview
of May 29, 1996,  that Lisa McPherson was only in the hotel as a guest
for rest and relaxation. 
		Johnson:	The Church doesn't treat mental illness at all
...  I
mean...she did the usual thing.   If you think somebody's mentally
ill, then they go and get evaluated.  You see...the point ...of
Scientology isn't to treat physical or mental   illness...  Its
strictly for  spiritual gain.  So it's not like a  Christian Scientist
...  Our guidelines is that ...if you are sick, you get treated...you
get physically taken care of ...it's not like Christian Science where
you avoid all medical treatments.. .you're supposed to depend on faith
to heal you or something.  That's not  what's  going on."  (At page
59). 
	
		
	Det. Sudler: 	But was Lisa ... was she...did she go to the Church for
any courses or any programs to help her?

	Johnson:     	No.  She ..  She simply wanted to have a chance to get
away from whatever pressures that she was under and chill out and
just...  Just relax and rest...That's not the purpose of
Scientology... to treat any kind of mental or physical illness. 
	(At p. 60).

	Johnson:    	 Well, she simply wanted to be there to...  to just rest
and relax.  She had not originated that she wanted to do anything
more.  
			...Than just have a place to just be away from the
pressures of
life.

	Det. Sudler:	Okay.  So she didn't go there to take a course or she
wasn't  part of any program or anything like that to try to help her
out of the situation she was in?

	Johnson:      No.

	Det. Sudler:	Just she needed a break from everything.

		Johnson:     	Yeah.  That was the...  That was the whole
reason she
was there.  She wasn't doing anything else but just relaxing...people
don't start on a course if it's not their idea to do it.
	(At page 62).

  	Johnson:     Nobody's pushed to stay if they don't want to stay.
	(At page 66).
	The very next day after the above Janice Johnson interview, Alain
Kartuzinski, the Senior Case Supervisor, reiterated to the police that
Lisa McPherson was a mere hotel guest and staying at the hotel for
rest and relaxation.  (See attached statement  dated May 30,1996). 
	Top official for Scientology, Michael Rinder, was also quoted in a
1997 St. Petersburg Times article by Tom Tobin, that Lisa was in the
hotel for rest and relaxation and could have similarly died in any
other hotel. (See Kent affidavit).
	Likewise, Defendant David Houghton, now a licensed dentist, stated in
the attached interview under oath to the prosecutor that Lisa had
trouble sleeping and staff members were merely watching her to make
sure she had adequate sleep and nourishment. Houghton admits to
forcibly injecting Lisa three times with aspirin and Benadryl at the
rear of her mouth with an irrigation syringe without her consent while
other staff held down her legs and arms.
	In light of the above letters from corporate counsel Robert Johnson
and the letter  from Mr. Weinberg, one wonders how FLAG in the instant
action can in good faith come into this court and argue that Lisa
McPherson was engaged in religious services and spiritual treatment at
the Ft. Harrison Hotel and therefore, FLAG is entitled to protection
under the First Amendment and Florida's RFRA.  IF MR. WEINBERG AND
ROBERT JOHNSON TOLD THE TRUTH IN THEIR LETTERS TO THE CLEARWATER
POLICE DEPARTMENT, (WHICH AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT WE ASSUME THEY
DID), THEN THE ISSUE OF THE RELIGIOSITY OF SCIENTOLOGY IS MOOT.  
	Mr. Kartuzinski later testified under oath to the Pinellas County
State attorney, Douglas Crow, that he had lied many times to the
Clearwater police during their criminal investigation including
whether  Lisa being merely a hotel guest inside the hotel for rest and
relaxation.  (See attached statement of Alain Kartuzinski of October
13, 1998 p. 70, 71,72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80,).  He did say he lied
to the police even though during  the interview he had Flag counsel
present.  Mr. Kartuzinski, also admitted on p. 81 that after lying to
the police during their criminal investigation of the death of Lisa
McPherson, he had another interview with Flag counsel and confessed to
Flag counsel that he had lied to the police.  Although he was
reprimanded by Flag counsel that he lied to the police, Flag counsel
wrote two letters to the police indicating that Lisa was only in the
hotel for rest and relaxation.  Flag counsel never corrected the lies
of Kartuzinski.
	Kartuzinski does admit in his sworn statement to the prosecutors on
October 13th 1998 , that he, not Lisa, is the one that decided to take
Lisa McPherson back to the Ft. Harrison Hotel,( p.62:24-63:2 and
66:14-16), and that there were absolutely no religious service being
performed on Lisa McPherson during her last 18 day stay at the Ft.
Harrison Hotel:
	"Their directions from me precisely were to not do anything to her,
make sure that she had enough to eat, that she--that there was no
noise, no talking to--that could make or worsen and that she could
sleep in peace and rest and that if she was doing anything to herself
or other people, that, of course, they would have to generally prevent
bad (sic?) from occurring.  
At 127:1-7.

	So if counsel for Flag conveyed the truth to the Clearwater Police
and if Mike Rinder, one of the highest executives for the Church of
Scientology worldwide, told the truth to the St. Petersburg Times, and
if Kartuzinski, the highest technical person at Flag told the truth to
the prosecutors that Lisa McPherson was not engaged in any "services"
during the last 18 days of her life, because she was not physically
and mentally able to do so, then the religiosity issue is moot. It is
as false as the religious claim of Scientology.
	However, if everyone above is perpetrating  perjury and fraud, then
we will continue to address the following issues.
III.	SCIENTOLOGY'S IDEOLOGY IS IMBUED WITH OPPORTUNISM AND SCAPEGOATS
THE "PSYCHOTIC"

	A.	The Essential Dichotomy Of Theta And Entheta
	Scientology's ideology breaks reality down into an essential
dichotomy based on "reason" and "insanity."  
	On one side is "theta" which is "1. thought, life force, elan vital,
the spirit, the soul or any other of the numerous definitions it has
had for some thousands of years. . . . 4. Reason, serenity, stability,
happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which
man ordinarily considers desirable." (Dianetics and Scientology
Technical Dictionary (1981) [hereinafter "Dictionary"] at 429) 
	The other side of the dichotomy is comprised of "entheta" which "1.
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life) [] ; especially refers to
communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous,
choppy, or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person
or group. 2. Theta which has become confused and chaotically mixed
with the material universe and which will lie in this confusion until
death or some other process disenturbulates it. Theta, below 2.0 on
the tone scale, we call entheta.  3. Anger, sarcasm, despair, slyly
destructive suggestions." (Dictionary at 144)  
	Subject to Hubbard's quantitative analysis, ". . . when we have more
entheta than theta, the theta is likely to become entheta.  This is
the contagion factor of aberration.  Theta itself could be called
reason; entheta could be called unreason.  Reason in sufficient
quantity brought into the presence of a lesser quantity of unreason
will cause reason to prevail. Unreason in sufficient quantity brought
into the presence of a lesser quantity of reason will cause that
reason to become unreason."  (Hubbard, Science of Survival (1978) at
42-43; underline added)   "Entheta will tend and act in the direction
of death." (Ibid.)  Thus, the "psychotic, for instance, will ruin
any[thing] he contacts." (Ibid.)
	B.	The Thetan And The Clearing Of  The Reactive Mind  -  Auditing 
	Thus, Scientology presupposes a "thetan,"   the equivalent of the
soul, which is immortal and has assumed various bodies in past lives
and distinguishes "between the 'reactive' or passive (unconscious)
mind and the 'analytical' or active mind.  The reactive mind records
what adherents call 'engrams,' which are spiritual traces of pain,
injury or impact that impeded the attainment of enlightenment.  The
reactive mind is believed to retain engrams that go back to the fetal
state and reach further back even into past lives. . . . unless one is
freed from these engrams, one's survival ability . . . will be
severely impaired."    (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology, A Reference Work
at 151.)  The purpose of Scientology is to address "the human problem"
by a "process of actualizing a lost or hidden human spiritual power or
dimension of life" (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology A Reference Work at
187) which is accomplished 
	"through the many levels of auditing and training, which constitute
the central religious practices of Scientology. . . . A neophyte or
beginner in the auditing/training process is called a preclear and one
who has removed all engrams is called a Clear."Such "Clearing" has a
"beneficial effect of the person's family, group, environment and
sphere of influence."  (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology A Reference Work
at 151.)  

	Auditing results in "case gain," the "improvements and resurgences a
person experiences from auditing."  (Dictionary at 61)   
	One of a Scientologist's ultimate goals is obtain the state of
"Clear" which is a person who "has no vicious reactive mind and
operates at total mental capacity just like the first book [Dianetics
the Modern Science of Mental health] said."  (Dictionary at 75, def.
5)  	The necessary result is to turn "the tide of civilization . . .
to the better, " achieving the central aim of Scientology, "A
civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war,
where the able can prosper and honest beings have rights, and where
man is free to rise to greater heights."    (Ex. I to Motion,
Scientology A Reference Work at 152, 153.)
	C.	All People Are Either "Social" Or "Anti-Social"  -  Well
Disposed
To Scientology Or "Suppressive Persons" Who Are Subject to Destruction
As "Fair Game."

	In 1951, before there was any Scientology "religion," L. Ron Hubbard
explained that "The goal of Dianetics is sanity.  It would be stopped
only by the insane."  (Science of Survival  at., viii)  Thus, as he
breaks down the universe into a life and death dichotomy, so too he
breaks down all the people in the world into two categories that he
calls Good and Evil.
		Good, bluntly, is survival.  Evil is non-survival.  Construction
is
good when it promotes survival.  Destruction is bad when it inhibits
survival.  Destruction is good when it enhances survival.
		An act or conclusion is as right as it promotes the survival of
the
individual, future, group, mankind or life making the conclusion.  To
be entirely right would be to survival to infinity.

(Id., at 34)
	Hubbard teaches that in human life there are good people and bad
people, as well as those who cycle through periods of good and evil. 
"The basic travail of man is that he is divided into those who build
and those who demolish, and in this conflict of intentions his fight,
whichever side he is on, is always lost.  Or was lost until
Scientology came along" (Ex C to Motion, Scientology Ethics, at 170,
172)
	According to Scientology, there "are two dominant behavior patterns"
for human beings. "There are people then who are trying to build
things up and others who are trying to tear things down. And there are
no other types."  (Id., at 170)   
	Indeed, 20% of humanity "oppose violently any betterment activity or
group" because they have "antisocial tendencies." Characterized by an
"antisocial personality" shared by Hitler and Napoleon, (Id., at 173),
such persons don't "respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy." 
Their state is such as "It is quite useless to treat or help or train
such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the
antisocial connection."  (Id., at 175)  Thus, a person who commits
"suppressive acts" and "high crimes"  which are those which "suppress,
reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists"(Id., at 294),  is
called a "suppressive person."  (Id., at 183)   The suppressive person
is to be guarded against, is to be feared. 
	Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy
Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by Acts Suppressive of
Scientology or Scientologists.  The greatest good for the greatest
number of dynamics requires that actions destructive of the advance of
the many, by Scientology means, overtly or covertly undertaken with
the direct target of destroying Scientology as a whole, or a
Scientologist in particular, be summarily handled due to the character
of the reactive mind and the consequent impulses of the insane or
nearly insane to ruin every chance of Mankind via Scientology.

(HCO Policy Letter 23 December 1965 Ethics, Suppressive Acts,
Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law at
554, Exhibit B to Declaration of Jesse Prince)  
	Thus, by means of this institutionalized dichotomy,  Scientology
scripture commands that Scientologists are treated according to one
standard, and SPs by another.  Such suppressive persons are the
"enemies" of Scientology.  As such they are to be treated differently
from the way Scientologists are treated.  "That person may be deprived
of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any
discipline of the Scientologist.  May be tricked, sued or lied to or
destroyed."  (Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 129 Cal.Rptr.
797, 800, fn. 1)  
	Scientologists deserve protection from psychotics and criminals, from
suppressive persons and overt and covert acts.  Scientology protection
is getting more and more real and within a year or two will be quite
adequate for anyone.  Now if we carry forward the deadly disease of
stupidly refusing to recognize when somebody wants to do us in, that
we must at least refuse to help him do it, someday Scientology Orgs
will start reducing various rights of Scientologists to decent
treatment and fair play.

(HCO Policy Letter 17 March 1965 Fair Game Law, Organizational
Suppressive Acts, The Source Of The Fair Game Law, Exhibit C to
Declaration of Jesse Prince)
	D.	The "Potential Trouble Source" Is Trouble To Scientology Because
It Impedes Scientology's Advancement By A Connection To A "Suppressive
Person"

	A "potential trouble source" is a person "who makes the trouble."
(Exhibit C., Scientology Ethics, to Motion at 183) 	
	Because a suppressive person "approves only of destructive actions
and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities," 
(Id., at 176), Scientology's ideology posits that the antisocial
personality impedes its advancement.  Connection with a suppressive
person has a  frighteningly corrosive effect on other Scientologists. 
Thus, the source of trouble is a connection with a "suppressive
person" whom a Potential Trouble Source must either "handle" or from
whom he must "disconnect."  (Id., at 184)
	"When treated or educated, the near associate of the antisocial
personality has no stability of gain, but promptly relapses or loses
his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of
the other."  (Id., at 175) 	A Scientologist who is "connected by
familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of suppressive acts
is known as a potential trouble source or trouble source."  (Ex C to
Motion, Scientology Ethics, at 312)    "A roller coaster is always
connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gains until
the suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person
earlier.  Because the case doesn't get well he or she is a potential
trouble source to us, to others and to himself."  (Dictionary at 358) 

	E.	The "Psychotic," A "Potential Trouble Source - Type III,"  Is
Connected To "Suppression" And "Evil" And Presents The Threat Of
"Contagion Of Aberration"

	Considered in a specialized category of dangerousness is the
"psychotic . . . that one which threatens the survival of the
individual himself or of those around him."  (Science of Survival, at
25)  She "is a person who is physically or mentally harmful to those
around [her] out of proportion to the amount of use [she] is to them."
(Science of Survival, at 26) She is the worst of the three types of
potential trouble sources, the PTS - Type III.   
	Type IIIs are "types [that] are mostly in institutions or would be.
In this case the Type II's apparent SP is spread all over the world
and is often more than all the people there are - for the person
sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are more apparent
SPs but imaginary as beings as well.   All institutional cases are
PTSes.  The whole of insanity is wrapped up in this one fact. The
insane is not just a bad-off being.  The insane is a being who has
been overwhelmed by an actual SP until too many persons are apparent
SPs.  This makes the person roller-coaster continually in life. " (Ex
C. Ethics at 185-186; Ex.D to Motion at 3) 
	Although Hubbard claimed - in the instances where they did not die -
to have been able to cure "psychosis," he never retracted his
essential point of view that such people were extremely dangerous
because a psychotic could violently attack those trying to "help" him
or his psychosis could contaminate his care givers.  
	Psychotic is not really a noun but an adjective.  However, psychiatry
uses it as a noun to mean an individual afflicted with a psychosis.  A
psychosis is any major form of mental affiliation or disease.  In
other words, a psychotic so far as we are concerned, is an individual
who cannot handle himself or his environment well enough to survive
and who must be cared for to protect others from him and to protect
him from himself. [] The psychotic state which receives the most
interest is that one which threatens the survival of the individual
himself or of those around him.

(Science of Survival at 25) 
	"A psychotic is a threat of death for somebody or something, if not
for himself. . . . The psychotic is a definite liability to the
auditor, not so much because of what processing or what unskilled
processing may do, but because some factor may come suddenly into the
environment of the psychotic which causes him to commit murder or
suicide."  (Science of Survival at 28) "Psychotics deal with doing
people in.  Their whole mission in life is destruction." 
(Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 247)
	Hubbard and Scientology evaluate people by means of the E-meter's
"control lever" or "tone arm" "which registers state of case at any
given time in processing."  (Dictionary at 441) A person whose tone
scale reading is "below the 2.0 level, no matter their avowed
intention, will bring death or injury to persons, things and
organizations around them, if in the anger bracket, or death to
themselves, if in the apathy bracket."  (Science of Survival at 28)  


	F.	Introspection Watch And Rundown - Treatment For Psychosis
	Type IIIs are poisoned by the SPs in their overall environment. 
Thus, in order to bring them back to a "Type II" level where they can
be reached by Scientology, "you must disconnect the person from the
environment." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) 
	The process of disconnecting a psychotic person from her environment
"is not treatment as such.  It is to provide a relatively safe
environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at
all. . . . Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary, as
intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quieting drugs) may
be necessary. . . . removed from apparent SPs, kept in quiet
surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person
comes up to Type II and a Search and Discovery should end the matter."
 (Ex.D to Motion at 4) 
	No search for and discovery of the hidden SP, however, can take place
so long as the pc is in a psychotic state because "Standard auditing
on such a person is subject to the roller-coaster phenomena."  Thus,
before a Scientologist who is PTS III can be assisted by auditing, he
has got to return to the Type II state.  Scientology scripture
recognizes that some never do, remaining psychotic unto death instead.
	But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes
withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can't be
kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught ever to become
quiet.  The extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of
psychiatric names such as 'catatonia' (withdrawn totally) and 'manic'
(too hectic).  Classification is interesting but nonproductive since
they all are PTS, all with roller-coaster and none can be trained or
processed with any idea of lasting result no matter the temporary
miracle. . . . The modern mental hospital with its brutality and
suppressive treatments is not the way to give a psychotic quiet and
rest.  Before anything effective can be done in this field, a proper
institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and
medical assistance for intravenous feedings and sleeping drafts where
necessary but not as 'treatment' and where no treatment is attempted
until the person looks recovered and only then a Search and Recovery
as above under Type Two."

(Ex. D to Motion at 4; bold emphasis added)
	Hubbard claims that Scientology can sometimes cure psychosis.  
	"Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break . . . human
beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in
desperation turn to psychiatry to handle.  Psychiatry, desperate in
its turn, without effective tech, resorts to barbarities such as heavy
drugs, ice picks, electric and insulin shock which half-kill the
person and only suppress him.  The fact remains there has never been a
cure for the psychotic until now.  The key is WHAT CAUSED THE PERSON
TO INTROSPECT BEFORE THE PSYCHOTIC BREAK.  The breakthrough was made
on a person who, after a series of wrong indications, went into a
full-blown psychotic break - violence, destruction and all."

(Ex. E to Motion at 1; original underline and bold emphasis)
	Thus, Hubbard, solved the mystery of treating the "psychotic break,
the last of the 'unsolvable' conditions that can trap a person."  (Ex.
E to Motion at 2)  He directed that the initial treatment "On a person
in a psychotic break" was to "isolate the person wholly with all
attendants completely muzzled (no speech)" and give him vitamins and
minerals.  (Ex. E to Motion at 3)  
	G. 	The Mental Health Profession Is "The Cause Of Crime"
	According to L. Ron Hubbard, the mental health professions are the
"cause of crime."
	"They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education
there would be less crime.  They say if one improved the lot of the
underpriveleged one would have solved crime.  All of these "remedies"
have proven blatantly false. 
	. . . 
	So who is "they"?  The psychologist and psychiatrist, of course. 
These were their crackpot remedies for crime.  And it's wrecked a
civilization.

	So what IS the cause of crime?  The treatment, of course. Electric
shocks, behavior modification, abuse of the soul.  These are the
causes of crime.  There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had
not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society.

	There's only one remedy for crime - get rid of the psychs! They are
causing it!

	Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned.
	. . .
	The psychs should not be allowed to get away with "treatment" which
amounts to criminal acts, mayhem and murder.  They are not above the
law.  In fact, there are no laws at all which protect them, for what
sane society would sanction crime against its citizens even as
science?  They should be handled like any other criminals.  They are
at best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to
society at large that the psychotics they keep in their offices and
loony bins because they lie and are treacherous.

(HCO Bulletin of 6 May 1982 "The Cause of Crime" Exhibit D to
Declaration of Jesse Prince)

	So let us look at psychs again - what they call "treatment" is a
suppression (by shocks, drugs, etc.) Of the ability to think.  They
are not honest enough, these psychs, being just dramatizing psychotics
themselves for the most part, to publish the fact that all their
"treatments" (mayhem, really, when it is not murder) make people more
stupid.
	
	These actions of shock and crazy evaluative counseling, etc., lower
IQ like an express elevator going down to the basement.  They do not
tell legislators this or put it in their books.  This is why they say
"no one can change IQ."  They are hiding the fact that they ruin it.
	. . .
	The answer to crime is raising IQ. But only the Scientologist can do
that."

(HCO Bulletin of 26 April 1982 "The Criminal Mind And The Psychs"
Exhibit E to Declaration of Jesse Prince)
	H. 	The Claim To Religious Status Is Opportunistic Rather Than
Principled
	In 1966, Hubbard wrote about difficulties moving assets between the
United States and the United Kingdom.  He said:
		Well at last we are able to consolidate our corporate status in
the
UK and Commonwealth and S.A.
		The big stumbling block has been Inland Revenue's refusal to
grant
non-profit status to limited companies.  Without that we could not
transfer the various organizations and US assets in the UK and
Commonwealth to a UK or Commonwealth company.
	
(HCO Executive Letter of 12 March 1966 "Corporate Status" at 1,
Exhibit F to Declaration of Jesse Prince)  Hubbard wrote that the
solution to his problem was in achieving religious status.
		Of course anything is a religion that treats the human spirit.
And
also parliaments don't attack religions.  But that isn't our real
reason - it's been a long hard task to make a good corporate structure
in the UK and Commonwealth so the assets could be transferred. 
Apparently we've done it.

(Id., at 2)
	
	In 1972 Hubbard wrote that the governing policy of Scientology was to
"MAKE MONEY . . .MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE
PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY. . . .Money is a tech. IT FLOWS. Although
one dollar looks like another dollar, they may be from completely
different places and mean completely different things."  (HCO Policy
Letter of 9 March 1972 "Income Flows and Pools" Exhibit G to
Declaration of Jesse Prince)
	In 1973, Scientology issued policy letters regarding the presentation
of Scientology as a religion as being essential to "public relations."
 
		The purpose of promotion is to make one's product known and well
thought of.  Basic to making Scientology known and well thought of is
informing the public of the religious nature of Scientology (an
applied religious philosophy which seeks and delivers Spiritual
Freedom).

(HCO Policy Letter of 24 September 1973 "Religion  Religious Org
Image" Exhibit H to Declaration of Jesse Prince)
	In the "Public Image" policy letter published the same date
Scientology elevated public relations blunders to the level of a
Suppressive Act.
		Any repeated acts which in any way destroy or reduce the
religious
status of any Scientology Organization or Minister or the bona fides
of Scientology as a religion shall be considered Suppressive Acts -
worsening public relations.

(HCO Policy Letter of 24 September 1973 "Religion Public Image"
Exhibit I to Declaration of Jesse Prince)
	In 1981 Scientology evaluated its failure to set up a Tokyo Centre. 
Part of the reason for the failure was "In spite of the fact that data
did indicate religion to be an incorrect approach, the Mission went
ahead incorporating Scientology as a Church in Tokyo." (SO Aides Order
549-1 29 January 1981 at 4,  Exhibit J to Declaration of Jesse Prince)
Thus the first part of the "broad strategy of operation is then
formulated for Japan covering: 1. Do we go religious or Dianetics?"
(Id. At 7)
IV.	FACTS  AS TO LISA MCPHERSON
	The statements and testimony obtained by authorities from various
Scientologists involved in Lisa McPherson's death has been
characterized by pervasive failures of recollection as well as by
outright material falsehood and lying, particularly by those most
responsible for her care.  An exception, to an extent, is
Scientologist Judy-Goldsberry-Weber.
	A.	Credible Testimony Regarding The Killing Of Lisa McPherson Was
Obtained From Scientologist Assistant Medical Liaison Officer Judy
Goldsberry-Weber And Bonita Portolano, The Para-Medic Who Brought Lisa
To The Hospital

		1.	Lisa McPherson Had Attained The State of Clear Yet Was
Having
Problems Being Type III Or Psychotic

	Weber first saw Lisa in the summer of 1995.  Lisa's Auditor sent Lisa
to Weber to "have a talk and see what is happening"  (Goldsberry-Weber
8/19/97 Sworn Statement [hereinafter " Goldsberry-Weber"] at 15:1-7)
because she was not eating or sleeping much.  (Goldsberry-Weber
17:5-10)   In July or August 1995, Judy Goldsberry-Weber first met
Lisa when she stayed at the Ft. Harrison for an isolation watch
because she was having PTS problems.   (Goldsberry-Weber at 130:8-16)
	A short period of time before the auto accident that occurred on
November 18, 1995, Lisa had obtained the state of Clear, one of the
major goals for all Scientologists which is a very big occasion
involving public acknowledgment before hundreds, if not thousands, of
people.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 13:19-14:15; 20:12-21:13)
		2.	The Medical Liaison Office
	Judy Goldsberry-Weber testified under oath in the criminal
investigation that as a Sea Org member  she was assigned to the
Medical Liaison Office at the Flag Service Organization over which
Emma Schamehorn was in charge. (Goldsberry-Weber at 6:1-16; 7:1-4) As
of the summer of 1995, Suzanne Green was in charge, with Janice
Johnson next in authority. (Goldsberry-Weber at 7:25-9:12 The staff of
the Medical Liaison Office "handled whomever came in" whether the
person was a public Scientologist or on staff.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
8:2-8)  
	Before coming to Flag, Goldsberry-Weber had received extensive
training as a nurse and had worked in the medical field for 35 years,
although when she was posted to the MLO her license to practice had
lapsed.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 9:16-10:14)
	In 1995, there was not a single person in the  MLO "who had any sort
of license" to practice nursing or medicine. (Goldsberry-Weber at
13:4-7) Whatever actions she took were under the direction of Dr.
David Minkoff. (Goldsberry-Weber at 13:8-12)  	According to a letter
in the MLO Office, it was Dr. Minkoff's responsibility to be "the
doctor of record on all Type IIIs."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 97:20-98:11)
This was known to all the people in the MLO as well as to Flag Service
Organization's Captain, Debra Cook, and the Legal Officer, Judy
Fontana, because they all had copies of the letter.  (Goldsberry-Weber
at 98:25-99:18) 
	When there were Type III situations, Security in the persons of Mr.
Kellerhaus and Mr. Baxter would be in charge in conjunction both with
Dr. Minkoff as the doctor of record and the Case Supervisor handling
the auditing or spiritual side.  The Medical Liaison Officer would not
check in on the person on a daily basis.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
99:20-100:14; 136:6-25) The locations of the people being subjected to
the watch were kept secret and some lasted as long as three and
one-half weeks.   (Goldsberry-Weber at 99:20-101:1) 
	The "Introspection Rundown" is a "standard procedure" that could take
place at any Scientology organization in any country in the world.  
(Goldsberry-Weber at 89:11-13; 101:6-17) The purpose of the isolation
watch is to rid the person being watched of Type III personality
demons.  The people on the watch do not talk to the person being
watched. (Goldsberry-Weber at 104:24-105:25)  Control of the person's
physical surroundings is dependent on what the Case Supervisor and
Security determine is appropriate. In general the person being watched
is isolated and kept away from others.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
106:3-107:4)  
		3.	The Accident And Cry For Help On The Public Streets Of
Clearwater: Lisa Consents To A Psychiatric Evaluation

	Prior to the occurrence to the McPherson motor vehicle accident of
November 18, 1995, Lisa was already incarcerated at the Ft. Harrison
Hotel on an Isolation Watch according to the hotel records.  That
first day hotel record ended shortly before 3:00 p.m., approximately
three hours before her 6:00 p.m. car accident. 
	Bonita Portolano, a paramedic, observed a "little crash" while
returning with her partner in their ambulance from another call.
Thirty-six year old Lisa McPherson was involved in the little crash.
(Portolano Deposition at 9:10-10:10; 27:16-28:5)  Portolano approached
McPherson to obtain a refusal of treatment because McPherson, although
"a little shaken," was uninjured.  (Portolano Deposition at
16:17-18:23) Lisa's demeanor was "odd" inasmuch as she employed
a"programmed type of speech pattern" and with her "big brown eyes"
would "look straight at you - she wouldn't blink." (Portolano
Deposition at 19:5-19:25)
	When Portolano told Lisa that she had to move her car for the police
and then she needed to speak with her further, Lisa agreed, even
though she appeared to be a "nervous wreck"who was going to cause
another accident just parking. (Portolano Deposition at 20:2-21:2)
	Shortly thereafter, Lisa took off her clothes and "comes walking down
the driver's side of the ambulance in the middle of the road, no
shoes, no socks, nothing on.  And she didn't stop at the ambulance. 
She just continued walking." (Portolano Deposition at 43:12-21)
Portolano immediately was "out the door because, number one, I don't
want another accident because there's this beautiful girl walking down
the street with no clothes on."  (Portolano Deposition at 46:20-47:1)
While getting her inside the ambulance, Portolano asked "Lisa, what
are you doing? What are you doing with no clothes on?"  Lisa responded
that she wanted people to think she was crazy because she wanted
people to help her.  When Portolano observed "Lisa, you don't have any
clothes on" she responded, "I don't need a body.  I'm an O.T."
(Portolano Deposition at 47:9-19) Two or three times Lisa explained
that she took her clothes off because "I wanted help.  I wanted help."
 (Portolano Deposition at 48:1-44) 
	She was a "very healthy person, just voluptuous,"  "well-formed" and
"full-figured girl" who weighed about 155 pounds. (Portolano
Deposition at 31:5-16; 48:24-49:1; 98:19-22) She was a "very fair
complected" and "very attractive woman" who had no markings on her
body whatsoever. (Portolano Deposition at 84:3-6; 131:12-13) Lisa was
very athletic, "well proportioned" and at 150 pounds, "firm and fully
packaged."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 120:1-122:7)
	Portolano wanted to take Lisa to Morton plant for a psychiatric
evaluation because "somebody that would take off their clothes and
asks for help deserves at least to be evaluated."   (Portolano
Deposition at 53:6-9) Speaking to Lisa for over half an hour,
Portolano observed more oddities in her demeanor. (Portolano
Deposition at 52:7) While lying on the stretcher with her eyes closed
in the ambulance Lisa would not respond to simple questions.  Then
when Portolano would direct her to open her eyes and say I need to ask
you a question, Lisa would say in a "very programmed" way "I'll answer
anything I can" or "I don't know the answer to that.  Ask me in a
minute.  Can you ask me later."  (Portolano Deposition at 53:20-51:16)
When Portolano inquired whether Lisa was a Scientologist, she gave her
"a little programmed look and says 'Yes, I am'" in a "real monotone"
way. (Portolano Deposition at 58:4-13) She had a "fixed stare,"
sounded "robotic" and was "something like you would see on a sci-fi
movie." (Portolano Deposition at 80:2-4; 114:3-10) Aside from what her
demeanor conveyed when she spoke of the Church of Scientology - which
had a "certain limit" that Bonia Portolano "couldn't get past" - Lisa
had a "very sweet demeanor about her." (Portolano Deposition at
102:5-8; 117:17-23; 132:17-18)
	During the conversation, Portolano kept trying to ascertain from Lisa
what was wrong to which Lisa gave partial responses:
		"'I'm a bad person.  I'm a bad person.' And so I would ask
questions
to get into why she felt she was a bad person, and she said it was
because she had been doing bad things that she didn't know were bad. 
She found out that people at her church told her that evidently what
she was doing was bad.
		And she said, 'But I didn't know.  I didn't know it was wrong.'
And
she would get a little upset - really upset about guilt.  And she had
a lot of guilt, I guess, and she had a lot of remorse like she let
either people down or herself down.  I couldn't - it was more of an
internal kind of thing . . .
		I tried to get specifics, and the only specific thing I could
really
draw out of her is one of the bad things she did was she took her
'eyes off the object.'
		Again I have no idea what that means.  But that was very, very
important to her that she didn't know that she wasn't supposed to take
her 'eyes off the object' and that she had taken her 'eyes off the
object.'  She felt really, really bad and she had done something
really wrong and it made her a bad person."

(Portolano Deposition at 59:2-15)
	Lisa said that the help that she needed was "I just need someone to
talk to. . . . I want to talk to someone.  I need help.  I want to
talk." (Portolano Deposition at 60:19-61:4) Lisa wanted to continue
talking to Bonita Portolano and never asked to be taken to the Church
of Scientology. Lisa finally agreed to go to Morton Plant Hospital
after being explicitly advised that the purpose was for a psychiatric
evaluation. (Portolano Deposition at 61:8-64:11; 107:13-108:7) 
	Lisa never expressed any unwillingness to be psychiatrically examined
or any reservation about psychiatrists.  (Portolano Deposition at
108:7-12) 
		4.	Lisa Is Removed From The Morton Plant Emergency Room By
High-Ranking Scientologists Who Used Goldsberery-Weber's Relationship
Of Trust With Lisa, As Well As With The Hospital, To Gain Dominion And
Control Over Lisa McPherson's Person

	Lisa always came to Judy Goldsberry-Weber "because she could count on
me doing what I said I would do for her" and because if Lisa wanted to
know about a medical situation, "I would get out my Taber's Cyclopedia
Medical Dictionary out [and] we would look it up. . . We just had a
rapport. . . . I had established with Lisa that if she had any
problem, any time of the day or night,. . . she could always beep me
and I could answer."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:8-10; 67:10-68:1)  
	Goldsberry-Weber had taken hundreds, if not thousands, of
Scientologists to Morton Plant Hospital as an MLO.   (Goldsberry-Weber
at 133:4-6)
	On the day of Lisa's accident, Goldsberry-Weber was paged by Security
and told that they were under orders to transport her to Morton Plant
Hospital because somebody had been in an accident.  (Goldsberry-Weber
at 27:7-28:19)   Upon her arrival at Morton Plant, Goldsberry-Weber
was met by Humberto Fontana of Scientology's Office of Special
Affairs, who was senior to her in authority, Annie Mora from the
Office of Special Affairs, Alain Kartuzinski the Senior Case
Supervisor for auditing at Flag,  and Emma Schamehorn. 
(Goldsberry-Weber at 28:24-29:24; 48:1-7; 135:5-14)  There were a
number of other Scientologists there. (Goldsberry-Weber at 133:8-11)
Despite all the times that Judy had brought people to the hospital in
the past, she never had had a "welcoming committee" such as this
before.   (Goldsberry-Weber at 135:16-23)
	Fontana advised Goldsberry-Weber that a Scientologist had been
involved in an auto accident and directed her to get Lisa out of the
hospital because he had been unable to do so because he was too
overbearing and forceful.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 30:4-7; 38:15-38:22;
133:21-134:21) He had already spoken to Dr. Lovett with no results.  
(Goldsberry-Weber at 133:21-23) They did not want Lisa to be "put in
the psych" because "the Church doesn't like psyche problems" and they
"follow the Church rulings."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 39:11-25)  
	When Goldsberry-Weber saw Lisa, she said that she had run down the
street without her clothes, but did not say why and neither
Goldsberry-Weber nor anyone else ever asked her.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
33:8-34:8) Lisa begged Goldsberry-Weber to be there to help her and
she promised Lisa that she would.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:21-22) Lisa
did not exhibit any "Type III behavior."  (Goldsberry-Weber at
65:24-25)
	Acting as the "point person" for Scientology, (Goldsberry-Weber at
38:7-13), Goldsberry-Weber first spoke to Dr. Lovett, the attending
physician, who, not wanting to release Lisa, wanted to place her in a
psychiatric observation unit.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 34:16-23) Lovett
told her that if the police, rather than the paramedics, had picked
Lisa up, she would have been Baker Acted.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
128:17-129:6)   She then talked to the "psych," Joe Price, who said
that pursuant to the Baker Act he could not hold Lisa in a psychiatric
unit, despite the fact that Dr. Lovett wanted her committed. 
(Goldsberry-Weber at 35:7-37:14; 40:2-6) 
	Under these circumstances, the only way that Scientology could get
Lisa out of the hospital was for her to sign a waiver that
acknowledged "that she was leaving the hospital against medical
advice."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 41:13-16) Upon Lisa's release Dr.
Lovett said he "had never done this before" and would hold
Goldsberry-Weber "personally responsible" for whatever happened to
her.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 43:9-14)  
	Goldsberry-Weber reported to Fontana and Kartuzinski that Lisa was
going to be released into Goldsberry-Weber's care.  They instructed
her to get that done at which point they would talk to her further. 
(Goldsberry-Weber at 43:20-44:1)
		5.	Lisa Was Isolated Inside Of Scientology's Fort Harrison
Hotel
Where She Was Guarded And Watched 24-Hours Per Day By Scientologists
For 17 Days At The End Of Which Time She Was Dead.

	When Lisa left the hospital, she got into Kartuzinski's car. 
Goldsberry-Weber went with Fontana. (Goldsberry-Weber at 44:25-45:10)
Even though Lisa had asked Goldsberry-Weber to stay with her, and Dr.
Lovett put responsibility for Lisa's care directly on
Goldsberry-Weber, OSA's Fontana told her she was not going to stay
with Lisa that night. She did not know what was going to happen to
Lisa.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 47:5-48:3)  Fontana did tell
Goldsberry-Weber that since she had been made responsible, she needed
to stay on top of what was happening with Lisa. He then proceeded to
leave and have a long discussion with Suzanne Green who returned very
angry. (Goldsberry-Weber at 48:3-10; 49:7-12; 54:1-6) 
	Fontana assigned Green to replace Goldsberry-Weber to be responsible
for Lisa. (Goldsberry-Weber at 51:5-52:20) Goldsberry-Weber was angry
because she took her integrity seriously, had given Lisa her word and
her "promise was being trashed."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:57:21-58:3)
	Two days later Goldsberry-Weber spoke with Medical Liaison Officer
Janice Johnson to inquire as to how Lisa was doing and if Johnson
needed her.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 50:22-24; 53:23-25) Johnson, whom
Goldsberry-Weber understood to be in charge of the watch, told "me in
no uncertain terms, she was my Senior, she was in charge of it, and to
get the hell out of it." (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:10-12; 76:18-20)
Johnson told her "that I was not to ask any questions about Lisa, that
it was being taken care of and to just forget it, everything
concerned. . . . You're off of it." (Goldsberry-Weber at 55:9-20;
56:17-22) Although Goldsberry-Weber knew that the MLO was having
trouble finding enough people to do the watch, she had no idea why she
was taken off of it.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 50:24-51:2; 56:24-57:8) 
Johnson specifically directed Goldberry-Weber "don't discuss this with
anybody." (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:9-10) Johnson would not even let
Goldsberry-Weber write a note to Lisa to explain to her why she was
unable to keep her promise to stay with her. (Goldsberry-Weber at
58:3-12)
	Judy Goldsberry-Weber did not even know where Lisa had been placed
until within three days of Lisa's accident she was directed to go to
"an Eckerd's drugstore, which was not the normal Eckerd's drugstore
that we used, and pick up some" Valium for Lisa clear down in Largo, a
30 minute drive away.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:18-60:9; 109:13-112:7)
She was told to bring it to the Security Office and leave it. 
(Goldsberry-Weber at 61:6-7)  At this point Judy Weber realized that
Lisa was on a Type III isolation watch.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 65:7-23)
	She still was not told what was going on with Lisa, instead being
told by Janice Johnson to "Butt out."  The two women ended up
screaming at each other because Judy Goldsberry-Weber wanted
information about Lisa and Janice Johnson wouldn't give it to her.
(Goldsberry-Weber at 62:1-22)  Judy never found out what was happening
to Lisa and never got to see her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 63:3-9) 
	The hierarchy pulled everybody into the cycle that was taking place
in reference to Lisa, except Judy Goldsberry-Weber, despite Lisa's
express request that she wanted people around her that she liked.
(Goldsberry-Weber at 63:25-64:21) She told Janice that the "whole idea
to make it calm, make it less stimulative in the environment" and that
if Judy was in Lisa's place "I would throw fits if I had people I
didn't want around me."  Lisa didn't like Janice at all and before she
was locked up would not come to the MLO office when Janice was there. 
Nonetheless, after the commencement of the isolation watch,  Janice
was "going over there every day."   (Goldsberry-Weber at 66:1-13)  
	The Type III cycle was not beyond Judy's "spiritual education or
experience" because she had gone through these cycles before in
Clearwater which were always run by the Security Chief. 
(Goldsberry-Weber at 68:2-12; 96:19-97:16)
	When Judy Goldberry-Weber heard Janice Johnson, Laura Arrunda and Dr.
David Houghton talk about holding Lisa down and forcing aspirin down
her throat, she said "You can't do this, you can't physically hold
somebody down.  There are other ways - you know, what doctor's order
did you have to do this?"  In response, "They shut the door.  I said
wait a minute, I'd like to talk to you guys.  And they shut the door
and locked it.  They were in David's office."  (Goldsberry-Weber at
70:9-20; 83:18-22) When Janice Johnson came out, Goldsberry-Weber
confronted her and said:
	"I says, you can't do that.  What doctor - you've got Minkoff's order
to do this?  'Cause I knew he was the doctor of record, if he ordered
the - are you talking to Minkoff?  Is he knowing what's going on here?
		At which time she told me to butt out.  I said, 'People are
getting
injured, you know, I've got to answer to the doctors here, how are
they getting injured?  What are we doing?  Something's wrong here. 
And what - this is not a normal situation.  I've never had any of the
others - before you came on this post I've never had this problem. 
I've never heard of this violence.  What's happening?
		I don't know.  It's none of your concern.  We're - you're not
involved.  And I said, I've never seen Lisa this violent.  She says,
Well, you know psychotic breaks.  I said excuse me.  I wanted to, you
know . . .
		So I had written to Judy Fontana, who was our Legal Officer,
that
they better check into it.

(Goldsberry-Weber at 71:2-18) 
	About ten days after the watch started, Alice, the Librarian, called
Judy to ask her if a person is dehydrated, do they become disoriented.
 (Goldsberry-Weber at 138:17-140:5)  At the same time, when Judy saw
that Joann Stevens had a black eye from watching Lisa and in response
to asking Emma Schamehorn what was happening with Lisa, Judy was told
that Emma that she couldn't talk about it.  Judy wanted to know what
the situation was being allowed to perpetuate and said they needed to
contact a doctor.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 74:3-19)  If Judy had been
involved "I would have been screaming at Dr. Minkoff to give me some
heavier sedation and some IV solutions when I'm hearing that she's not
eating or something." (Goldsberry-Weber at 74:23-25)
		Normally, what I had observed in my training and what I worked
with,
you would have sedated them heavily, totally, where they were sound
asleep, put an IV in, hydrated them. . . The sedation part keeps them
from pulling out the IV, keeps them from being dangerous to
themselves, keeps them from harming anybody else.  Do this for several
days, the body starts to function.  Get them the food they need to
repair, they come out of it.  Why this wasn't done, I don't know.

(Goldsberry-Weber at 75:8-4-21)  Case Supervisor Alain Kartuzinski and
Paul Kellerhaus from Security, from Goldsberry-Weber's perspective,
had the authority to call the whole thing off. (Goldsberry-Weber at
137:3-17) 
	Case Supervisor Alain Kartuzinski was the one to have made the
decision to not allow Judy Goldsberry-Weber participate in taking care
of Lisa, even though she had done so before. (Goldsberry-Weber at
132:9-12)  
	The way that Judy found out that Lisa died was not from any one at
Scientology, or from newspapers, which she did not read.  Weeks later,
she heard from the doctor who had released Lisa to her care, Dr.
Lovett at Morton Plant Hospital.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 77:1-5;
80:8-12; 80:23-81:23) She felt that Scientology had blind-sided her
and hung her out to dry because they did not tell Judy that Lisa had
died even though they knew that she went frequently to Morton Plant
and inevitably would run into Dr. Lovett.  As soon as she found out
that Lisa had died, she telephoned Judy Fontana who was the Legal
Officer for the Office of Special Affairs and explained what had
happened on November 18, 1995 and then about finding out that Lisa had
died from Dr. Lovett.  (Goldsberry-Weber at 82:1-24; 138:11-16)
	After Lisa died, Scientology made a huge effort to keep "a lid on"
the gossip within the organization.  Not only had many people been
involved, "but a huge amount of people went into isolation. . . . We
had like 40 people" who were quarantined.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
77:15-79:18; 104:3-4) 
	After Lisa died, the Office of Special Affairs coordinated the
inquiry into the circumstances of her death.  (Goldsberry-Weber at
85:11-87:12)   The Office of Special Affairs directed Judy
Goldberry-Weber, Suzanne Green and Laura Arrunda "not to discuss it
amongst ourselves." Laura Arrunda went to Mexico and Suzanne Green is
in Germany. (Goldsberry-Weber at 92:92:10-93:11; 103:3-23) "We were
talked to to get the whole scenario before we talked to . . . the
police."  (Goldsberry-Weber at 94:21-23) For eight hours over two
sessions, OSA subjected Judy (as well as others) to a special form of
auditing interrogation called a "Security Check" to ascertain whether
she had done anything wrong in connection with the "cycle" involving
Lisa.  The results went into her PC folder. (Goldsberry-Weber at
113:8-117:23) 
	When Scientologists would go to the hospital, it was normal for the
MLO to take them to Morton Plant or Suncoast because they were closer
and the fastest medical attention was available. It was unusual to go
to Port Richey.   (Goldsberry-Weber at 123:15-124:6)
	B.	The "Written Reports" Of Lisa's Isolation Watch Produced In
Discovery

	On the first day of the watch timed hours before Lisa's car accident
of November 18, 1995, the Medical Off. Manager's report to the Case
Supervisor included:
	"Lisa is talking since about 30 minutes:
	- "I created time 3 billion years ago and now I am dramatizing it
since then."
	-"I am LRH and I didn't confront that power."
	-"I can't confront force.  I am dramatizing it."
	-"I have an MU on THE Student Hat."
	-"I was 1.1.  What my chronical tone level is."
	-"I dessimiated my mother, but she didn't get handled.  As I didn't
confront force."
	-"I want to dance."
	-"I need my auditor, Mr. Vatusinski."
	-"I need to confront my mom." 

	She is still talking non stop. She tried to go out of the door. . . .

	On the second day, November 19, 1995, Medical Off. Manager's report
to the Case Supervisor included:
	"This afternoon Lisa walked like a robot.  What is new: if she starts
talking she talks and talks, than stares at a spot. She says I am her
and she is controlling my body.  She kissed me on my mouth.  Once I
let her sit outside for 5 minutes.  Than she kissed me twice on my
face and starred at me.  Later she said how wonderful my skin is.  In
the evening she started staring in the light.  I got her to eat a tuna
sandwich, she also drank two cups of cal mag and took all vitamins. 
While I was writing this outside, she came outside.  When I brought
her in, she took my arm and put it on here tummy and went with her
tongue all over my face.  I brought her back to bed.  She jumped up
again and while I am writing this she is standing next to me talking
in non sequiter things.
	She wanted to call her Minister.  He has No. 10.
	-She called me Mom when she awoke this afternoon.
	- She wants to go to a party.
	- She has a date with her mother at the pool.
	- She told me about the titts of her mother and picking in my breast
while she was doing it.
	- She told me again that her mother made her to take a napp with her
every day after lunch and than she sneaked away.  Out of controll.

	On the third day, November 21, 1995, Medical Off. Manager's report to
the Case
Supervisor included:
	Lisa did not really sleep last night, but jumping out of her bed. 
Susann Reich had to get here to lay down again and again.  Today she
sleep  hour.  She is still trying to look in the lightbulbs. "You
have to follow the light because light is live."  She does not talk
that much as we do not talk with her. She is counting with her
fingers, pointing somewhere.  When I gave her a cup of water she
through it on the floor.  "Did this frighten you?" "No, I don't think
so," she said.  3 times when Emma or me gave her a piece of banana she
put it in a way in her mouth that she vomitt is out. Last night I made
here drink 1 cup of calmag and to took 1 B1, the 2nd cup and snd B1,
she vomitted out.  She has difficulties even to swallow a bit of
water.  She got 2 sip of protein drink down.  Right now she is again
jumping out of the bed over and over. (Flag Service Organization
Document Production [hereinafter "FSO Doc"] at 160)

	By the third day, November 21, 1995, Staff Chaplain Valerie Demange
reported to Kartuzinski that Lisa: 
	"was then pretty agitated for about an hour during which time she was
talking a lot and crying. What she was saying was usually non
sequiture, like saying that she was going to go somewhere and then
laying down on her bed.  She told me as well that she had bad manners
and this resulted in bad consequences.  She also at some point asked
me if someone was behind the door."  (FSO Doc at 139)

	On the fourth day, November 22, 1995, Flag Service Organization's
Librarian wrote a "Knowledge Report."  Alice Van Gondelle said:
	At 1:30 am last nite HASFO walked me out of bed. . . . She told me
that I needed to go on watch for some public that flapped. She said .
. . the Type III was too much for her & I was a vet & could handle it.
. . . I went on this watch as I had no senior to consult with at 2 am.
 I went into the room & she was total Type III.  Blabbering,
incoherent nonstop.  Shaking, no warm clothes on. . . . she was like
an ice cub.  She talked incoherently hour after hour.  She refused to
eat and spit out everything she took.  Her breathe was foul.  She
looked ill like measles or chicken pox on her face.  Had a fever to my
touch..  After 1 pm she went violent & hit me a few times telling me
she was to kill me #s of times.  I called in the "guard" outside --
the fellow is an HCO staff member -new one a Mexican gentleman.  He
stayed with me during the rage - but she still smacked me around. (I
did cover myself but she was out of control.)  (FSO Doc 745)

	Alphonso's fourth day report for November 22,1995 included that
Lisa's

	"Bed was broken & room was messy. . . . has not eaten. . . . Around
1AM punched out a person who was being assigned to do the watch." (FSO
Doc at 141)

	Staff Chaplain Valerie Demange reported on the eighth day, November
26, 1995, that:

	. . . she was very nervous and violent.  During that time she did not
sleep. . . She has not been eating just drinking a little bit of
orange juice, then threw the rest away. . . . The rest of the time she
is just talking, asking questions and answers, like if you would be
asking her questions and she would then answer." (FSO Doc at 143)

	Rita Boykin reported on the eighth day, November 26, 1995, that:

	She was lying down when I fed her.  She tends just to hold thing in
her mouth or spit them out.  I was making swallowing motions and
rubbed my finger on here throat & she finally swallowed the first and
next couple of bites I gave here. (FSO Doc at 145) 

	Chaplain Demange reported on the eleventh day, November 29, 1995,
that:

	. . .The rest of the time she talks and move on her bed or on the
floor.  She was violent for about 2 hours yesterday night, the rest of
the time she was calmer and looks very tired."
	(FSO Doc at 147)  

	Rita Boykin reported on the eleventh day, November 29, 1995, that she
"Spoke with Dr. Johnson re no real sleep."  (FSO Doc at 148)   Another
person wrote "The 'watch' said she was quieter, but suspects its
because she's weak, in spite of protein drink, etc of yesterday." (FSO
Doc at 216)  
	On the twelfth day, November 30, 1995, Rita reported:
	"On floor scooting around, moving arms and legs and speaking and
groaning. . . . Dr. Johnson just visited. . . .She will appear to be
very cooperative - hold here mouth open, make eye contact, at as if
she is there, then close the back of here throat and not swallow.  Her
voice becomes nasal & she mutters rather than pronounce her words
properly.  My idea of closing her nose so she has to swallow so she
can breath through her mouth is only marginally successful.  She
either swallows and breathes or she lets everything in her mouth come
out.. . . She sits up frequently for long periods of time.  Whereas
yesterday I only saw her sit up once - she was lying on the floor
scooting around.  She is using her legs to kick again.  Yesterday it
wasn't much of a threat. . . This AM she is deliberate & nasty - even
evil. (FSO Doc at 149) 

	. . . Dr. Johnson was here. . . . I am giving her Cal Mag and OJ at
every opportunity.  She is wide awake on the floor, bouncing, humming
and talking.  (FSO Doc at 151) 

	On the thirteenth day, December 1, 1995, "Medical Officer" Janice
Johnson reported:

	". . . Chloral Hydrate (capsule pierced and as much as possible
squirted into her mouth).  She swallowed and fell asleep in the middle
of a sentence. . . Plan: (1) Valerie or watch personnel w/medical
training for next 8 hours. . . . Call if any ?'s prob's."  (FSO Doc
214)

	The report of the fourteenth day, December 2, 1995, stated:

	She has scratches and abrasions all over here body & on elbows &
knees has pressure sores.  None of them are open & none of them look
infected. . . . will be in comm with Janice later about other measures
to insure she gets some serious sleep today. . . . She originated that
she knows we are trying to help her although she doesn't know our
names and we don't talk to her. The rest of her comm is the usual
confused stuff. . . . Tried to feed her again but wouldn't take
anything.  She thought we were psyches or other enemies who wanted to
kill her.  (FSO Doc at 152-153) 

	The reports from Lisa last three days of captive life have
"disappeared."
	C. 	Preliminary Interviews Of Janis Johnson And Alain Kartuzinski By
The Police
		1.	Janis Johnson's First Story To The Police: Lies In All
Pertinent
Particulars 

	The police first interviewed Janis Johnson, with counsel, on May 29,
1996 at which time she stated she had been a licensed physician in
Arizona but had "quit medicine in early 93." (Janice Johnson 5/29/96
Statement [hereinafter "Johnson I"] at 2:57-4:104)  
	She came to Florida to be "on staff" with Scientology and was
initially assigned to the Medical Liaison Office in March 1995.
(Johnson I at 5:128-138) She had authority over two people, including
Judy Goldsberry-Weber, and lots of people had authority over her.
(Johnson I at 6:187-192; 8:259-9:260)
	For emergencies, the MLO would usually use Morton Plant Hospital.
(Johnson I at 10:322-11:331) 
	The first time Johnson had any contact with Lisa McPherson was in the
end of November 1995.  Suzanne Green, the MLO manager "knew her from
somewhere."   (Johnson I at 8:237-249;12:379-391) Lisa was a "public"
Scientologist, not "on staff."  Johnson generally did not deal with
public Scientologists.  (Johnson I at 13:397-409) 
	From Suzanne Green the week before Thanksgiving, Johnson had heard
that Lisa sometimes would "go days without sleeping. And . . . get
pretty wound up . . . not want to eat. So it was . . . a vicious
cycle. So . . . if she can just calm down and sleep for a night, then
this all . . . straightens out, get back to normal."  (Johnson I at
14:427-443)  To try to sleep, Lisa would take "some kind of herbal
thing" but it was not recommended by the medical office.  (Johnson I
at 14:446-456) 
	Suzanne Green told Johnson that Lisa would "get pretty weird when she
hadn't slept for a while" and "things "kind of went from bad to worse"
so "she just needed to take a break and just chill out and rest and
get away from everything for a little bit." (Johnson I at 15:561-481)
	At the time Lisa arrived at the MLO, "she was real thin . . . didn't
have any extra insulation." (Johnson I at 16:498-504)   When Johnson
first saw Lisa, she "was more than thin"and "looked really
dehydrated." (Johnson I at 16:511-117:524) She said, "Now, what I
heard was that, . . . that last 24 hours . . . that she had developed
some very severe diarrhea and that's how I imagine she became
dehydrated so fast." (Johnson I at 17:524-527)
	Johnson said that she had heard that Lisa had been in an accident and
"was shaken up about it" and was at the hotel "to rest and chill out.
. . . she had been checked out psychologically to make sure that she .
. . wasn't any real danger to herself or someone else . . . that she
was just upset and . . . she was with it." (Johnson I at 17:538-548) 
	Thus, After Lisa was released from Morton Plant Hospital, she went to
Scientology to relax. (Johnson I at 17:550-556)
	Johnson stated that she did not first meet, or even see, Lisa until
five days after the accident when she first visited at her room at the
Fort Harrison. (Johnson I at 18:572-577; 19:620-621; 20:649-651)  At
that time Lisa "was real wound up . . .real agitated. . . . just
seemed to be like real nervous."  (Johnson I at 18:578-586) Lisa was
"just non-stop motion" and Johnson did not talk to her because "Lisa
was a little hostile toward anybody that anything to do with the
medical profession. . . verbally abusive to medical people"  (Johnson
I at 19:591-616; 24:771-773)
	Johnson said that the plan of action as to Lisa "was to just have the
people in the hotel give her some extra attention . . . check and make
sure if there was anything special she wanted to eat . . .that they
went out of their way and got it for her.. . . she was into tuna fish
sandwiches, so they would bring her tuna fish sandwiches at odd hours
of the day and night when she felt like 'Okay. . . yeah. . . I want to
eat.'"  (Johnson I at 24:774-786) Johnson claimed that Lisa would
order food from room service.   (Johnson I at 25:800-803)
	Johnson said that no one in particular was looking after Lisa, or
that any particular person was in charge. (Johnson I at 26:821-824)
Aside from "a little bit of extra service" Lisa was on her own as "a
hotel guest."    (Johnson I at 26:833-837)  Johnson just "popped in
about every other day." (Johnson I at 31:987-988; 34:1104-1106)
	The second time Johnson said she saw Lisa was a couple of days later
when she checked up on her.  Johnson said she did not talk to Lisa at
first, but then said Lisa asked her to get her some powdered vitamins
called Vita Mix. (Johnson I at 27:866-28:898) She said that Lisa did
not look as agitated and wound up as she had two days before. (Johnson
I at 29:923-932) 
	When Johnson was asked what Lisa would do for "relaxation" or if she
went out of here room, Johnson said, "I don't think so, but I . . .
again . . . you know . . . I was only there for five minutes.  I can't
say for sure what she did in the meantime. . . in between."  (Johnson
I at 29:933-945)  Johnson said that she didn't know if Lisa left the
room at any time and didn't know where Lisa was during most of the
day. (Johnson I at 29:946-30:955)  The door to Lisa's room was usually
locked so Johnson would knock and if nobody answered she would get the
security guard to open the door. (Johnson I at 36:1181-37:1188)
	Johnson said that it was reported to her that Lisa didn't want to
talk to anyone about what was going on. (Johnson I at 30:962-976)
Around Thanksgiving, Johnson noticed that Lisa had bruises and Suzanne
Green told her that Lisa "had had about a ten minute episode of being
like really wild and that she was like . . . you know . . . pounding
on tables and she was kicking . . . you know . . . kicking furniture."
(Johnson I at 31:1010-1018) Suzanne "said she had to . . . had to
physically just . . . you know . . . give her a good strong hug and
get her settled down."  (Johnson I at 32:1022-1025)  That was only
occasion that Lisa acted in such a manner. (Johnson I at 33:1067-1070)
	The Friday after Thanksgiving Johnson noticed that Lisa was looking
thinner, but acting more calm and was sleeping.  She told Laura that
Lisa was "not drinking enough." (Johnson I at 34:1112-35:1125) 
	 On Monday, Laura told Janice Johnson that it was tough to get Lisa
to drink.  (Johnson I at 36:1165-1171)
	On Tuesday at about 7:00 p.m., Laura advised Johnson that Lisa "had
developed some fairly severe diarrhea" but even though Lisa didn't
want "to go to the doctor, we had to do something."  (Johnson I at
37:1213-38:1228) When Johnson arrived at Lisa's room Lisa "was
actually happy" to see her which made Johnson think that Lisa was "at
last willing to accept some help." To Johnson, Lisa "looked septic . .
. an infection in the blood . . . you know.  It's gotten into the
blood system."  (Johnson I at 39:1262-1278) At that point Lisa looked
"very dehydrated. . . extra thin.. . .majorly dehydrated . . . sunken
dehydrated look" (Johnson I at 40:1288-1312)
	Laura told Johnson that Lisa did not want to go to the doctor in
response to which Johnson said:
	"Well, there comes a point where that's tough. . .I'm sorry. . .you
know. . .in my opinion. . ..I mean. . .she really needs to go and get
some medical help and we're going to have to somehow sell her on it. .
.I mean. . .that's that's just the. . .the fact of the matter. . .and
so how can we present this so that she'll accept it. So what we
decided was okay, how about someone who. . .you know. . .who she knows
will. . .will treat her with respect who is a member of the church who
she can trust.  And that's how we told her so that she'd come with us.
. . .Dr. Minkoff"

(Johnson I at 41:1339-42:1350)
	Johnson said that Lisa had never been a patient of Dr. Minkoff's
before, but because "he's an emergency room physician . . .[and] his
specially training is in infectious diseases," he was "perfect" as
"someone that she would trust that had the training to handle whatever
infection she had."  (Johnson I at 42:1353-1360) Johnson further
explained to the police that she did not mention Dr. Minkoff by name
to Lisa, but said:
	". . .how would you feel about. . .you know. . .would it be okay with
you to go to a doctor. . .you know. . .that was just in an emergency
room. . .you know. . .. .that. . .that is a member of the church and
that we know and that we know is. . .you know. . .is. . .is kind and
gentle and there'd be no. . .you know. . .whatever. . .I don't know. .
.whatever bad experience she had before. . .you know. . .somebody
didn't treat her right."

(Johnson I at 42:1361-1370) 
	According to Johnson, Lisa "stayed as far away from doctors as she
possibly could." (Johnson I at 57:1860-1863)  Nonetheless, Johnson
said that Lisa "wasn't happy about but she was okay with it" and
agreed to get dressed and go to the hospital to see Dr. Minkoff.
Otherwise there "would've been a kicking screaming battle" which
Johnson was not willing to cause.  (Johnson I at 42:1372-1378) 
	According to Johnson, Lisa's speech was "kinda slow" but "she wasn't
like babbling" or "not making sense."  (Johnson I at 43:1399-1402)
Lisa agreed to see Dr. Minkoff. (Johnson I at 46:1487-1495)
	Johnson then called Dr. Minkoff and advised him that "she's septic. .
.she does not want anything to do with doctors" and arranged to have a
back room.  (Johnson I at 47:1515-48:1553) "He said, "I'm on duty. .
.get her here." (Johnson I at 49:1586-1607)
	Johnson said that she and Laura walked Lisa to the van which Paul
Greenwood had pulled up by the door. (Johnson I at 543:1403-44:1419)
Greenwood had been paged either by security or housekeeping.  (Johnson
I at 44:1420-1430) Paul and Laura carried Lisa down some steps to the
van and got in back with Lisa. (Johnson I at 45:1460-1473)
	They left for the Port Richey hospital at about 8:00 p.m. (Johnson I
at 50:1613-1614)
	During the 40 to 60 minute ride, Johnson was not sure whether Lisa
was still conscious. (Johnson I at 50:1639-1642; 53:1721-1725) At
first Lisa's breathing was "regular" and then for fifteen to twenty
seconds it changed before it "settled back down."  (Johnson I at
51:1661-1677) At no point during the ride did Johnson recognize that
Lisa had stopped breathing. (Johnson I at 52:1681-1686) 
	She explained the absence of any conversation on the way to the
hospital by saying not as a religious practice, but based on
"research" "we don't talk around people who are sick or injured"
because "things will act as a. . .a hypnotic suggestion." (Johnson I
at 52:1687-53:1713) 
	When they arrived at the Port Richey Hospital, Paul Greenwood said
"It doesn't look good" to which Johnson responded "well, we better
move fast."  (Johnson I at 53:1729-1741)
	When they put Lisa in a wheelchair, Lisa was not breathing. (Johnson
I at 54:1745-1753)
	2.	Alain Kartuzinski's First Story To The Police: Failure Of
Recollection And Corresponding Lies In All Pertinent Particulars 

	On May 30, 1996 Alain Kartuzinski was interviewed, in the presence of
counsel, by the police.  As to his position in Scientology, he
presented himself as "a senior case provider" which he explained as
"supervising case supervisors . . . which we call auditors.  And these
ministers perform special counseling with parishioners. . .and my job
consists of making sure that the case supervisors do what is standard
procedures in directing the spiritual counseling."   (Kartuzinski
Statement taken 5/30/96 [hereinafter "Kartuzinski I"] at 1:1-2:33)  
	Kartuzinski said that "someone from the security office advised him
that Lisa McPherson had had some sort of accident and was at the
hospital." (Kartuzinski I at 2:48-55) He said that he knew Lisa "as
much as many hundreds of people." (Kartuzinski I at 1:11-17)  
	Since he was unable to "send some minister there," he decided to go
to the hospital himself. (Kartuzinski I at 3:72-77) When he arrived at
Morton Plant Hospital, he was met by David Slaughter, Lisa's employer.
 (Kartuzinski I at 3:90-4:94) 
	Kartuzinski advised the hospital receptionist that he was "a minister
from the church and I asked to be able to see Lisa McPherson." A few
minutes later, he did.  (Kartuzinski I at 4:96-102) When he first saw
Lisa, she smiled and said "hi" as she was talking to a male nurse
named "Joe" who was asking her questions.  
	As Joe continued to question Lisa, she grabbed Kartuzinski's hand and
told Joe that she wanted to leave. (Kartuzinski I at 4:107-5:132) Lisa
said to Joe that she wanted to go to the church with Kartuzinski. 
When Joe said "That's fine . . .but how to you explain what you did
today when you took your clothes off in the street" Lisa said "this
was not a rational action and I'm sorry."  She further said, "But you
know, I don't want to stay here. . .I want to go to the hotel on Ft.
Harrison with him. . .I don't want to stay here."  (Kartuzinski I at
5:134-145) Lisa made it clear to Kartuzinski "that she really wanted
to leave there and she mentioned. . .you know. . .wanting to rest and
relax." (Kartuzinski I at 6:165-170) 
	Kartuzinski complied when Joe asked him to leave so that Joe could
continue to question Lisa alone.  Three or four minutes later, Joe
came out of the room and told Kartuzinski there was no need to keep
her.  (Kartuzinski I at 5:146-152) At that point Kartuzinski went back
to reception and was unaware of what occurred between that point and
later, when Lisa walked out. (Kartuzinski I at 8:233-243)
	When Lisa came into the reception area, Kartuzinski asked her if she
needed a ride to which she said "yes," that she would appreciate a
ride to the Fort Harrison Hotel. Kartuzinski said he would give her a
ride to the hotel where he "dropped her off . .  And she got a room." 
During the three minute ride, other than Lisa saying "I want to go
there and rest," there was no conversation. (Kartuzinski I at
8:246-9:276) When Kartuzinski dropped Lisa off, he asked hotel staff
to "take her to get a room." (Kartuzinski I at 9:286-290)
	Ten minutes later, he saw Lisa in one of the cabanas which bordered
the pool.  He couldn't recall if anyone was with her. (Kartuzinski I
at 10:293-310) Returning to his office, he called the Medical Liaison
Office and asked someone there "to check on Lisa to see if she needed
anything."  He did not see her again while she stayed at the cabanas.
(Kartuzinski I at 10:318-323; 12:374-378)
	Three or four days later, Kartuzinski met Janis Johnson or Laura
Arrunda for information regarding Lisa and was told that "she had a
bit of trouble eating and sleeping . . .the first two or three days
but that it was better now."  (Kartuzinski I at 11:332-343) 
	Aside from this conversation, Kartuzinski did not notify his
superiors or anyone else about Lisa's condition. (Kartuzinski I at
11:349-356)
	Kartuzinski said that once Lisa was at the hotel, nobody was assigned
to her as "she made it very clear that all she wanted to do was just
be there and rest."  Thus, nobody came in and provided auditing or
processing.  (Kartuzinski I at 12:364-373)
	On the afternoon or evening before Lisa died, Janis Johnson came to
Kartuzinski's office and told him that "this Lisa had some infection
that she was worried about. And she asked to use the phone and she
called. . .she called the doctor."  (Kartuzinski I at 13:393-419) She
left his office "in a hurry" and "then four or five hours later she
reported to me that Lisa had died upon arriving at the hospital."  
(Kartuzinski I at 14:444-446)  
	The next day Johnson mentioned to Kartuzinski that Lisa probably died
from meningitis. (Kartuzinski I at 14:449-450)  
	Kartuzinski said that he did not know whether Lisa had any problems
in her life.  (Kartuzinski I at 7:205-212) 
	He denied that Lisa had participated in an Introspection Rundown in
connection with her disrobing or her breakdown by saying "No. Lisa. .
.she wanted to rest." (Kartuzinski I at 15:471-16:499) 
	Kartuzinski denied that Lisa had been involved in anything "that
would have been strenuous to here physically."  (Kartuzinski I at
16:503-506)
		3.	Alain Kartuzinski's Second Story To The Police
	On October 13, 1998, pursuant to subpoena and a grant of immunity,
Alain Kartuzinski was interviewed by the police again, again
represented by counsel, but this time under oath.  He testified that
he had been on Scientology staff since 1979. (Kartuzinski II at
7:13-19)  Having achieved the highest rank, "Class 12" as an auditor,
he has progressed Up The Bridge   through the high level called
"OTVII."  

			a.	Kartuzinski Admits Lying And Obstructing Justice
	During the time of Lisa's dying and death, he was her "senior case
supervisor." (Kartuzinski II at 14:4-24)  
	During his May 30, 1996 tape-recorded interview with the police,
accompanied by counsel, Kartuzinski was lying to the police on purpose
to protect himself and Scientology.    (Kartuzinski II at 71:24-72:8;
73:5-14; 82:13-21)   Before going into the interview Kartuzinski had
made the decision to lie.   (Kartuzinski II at 75:12-25) He lied about
Lisa "was a parishioner just like any other parishioner"  and about
how "he had divorced himself from the scene completely." (Kartuzinski
II at 80:7-11; 81:16-20)  He lied about being Lisa's case supervisor.
(Kartuzinski II at 82:10-12)   He lied about assigning an auditor to
Lisa, as well as the "people who watched over her 24-hours a day."
(Kartuzinski II at 48:48:6-10; 86:24:2-7)  Everyone who watched Lisa
for 24-hours each day over the 17-day period, including Janice
Johnson, knew that Kartuzinski was responsible for her. (Kartuzinski
II at 84:84:13-21; 85:4-7) He lied about saying that Lisa had neither
requested nor consented to any Scientology services. (Kartuzinski II
at 71:21-72:3) He lied to the police about Lisa not doing an
Introspection Rundown. (Kartuzinski II at 79:18-25) He lied that no
one had been assigned to Lisa as her minister or to watch over her.
(Kartuzinski II at 85:23-86:9) He lied to the police that he had seen
Lisa only once after he transported her from Morton Plant to Ft.
Harrison. (Kartuzinski II at 166:6-22)
	Kartuzinski claimed to have no explanation for the fact that Janice
Johnson told the same lies as he had.  (Kartuzinski II at 76:1-14)  
He further claimed that even though he had a lawyer present at the
time of the interview, he did not know he had a Fifth Amendment right
to remain silent and he did not know that it was a crime to lie to
police officers in a criminal investigation. (Kartuzinski II at
73:4-75:6)
			b.	Kartuzinski Had A History Of Treating Lisa As
PTS III
	In the summer of 1995, he was Lisa's auditor when she was in "a
similar, although less grave state" in that it was not a "full-blown
psychotic break."  (Kartuzinski II at 23:20-24; 64:5-6) According to
Kartuzinski, Lisa said she "was going to go crazy." (Kartuzinski II at
113:15-22) 
	Lisa stayed at the Fort Harrison over the summer for an Introspection
Rundown that involved a 24-hour daily watch which was one of four that
he had conducted in the past. (Kartuzinski II at 63:15-64:1; 79:18-20;
95:20-24; 109:15-111:17)  
	In October 1995, because he "wanted to make sure she was all right
because of what had happened before," Kartuzinski called Lisa at work
twice to see how she was doing. (Kartuzinski II at 26:23-27:16)
			c.	Kartuzinski "Saves" Lisa From The "Psychs" At
Morton Plant
Hospital

	Security officer Arthur Baxter, who had been alerted that Lisa was at
Morton Plant Hospital, called Kartuzinski and "said she was found
walking down the street naked and brought to Morton Plant, and she's
probably going to be put into the psychiatric facility there."   
(Kartuzinski II at 27:22-28:9)  Kartuzinski concluded that Lisa had
undergone a "psychotic break." (Kartuzinski II at 77:16-78:19)  
	Denying that any Scientology senior directed him to go to the
hospital, he decided to go himself in order to keep Lisa out of the
psychiatric ward. (Kartuzinski II at 29:19-30:6) On the way out of the
garage, Kartuzinski notified Baxter at the security booth, but didn't
talk to anyone else.   (Kartuzinski II at 30:7-16) 
	While at the hospital, Kartuzinski met with other Scientologists
including Humberto Fontana of the Office of Special Affairs.
(Kartuzinski II at 30:17-31:19; 196:15-24)  The reason all the
Scientologists were at the hospital "was to prevent an involuntary
hospitalization because she was deemed to be mentally ill and
incapable of handling herself." (Kartuzinski II at 197:2-6)  
	Before seeing Lisa, he made the decision to take her back to Fort
Harrison. He called Baxter at security and told him to have a room
ready. (Kartuzinski II at 62:24-63:9)  He assumed responsibility for
Lisa's welfare because he "was in charge of her getting better" which
included the deployment of personnel. (Kartuzinski II at
127:22-128:12) 
	When Kartuzinski first saw Lisa at Morton Plant, she did not
recognize him.  (Kartuzinski II at 31:25-2; 92:92:2-3)  
	In response, he "took her hand" and then Lisa said, "I'm glad you're
here." (Kartuzinski II at 33:33:1-6) He believed that "she was afraid
of going crazy." (Kartuzinski II at 91:11-12) He knew that she was
"worse off than she had been by a long way." (Kartuzinski II at
92:10-13)  Lisa told Joe Price, the psychiatric evaluator, "He's my
minister and I want to go with him." (Kartuzinski II at 34:4-9;
62:12-14) When Joe confronted Lisa and said "You cannot tell me what
you did was normal, walking down the street naked," Lisa said "No.
You're right, it was not normal.  I wanted to cause an effect." 
(Kartuzinski II at 34:11-13; 58:13-25)  
	Price asked Kartuzinski to leave the room which he did, but stayed
within earshot. (Kartuzinski II at 59:9-20) Then Joe came out and said
he had no reason to keep her. (Kartuzinski II at 60:22-25) 
	Lisa came out in a hospital gown with Judy Goldsberry and agreed to
go to the Fort Harrison in Kartuzinski's car. (Kartuzinski II at
65:18-25) She appeared "very healthy . . .very strong . . .
physically." (Kartuzinski II at 133:10-12)  
	Due to his consideration of her state of mind, nothing more was said
during the trip back to the Fort Harrison when Lisa was in the back
seat between Judy Goldsberry and Emma Schamehorn.   (Kartuzinski II at
66:2-13; 67:15-68:21)   Going in the back way via security at the Fort
Harrison, he dropped her off.   (Kartuzinski II at 69:13-70:18) 
	Parking his car, he ascertained Lisa's location from security.   
(Kartuzinski II at 70:21-71:8)
			d.	The Introspection Rundown Was Approved By The
Office Of Special
Affairs: Lisa Was Locked Up And Watched Around The Clock - Attendants
Were Completely Muzzled: No Speech

	Since Kartuzinski had determined that Lisa was "partially psychotic,"
he knew "she needed processing" and "what she had done meant that
somewhere - somewhere she - there was something not right here."
(Kartuzinski II at 88:12-21; 90:7-21) 
	Lisa was to do an Introspection Rundown which meant she would be
watched around the clock with nobody talking and Kartuzinski was to
receive on-going written reports of her status. All the watchers were
aware of this and that Kartuzinski was in charge. (Kartuzinski II at
84:13-85:7; 124:8-19)  
	When he saw Lisa in her room, he told her they would be "doing some
auditing" because "a parishioner does not say I want this or that. 
That's not how it works."  (Kartuzinski II at 71:15-16; 77:1-6)  
	Even though Lisa "agreed" to do the Introspection Rundown which
included taking vitamins and nutrition, Kartuzinski did not tell her
that she would be billed over $10,000 for it, even though he could
have. (Kartuzinski II at 87:12-22; 99:8-100:21 ) 
	Through security, he directed Suzanne Green to begin the on-going
24-hour daily watch. (Kartuzinski II at 108:21-111:17) She was
isolated and not free to leave. (Kartuzinski II at 122:24-126:11)
	He ordered all Lisa's PC files and advised Debra Cook, the "captain
of the organization," of the situation. (Kartuzinski II at 89:19-90:2;
100:22-24) Captain Cook, the "head person" at Flag, knew Lisa was
staying at Ft. Harrison. (Kartuzinski II at 195:18-23; 200:2) 	Cook
was aware that Scientology's treatment of Lisa was not "per policy"
and did nothing to stop it.  Instead, she facilitated it. (Kartuzinski
II at 198:2-12; 201:5-15; 203:1-13)  Kartuzinski kept her informed as
to Lisa's status and asked for her assistance in gathering more people
to conduct their watch over Lisa as part of the handling of her
situation as PTS Type III. After November 25, 1995 Cook was explicitly
aware that an Introspection Rundown and watch was being conducted.
(Kartuzinski II at 197:19-200:2; 201:16-23) Cook was aware that a
"psychotic person" was "being kept" under watch. (Kartuzinski II at
201:5-7) 
	Because of the nature of the situation, Brian Anderson, Umberto
Fontana and Annie Mora in the Office of Special Affairs were aware
that Lisa was isolated and being watched. (Kartuzinski II at
202:13-21)
			e.	Knowing That Lisa Had No Capacity For Consent,
The
Scientologists Practice Unlicenced Medicine On Her Because "She Is A
Potential Problem For The Church"

	After the first day, it was clear to Kartuzinski that Lisa was
"unable to function by herself" and that she had "serious mental
problems" such that she was "unable to make decisions about her own
welfare." (Kartuzinski II at 170:11-20)  Lisa became "more psychotic
as the time went by." (Kartuzinski II at 112:19-23) He organized
"people being there 24 hours, no speaking." (Kartuzinski II at
114:18-25)
	She was "PTS Type III." This meant that Lisa was "connected to
someone who is called a suppressive person, which is someone who wants
other people to do badly. . . Like a criminal. Hitler would be a
suppressive person."  (Kartuzinski II at 115:3-23) "Someone who is PTS
is connected to such a person." (Kartuzinski II at 116:22-23) A person
who is PTS is a "trouble source not only for themselves but a trouble
source for the church as well." (Kartuzinski II at 118:1-12)  Lisa was
viewed "as a type three PTS as someone who represented a threat to
herself and a potential problem for the church." (Kartuzinski II at
119:19-24)  
	During the 17 days Lisa was at Ft. Harrison, Kartuzinski was the
person who was "going to take care of Lisa" and be her Case
Supervisor.  As such he was not supposed to talk to her.    
(Kartuzinski II at 24:10-23; 25:14-17)  Thus, he appointed Ruthie
Humphrey to be Lisa's auditor.  (Kartuzinski II at 25:1-6) He directed
Janice Johnson to call Dr. Minkoff with whom she was "in good
communication,"speaking to him frequently .  (Kartuzinski II at
131:24-137:10)
	Kartuzinski had no medical training. (Kartuzinski II at 164:18)  He
claimed that he did not want Lisa "to go to a psychiatric hospital -
because she's psychotic." (Kartuzinski II at 160:4-5)  
	He overruled the use of Valium that Dr. Minkoff had prescribed for
Lisa because he "thought that [he] was acting for the best of that
person" because "Valium is a psychiatric drug." (Kartuzinski II at
163:7-164:12) Without her request or consent, he ordered Lisa to be
treated with herbal remedies. (Kartuzinski II at 169:14-170:9) He
wanted Janice to physically check on Lisa at least twice per day.
(Kartuzinski II at 138:16-21)  He spoke with Janice or received
reports from her every day. (Kartuzinski II at 139:9-17)  
	He was aware that Janice administered intramuscular injections to
Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 146:17-21)  He was aware that Lisa could not
consent to medication. Kartuzinski gave the authority that Lisa be
medicated anyway and directed David Houghton, an unlicensed dentist,
to do so.  He was aware that Lisa was held down so that medication
could be forced down her throat. (Kartuzinski II at 162:19-163:1) 
	He knew that David Houghton was not a physician, but insisted that
aspirin be included in the material Houghton forced down Lisa's throat
because there are "spiritual writings on this." (Kartuzinski II at
163:21-24; 165:10-14) According to Kartuzinski, because he had
"studied for many years on the subject, and . . . used that technology
for many years," and therefore knew "what happens to psychotic
people," the aspirin "served to destimulate the pictures that she had
so she could sleep."  (Kartuzinski II at 165:17-166:1) 
	Kartuzinski acknowledged that according to the "Search and Discovery
technical bulletin . . . type threes should never be handled in any
place that doesn't have hospital facilities" "because then if you are
in a position where if anything occurs, it can be handled right away
by people who know what they're doing medically." (Kartuzinski II at
185:12-24)
	Although the bulletin indicates a necessity for medical treatment and
intravenous feedings as part of the Introspection Rundown, and
Kartuzinski was aware of those requirements at the time Lisa was at
Ft. Harrison, Ft. Harrison was not equipped with a hospital. 
(Kartuzinski II at 186:24-189:16)  There is no such facility anywhere
in the United States. (Kartuzinski II at 186:1-4)  
	The first step of the Introspection Rundown states, "On a person in a
psychotic break isolate the person wholly with all attendant
completely muzzled, no speech."  The second step says, "Give vitamins,
B complex, including niacin and minerals, calcium and magnesium to
build the person up." (Kartuzinski II at 190:12-18)  
	The Introspection Rundown clearly recognized the need for medical
treatment including intravenous feeding. (Kartuzinski II at 191:6-9) 
Even though Kartuzinski was aware of this, he never monitored Lisa's
situation to see if she was in need of intravenous feeding or
intravenous hydration and never asked anyone else to do so.
(Kartuzinski II at 191:13-19)  None of the watchers stayed with Lisa
more than a few days in a row at most and so would not be aware of
Lisa's change in status. (Kartuzinski II at 192:7-20)
			f. 	Scientology Watched While Lisa Deteriorated And
Died
	When he received reports that Lisa "was much more violent than she
had been," he went to see for himself. (Kartuzinski II at
166:19-176:22) In consequence of Lisa's "violence," he ordered more
people to be in her room 24-hour daily watch. (Kartuzinski II at
168:3-18)
	He could not recall the content of his conversations with Janice that
took place the day before Lisa died. (Kartuzinski II at 142:8-20;
144:16-18) Janice did not tell him that Lisa had lost significant
amounts of weight until the day of her death. (Kartuzinski II at
143:17-21) On the day of Lisa's death, Janice said Lisa was "septic"
and "emaciated." (Kartuzinski II at 144:24-145:1; 150:13) 
	Despite the deterioration in Lisa's condition, he did not call Janice
Johnson whom he knew was working with Dr. Megan Shields, a licensed
physician, doing physicals, even though he admitted that taking care
of Lisa deserved more attention than the physicals and said there was
no reason why he could not have done so. (Kartuzinski II at
152:11-153:22)   
	Neither Dr. Minkoff nor Dr. Megan Shields  were ever asked to visit
Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 148:12-20)  
	Janice Johnson was seeing Lisa on a daily basis and making daily
reports to him. (Kartuzinski II at 213:20-25) 
	Kartuzinski was receiving and reviewing other reports about Lisa
every day as well. He reviewed reports that she was too weak to walk
which although caused him concern did not cause him to do anything on
her behalf. (Kartuzinski II at 150:19-24)  
	 He did not consider the fact that Lisa was too weak to walk as
showing that she was physically ill because as she was in a "psychotic
break." (Kartuzinski II at 158:5-10)  At no point did Kartuzinski talk
to Janice Johnson about the report that Lisa was too weak to walk. He
recalls receiving reports the last three days of Lisa's life that she
was unable to walk and was not eating or sleeping enough. 
(Kartuzinski II at 155:2-23)
	Kartuzinski gave no explanation for why he never tried to call Lisa's
relatives.  (Kartuzinski II at 171:18-172:1)  
	On the last day of Lisa's life at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. Kartuzinski
directed Janice to visit Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 172:9-174:17)
Without any explanation for the delay, an hour later Janice reported
to him in person.  (Kartuzinski II at 174:19-175:4) Purportedly "out
of breath" because "she ran to the office," Janice Johnson reported
that Lisa had "lost a lot of weight" and was "septic" with a "big
infection and it needs to be handled fast." (Kartuzinski II at
175:6-17) 
	They both called Dr. Minkoff from Kartuzinski's office. (Kartuzinski
II at 175:20-24)  Janice asked Minkoff to prescribe antibiotics over
the phone. (Kartuzinski II at 178:14-179:4) He did not recall Dr.
Minkoff asking Janice how she determined that Lisa was "septic."
(Kartuzinski II at 180:3-6)  Kartuzinski directed that Lisa be brought
to Port Richey instead of taking the three-minute trip to Morton Plant
so that she would be treated by David Minkoff and not go into a
psychiatric ward. (Kartuzinski II at 16124-162:16)  
	He denied that there was any conversation whether Lisa is too sick to
go to Port Richey. (Kartuzinski II at 175:25-176:8; 177:10-17)  Janice
said nothing about Lisa being too sick to be able to wait until they
went to Port Richey instead of Morton Plant. (Kartuzinski II at
178:1-13)
	When asked why he did not immediately go see Lisa himself,
Kartuzinski could give no explanation. (Kartuzinski II at 182:9-13) He
acknowledged that since Lisa was "psychotic," she would not have known
who Kartuzinski was so he didn't have to keep his "Case Supervisor"
status sacrosanct. (Kartuzinski II at 183:2-5)
	Kartuzinski was notified by Security head Arthur Baxter that Lisa
died.  Kartuzinski went straight to the Office of Special Affairs.
(Kartuzinski II at 215:4-6)
When he was asked:
	What'd you do about it? I mean, Lisa is still in your control, you're
not gonna let her walk out, there's no phone in there, she's
psychotic, she can't call anybody for help.  You're the only lifeline.
 She get's so weak she's unable to walk, which seems to me a pretty
serious thing.  What do you do about it or direct other people to do
about it?  Do you go find out? Do you go look at her? Do you have
someone else look at her?  You tell me what you did?

(Kartuzinski II at 150:24-151:8)
	After a pause in excess of two minutes, Kartuzinski said, "I don't
recall." (Kartuzinski II at 151:22) Then, he volunteered, "I wasn't -
I wasn't trying to let her die.  That wasn't what I was trying to do."
(Kartuzinski II at 159:2-6) 
			g.	To Kartuzinski Scientology Is Infallible So He
Does Not Know
What Went Wrong, Except Lisa Was To Blame

	 "The proper answer is that nothing in auditing makes people crazy,
and that's the truth of the matter.  Auditing helps people.  The
reason why she went the way she did, I don't know.  I don't know that
anyone knows.  It would have to be in her past and auditing is not
what created that." (Kartuzinski II at 204:22-205:4) 
	"I'm saying that a person is not in a psychotic break because of
whatever was done in Scientology.  This is not what occurs, this is
not why it's being done, and it cannot do that.  It never did, never
will.  A person's condition is based on what happened to them earlier,
what they did, what was done to them and so on, and that is the truth
of the matter.  Now, a person not recovering may be done - may be due
to some error having been done, something that wasn't applied, some
bulletin that was not followed exactly, like in this case.  Obviously,
I just told you that I was the one who took that wrong decision, but I
did not make her crazy.  The technology - the spiritual counseling did
not make her crazy." 

(Kartuzinski II at 205:22-206:11)
	I just want to tell you.  I can tell you in general terms, and I hope
this will help you understand, because it did for me, and the - in
some way, not all the suppressive persons in her past were found and
handled, and that is the exact technical data, because if it had been,
then she would not have relapsed."

(Kartuzinski II at 208:17-22)
	Kartuzinski described that Introspection Rundown as follows:
	This is the introspection run-down. What was done was an auditor went
into the room, sat the person down and corrected the last severe point
of wrong indication, so I should take some example.. . .A person gets
into a state where they are completely introverted because they have
been told things, sometimes repeatedly, sometimes even in violent ways
such a father beating you or raping you or whatever, such things which
then enter into their reactive mind, and when there is too much of
that occurring in a person's life, then the person will go into such a
state where it's just too much.  The being just disconnects, so to
speak, and the mental image pictures take over to the point where they
feels they have demons around them and such things, and when you
actually tell someone on the 5th of June of last year you were told
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for some reason it destimulates those
mental image pictures.  It slowly but surely gets the person back in
control, back in the environment.

(Kartuzinski II at 216:16-217:11)
	D.	David Minkoff, M.D.
	Accompanied by counsel, David Minkoff was first interviewed under
oath on April 20, 1997.  A physician, he moved to Clearwater in 1981
to participate more fully in Scientology. (Sworn Statement of David
Minkoff, 4/20/97 [hereinafter "Minkoff I"] at 4:4-5:19)  Minkoff has
completed all Scientology administrative courses, is an auditor and
received has counseling through OT8. (Minkoff I at 7:3-6)  Out of a
total of 12 levels, Minkoff is a Scientology "auditor" of the Class 5
Graduate Level.  He audits others. (Sworn Statement of David Minkoff,
5/19/98 [hereinafter "Minkoff II"] at 17:10-23)   
	Minkoff achieved Scientology's state of "Clear"  in 1989.  It was
uncommon for a Clear to go psychotic.  (Minkoff Depo at 126:1-15) In
fact, prior to Lisa's case, in all his years in Scientology, Minkoff
had never heard of such a thing taking place.  (Minkoff Depo at
134:7-14)
		1.	Minkoff's Relationship With The Medical Liaison Officer
	As a physician and Scientologist, he received frequent calls from
Medical Liaison Officers. (Minkoff I at 14:9-13)  
		2.	Relying Entirely On Unlicensed Personnel, Dr. Minkoff
"Treated"
Lisa McPherson Without Seeing Or Talking To Her, Writing Prescriptions
For Her In Someone Else's Name

	Prior to her illness, David Minkoff never met or heard of Lisa
McPherson. (Minkoff I at 15:11-19)  Dr. Minkoff knew Alain Karduzinski
who was a Case Supervisor. (Minkoff I at 16:2-5)    Two weeks before
Lisa died, even though Minkoff had lunch with Janice Johnson,  they
did not discuss Lisa.(Minkoff I at 114:18-23)
	Within a couple of days after November 18, 1995, Minkoff received a
call from Janice Johnson,  Alain Kartuzinski or Dave Houghton
regarding Lisa that she was Type III  and "so wound up that she just
wasn't sleeping" (Minkoff I at 17:16-18:7; Minkoff Depo at 35:3-15)
	Minkoff therefore "assumed that she was psychotic." (Minkoff II at
50:3-17)  To be advised that Lisa was "Type 3, which means the
person's psychotic.  And Hubbard's prescriptions for the psychotic
person are to put them in a destimulating environment.  So keep it
quiet, and let them rest, and give them adequate nutrition and just
let them cool off. So my understanding was that's what was going on.
Now, as an outsider, you know, as a nonstaff member, the details of
what, actually -- the process that -- what was going on -- they don't
tell me and I don't ask." (Minkoff I at 24:6-20) 
	He acknowledged that the remedy for Type 3 situations "is Hubbard's
teachings or their own procedures, as opposed to going for outside
psychiatric problem-solving." (Minkoff I at 25:10-14)  Based on those
policies, a person with a mental disease needs to go through a
thorough physical examination to rule out any possible medical cause
for her mental problem. (Minkoff I at 103:19-104:10) 
	He is familiar with Watches and part of the rundown being conducted
in Scientology. (Minkoff I at 115:8-14) Minkoff is familiar with the
Hubbard bulletins that recommend use of a mild sedative to help people
sleep who are too wound up to calm down.  (Minkoff Depo at 43:3-18)
	Minkoff previously participated in Scientology isolation watches at
its request by conducting a physical examination on a person which
included a house-call-follow-up-visit one month later. (Minkoff Depo
at 38:5-39:10; Minkoff II at 28:10-19)
	MLO David Houghton and Case Supervisor Kartuzinski called Minkoff at
home at 11:00 at night and told him that had a woman who was a Type 3
at Fort Harrison "and they wanted to do processing with her, but she
just wasn't sleeping." (Minkoff II at 40:6-41:16:24)  Houghton and
Kartuzinski related no medical history and did not say anything about
her condition, whether she was eating, drinking or dehydrated,
coherent or incoherent in the sense of being able to give consent. 
(Minkoff II at 43:8-44:22) They did say she "was in isolation."
(Minkoff II at 55:7-10)
	When Minkoff received the MLO request on November 20, 1995, he
responded by giving "medical advice" when he called in a prescription
for injectable liquid Valium to Eckard's drugstore in the name of
David Houghton which was neither his normal practice nor permitted by
law.  (Minkoff Depo at 48:13-50:5; Minkoff II at 37:6-25; 45:19-21)
Neither Houghton nor Lisa was his patient.  (Minkoff Depo at 52:8-17)
He wrote the prescription for Lisa McPherson, about whom he knew
nothing and had never seen, as a favor to Janice Johnson because she
was not licensed and couldn't get prescriptions in Florida. (Minkoff I
at 88:15-89:11) 
	He neither gave nor did they ask for authority to force-medicate Lisa
or to medicate her against her will or without her consent.  (Minkoff
II at 56:6-20)  He never asked to speak to Lisa.  (Minkoff Depo at
73:8-9) He never did speak to Lisa until she showed up at the
emergency room dead. (Minkoff II at 63:3-7)
	Believing "they were attempting to treat her psychosis" (Minkoff II
at 66:9-14), on November 29, 1995, Dr. Minkoff called in a second
prescription for Lisa McPherson, this time for chloral hydrate. 
(Minkoff Depo at 74:3-7)   She was not his patient.  (Minkoff Depo at
81:15-19)  In order to get fluids and food into Lisa, Minkoff would
not recommend the use of a medical device similar to a turkey baster
to do so. (Minkoff I at 97:24-98:21)
	Minkoff didn't give them any advice or what to symptoms to rule in or
rule out, how to treat Lisa's psychosis, on diagnosing what was wrong
with her, did not authorize them to restrain her against her will and
did not authorize them to hold Lisa down and use a syringe to medicate
her with Benadryl and aspirin. He denied knowledge of any forcible
medication.  (Minkoff II at 58:1-59:1) 
	He never visited Lisa at Fort Harrison and was never asked to.
(Minkoff I at 114:13-17)
	Minkoff had trouble recalling any details of the context  of his
actions because "I can't explain why I did it in the first place.  So
after that, everything else is pretty much out the window." (Minkoff
II at 59:17-20; 53:5-17)
		3.	Minkoff Pronounces Lisa Dead On Arrival At The Port
Richey
Emergency Room

	On December 5, 1995 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. Minkoff received a
call from Janice Johnson asking for authorization to inject Lisa with
penicillin (not obtain the same by prescription) because "she thought
she had a strep throat" based on seeing Lisa at 6:30 p.m.  Johnson
further advised Minkoff that even though Lisa had "a lot of diarrhea"
and "lost a lot of weight," Lisa was not so sick as to require
immediate emergency attention and asked him to see her, even though to
do so would require a 45-minute drive. Minkoff refused to give the
requested authorization, and said he was leaving the emergency room
before 10:00 p.m. (Minkoff Depo at 81:20-83:20)  Johnson did not tell
Minkoff that Lisa was comatose, and unable to walk or communicate.
(Minkoff Depo at 86:5-17) Johnson had not accurately represented
Lisa's physical condition when she called Minkoff that night. 
(Minkoff Depo at 89:25-90:9)
	It was "out of the ordinary" to bring Scientology members to Port
Richey. (Minkoff I at 113:5-8) Johnson said Lisa was still breathing
half-way to Port Richey. (Minkoff I at 73:18-20) Janice Johnson
brought Lisa McPherson to the Port Richey emergency room at 9:30 p.m.
- dead.  (Minkoff Depo at 88:14-25) Minkoff declared Lisa dead. 
(Minkoff Depo at 92:20-24)  
	When Dr. Minkoff first observed Lisa, he was "appalled, . . . very
upset.  It was horrible. It was terrible.  It was - you know, it's
shocking."  (Minkoff Depo at 89:19-20; 100:17-20) When he first saw
Lisa "she was definitely dehydrated." (Minkoff I at 78:20; 95:23-24) 
After two days without fluids a person becomes severely dehydrated.
(Minkoff I at 118:12-21)
	The appearance of her wrists were consistent with skin abrasions
consistent with having been restrained.  (Minkoff Depo at
101:8-19\04:19)
	Minkoff gave privileged information regarding Lisa to Scientology. 
(Minkoff I at 101:9-102:9) Minkoff denied having any conversation with
Janice Johnson since all this occurred. (Minkoff I at 68:24-69:1)
		4.	Minkoff's Explanation Of Scientology "Ethics" And Lying
And Its
Abhorrence Of The Mental Health Profession

	Minkoff explained his operating knowledge of Scientology lexicon and
"ethics" in
relation to telling the truth and not lying.  He started by explaining
that the saying "greatest good for the greatest number" means "the
action a person takes should take into consideration themselves,
others and the environment so that the wisest decision can be made
that will benefit all for the best."  (Minkoff Depo at 133:21-134:1)  
	The phrase "clearing the planet" means "that it's the hope that if
all the collective reactive minds that were on this planet were
handled so that the people were clear, it would be a healthy and safe
place to be." (Minkoff Depo at 134:2-6)
	An "Overt" means "transgression against another, either something you
did that you shouldn't have done or something you didn't do that you
should have done.  Involves good for both people." (Minkoff Depo at
134:19-24) Then counsel inquired about the relationship between
"lying" and committing an "overt."
	Q. 	When is lying an overt?
	A. 	Probably when it does the most harm to the most number of
dynamics.
	Q. 	And when is lying not an overt?
	A. 	The opposite; when it's the greatest good for the greatest
number
of dynamics.
	 Q. 	So then lying is permissible?
	A. 	Well it's - if you look at ethics in the context of society - I
mean, I don't think lying is right.  Lying isn't good. It's almost
like saying it's a sin to kill. Did people sin in World War II when
they killed people who were trying to harm them? And I would say no.
			So if you ask me is lying a sin or an overt, I would
basically say
yes.  If I
		had to lie because you were threatening me physically to hurt me
and
it was the
		only way I could do it to save myself, would that be an overt?
No.
			So it's - ethics is a relative philosophy.  It's not - I
don't
believe that it's a
		carved-in-stone always this, always that.

(Minkoff Depo at 135:9-136:4)
	Dr. Minkoff further explained his Scientological point of view
regarding the truth in response to being asked what is an "acceptable
truth" to which he responded "one that works. . . . When it works.
When its ethical. When it does the best good for the most number of
people." (Minkoff Depo at 136:14-21)
	Dr. Minkoff agrees with the Hubbardian claim that "pain and sex were
. . . invented by psychiatrists millions of years ago" and the "cause
of all crime in the world is psychiatry." (Minkoff Depo at
143:21-144:8) He sees no conflict between "being a medical doctor and
the techs or bulletins of Scientology." (Minkoff I at 133:8-10)
	Minkoff described Scientology not as "a belonging sort of thing" but
"as a pay-as-you-go service where I learn or audit or take courses. 
Membership is not the - it's not a membership thing." (Minkoff I at
154:1-1554
LEGAL ARGUMENT
V.	UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT MERIT
PROTECTION AS A RELIGION PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT

	A.	 Is Scientology a Religion?  It All Depends....

		"...Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious
organization
basis throughout the world.  This will not upset in any way the usual
activities of any organization.  It is entirely a matter for
accountants and solicitors... HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 OCTOBER 1962,
RELIGION (Furnish a copy of this to all attorneys dealing with our
interests for us)". (emphasis added).		
			"In spite of the fact that data did indicate religion to
be an
incorrect approach, the Mission went ahead incorporating Scientology
as a Church in Tokyo... Do we go religious or Dianetics (into
Japan)..."SEA ORGANIZATION AIDES ORDER 	549-1, 29 January 1981.
		
		"Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the
field of mental healing on this planet in all forms. This was not the
original purpose. The original purpose was to clear Earth..." To the
Guardian W W 2 Dec 69, CONFIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS COVERT
INTELLIGENCE DATA COLLECTION

	Is this a religion?  It depends on how Scientology wants to be
perceived.
	The correct approach in determining the status of Scientology and
Flag is contained in the learned decision of United States v. Article
or Device "Hubbard Electrometer", 333 F. Supp. 357, 361 (USDC., 1971).
 There the court describes the history of Scientology where it sold
courses and even its claimed religious E-meters to members of the
general public.  The court ruled that Scientology had a secular and
religious auditing processes.  At 359.  It noted that a few of
Hubbard's writings are primarily religious in nature but most of his
writings contain medical or scientific claims written in a "partially
religious context."  At 361.  Unfortunately, the trial court, in
following the Court of Appeals, stated that there must be an item by
item analysis of the writings.
		"The court notes that the task of determining whether a claim or
representation is religious or non-religious, or whether a religious
claim is genuine or merely "tacked on" to basically pseudo- scientific
claims, is hardly less troublesome than the task of determining
whether a religious claim is true or false.  The court has attempted
to resolve the difficulty thus presented by the Court of Appeals by
refusing to consider the truth or falsity of any claim which, in the
understanding of the average reader, could be construed as resting on
religious faith.  All doubts on this issue have been resolved in favor
of the claimants.  But the overall effect of the many separate
writings and the writings as a whole cannot be seriously questioned. 
Whether the documents are viewed singly or as a whole, the proof
showed that many false scientific claims permeate the writings and
that these are not even inferentially held out as religious, either in
their sponsorship or context.  
At 361. (emphasis added).
	The court noted that the Hubbard Guidance Center offers nonreligious
processing in auditing to the public for a fee.  The court concluded
that  "[V]iewed as a whole the thrust of the writings is secular, not
religious."  At 362. (emphasis added).
	The First Amendment does not define "religion." Reynolds v. United St
ates, 98 U.S. 145, 162 (1878).  In order to merit First Amendment
protection, religious beliefs must be "based upon a power or being, or
upon a  faith, to which all else is subordinate and upon which all
else is ultimately dependent."  United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163,
176  (1965).  "The battle for religious liberty has been fought and
won with respect to religious beliefs and practices, which are not in
conflict with good order, upon the supremecy of conscience within its
proper field." Id. (Emphasis added). So therefore, if a religion
mandates deprivation of food and water in order to cleanse or free the
body or spirit, and this cleansing continues to the point of death,
with or without the consent of the parishioner, it conflicts with good
order.  The constitution will not only not protect that type of
religious practice, the law will mandate legal redress		"The First
Amendment, although it protects religious belief, does not itself
define "religion."  Therefore, the court must turn to case law for
guidance.  Early Supreme Court precedent defined religion in
traditional theistic terms.  Over the years, case law broadened to
protect unorthodox and nontheistic beliefs.  See, e.g., Torcaso v.
Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, 81 Sup. Ct. 1680, 1683 n. 11, 6 L.
Ed.2d 92 (1961), (identifying religions in this country which do not
teach belief in the existence of God); ...  religion may be regarded
"as a response of the individual to an inward mentor")...  The court
defined "religion" by comparing less traditional belief systems to
faiths clearly within the scope of the First Amendment.  Thus: while
the applicant's words may differ, the test is simple of application. 
It is essentially an objective one, namely, does  the claimed belief
occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox
belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for
exemption? (United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185, 85 	        
S.Ct. 850,863,13 L. Ed.2d 733 (1965))... "                  
Carpenter v. Wilkinson, at 525-526. (emphasis added).
	If "beliefs are more aptly characterized as medical, therapeutic, and
social...they are secular, not religious." United States v.Meyers, 906
F.Supp. 1494 (D. Wy., 1995).
	In order to assist this court through the maze of Scientology claims
of being a religion, a philosophy, or secular management tool, the
case The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington D.C. v. United
States, 409 F. 2nd 1146 (D.C.Cir., 1968), is most helpful.  In order
to understand Scientology, one must first begin with Dianetics.
		"The basic theory of Dianetics is that man possesses both a
reactive
mind and an analytic mind.  The analytic mind is a superior computer,
incapable of 	error, to which can be attributed none of the human
misjudgments which create social problems and much individual
suffering.  These are traceable rather 	to the reactive mind, which is
made up ' engrams', or patterns imprinted on the nervous system in
moments of pain, stress or unconsciousness.  These imprinted patterns
may be triggered by stimuli associated with the original imprinting,
and may then produce unconscious or condition behavior which is
harmful or irrational.  Dianetics is not presented as a simple
description of the mind, but as a practical science which can cure
many of the ills of man... The goal of Dianetics is to make persons '
clear', thus freeing the rational and infallible analytical mind."  
At 1151.
	The above definition quoted by the court is found in the original
Hubbard book of Dianetics.  There is absolutely nothing in this theory
which even hints at spirituality or spiritual treatment.  It is pure
science according to Hubbard.  
		"Appellants (Founding Church of Scientology Washington D.C.),
have
contended that their theories concerning auditing or part of their
religious doctrine. We have delineated in detail the evidence on which
is claims based.  Again the government has not contested this claim;
it has not tried to argue or prove, for instance, that even if
Scientology's practice here is a religion, auditing services had been
settled to the general public on the basis of wholly non-religious
pseudo- scientific representations.
At 1161.

		"On the basis of the record before us, the Founding Church of
Scientology has made out a prima facie case that it is a bona fide
religion and, since no rebuttal has been offered, it must be regarded
as a religion for purposes of this case. 
 At 1162. (emphasis added).

	  Even though the government in Founding Church of Scientology of
Washington D.C.  did not contest that Scientology's theories
concerning auditing are part of their religious doctrine, the court
stated:
		 "we do not hold that the Founding Church is for all legal
purposes
a religion.  Any prima facie case made out for religious status is
subject to contradiction by a showing that the beliefs asserted to be
religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that
forms of religious organization were erected for the sole purpose of
cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protections of religion. 
We do not hold that, even if Scientology is a religion, all literature
published by it is religious doctrine immune from the Act. 
At 1162.(emphasis added). 
		"The Constitution protects the right to have and to express
beliefs.
 It does not blindly afford the same absolute protection to acts done
in the name of or under the impetus of religion."  Leary v. United
States, 383 F. 2nd 851, 859 (5th Cir., 1967), reh. denied, 392 F. 2nd
220 (1968), cert granted, 392 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 205 A., 20 L. Ed.2d
1362 (1968).United States v. Kuch, 
At 444.
	Scientology, over the years, has seized the status of a religion by
default, not by merit. There is not a single case where the question
whether or not Scientology is a bona fide religion has been litigated
in an open, public, adversary proceeding. 
	Indeed, even though it was regrettably constrained by the
consequences of such a default, a United States District Court went so
far to say that Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard's "religious cult" was
nothing but "quackery [which had] flourished throughout the United
States and in various parts of the world" after "Hubbard, writing in a
science fiction magazine in the 1940's, first advanced the extravagant
false claims that various physical and mental illnesses could be cured
by auditing."  (United States v. Article or Device. Etc. (D.D.C. 1971)
333 F.Supp. 357, 359.)  Now, almost 30 years later, despite
Scientology's shrill exactions to constitutional status as a bona fide
religious institution, the issue currently "remains a very live and
interesting question."  (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology  (1989)
212 Cal.App.3d 872, 880) This judicial pronouncement illustrates that
despite Scientology's efforts to achieve by litigation what it has
been unable to earn by merit, nothing has changed in the last 30
years.
	B.	Scientology Is Not A Bona Fide Religion
		6.	Scientology's Beliefs Which Gave Rise To The Behavior
That Killed
Lisa Are So Bizarre And Incredible As To Be Clearly Non-Religious

	The polestar of constitutional jurisprudence is a flexibility of
determination and application so as to respond to the changing needs
and circumstances of our democracy. Thus, the phrase "religion" as
used in the Constitution may be construed "in light of evolving needs
and circumstances." (Welsh v. United States (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 346) 
	The Constitution cannot be applied in disregard of the external
circumstances in which men live and move and have their being.
Therefore, neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment is to be
treated by judges as though it were a mathematical abstraction, an
absolute having no relation to the lives of men.

(Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 318 U.S. 141, 152)   Thus, "for
the adjudication of a constitutional claim, the Constitution, rather
than an individual's religion, must supply the frame of reference."
(Bowen v. Roy (1986) 476 U.S. 693, 701)
	Due to the extraordinary protections that flow from the attainment of
bona fide religious status, a court must not grant the same without a
searching inquiry.  A critical reason for the need of such an inquiry
was recognized by the court in McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618,
627, fn 7, where it said:
	The absolute protection afforded belief by the First Amendment
suggests that a court should be cautious in expanding the scope of the
protection since to do so might leave government powerless to
vindicate compelling state interests.

	Scientology's position herein profoundly presents great need for the
exercise of such caution.  Indeed, in the face of the facts of this
case, Scientology boldly asserts that the least amount of scrutiny of
its beliefs and practices gives the best respect to the constitutional
protection to which it lays claim.  As always, such claim is entirely
one-sided. 
	Scientology says that its institutionalized hatred of psychiatry and
psychology deserves First Amendment protection whereby it would seek
to overcome Lisa McPherson's basic right not to be subjected to
captivity, torture, death and cover up at the hands of anyone.  
	Scientology's position admonishes this Court that it is
constitutionally restrained from "intrusive judicial evaluation" of
its beliefs, practices and conduct and therefore must grant on summary
judgment constitutional protection to it as a religion and the
Introspection Rundown as a religious practice. (Moving Memo., at
21-22, 47)  Scientology says that in making the desired constitutional
determination, this Court must necessarily "defer to Reverend Reiss's
description of beliefs and practices of Scientology religion" (Moving
Memo., at 48) and "without further inquiry is bound to accept Church
teaching that the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice
intended to address the spiritual problems of the thetan that is
suffering the condition known in Scientology as PTS Type III." (Moving
Memo., at 49) 
	The Plaintiff's position is that defendants engaged in premeditated
and barbaric criminal and civil misconduct without justification or
excuse. Plaintiff's position is that Scientology is a business whose
primary aspiration in the accumulation of dollars. To that end it
employs substantial public relations activities which place great
value on (1) presenting itself as a bona fide religion (2) whose
adherents achieve great value when they attain the state of Clear. 
Plaintiff's position is that for Lisa McPherson to have attained the
state of Clear and then gone "psychotic" by walking naked on a public
street in Clearwater, the "Mecca of Scientology religion," (Exhibit A
to Motion at 1040, 395), in a desperate attempt to get "help"
presented the potential for a public relations catastrophe.  This
catastrophe would be compounded if competent mental health
professionals assisted Lisa and found that Scientology auditing
contributed to her mental illness and public acting out.  	Moreover,
Lisa's committed a "high crime" against Scientology by publicly
departing it and bringing it into disrepute because her behavior could
hold Scientology up to public exposure and ridicule. This caused
Scientology to  condemn her as a "suppressive person,"  "psychotic"
and "trouble source."  Therefore, in the total absence of her capacity
to consent, Scientology arrogated to itself dominion and control over
the body and person of Lisa McPherson as an exercise of business
imperative. They locked her up, dehydrated her and killed her in an
effort to  eliminate a public relations "flap."
	Scientology was constrained to kill Lisa McPherson in the name of
"helping" her adhere to the dictates of her religion.
	The belief system of Scientology supported both retribution against
Lisa for being a suppressive person, and its barbaric abuse in the
name of treatment for psychosis.  Scientology provided justification
for her death because "there will always be some failures as the
insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense,
sometimes can't be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and
distraught ever to become quiet." 
	Thus, without medical license or her consent, they intramuscularly
injected her with fluids obtainable only by prescription from a
Scientologist doctor who only saw Lisa after she was dead.  Without
medical license or her consent they physically restrained Lisa so as
to force feed her by means of a device akin to a turkey baster. 
Surrounding her 24 days per day, 7 days per week, her watchers would
not talk to Lisa.  They would not give her sufficient fluids. As she
became dehydrated and exhausted by violent yet futile objections to
her captivity, she deteriorated.  They did not help.  They watched her
wind down and die.  They took her dead body to a Scientologist doctor.
 The Office of Special Affairs tried to cover up the death by
directing witnesses to lie to the police.
	In the face of such behavior "States are clearly entitled to assure
themselves that there is an ample predicate for invoking the Free
Exercise Clause"  (Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment
Security (1989) 489 U.S. 829, 833, even to the extent "that an
asserted belief might be 'so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in
motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the Free
Exercise Clause.'" (Id., at 834, fn. 2, quoting Thomas v. Review Board
of Indiana Employment Security (1981) 450 U.S. 707, 715) 
	Close scrutiny of Scientology's beliefs show that they are, indeed,
"bizarre or incredible" in the face of the physical result of death
they have produced. (Ibid.)  
		7.	Scientology Does Not Hold Its Beliefs Sincerely
	In United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, the Supreme Court
defined religious beliefs meriting First Amendment protection as those
"based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is
subordinate and upon which all else is ultimately dependent."  (Id.
380 U.S. at 176)  The Seeger court required that these beliefs be
"sincere" (Ibid,) and stated that "the threshold question of sincerity
must be resolved in every case."  (Id. 380 U.S. at 185) Pursuant to
this "sincerity" standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare
assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are "religious."
 (See, e.g., Yoder, 406 U.S. at 235 ["Aided by a history of three
centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history as a
successful and self-sufficient segment of American society, the Amish
in this case have convincingly demonstrated the sincerity of their
religious beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of
life, and the vital role that belief and daily conduct play in the
continued survival of . . . their religious organization. . .."];
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (1981)
650 F.2d 430, 439-41; United States v. Rasheed (9th Cir. 1981) 663
F.2d 843, 847-49 [alleged religious belief in "Dare To Be Rich"
program not sincerely held because palpably deceitful]; Jones v.
Bradley (9th Cir. 1979) 590 F.2d 294, 295;  United States v Kuch
(D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439;  Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology
of California (D.Mass. 1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125; Founding Church of
Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 212, cert.
denied 396 U.S. 963 (1969)
	Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409
F.2d at 1146 noted that "[l]itigation of the question whether a given
group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our
legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not
be unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred."  (Id. 409
F.2d at 1160)  The court concluded that a purported religion would not
be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing
that 
	". . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good
faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious
organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular
enterprise with the legal protection of a religion."

(Id. at 1162)  In Theriault v. Carlson (5th Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 390,
394 the court indicated that a claim of entitlement to religious
status raised "the necessity of employing sharp and careful scrutiny
of his activities, including his claim of religious sincerity."
			a.	Scientology Is An Obvious Sham
	The affidavits and deposition excerpts attached hereto by current and
former members of Scientology demonstrate that members and staff do
not hold Scientology as a religious organization.  In the attached
affidavit of Peter Alexander, he describes the lack of any semblance
to religious practices and complete denial by staff that Scientology
is a religion.  In fact, the staff informed him that religion was just
an "angle" for the IRS, reflecting Hubbard's reason to call
Scientology a religion.
	Mr. Alexander, a celebrity in Scientology,  reached the high level of
OT7 and only recently left Scientology.  In 20 years, no one in
Scientology viewed it seriously as a religion.  He calls it
pseudo-psycho-therapy.
	Even Paul Greenwood, SEA ORG and a staff member at FLAG since 1993,
does not view Scientology as a religion.  He describes it as "a way of
freeing myself as a being...(from) my reactive mind." Deposition.
37-2-4 ).  
	Karsten Lorenzen, who recently left Scientology after being ordered
to watch a Danish woman on an Isolation watch, who, like Lisa
McPherson was in Isolation at FALG five months after Lisa died and
barely made it out alive from FLAG, testified that Scientology is not
a religion but a philosophy. (Lorenzen deposition at 92:11-17).  He
goes on to say that Denmark does not recognize Scientology as a
religion. (52:16-18).
	Gerald Armstrong, who handled the personal communications for Hubbard
himself, and Scientology's archivist, testified that Scientology was
never presented as a religion.  (Armstrong deposition at 69:12-13).
	Marjory Wakefield, a former Scientologist, testified that in 1977-78
an order came out for everyone to take the Minister's course which
qualified the person to perform ceremonies in Scientology.  For
example, baptism in Scientology is merely introducing the infant to
the parents and say that you hope that he/she will make a good
scientologist.  However, she does not know if any baptisms were ever
done.  (Deposition of Wakefield at 92-93).  In fact, she recalls that
when reporters were coming to the scientology headquarters, they were
all ordered "to dress up the next day and that we were going to have a
mock church service." (At 96:17-18).
	If someone wanted to create a religion that mocked all other
established religions of the world, it would be Scientology. 
Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard.  After flunking out of
college and being sent to a mental ward at St. Elizabeth Hospital in
Washington, D.C. at the end of his short naval career, Hubbard
developed a strong hatred for psychiatry, while continuing to write
science fiction.  He later wrote a book entitled Dianetics which was
later incorporated into Scientology.  When he had an epiphany on how
to make more money, Hubbard decided to form a religion from Dianetics.
 In his claim to be a religion in 1953, Hubbard appropriated ideas
from his "very good friend", Aleister Crowley, the infamous
practitioner of "Black Magick," who called himself "The Beast" with
"666" tattooed on his forehead.  Hubbard was cleaver enough to include
ideas and practices not only from Crowley, but also religious
trappings from other well established religions.  In order to escape
prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, to avoid the
payment of income taxes, and to make more money, Hubbard proclaimed
that Scientology was a religion in 1953.  "Make  money.  Spend it
truly.  So it gives a tax problem.  So what?"  HCO Policy Letter of 28
January, 1965. 
	After reviewing the multitude of  evidence before him, Judge Sterrett
of the U.S. Tax Court wrote a 145 page opinion which culminated in the
revocation of Scientology's tax-exempt status under the Internal
Revenue Code. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue,, 83 T.C. 381, 442, aff'd, 823 F. 2nd 1310 (9th Cir.
1987). The court found that Scientology is a profit-driven enterprise.
 Judge Sterrett stated as follows:
		"Practically everywhere we turn, we find evidence of
[Scientology's]
commercial purpose.  Certainly, its language reflects reality,
[Scientology] had a substantial commercial purpose since it described
its activities in highly commercial terms, calling parishioners
'customers'; missions, 'franchises'; and churches, 'organizations'
-just to mention a few of the more glaring examples of [Scientology's]
commercial vocabulary.

		[Scientology] was eager to make money.  This was expressed in [a
Scientology policy directive dated] March 9, 1972...  It sets out the
governing policy of [Scientology's] financial offices by exhorting
these offices to 'MAKE MONEY...  MAKE MONEY...  MAKE MONEY...  MAKE
OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.'  This is not an isolated
policy letter coming back to haunt [Scientology].  The goal of making
money permeated virtually all of [Scientology's] activities-its
services, its pricing policies, its dissemination practices and its
management decisions." 
Id., 83 T.C. at 475-76.
	Judge Sterrett commented extensively on the systematic and methodical
violations of criminal and civil law by Scientology.  He wrote that
such policies and procedures included:

		"[1] Conspiracy to impede an abstract of the Internal Revenue
Service...; [2] the infliction of psychic harm including the loss of
moral judgment through brainwashing accomplished by auditing and other
practices and procedures; [3] the use of blackmail and intimidation to
implement [Scientology's] 'fair game' policy; [4] involuntary
dissolution of marriage of family ties to the enforcement of
[Scientology's] 'disconnect' policies; [5] involuntary detention and
false imprisonment; [6] the making a false statement to immigration
authorities...; [7] the removal of large amounts of currency from
United States without disclosure; [8] the false registration of
[Scientology's] fleet as private yachts used for pleasure when in fact
they were used for paramilitary training in commercial activity; and
[9] the drastic punishment of staff and members."
Id., 83 T.C. at 4 11-12.
	The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in  Church of Scientology v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a 23 F. 2nd 1310 (9th Cir. 1987),
upheld the revocation of Scientology's tax-exempt status.  Likewise,
in Hernandez v. Commissioner, 4900 U.S. 680 (1989), the United States
Supreme Court affirmed that "fixed donations", i.e., the payments for
counseling and training, are not tax deductible.
	The First Amendment does not immunize a self-proclaimed religion from
governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy. When an
organization's religious status is of legal significance, courts may
make an objective inquiry into whether the organization's beliefs are
entitled to First Amendment religious liberty protections.  (See,
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 209-213; Cantwell v.
Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296)
	In Mason v. General Brown Central School District (1988) 851 F.2d 47,
54 the court noted that it was "not enough" that an organization
exists to "give 'religious' legitimacy to the chiropractic ethics of
its members" while providing a "tax dodge for its leaders."  It said,
	While it has sometimes been difficult for us to establish precise
standards by which the bona fides of a religion may be judged, these
difficulties have not hindered us in denying protected status to
organizations which are "obviously shams and absurdities" and whose
leaders "are patently devoid of religious sincerity."  Theriault v.
Carlson, 495 F.2d 390, 395 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95
S.Ct. 323, 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974);  see Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d
663, 666 (8th Cir.1985);  Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679, 683 (9th
Cir.1981); United States v. Carroll, 567 F.2d 955, 957 (10th
Cir.1977);  United States v. Kuch, 288 F.Supp. 439, 443-44
(D.D.C.1968).

	The court in Theriault v. Carlson, supra 495 F.2d at 395, stated,
"While it is difficult for the courts to establish precise standards
by which the bona fides of a religion may be judged, such difficulties
have proved to be no hindrance to denials of First Amendment
protection to so-called religions which tend to mock established
institutions." 
	That Scientology claims "psychiatry is the cause of crime," that
psychotics are evil and should be locked up, and that it was therefore
"protecting" Lisa McPherson by asserting dominion over her despite her
psychological incapacity to give consent so as to inflict torture in
the form of practicing barbaric forms of medicine without a license
and watch her deteriorate to death certainly tends "to mock
established institutions." Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v.
Rockefeller (2nd Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 12  
It simply is not the type of belief and conduct that merits any legal
recognition of constitutional protection.
			b.	Scientology's Invidious Treatment Of Lisa
McPherson Was Based On
Hate And Exploited Her Defenselessness And Vulnerability

	When a party and his "religion are committed to violence or profess
hatred toward, religious, ethnic or racial groups" it is subject to an
attack that said beliefs are not "sincere and legitimate."  Thus, an
"initial inquiry into the legitimacy of [a party's] religious
convictions is an extremely important component" required to "sort out
the insincere and illegitimate . . . Free Exercise claims from
illegitimate ones . . ." and provides "an efficient means for
disposing of bogus claims undeserving of First Amendment protections."
(Luckette v. Lewis (1995) 883 F.Supp. 471, 478)  Thus, the Supreme
Court held that there was no violation of the  First Amendment when a
tax exemption was denied a religious organization on the basis that
its tenets required racial discrimination in its private schools. 
(Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) 461 U.S. 574)
	In the instant case, the reason that Lisa was removed from the
hospital was because of Scientology's hatred toward the mental health
profession. She had committed the "high crime" of bringing
"Scientology into disrepute" by seeking "help" in being able to
"publicly depart" Scientology through the extreme act of disrobing and
walking naked in public, and agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation. 
She went "psychotic" or "PTS Type III" after attaining the state of
"Clear."  Lisa McPherson, having thus committed a "suppressive act"
was a "suppressive person" for having impeded the advancement of
Scientology, became "fair game," a person without rights. She became
subject to the Introspection Rundown which was imposed on her in the
absence of her capacity to exercise an informed and intelligent
consent.	
			c.	An Atmosphere of Coercion Strips Religious
Conduct 
				Of Any Claim To Constitutional Protection

	Simply because an activity is a "core practice" of a so-called
religion does not mean that it is entitled to protection.  When such
an activity takes place in an atmosphere permeated by coercion, no
First Amendment protection attaches.
	As we have seen, not every religious expression is worthy of
constitutional protection.  To illustrate, centuries ago the
inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian
religion in Europe.  This religious practice involved torture and
execution of heretics and miscreants. (See generally Peters,
Inquisition (1988);  Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1961).) 
Yet should any church seek to resurrect the inquisition in this
country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt
the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the
torture and executions?  And can anyone seriously question the right
of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their
tormentors for any injuries-- physical or psychological--they
sustained?

	 We do not mean to suggest Scientology's retributive program as
described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern
day "inquisition." Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose
and effect.  "Fair game" like the "inquisition" targeted "heretics"
who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother
church.  Once "proven" to be a "heretic," an individual was to be
neutralized.  In medieval times neutralization often meant
incarceration, torture, and death.  (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp.
57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134;  Lea, The Inquisition of
the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) 
As described in the evidence at this trial the "fair game" policy
neutralized the "heretic" by stripping this person of his or her
economic, political and psychological power.  (See, e.g., Allard v.
Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797
[former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part
of "fair game" policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].)

(Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., 212 Cal.App.3d at
888-889) Thus, in Wollersheim, even though Scientology obtained
religious status by default, and obtained summary adjudication that
auditing was a core religious practice, the court did not give First
Amendment protection to such auditing because it transpired, not
voluntarily, but in consequence of coercion.
	 There was substantial evidence here from which the jury could have
concluded Wollersheim was subjecting himself to auditing because of
the coercive environment with which Scientology had surrounded him. 
To leave the Church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he
would become a target of "fair game," face an enormous burden of
"freeloader debt," and even confront physical restraint.  A religious
practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion
has less religious value than one the recipient engages in
voluntarily.  Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to
society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.

(Id., 212 Cal.App.3d at 895)
	The coercive circumstances which provided the context for the
Isolation Watch are patent.
			d.	When Religionists Deliberately Lie About Their
Religious Beliefs
In Order To Cover Up Wrongdoing Based On Those Beliefs, And To Protect
Their "Church"They Cannot Be Found To Hold Their Religious Beliefs
Sincerely

	In Hansel v. Purnell (1924) 1 F.2d 266, cert denied 266 U.S. 617
(1924), the court drew a distinction of critical applicability to the
instant litigation. The court held that simply because a religion
presented the trappings of sectarian functioning was insufficient
reason to grant constitutional protection when those trappings were
presented for an ulterior and corrupt purpose.  It stated:
	. . . in so far as it proclaims a definite religious doctrine, and
purports to teach publicly a moral code, it is for the fraudulent and
corrupt purpose of borrowing the cloak of religion to disguise its
true purposes and corrupt motives, and particularly for Benjamin's
private gain, to afford him opportunities for the gratification of his
lust, and to shield and protect him in criminal and licentious
practices with the young girls and young women members of this
organization.

		This action is not and does not purport to be an attack upon a
religious faith, but, on the contrary, an attack upon an attempt to
prostitute that faith to irreligious and base purposes through the
instrumentality of a so-called religious society, ostensibly organized
for the furtherance of the faith, but in fact organized under guise of
religion for wicked, lewd, licentious, and unlawful purposes.  This,
of course, does not mean that any individual may be deprived of his
constitutional right to worship God in accordance with the dictates of
his own conscience, nor that a court will assume to determine the
truth or error of any religious creed or dogma; but it does mean that
no individual, or group of individuals, will be permitted to deceive
and defraud others through and by false and fraudulent representations
made under color of religion, no matter what that religion may be or
under color of any other lawful purpose.	
	
(Id., at 270)
	The deceptions engaged in on behalf of Scientology in the instant
case are legion.  Scientology was created to MAKE MONEY.  It uses its
claim to religious status as a public relations tool.  
	The Office of Special Affairs manipulated the relationship of Judy
Goldsberry-Weber to the medical staff at Morton Plant and to Lisa
McPherson so to sequester her under its dominion and control, safely
away from mental health care providers, her family and the media. 
Once under their control, Lisa was subjected to the unlicenced
practice of medicine in a manner that constituted torture.  Having
broken down her person and any ability to resist, they failed to care
for her, depriving her of adequate food and water.  They watched her
deteriorate and die.  Her Case Supervisor, Alain Kartuzinski, and
Medical Liaison Officer Janice Johnson tried to cover up what they had
done by intentionally lying by denying that Lisa was subjected to any
sort of Scientology program for the 17 days that she was locked up at
the Fort Harrison.  Scientology's Legal and Public Relations
Department, the Office of Special Affairs, was aware of what the plan
was for Lisa not only from the outset but also throughout the duration
of her captivity when Goldsberry-Weber submitted reports to Judy
Fontana about Lisa's mistreatment.  It did nothing. Debra Cook, the
"head person" at Flag, not only was advised as to what was in the
process of occurring, she rounded up more Scientologists to help
conduct the watch.
	The term "sincere" distinguishes between persons "who genuinely
believe in something, and those who lie about their beliefs." (Roby v.
United States (1995) 76 F.3d 1052, 1057)  
	A person in power in a religion may not
	hide his own rottenness under a cloak of righteousness.  It would
seem unnecessary to say that an association organized, dominated, and
prostituted to the unholy purposes of such a man is not a religious
society, no matter what its pretensions may be, and is not entitled to
any of the rights, privileges, or considerations of a society which in
truth and in fact has been organized for religious purposes and
teaches privately, as well as publicly, a code of morals consistent
with law and public policy.  

(Hansel v. Purnell, supra., 1 F.2d at 272)
	Not only did Alain Kartuzinski and Janice Johnson, the two persons
with local authority over the conditions of Lisa McPherson's
captivity, lie about their relationship to and control over her, they
lied about her being subjected to the doctrines and practices of
Scientology some of which authorized her mistreatment because of her
designated status as "psychotic."  
	After their lies were exposed, Kartuzinski admitted that Lisa indeed
had been subjected to an Isolation Watch, the first step to the
Introspection Rundown.  In addition, Kartuzinski admitted that the
manner in which Lisa was treated failed to comply with the "scripture"
which required that a "proper institution would have to be provided,
offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous
feedings." (Exhibit D to Motion at 4)
	Despite this, Scientology asserts relies on a First Amendment
defense.  Specifically, it asserts because "this belief and practice
might seem incredible or unbelievable to this Court is precisely the
reason why this Court must defer to Church doctrine." (Moving Memo at
49-50)
	When religious belief and practice is predicated on manipulation,
hatred, discrimination, captivity of an individual unable to consent,
abuse, torture, preventable death, and lying in an effort to cover it
all up, the Court does not have to defer to anything.  Indeed, were
this Court to adopt Scientology's position it "would be to make the
professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the
land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto
himself.  Government would exist only in name under such
circumstances."  (Reynolds v. United States (1879) 98 U.S. 244, 250)
		8.	Scientology Does Not Satisfy The Yoder Test
	In Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra., the Supreme Court conducted a
searching examination of the relationship between a state requirement
that children attend public school and the Amish practice of informal
vocational education.  The court looked at the interests that the
state sought to serve and compared those interests to those that the
Amish practice served.  
	The court accepted the legitimacy of two propositions presented by
the State. The first was that some degree of education is necessary to
prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our
open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence. 
The second was that education prepares individuals to be self-reliant
and self-sufficient participants in society.  (Id., 406 U.S. at 221)
The court then examined the overall relationship between the Amish
practices and the values that the State asserted it wanted to further.
 It rejected the State's argument that the position asserted by the
Amish fostered "ignorance."  It found that the Amish community had
been a highly successful social unit within American society, even if
not mainstream.  Its members were productive and very law-abiding. 
(Ibid.)  Thus, the Court concluded:
	The independence and successful social functioning of the Amish
community for a period approaching almost three centuries and more
than 200 years in this country are strong evidence that there is at
best a speculative gain in terms of meeting the duties of citizenship,
from an additional one or two years of compulsory formal education. 
Against this background it would require a more particularized showing
from the State on this point to justify the severe interference with
religious freedom such additional compulsory attendance would entail.

(Id., at 226-227)
	The Yoder Court, however, noted that if the facts of Amish life were
other than were presented - for example, if there were violations of
the legitimate concern of the child labor laws -  its decision would
not   be the same.  Thus, the Court left open for consideration
whether a granting of a First Amendment religious exception for the
situation where there is a risk of "harm to the physical or mental
health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare
has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred." (Id., at 229)
	Scientology's record in the factual microcosm of this case, or in the
macrocosm of American jurisprudence, is not the same as the Amish.  As
so graphically evidenced by the facts in this case, Scientology poses
a threat to psychotic persons and the "public safety, peace, order, or
welfare" in general.  Scientology's legal history in this country is
characterized by a continuum of one-sided, self-serving and
anti-social acts that directly flow from its anti-social policies that
are highly destructive to others and to the proper functioning of the
judiciary.
			a.	Scientology's Litigation History
	In Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn
1, Scientology caused the 21-day jailing without cause of Allard
because he was a "suppressive person" or "enemy" who as "fair game"
could "be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."  The appellate court
specifically upheld the introduction of Scientology policy statements
on the issue of credibility of "those witnesses who were
Scientologists or had been Scientologists . . . following the policy
of the church and lying to, suing, and attempting to destroy" Allard.
(Id., at 447)
	In Church of Scientology v. Siegelman (1979) 475 F.Supp. 950
Scientology sued the author of a book entitled Snapping: America's
Epidemic Of Sudden Personality Change for defamation in connection
with comments he made on a television interview show.  The statements
dealt with the "alleged debilitating physical and psychological effect
certain actions by the Church of Scientology have on its members." 
(Id., at 953) The case was dismissed.
	In United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F2d 1238 the court reviewed
indictments and guilty pleas of high ranking Scientologists who were
convicted by means of a Stipulation of Evidence which detailed their
substantive offenses.  The indictments were "for completed
conspiracies and substantive offenses involving their plan to
identify, locate and obtain by various illegal means certain documents
in the possession of the United States which were related to
Scientology, and their efforts thereafter to obstruct justice by
thwarting the government's investigation of such criminal activities,
by harboring and concealing a fugitive from arrest, and by causing the
making of false declarations under oath before a grand jury."  (Id.,
at 1241) The court noted that "those who formulate conspiracies to
obstruct justice, steal government property, burglarize, bug, harbor
fugitives from justice, and commit and suborn perjury before the grand
jury have no constitutional right under the first amendment to conceal
documentary evidence thereof."  The court asserted "freedom of
religion is not endangered but encouraged when criminal conspiracies
are suppressed that attempt to hide behind religion."  (Id., at 1258) 

	In Church of Scientology v. Cazares (1981) 638 F.2d 1272, Scientology
sued the former mayor of Clearwater for defamation in connection with
comments by the mayor regarding Charles Manson's alleged history in
Scientology, his opposition to bringing a "helter-skelter world and
philosophy" to Clearwater, his dislike for "paramilitary religious
organizations" and that Scientology "was not a religious organization
as 'religion' was understood in the Clearwater area, but a 'rip-off,
money motivated operation.'" Summary judgement dismissal was affirmed.
(Id., at 1287-1288)
	In Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984)
83 T.C. 381 in an extremely lengthy opinion, the court found "When we
consider all the facts spread across the voluminous record in this
case, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that one of
petitioner's overriding purposes was to make money. We also conclude
that criminal manipulation of the IRS to maintain its tax exemption
(and the exemption of affiliated churches) was a crucial and
purposeful element of  petitioner's financial planning. (Id., at
504-505)
	In New Era Publications International v. Henry Holt and Co. (1989)
873 F.2d 576 Scientology unsuccessful sought to enjoin the publication
of a book entitled Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story Of L. Ron
Hubbard. 
	In Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 the
underlying facts commenced in 1981 when Scientology, fearing a raid by
law enforcement agencies ordered the shredding of documents showing
Hubbard's control of the organization.  Over two million documents
were destroyed over a two week period.  Thereafter, Scientologist
Gerald Armstrong, privy to highly confidential and unfavorable
information about Hubbard, left the group.  He took documents with him
to protect himself from Scientology.  Shortly thereafter Scientology
sued him for "conversion" of the documents and lost in a court trial. 
Following the commencement of the lawsuit, one of Scientology's
private investigators assaulted Armstrong with a car. Scientology had
issued "suppressive person declares" which labeled Armstrong an "enemy
of the church" because he had taken an "unauthorized leave" and other
Scientology-crimes.  Being a suppressive person subjected Armstrong to
Scientology's "Fair Game Doctrine" which "permits a suppressive person
to be "tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed."  (Id., at 1065-1067,
1073)
	As related in United States v. Kattar (1988) 840 F.2d 118 Scientology
investigator Eugene Ingram suborned false statements so as to
implicate opposing counsel Michael J. Flynn in a scheme to steal a
$2,000,000 check from L. Ron Hubbard.  The statements against Flynn
were given substantial play in Scientology's newspaper, Freedom, and
publicized in a number of press conferences.  (Id., at 119-120)
	Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., affirmed a punitive
damage verdict against Scientology.  
		Evidence was introduced that, at least during the time relevant
to
Wollersheim's case, "fair game" was a practice of retribution
Scientology threatened to inflict on "suppressives," which included
people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to
the organization.  Once someone was identified as a "suppressive," all
Scientologists were authorized to do anything to "neutralize" that
individual-- economically, politically, and psychologically. 
		During trial, Wollersheim's experts testified Scientology's
"auditing" and  "disconnect" practices constituted "brain-washing" and
"thought reform" akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced
on American prisoners of war. They also testified this "brain-washing"
aggravated Wollersheim's bipolar manic-depressive personality and
caused his mental illness.  Other testimony established Scientology is
a hierarchical organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes
toward certain institutions and individuals--in particular, the
government, mental health professions, disaffected members and others
who criticize the organization or its leadership.  Evidence also was
introduced detailing Scientology's retribution policy, sometimes
called fair game.

(Id., 212 Cal.App.3d at 879-880)


	In United States v. Zolin (1989) 109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 the
Court addressed whether the attorney-client privilege between
Scientology and some of its attorneys should be abrogated on the basis
"that the legal service was sought or obtained in order to enable or
aid the client to commit or plan to commit a crime or tort."  (Id. at
2630, 105 L.Ed.2d at 489)  The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth
Circuit's ruling in Ã_ÃUnited States v. ZolinÄ_Ä Á______United States
v. Zolin (9th Cir. 1987) 809 F.2d 1411 that the Government had not
made a sufficient showing that there had been "illegal advice ... 
given by [Scientology] attorneys to [Scientology] officials" to invoke
the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.  Upon
reversing and remanding, the Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit
to review partial transcripts of the tape recording sought by the IRS
in a criminal investigation of Scientology to determine whether the
crime-fraud exception to the privilege applied. On remand, this the
Ninth Circuit held:
		The partial transcripts demonstrate that the purpose of the
[Mission
Corporate Category Sort Out] project was to cover up past criminal
wrongdoing. The MCCS project involved the discussion and planning for
future frauds against the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 371. 
[citation.]  The figures involved in MCCS admit on the tapes that they
are attempting to confuse and defraud the U.S. Government. The purpose
of the crime-fraud exception is to exclude such transactions from the
protection of the attorney-client privilege.

(United States v. Zolin (9th Cir. 1990) 905 F.2d 1344, 1345. cert.
denied, Church of Scientology v. United States (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1309)
	In Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States (1992) 26 Cl.Ct.
713 the court reviewed the manner in which Scientology is operated.
	CSI became the new mother church of Scientology.  It sits at the top
of a complex corporate hierarchy.  RTC is the entity charged with
maintaining doctrinal purity in the church.  CSI along with RTC form
the top-level ecclesiastical management of Scientology, although there
are numerous other churches and other entities that have a role in
management, finance or spiritual affairs . . . Ecclesiastical
oversight is accomplished by CSI through the Watchdog Committee
("WDC").  This committee is responsible for oversight of the
international management structure of Scientology organizations. . . .
The multiple layers of hierarchy thus create two different operational
levels.  The first is the management churches, which make all
organizational decisions. . . . After carefully examining the record
and attempting to understand the nominal corporate structure of
Scientology it is apparent to the court that it is something of a
deceptis visus.  Real control is exercised less formally, but more
tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the Sea Organization,
more commonly referred to as the Sea Org.  This group, in the nature
of a fraternity or clan, began with Scientologists who pledged
themselves eternally to Scientology and who accompanied LRH in his
sea-going spiritual research in the Mediterranean. . . . Sea Org
members are initiates into the highest levels of Scientology, and bear
concomitant responsibilities.  [] CST staff and officers are required
to be members of the Sea Org, which gives CST the distinction of being
a Sea Org Church.  CSI [and] RTC . . . all high ranking organizations
are Sea Org Churches.  Being a "Sea Org Church" means that the
church's function is important enough to Scientology to warrant the
attention of a significant number of Sea Org members.  Sea Org rank
nominally carries with it no ecclesiastical authority in the sense
that Sea Org members still take orders from the ecclesiastical leaders
of whichever Scientology organization they join.  Upon closer
analysis, however, this appears to be a distinction without a
difference because in a Sea Org church the ecclesiastical authority
necessarily resides in a Sea Org member."
	
(Id., at 717-718; emphasis in bold added)

	In Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777 the
underlying facts pertained to Scientology's ultimately successful
effort to destroy the Cult Awareness Network whose purpose was to
"educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as
practiced by destructive cults and about the unethical or illegal
practices they employ."  As a harassment measure pursuant having been
identified by Scientology as a "suppressive group" a CAN
representative received almost 500 letters from Scientologists to join
CAN.  Upon CAN's refusal, lawsuits followed.
	In Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628
Scientology was found to use the litigation system as a tool to
destroy its enemies.
	Declarations of former members and officials of the Church, Gerald
Armstrong and Vicki Aznaran, revealed the practices and policies of
the Church, including its "fair game" doctrine and employment of
litigation practices designed "to bludgeon the opposition into
submission," as well as attacks against judges who rule against it.
The declaration of an attorney who had represented the Church (Joseph
A. Yanny), submitted in an action brought by the Church against him
and others, related aspects of the Church's "fair game" doctrine,
including copies of exhibits to demonstrate "the Cult, according to
written policy, will use any means legal or illegal to subvert and
frustrate judicial process against them, and will willingly and
knowingly abuse judicial process in order to attack perceived
'enemies.'" 

(Id., at 641-642)

			b.	Scientology Does Not Engage In Successful Social
Functioning:
Instead It Preys On And Feeds Off Of The Dominant Culture

	It is clear that Scientology cannot be compared to the Amish in
Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra.   The primary difference is the manner in
which Scientology interferes with the rights and interests of others. 
It does not live and let live.  Scientology does not comply with law;
it breaks laws with what appears to be a calculus directed to the
"cost of doing business" which is making money.  It sues critics.  It
attacks anybody that impedes its advancement.  It cheats.  It lies. It
destroys.  In short, it maintains fidelity not to any religious
principles in any ethical way, but to its policy of opportunistic
hatred called "Fair Game."  When the only principle to which it
appears to bear allegiance over time holds that people whom it
perceives to be its enemies do not enjoy the same rights as do 
Scientologists because, impeding the advancement of Scientology, they
are deemed "suppressive persons," Scientology does not hold sincere
religious beliefs.  
	It is not a bona fide religion.
	C. 	To Conduct An Evidentiary Hearing So As To Examine The
Relationship Between Scientology's Ideology, Practices, Conduct And
Structures Does Not Violate The First Amendment 

	Relying on United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86,
Scientology contends that this Court must seek the least intrusive and
least entangling means to determine its bona fides.
It condemns a public bench trial as "a forbidden heresy trial, a
court-sanctioned attack on the nature of Scientology's religious
beliefs, or a Crucible-like public witch hunt." The only thing that
Ballard prohibits, however, is a judicial determination of the truth,
falsity or validity of religious belief.  Plaintiff does not seek to
prove that healing by means of the e-meter is false.  What plaintiff
challenges is the sincerity of Scientology's beliefs.  Plaintiff does
not seek to judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs.  (Id., 322
U.S. at 86-88) Since Scientology lies about its beliefs, it is not
sincere in holding them.
	Scientology contends that the court must accept its own
self-characterization as to the nature of its beliefs and practices.  
	"Constitutional principles of religious freedom mandate that current
Church leadership - not the courts, dissenters, or non-believers -
determine what are the beliefs and practices of that Church.  In a
very real constitutional sense, then, the Introspection Rundown is a
Scientology religious practice because official Church doctrine says
it is.  As the Supreme Court has reiterated, the 'civil courts are
bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a
religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of
discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule,
custom or law."  Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich 426 U.S.
696, 713 (1976) see Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Hull
Memorial Presbyterian Church 393 U.S. 440, 450 (1968) ("The First
Amendment prohibits civil courts from . . . determining matters at the
core of a religion - the interpretation of particular church doctrines
and the importance of those doctrines to the religion."

(Moving Memo at 48) 
	This misstates the law.  	
	The Supreme Court has recognized two primary first amendment
interests that favor judicial noninvolvement in an ecclesiastical
dispute.  The first of these first amendment concerns is the extent to
which judicial resolution of the particular controversy would involve
deciding issues of religious doctrine or beliefs. The second major
first amendment interest is that where religious organizations
establish rules for internal discipline and governance, and tribunals
for adjudicating disputes over these matters, "the Constitution
requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon
them." (Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696,
725.)
	The rule of deference to decisions of ecclesiastical bodies on
matters of internal church governance was first articulated in
Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1929) 280 U.S. 1 where for the
Court Justice Brandeis wrote that "because the appointment [to the
chaplaincy] is a canonical act, it is the function of the church
authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a
chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them."  (Id., at 16.)
 He concluded that "[i]n the absence of fraud, collusion, or
arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters
purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted
in litigation before civil courts as conclusive, because the parties
in interest made them so by contract or otherwise."  (Ibid.)
	Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952) 344 U.S. 94 and Serbian
Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696 makes clear that
the principle of deference to church authorities applies to disputes
concerning matters of internal church governance.  In Kedroff the
Court held that a state may not dictate which of two factions within
the Russian Orthodox Church has the power to appoint the ruling
hierarchy for the Russian Orthodox churches in America.   The Court
found that state legislation regulating matters of "church
administration, the operation of the churches, [and] the appointment
of clergy, by requiring conformity to church statutes adopted at a
general [church] convention," was contrary to the first amendment
because, in the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, 
matters of church governance are for the church to decide free from
state interference. Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1960) 363 U.S.
190 (Id., 344 U.S. at 107-108, 116)
	In Milivojevich, the Court further limited the "marginal court
review" endorsed in Gonzalez  by overruling Gonzalez to the extent
that it allowed civil courts to decide whether the question of the
highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with
church laws and regulations and was therefore not "arbitrary." 
(Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713.)  The Court found that such
"arbitrariness" review inconsistent with the "general rule" that
"religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court
inquiry," and that "civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of
the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical
polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or
ecclesiastical rule, custom or law."   Thus, the Court concluded that
civil courts may not decide, consistent with the first amendment,
whether the church complied with the procedural rules contained in the
church constitution and penal code in defrocking one of its bishops.
	Balanced against these two first amendment considerations favoring
civil court noninvolvement are state interests in resolving disputes
concerning civil rights and the individual interests in adjudicating
before a civil forum.  Even where church property is involved, the
state has a strong interest in rapid resolution of disputes concerning
ownership rights to property.  (See, e.g., Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443
U.S. 595, 602 ["The state has an obvious and legitimate interest in
the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil
forum where the ownership of church property can be determined
conclusively."]; Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull
Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440, 445 ["It is of
course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving
property disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that
resolution.']; Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952) 344 U.S. 94,
120 ["There are occasions when civil courts must draw lines between
the responsibilities of the church and state for the disposition and
use of property."]  
	Thus, the Jones court, over dissent, refused to adopt a rule of
compulsory deference to authoritative decisions of church bodies. 
(Jones v. Wolf, supra., 443 U.S. at 605.)  Instead, the "State is
constitutionally entitled to adopt neutral principles of law as a
means of adjudicating a church property dispute."  (Id., at 604)  
	As noted above, decisions born of fraud and collusion when church
tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes are excluded from the
scope of the defense of ecclesiastical abstention, notwithstanding
that they are ecclesiastical by nature. (Gonzalez, 280 U.S. at 16;
Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713.)
	As Kedroff teaches, "Legislative power to punish subversive action
cannot be doubted.  If such action should actually be attempted by a
cleric, neither his robe nor his pulpit would be a defense." (Kedroff,
344 U.S. at 109.)  Thus, when conduct claimed to be ecclesiastical and
beyond the ken of this court's scrutiny, is, in fact, fraudulent and
collusive, the jurisdiction of civil courts is not constitutionally
compelled to defer to religion's altar. (Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116, fn.
23; Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial
Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. at 447, 451.)  Marbury v. Madison (1803)
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232 
	What plaintiff seeks here is to vindicate her heinously violated
civil rights.
VI.	ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION, THAT STATUS DOES
NOT CONFER AN IMMUNITY UPON IT WHEREBY IT IS NOT TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS CONDUCT

		"(The First Amendment) embraces two concepts,--freedom to
believe
and freedom to act.  The first is absolute but, in the nature of
things, the second cannot be.  Conduct remains subject to regulation
for the protection of society.  
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84
L. Ed. 1213 (1940).

	The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. 
 (Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra., 406 U.S. at 215)  The free exercise
clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. (Cantwell v.
Connecticut, (1940) 310 U.S. 296 at pp. 303-304.) While a court can
inquire into the sincerity of a person's beliefs, it may not judge the
truth or falsity of those beliefs.  (United States v. Ballard, supra.,
322 U.S. 78, 86-88.)  The government may neither compel affirmation of
a religious belief (Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495), nor
penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of
their religious beliefs (Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67,
70), nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of
particular religious views (Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S.
105, 116 ).
	However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously
motivated conduct is not.  (Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398,
402-403;  People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718) Such conduct
"remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." 
(Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at p. 304, 60 S.Ct. at p.
903.)  Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a
balancing test, in which the importance of the state's interest is
weighed against the severity of the burden imposed  on religion. 
(Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at p. 214, 92 S.Ct. at p. 1532.) 
The greater the burden imposed on religion, the more compelling must
be the government interest at stake. (Compare Wisconsin v. Yoder,
supra, 406 U.S. at pp. 221-235 [government's strong interest in
educating citizens insufficient to justify educational requirement
that threatened continued survival of Old Order Amish communities],
with Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) 475 U.S. 503, 508  [government's
reasonable interest in uniform military attire sufficient to justify
mild burden on religious expression created by ban against Jewish
officer wearing a yarmulke].)  A government action that passes the
balancing test must also meet the further requirements that (1) no
action imposing a lesser burden on religion would satisfy the
government's interest and (2) the action does not discriminate between
religions, or between religion and nonreligion.  (Braunfeld v. Brown
(1961) 366 U.S. 599, 607)
	 Applying these criteria, the Supreme Court has allowed some
religious conduct to be banned entirely (see, e.g., Reynolds v. United
States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 166 [upholding law against polygamy]; 
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170-171 [permitting state
to prohibit parents from allowing their children to distribute
religious literature when necessary to protect children's health and
safety] ), and some conduct to be compelled in the face of religious
objections (see, e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11,
38,  [upholding compulsory vaccinations for communicable diseases]; 
United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252, 261 [upholding mandatory
participation of Amish in Social Security system] ).
	Religious activities, such as auditing or introspection rundown,
which are conducted under coercion are not protected under the first
amendment.  (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., 212
Cal.App.3d 891-895; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988)
46 Cal.3d 1092, 1118 ["The state clearly has a compelling interest in
preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting
unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process" as brainwashing])
 
VII.	FLAG IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
	If it is held that Scientology is not a religion, then of course FLAG
is not a religious organization.  But if some aspect of Scientology is
religious, FLAG is not automatically a religious organization.  Flag
urges this court to hold that Scientology is a religion.  It then
requests the court to take a leap of faith and hold that Flag is a
religious organization, i.e., a   church.  Although Florida statutes
fail to define the word "church", this word has been defined by the
courts.  A "church" is "a body or community of questions, united under
one form of government by profession of same faith, in observance of
same ritual and ceremonies and organization for religious purposes,
for public worship of God."  First Independent Missionary Baptist
Church of Chosen v. McMillan, 153 So. 2nd 337 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1963).
"Church" has been defined as "a body or community of Christians united
under one form of government by the profession of the same faith, in
the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies."  McNeilly v. First
Presbyterian Church in Brookline, 243 Mass. 331, 137 N.E. 691, 694). 
"An organization for religious purposes, for the public worship of
God."  Bennett v. City of Lagrange, 153 Ga. 428, 112 S.E.42, 45, 22 A.
L. R. 1312).  "The term may denote either a society of persons who,
professing Christianity, hold certain doctrines or observances which
differentiate them from other like groups, and who use a common
discipline, or the building in which such persons habitually assemble
for public worship."  (Baker v. Fales, 16 Mass.488, 498; Tate v.
Lawrence, 11Heisk. (Tenn.). Campus Crusade for Christ v. Unemployment
Appeals Commission, 702 So. 2nd 572 (Fla 5th DCA, 1997).  
	Per the attached affidavit of noted religious studies professor,
Stephen Kent, Ph.D., FLAG is not a religious organization.  As noted
above, Flag does not fit within the definition of "church". 
Therefore, it is not a religious organization. Campus Crusade for
Christ was held not to be a religious organization primarily because
its members belonged to other denominations.  In Scientology, members
are told that they need not relinquish membership in their current
religion.  Therefore, just as in Campus Crusade for Christ, Flag is
not a religious organization. Secondly, Flag does more than teach
courses and counseling, where only some are under a religious setting.
 It is a vacation spot, with a restaurant and bookstore.
	Scientology is a chameleon.  In some countries it never calls itself
a religion, but rather refers to itself as a philosophy. See Steven
Kent Affidavit. It does not hold itself out as a religion in Japan,
Greece, or Mexico.  In the United Kingdom, it has recently lost its
status as a charity/church organization because it does not benefit
society.  Even in the United States it tells newcomers that they may
maintain membership in their religion and yet still be a
Scientologist.  Recently it attempted to introduce Hubbard educational
methods in the California public school system.  It denied that it was
religious.  It teaches the same technology, its scripture, that it
urges this court to adopt as religious to businesses throughout the
world under its Sterling Management Company and through WISE, World
Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Any company controlled by public
members of Scientology must have their company be a dues paying and
Scientology tech controlled WISE business.  Allstate Insurance Company
has had Scientology courses taught to its employees!  Scientology
turns from philosophy to business system technology to religion at its
whim, at its sole convenience.  Is this a religion?

	Mr. Hubbard wrote in the "Manual of Justice" staff member
instructions as follows:
		"When things go wrong and we don't know why already by
intelligence,
we resort to investigation. When we need somebody haunted we
investigate. Investigation is the careful discovery and sorting of
facts.  Without good investigation we don't have Justice, we have
random vengeance.  When we investigate we do so noisily always.  And
usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover
no really pertinent facts.  Remember that- by investigation alone we
can curb pushes and  crush wildcat people and unethical "Dianetics and
Scientology" organizations.  It's almost funny.  We sometimes learn
nothing useful and yet because  people heard we were investigating
their consciences set them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. 
There's power in the question alone!...  Use the data you got from the
detective at long last to write a very tantalizing letter.  Don't give
him your data on him.  Just tell him we know something 	very
interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in to talk about
it.  (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion and
slander-people at that level often will, just to commit suicide-and
publish it in a paid ad in a paper if you get it.) Chances are he
won't arrive.  But he'll sure shutter into silence."
	Is this a religious writing or is it secular?  Is this part of the
holy Scripture of Scientology?
	When faced with a claim of practicing a religion, the courts do
inquire into the following factors to see if the organization
qualifies as a religion: ultimate ideas; metaphysical beliefs; moral
or ethical system; comprehensiveness of beliefs; accouterments of
religion; holidays; diet or fasting; appearance and clothing;
propagation.  Although not one of these factors is dispositive, the
factors should be seen as criteria that, if minimally satisfied,
counsel the inclusion of the beliefs within the term "religion". 
United States v. Meyers,  95 F. 3rd 1475, 1482-1483 (10th Cir., 1996).

	To have the protection of the Religion Clauses of the First
Amendment, the claims must be rooted in religious belief rather than
purely secular considerations.  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216,
92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533 (1972). There the analysis of the religious
beliefs of the Amish parents' free exercise claim was" tied heavily to
the Amish's long history, respectable character, and unblemished
pattern of social conduct. Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of
Mobile County, 655 F.Supp. 939 (S.D.Al., 1987). (emphasis added). 
Scientology lacks in all three.
	 Therefore, just because Scientology called something spiritual
treatment does not automatically render it religious.  If it is a
science or pseudo- psychiatry based upon scientifically  proven
evidence as Hubbard claims, then it is not depended upon belief or
faith, and is therefore not religious.  Scientology's "Scripture" that
addresses multiple lives, i.e., reincarnation, and the immortal spirit
are trappings appropriated from other established religions and
therefore fits within the definition of a religion.  However, this
does not extend to those writings which Hubbard claims to be strictly
scientific, such as "isolation" and the "Introspection Rundown".
	The critical question is whether the religiosity claims of
Scientology are true religious beliefs which are sincerely held.  U.S.
v. Seeger, 380 U.S 163 (1965).  "Purely personal, political,
ideological, or secular beliefs probably would not satisfy enough
criteria for inclusion" of the beliefs within the term "religion." 
See Yoder at 216, where personal beliefs and philosophical beliefs are
secular beliefs.  Even when secular and religious beliefs overlap only
in the sense that the person holds secular beliefs which apply so
deeply that he has transformed them into a "religion", it does not
change the fact that his beliefs do not constitute a "religion" as
that term is uneasily defined by law.  Meyers at 1483.  If the beliefs
are accurately defined as a philosophy and/or way of life, it is not a
religion.  Meyers at 1484.  
		"A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be
interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if
it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection
of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious
belief.  Although a determination of what is a ' religious' belief or
practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most
delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes
allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct
in which society as a whole has important interests.  Thus, if the
Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and
rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority,
much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated
himself at Waldon Pond, their claims would not rest on religious
basis.  Thoreau's choice was philosophical and personal rather than
religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the
Religion Clauses."
Yoder at 216.  
	So what do the courts have to say about Scientology?  "After
carefully examining the record in attempting to understand the nominal
corporate structure of Scientology it is apparent to the court that it
is something of a deceptis visus.  Real control is exercised less
formally, but more tangibly, through an unincorporated association,
the Sea Organization, more commonly referred to as the Sea Org."
Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 713, 717
(US Cl.Ct., 1992).  There CST was appealing the Commissioner's denial
of their tax-exempt religious organization status.  The court
recognized that all of the Scientology organizations, such as Flag, a
management church, was staffed solely by Sea Org members who manage
the money through SO Management Services, Ltd., a for-profit
corporation in the United Kingdom, which acts as an agent for U.S.
churches and trusts which hold Central Reserve Accounts.  CST at
footnote 23, p. 724.  The court also noted that Flag had given a one
time grant of $18 million to CST as a startup fund.
	More importantly, the court noted in CST that L. Ron Hubbard
controlled all of Scientology, including Scientology's finances and
policies through his senior position in the Sea Org.   In the instant
case, Defendant, David Miscavige, assumed Mr. Hubbard's position in
the Sea Org following the death of Mr. Hubbard in 1986.  "The mere
fact that an organization has a tax-exempt purpose or activity does
not mean that it does not also have a purpose or activity that is
non-exempt. One substantial non-exempt purpose will make an
organization ineligible for tax-exempt status, even if all of its
other purposes are exempt.  CST at 729.	The court noted that
Scientology has a preoccupation with money which is more fully
revealed in Scientology's Doctrine of Exchange, which is the
Scientology doctrine that requires all Scientologists to pay for their
courses and counseling.  (Emphasis added).  Because of the Doctrine of
Exchange, the United States Supreme Court held that auditing and
counseling are not tax deductible items. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 
490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136.
	While the court noted that Scientology is a religion, it held that
CST is not a religious organization, even though its sole purpose is
to archive all of the scripture of Scientology.  Likewise, Flag should
not be considered a church, i.e., a religious organization, even
though it may teach some arguably religious courses and conduct 
"auditing", since not all courses and auditing are arguably religious.
Founding Church of Scientology and  United States v. Article or Device
"Hubbard Electrometer".
	The final question is whether the religious aspects of Scientology,
and thus Flag, are sincerely held. Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, and
Robert Young discuss how Scientology staff were ordered to put on the
minister garb when Scientology knew the press or government officials
were coming.  Even Paul Greenwood, a staff member of Flag who carried
Lisa McPherson's dead body out of the Ft. Harrison Hotel stated in his
deposition that Scientology is not a religion.  Other former
Scientologists have so testified.  VIII.	IS THE INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN
A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE?
	Lisa McPherson wanted out of Scientology and was continuously
suffering a psychotic break days before being taken into the Ft.
Harrison Hotel. She was therefore incapable of giving informed
consent.  Even if she could, nothing would indicate to her that she
was being treated for a life-threatening problem. Thus, there is no
evidence that there was any consent to spiritual or secular 
treatment.  If a recognized religious practice is done coercively, the
practice loses all constitutional protection. Wollersheim v. Church of
Scientology of California, 212 Cal.App. 3rd 872, 66 Cal. Rpt.2nd 1
(Cal.App.2nd, 1989).
	Per the attached affidavit by Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D., the
Introspection Rundown is not a religious practice. There is nothing in
the Hubbard written Introspection Rundown which states that it is a
religious practice.  Hubbard claimed it was a scientific breakthrough
to replace psychiatry in his attempt to take over the mental healing
profession.
	 Flag denies vehemently that Lisa was involved in this rundown.  See
attached Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Flag's Response; and
Flag's  answers to  Plaintiff's Interrogatories which state that Lisa
was there only for rest and may have been being readied for the
treatment per Bulletin entitled "How to Treat a Psychotic," a bulletin
written in 1950 before Hubbard claimed any religiosity.  
	This bulletin states as follows:
		"...4. Do not use hypnotics or depressants or attempt to work
with
the person under their influence. Dianetics wakes people up.  It does
not put them to sleep.  Engrams may be contacted when a person is
under the influence of a depressant, but they will not reduce or erase
without the greatest difficulty.	If an auditor can secure the
cooperation of a medical doctor it may be found useful to use
stimulants.  Follow the doctor's advice about what stimulants to try
and about dosages.  In the absence of the physician, strong black
coffee is sometimes of assistance in waking up the analyzer enough to
establish communication.  When a psychotic has reached the point where
he does not talk at all, or does not hear when a spoken to, other
measures may have to be taken to attract attention.  A strong, steady
light, a flashing light, a steady monotonous noise have  been found
useful.  Again, these are matters which require individual initiative
on the part of an auditor, and, whenever possible, should be left for
a Hubbard Dianetics Auditor who has had experience with other, milder
types of psychosis.

		Type IIIs are poisoned by the SPs in their overall environment. 
Thus, in order to bring them back to a "Type II" level where they can
be reached by Scientology, "you must disconnect the person from the
environment." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) 
	The process of disconnecting a psychotic person from her environment
"is not treatment as such.  It is to provide a relatively safe
environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at
all. . . . Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary, as
intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quieting drugs) may
be necessary. . . . removed from apparent SPs, kept in quiet
surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person
comes up to Type II and a Search and Discovery should end the matter."
 (Ex.D to Motion at 4) .
	The above shows that there is no secular or spiritual treatment at
all!  The idea is to get the person physically well so that the person
comes up to Type II.  Only when the person is Type II does Hubbard
write that the Introspection Rundown and other auditing can begin. 
Lisa never made it to TYPE II.
	The recorded interviews of those immediately in charge of Lisa
McPherson to law enforcement also deny that any tech was being
administered and state several times that Lisa was a mere hotel guest
there for rest and relaxation.  Will Flag  take the position that
resting at the hotel as a guest is also "spiritual treatment"?

IX.    CONCLUSION
	This court should not succumb to the dictates of Scientology. 
Advisory opinions are not permissible. Religiosity is not an issue,
since Lisa McPherson was not involved in any claimed religious
treatment.  In fact, she was not involved in any treatment at all. 
She was merely a hotel guest! 
	 The court can assume the religiosity of Scientology as it has done
in the past in considering the unsuccessful motions to dismiss of the
defendants, since the defendants cannot escape liability under the
Religion Clauses nor RFRA for murder, false imprisonment, or
outrageous conduct.  
	Summary adjudication on the claimed religiosity is not proper since
there are many factual issues.
	Per the previously discussed voluminous case law on Scientology, it
is not a claimed religion worthy of constitutional protection.
					Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________
KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ.
DANDAR & DANDAR, P.A.
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Post Office Box 24597
Tampa, Florida 33623-4597
813-289-3858/FAX: 813-287-0895
Florida Bar No. 289698
Attorney for Plaintiff

FORD GREENE, ESQ.
The Hub Law Offices 
711 Sir Francis Drake
San Anselmo, California 94960
415-258-0360
Of counsel for Plaintiff

	I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
been furnished by U.S. Mail this 18th day of January, 2000, to the
attached service list.


________________________________
KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ.

PreviousNext