IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1989 LARRY WOLLERSHEIM, Petitioner, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

On Petiton for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals Second Appellate District

Lawrence D. Wollersheim


Whether an organization can use the legal advantages, protections, and immunities of the First Amendment exercise clause to "legally" dis- advantage adversaries and paradoxically' bar, impede, cloak, seal or otherwise render inadmissable or unusable, evidence that would reveal the organization to be, in fact, a counterfeit of religion and unworthy of the exercise clause's sanctuary and advantages?

Achieved in part, by way of an unforseen "new technologies" loophole which affects the validity of the exercise clause's "good faith" test.


From the very beginning stages of this case, Wollersheim directly and indirectly asserted that Scientology is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" hiding illegitimately in the sanctuary of First Amendment's exercise clause protections and paradoxically using those same protections to cloak its real nature. Wollersheim asserted that Scientology is not a genuine religion and auditing is not a genuine religious practice. More importantly, however, Wollersheim contended and produced evidence that Scientology was presented to him without any genuine religious overlay, setting, context, content, substance or purpose. Scientology and its expert witnesses contended otherwise.

Scientology contended throughout the case that everything written by L. Ron Hubbard for Scientology and Dianetics was copyrighted religious scripture or copyrighted religious practices, everything from Hubbard's "how to wash a car" bulletin to the "fair game" policy in which an enemy "[theyl 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." During the case and throughout appeal Scientology argued that the right to practice its religion either barred the charges or required a reversal of the judgment in its favor.

Wollersheim's case contended and the evidence established that Scientology's conduct toward Wollersheim occurred over a 16 year period. This conduct occurred as necessary steps in the implementation of top management's surreptitious program to use pain, coercive persuasion.B and ignorance to insidiously subjugate Wollersheim to Scientology's will, domination and control. While religious trappings may have been fabricated for a First Amendment defense to enemy attacks, genuine religious notions were absent internally.

Wollersheim's evidence asserted that in addition to the way it was used on Wollersheim, Scientology used thought reform and coercive persuasion as their central and standardized practice to obtain members, to maintain membership, and to exercise undue influence over its members finances.

Expert witnesses for Wollersheim, Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe testified that it was the technological processes of coercive persuasion themselves, void of any belief or idea content, that interfered with Wollersheim's ability to accept or reject ideas or beliefs in a way that would be meaningfully, volitional, or informed.

Dr. Singer went on to testify that there were five major cataclysmic breakdowns caused by Scientology's coercive persuasion practices applied to Wollersheim. The fifth and final cataclysmic breakdown brought Wollersheim to nearly committing suicide.

Throughout the trial, Wollersheim's evidence and experts demonstrated auditing was inherently and intrinsicly a coercive persuasion type practice based on creating hypnotic or trance like states of increased suggestability and decreased independent judgment. Wollersheim personally testified in detail about the first hypnotic trance he was unknowingly and involuntarily placed into on the beginning communication course on "TR-O". This was his "decision point" to becoming a Scientology member. Wollersheim went on to testify that when- ever he was having difficulties in Scientology he was re-audited on the even more powerful hypnotic and trance inducing practices called "The Objectives".

Wollersheim testified for approximately 22 days, 18 days of which were cross-examination. He testified as to every detail of his 1968-1980 membership and described the nature, content, substance, sequence of every alleged process, procedure and/or program conducted on him, excepting those key secret upper level techniques upon which Scientology used its religious immunities to bar. These materials were the very areas most closely associated with the five cataclysmic breakdowns and Scientology's secret internal documents where it talks about religion being an abberation that needs to be audited out.

At the law-and-motion stage, to prove its religion claim, two affidavits were submitted by Scientology. When weighed against the overwhelming weight of evidence from other prior cases like the IRS case and documents from the authorized FBI search, these two affidavits were, as Wollersheim contested, insignificant and insufficient proof. Later, much of the evidence which Wollersheim was able to get admitted at trial, again showed Scientology as it actually operates, which, contrary to the form declarations in support of Scientology's summary adjudication motion, is both a mockery of religion and a substantial threat to the public safety, peace, and order.

"Since the trial court granted summary adjudication that Scientology is a religion and "auditing" is a religious practice, the trial proceeded none-the-less under the legal assumption that they were such.

Shackled by the courts treating Scientology as a religion, and the legal paradox of no real remedy to remove the complete "bonifide" status of a mockery of religion, Wollersheim continued to try to enter into the record evidences in other admissable ways that Scientology was a fraud operating for non-religious, commercial, and political purposes.

Wollersheim tried to enter many of the documents siezed by the FBl in its authorized search, documents that showed a clear picture of the real Scientology's secret internal purposes, policies, actions, and intentions. Since the reiigion issue had been decided already, many of these key documents were denied entry under the "catch all" of creating more passion than the value of the evidence. Wollersheim believed First Amendment difficulties were the real issue.

Key testimony about Scientology's religious front and how and why a Guardian Officer must be made a minister was also barred during Eddie Walter's testimony. Finally, evidence that Scientology considers religion an abberation to be audited out was entered in another way, but then sealed and denied to the jury.

Judge Margolis was first to rule that Scientology was to produce Wollersheim's auditing records, guardian files, and ethics files complete and unaltered. Scientology delayed, claiming religious privilege. Judge Swearinger, the trial court judge, ruled again that these files were not subject to the priest penitent privilege and orderded them produced. The judge later amended his order and excluded all secret upper level materials.

On the very last day of the trial, Scientology produced, out of what would have been 10 feet or more of documents, olle small packing box of records which they had pre-culled at their own discretion.

The missing 9 feet of materials contained additional key proofs of: (1) coerced documents and affidavits that were used against Wollersheim at trial, signed by Wollersheim many times while in trance; (2) Evidence in their own files of fair game applied toward Wollersheim and his case; (3) the causes of the five cataclysmic breakdowns; and, (4) documents directly related to proving that one of the most central and secret teachings of the "church" of Scientology is, the very concept of religion and much of what we accept in the very broadest of terms to be the conceptual content of religion (Crod, the devil, Jesus Christ, Heaven, etc.) were created by an alien invader force millions of years ago. Religion itself and what we generally accept as its content were created using "electronic forces" by this invader force as a tool and an abberation to enslave and control the past population of earth. These electronicallv induced concepts of religion must now be audited out of therrent population.

Prior to the trial, Wollersheim's fraud and misrepresentation causes of action were non-suited. The remaining major cause of acrion for intentional infliction of emotional injury became the centerpiece of the case which went to the jury. This claim actually cumulated four courses of conduct which together were some of the main factors which inflicted severe emotional damage on Wollersheim. These courses of conduct were: (1) subjecting Wollersheim to forms of coercive persuasion ("audit- ing") which aggravated an asymptomatic and dormant predisposition to bipolar manic-depression:E (2) psychologically coercing him to "disconnect" from his family; (3) "disclosing personal information" Wollersheim revealed during auditing under a mantle of confidentiality; and, (4) conducting a retributive campaign ("fair game") against Wollersheim and particularly against his business enterprise.

Substantial evidence supported the finding that Scientology created a coercive environment and Wollersheim continued to submit to the practices of Scientology such as "disconnect" because of the powers of coercive persuasion. There was also substantial evidence presented that Scientology leaders were aware of Wollersheim's psychological vulnerability and yet continued practices during auditing sessions which caused the kinds of psychological stress that led to Wollersheim's mental breakdown. Thus, there is adequate proof the coercive persua- sion aspects of auditing caused real harm to Wollersheim and that Scientology's conduct was outrageous. Wollersheim suffered and will continue to suffer from mental disorders, losses, fears, phobias, and problems.

The outrageous conduct of Scientology was made more reprehensible by the fact that the conduct was not just a matter of isolated occurrences. Scientology's conduct occurred as a part of a deliberate and intentional, extensively designed and structured pattern of such conduct, and was extensively applied as the routine!

Two important witnesses for Wollersheim's case were Laurel Sullivan and Eddie Walters. The first, Ms. Laurel Sullivan, was a member of Scientology for 15 years (1966- 1981). She had worked closely with L. Ron Hubbard. She had duties and responsibilities at the top management level and was knowlcdgeable ahout the entire structure, lines of control, and command of Scientology's extensive interrelated worldwide activities.

She testified extensively about Scientology's organizational structure and the manner, means, methods, policies and lines of authority through which Scientology's top management controlled and directed all Scientology organizations and activities. She also testified about the meaning and binding nature of various directives, bulletins, and policies. She completely described and explained the Structure and the methods, means and operations by which the organization controlled members such as Wollersheim. She testified that all of the alleged conduct was directed and controlled by Scientology's top management. Although she was subjected to rigorous cross examination, her testimony was not impeached, discredited, contradicted or disputed by Scientology's evidence. (Laurel SuIlivan, R.T. Vols. 7- 9,PP.716-1156).

Wollersheim's other key witness was Mr. Ed Walters, who became a member of Scientology in 1969-70 and underwent extensive continuous training as an auditor and was one of` the few who was trained and certified to audit at any level or grade of processing/auditing up to the then highest level. Mr. Walters served in a variety of other positions from 1970 to 1978 and was a trained Guardian's Office undercover intelligence operative from 1971 to l978. He became aware of, assisted and/or perfonned in a variety of illegal, improper or fraudulent Guardian's Office operations against enemies. Consistent with policy, he was ordained a minister in approximately 1971 at the beginning of his duties as an undercover intelligence operative for Guardian's Office (pursuant to policy, Wollersheim was subjected to a number of procedures and activities by the Guardian's Office, particularly Bureau I, Intelligence Bureau, from approximately 1972 to 1986).

Mr. Walters had extensive personal knowledge of the organizational structure of the Guardian's Office ("G.O."), the lines of authority, the division of responsibilities, the purpose, function and operation of the various bureaus and the use of a "RELIGIOUS FRONT".

Bureau I ("BI") was the intelligence bureau which identified, planned and implemented the operation to identify, infiltrate, incapacitate and remove all potential threats and enemies to Scientology.

He testified that by express G.O. policies, every person or group that directly or indirectly criticized, doubted, opposed or contradicted, intert`ered with or threatened any activity, goal, technique or policy of Scientology was a suppressive person ("SP"). Whether the person or group unintentionally, unknowingly, or coincidentally antagonized, Scientology's fair game policy applied to the suppressive and programs and operations to handle the enemy were designed and implemented.

Bureau I located, planned, designed, implemented and coordinated the operations against SP's.

Walters testified about the role and responsibilities of Bureau I(lntelligence), Bureau Il(Public Relations), Bureau III (Legal), Bureau IV (Finance), and Bureau V (Social Coordination), concerning their coordinated and interrelated operations as integral parts of programs to locate, infiltrate and disable, incapacitate and/or remove a potential danger or threat such as Wollersheim. All such people and groups were SP's, an enemy by definition and fair game.

Mr. Walters also testified that in June 1976, pursuant to specific applicable policies, Wollersheim, because of his breakdown from auditing, definitely became an SP. He was then by policy subject to fair game law.

He further testified as to the lines of authority that directed the conduct toward Wollersheim and the interrelationship of the policies that authorized and compelled the conduct.

Mr. Walters was cross-examined extensively, but his testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence were never credibly impeached, refuted, contradicted or discredited by appellant.

Wollersheim's parents, his sister and his former wife came from Wisconsin and testified on their personal knowledge of Scientology and Scientology's conduct towards them during and after Wollersheim's membership. They testified as to the development and progression of his strange, bizarre, and at times, violent behavior as his involvement and participation in the Scientology system increased and intensified.

They testified as to their observations of the manifestation and progression of a hypnotic trance and his abrupt, painful, insensitive and cold termination of any relationship, contact or association with any of them at the whim, direction and control of Scientology.

They each also described the nature, content and substance of Scientology's contacts with them during and after Wollersheim's membership. This included some knowledge of some of Scientology's efforts to find, threaten, harass, frighten and injure him. There was testimony that his parents and sister were contacted by and through various means. His sister testified as to the post-1979 visit by two of Scientology's members who informed her that Wollersheim was fair game.

Wollersheim obtained a judgment of $5,000,000.00 in compensatory damages and an assessment of $25,000,000.00 in punitive damages against Scientology, said judgment being entered on July 22, 1986.

Then the California appeals court decision reduced the compensatory damages award from $5,000,000.00 to $500,000.00, the punitive damages assessment from $25,000,000.00 to $2,000,000.00 and affirmed the judgment as reduced.

On August 17, 19X9 the California court of appeals denied a petition for rehearing but made changes in its final decision. There were two significant changes.

In the original decision, they replaced "we find it especially excessive given the nature of the outrageous conduct in this particular case" with "respondent asserts appellant's true net worth approaches 250 million not 16 million and thus the punitive damage is not excessive. However the respondent failed to prove the higher net worth figure at trial."

In the second significant change, they replaced "This appears not just excessive but preposterous" with "This ratio is well outside the permissable range established in other appellate cases.

On October 26, 19X9 the Supreme Court of California turned down Wollersheim's petition.


There is a legal paradox in this case regarding the exercise clause protections and advantages that is applicable in many other individual, government, and corporate cases against Scientology and other such or~anizations. Due in major part to this unsettled paradox, attempting to legally demonstrate that Scientology is in fact a mockery of religion has been unsuccessful.

The paradox partially exists in that there is no clear cut legal remedy to de-certify and/or completely remove ALL exercise clause protections once a counterfit religion has been "established." Consequently, a hypothetical "wolf in sheep's clothing" can remain in the "sanctuary" potentially forever without ever losing all of its considerable exercise clause, legal and financial advantages, defenses and immunities. Moreover, once "established", this hypothetical "wolf in sheep's clothing" can then deny, impede, and unfairly burden its legal adversaries using those same ill-gotten advantages to further inhibit, either piercing the "religious veil" or the seeking of redress on other legitimate matters.

Now add to this paradox the additional liability of new technologies like coercive persuasion's abilities to render the legally accepted validity of the traditional "good faith" test for granting immunity for reliEious representations highly questionable,F and the recipe for maintaining a counterfeit religion in the exercise clause sanctuary is dangerously close to perfect.

Because Scientology treats all of its literature and practices as copyrighted holy scripture and copyrighted religious practice not subject to courtroom evaluation, and protected by the First Amendment via the "good faith" sincerity test, and, because Scientology uses coercive persuasion as a central and standardized practice, there are very compelling reasons to carefully consider this Writ.

First, Scientology is a substantial threat to public safety, peace, and order. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children and the family institution since the family almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs sig- nificant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion.G

In United States v. Lee 455 U.S. 252,257-258 (1982), the California Supreme Court found that "when a person is subjected to coercive persuasion without his knowledge or consent ... [he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide."

The State also has a compelling interest in the freedoms of thought, choice and speech of its citizens, freedoms which are recognized in its statutes and case law and which are basic to our democratic institutions.

These interests may include the preservation of the mental and physical health of citizens, the prevention of "religious despotism," and the protection of children or young adults whose maturation could be impaired by psychological assaults.

The dangerous conduct demonstrated by Wollersheim's evidence in this case was reflective of Scientology's REAL nature and operations, and this conduct has not just been directed at Wollersheim. Scientology, through its Guardian Office, was to remove all obstacles to Scientology's advancement, and was to accomplish this illegallv, as reflected by express orders to frame, smear or blackmail "supressive persons", for example, judges who bad ruled against Scientology's position, including Judge Jones, Oregon, 1981; Judge Grey, U.S.D.C., 1976, Judge Brown, California Superior Court, 1976; Judge Krentzman, U.S.D.C., Florida, 1976; Justice J. Skelly Wright, D.C., 1974. Wollersheim's opposition also included citation to the 282-page "Stipulation of Evidence", signed in 1979 by nine of petitioner's upper echelon officials when they pleaded guilty to the extensive burglaries, forgeries, "infiltration", "obstruction of justice" and other crimes against the United States carried on by petitioner throughout the 70's against over 100 Federal agencies, including the IRS, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and U.S. Coast Guard. (See United States v. Hubbard et al., Crim. No. 78-401, D.C. D.C. (1979), Hon. Charles R. Richey.

Executive and judicial inquiries, here and abroad,I likewise reveal the real "church" of Scientology. In U.S. v. Heldt, et al., 668 E2d 1238 (D.C. Cic 1980) cert. denied 456 U.S. 926 (1982), the facts showed that "church" personnel had secreted and destroyed documentary evidence of crime, 668 E2d at 124.7, n.8, had committed illegal break-ins and theft, id. at 1244, 1247, 1248, had electronically bugged government offices, ibid, had lied to federal investigators and a grand jury, id. at 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1253, had suborned perjury, id. at 1247, 1253, had forcibly restrained, kidnapped, handcuffed and gagged a potentially adverse witness, id. at 1244, 1273, and had formulated "conspiracies to obstruct justice, steal government property, burglarize, bug, harbor fugitives from justice, and commit and suborn perjury before the grand jury," id., n. 27 at 1258.

In the 1984 case of Church of Scientolo~v of California v~i~g, (No. C 420153 Cal. Super. Ct. June 20, 19X4), the court found the record to be "replete with evidence" that the Church or its minions "engaged in intimidation or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends." Id. at 8. The court agreed that Scientology "is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount df money from irs adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories .. ~ to estrange adepts from their families and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect." Ibid

In U.S. v. Article or Device, su~ra, the court examined Scientology's claim that E-meter auditing improves one's health and abilities. The court ruled that Scientology's claims were "quackery," "extravagant", and "false." id. at 359, "in short, a fraud with absolutely no scientific or medical basis in fact." Ibid. The court further held that most of the materials sold and distributed in connection with "auditing" were "devoid of any religious overlay or reference," id. at 361, but instead are "replete with false medical and scientific claims." Ibid.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's finding that the "church" of Scientology is not worthy to qualify for the federal tax exemption granted to truly charitable and religious organizations. Church of Scientolonv v. Comm., suora, 823 F.2d 1310.

Secondly, within this legal paradox the government may be acting contrary to the "benevolant neutrality " concept of the First Amendment by giving the exercise advantages to organizations that use the technologies of thought reform and coercive persuasion to interfere with the rights of its citizens to excercise their own free and informed choice. Through indirect subsidy the state may even be assisting in comoeilin~ its citizens to adopt a particular view or affiliate with a particualr organization.

The government also indirectly could be promoting one religion over another by giving the exercise advantages to organizations that use thought reform and coercive persuasion as central practices to acquire new members, maintain memberships, and obtain UNDUE INFLUENCE over their members' assets and finances. Almost all other religions would most certainly decline to use such reprehensible techniques as beyond all decency and beyond what many faiths could consider fair treatment for what is often believed to be the Supreme Being's greatest gift to man, "FREE WILL".

The above situation could well be a "high" technology twist on Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246-247 n.23 (1983) (statute that "distinguishes between 'well-established churches'. .. and'churches which are new and lacking in a constituency" held unconstitutional).

In that, the effect would be to favor and advanlage a ne~ aggressively "proselytizing" organization using coercive persuasion techniques over the older more traditional religions who would not use them.

Next, beginning almost immediately after Dianetics and Scientology appeared in the carly 50's there has been a growing Hnd intensifying national and international record of contention with Scientology's assertion it is a bonafide religion. For almost 40 years this re-occuring legal question has not been quashed or diminished in spite of all the legal paradoxes it must firsl overcome. Millions of dollars in non-taxpayer and taxpayer money has been spent investigating and litigating with Scientology up to, but not beyond the threshold of this paradox.

Absence of clear-cut precedent on this specific legal paradox involving the First Amendment has hindered lower court judges on this case and many other cases in knowing how to "fairly" rulel in light of ALL the evidence, regarding whether Scientology is a genuine religion. In W~llersheims's Californii~ court of appeals decision it was stated, "... evidence was no~ introduced at thc trial on the specific issue of whether Scientology is a religion. Given that vacuum of inlbm~i~tion, it would be presumptuous of this court to attempt a definitive decision on this vital question. We note other appellate courts havc observed that this remains a very live and interesting qucstion."

Then Decision goes on to cite Foundinfi Church of $cientolo~v v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969), 409 F.2d. ll96 and Foundin~ Church of Scientolo~v v. Webster (D.C. Cir 1986), 802 f.2d. 144X. 1451 (1948) ["whether Scien~ology is a religious organization, a for-profit private enterprise, or something far more extraordinary [is] an intriguing question that this suit does not call upon us to examine .. ~ '1~)

In Foundin~ Church of Scientolo~y of Washin~ton, D.C. v~J_I~, 409 E2d 1146 (1160-1161)D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 915 (1969), the D.C. circuit expressly lamented that Scientology's claim of religious practice was not contested or disputed. As that court implied, the religiosity should have been contested and with good reason.

Moreover, following that circuit's remand, the subsequent trial resulted in another decision. That final decision described Scientology as it was in practice then. It was more organized but no different throughout the 1970's. That decision also lamented the government's failure to earlier contest the religiosity claim United States v. Article or Device, 333 E supp. 357 (197]).

Thirdly, from a constitutional perspective, there are additional good reasons for accepting this petition. "What is and what is not a religion is a matter of delicacy and courts must be ever careful not to permit their own moral and ethical standard to determine religious implications of beliefs and practices of others.

Subtle and difficult though the inquiry may be it should not be avoided for reasons of convenience. There is need to develop a sharper line of demarcation between religious activities and personal codes of conduct that lack spiritual import. Those who seek the constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms this sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in antisocial conduct that otherwise stands condemned." (U.S. v. Kuch 288 E Supp. 439 1968).

Justice Welsh also helped mark out some of the outer boundaries of religion by restricting non-religious beliefs to those that rest "solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency. ("Welsh v. U.S. 398 U.S. 333 1970).

Furthermore, the government may be establishing Scientology to the detriment of its other citizens with the exercise clause's considerable advantages on too of Scientology's own devastating "internal legal policies". These "internal legal policies" are used to suppress, intimidate and harass its perceived enemies. In his own writings L. Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology, set forth the following policy. He wrote:

"The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than to win."

At another point Hubbard wrote:

"Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology."

In one of his books, Hubbard gives even more explicit instructions about how lawsuits should be filed against people even against the advice of counsel. He wrote:

"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, will knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of cource, ruin him utterly......'' (From A Manual on the Dissemination of Material (1955), by L. Ron Hubbard).

It is now beyond dispute that this directive has been reemphasized, reinforced and refined by Scientology in the years since 1955. The policy, as stated in HCO Policy Letter of 25 February, 1966, "Attacks on Scientology" is clear:

~'NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.

"This is correct procedure: (1) Spot who is attacking us. (2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse, using our own professionalsJ~ not outside agencies. (3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them. (4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press."

"Don't ever tamelv submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, roucyh on attackers all the way~"

"You can get "reasonable about it" and lose... so BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended i~nd start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us-only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us."

Thirty years ago, Hubbard directed a member to:

"... cause blue t7ame to dance on the courthouse roof until everyone has apologized profusely for having dared to become so adventurous as to arrest a Scientologist who, as a minister of the church, was going HbOUt his reEular duties."

Scientology's supression of adversaries from the legitimitizing First Amendment safe sHnctuary has been expanded. Hubbard/Scientology realized that many people cannot afford the financial burden of defending themselves in litigation. As his own financial resources grew, he was able to aff`ord lawyers in cities all over the world to do his bidding. He launched a campaign of legal terrorism against all who dared to say anything about Scientology. In a document written by Jane Kember, at the time one of the highest ranking members of the Guardian's Office, there is a blunt discussion of how knowingly frivolous lawsuits can be used to drive publishers into submission. Kember states that since in the U.S. a person who loses a lawsuit is not required to pay the opponents' costs, frivolous suits are an effective means of imposing unbearable financial burdens on publishers and thereby suppressing publication of material on Scientology.

Looking at the APPARENCY of Scientology versus its actions, results, and history, one sees two Scientology's. One, the inner secret and genuine Scientology and two, the outer Scientology cloaked with counterfeit religiosity. In this case, through the paradox of the exercise clause's legitimate self-perpetuating mechanisms, this schizophrenic contradiction has been unresolvable because the counterfeit has been protected as a byproduct of protecting the bonafide, a result reasonably neither envisioned or believably intended by our constitutional forefathers.

"There will be no immunity if religion is merely used as a protective mantle, or cloak to insulate conduct". (Peoole v. Woodv [61 Cal, 2d.] p 718).

If that is true for conduct, should it not be even more true for removing a "bonafide" religion's status, if "counterfeit religiosity" is cleverly used as a protective mantle or cloak to insulate itself from discovery as a mockery?

This apparency and cloaking strategy shows itself in U.S. v. Article and Device. That court found that Scientology was oft-times secular or scientific in presentation and operation and other times aoparently religious. (United States v. Article or Device, 333 E Supp. 357 [1971].)

Scientology has been wearing its cloak and mantle of counterfeit religiosity since the early 50's when it switched from selling psuedo psychotherapy and changed its organizational structure from a commercial to a religious corporation. At the Clearwater Commission hearings, the son of Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., who had himself been a top-ranking Scientologist, testified that the reason his father began claiming Scientology is a religion was to escape problems he was having with courts, the IRS and the American Medical Association, and to make money. (Tr. at Vol. I, pp. 286, 276. CIearwater Commission Reports).

Scientology's evolution into becoming a "religion" was not a "good faith" evolution of evolving religious tenents but was driven by legal, safety, and commercial motives. Over the ensuing years, this cloak has been deliberately saturated and soaked with thicker and thicker layers of deliberately confusing counterfeit religiosity.

When the Commissioners of the City of Clearwater convened public hearings on Scientology on May 5-10, 19X2, they received documentary and testimonial evidence with respect to the operation, activities and conduct of the Church of Scientology. Based upon the sworn testimony of witnesses, affidavits, state and federal court decisions and miscellaneous documents reviewed and considered, the Commission made the following factual recitation:K Evidentiary Fact: The Church of Scientology is currently engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to impede and obstruct municipal, state and federal taxing authorities, by adopting a religious and charitable guise to avoid payment of taxes.

"They (the public) want ministers. We will show them what ministers look like." (1-41) Use of ministerial garb to convey appearance of religion. (1-43) Scientology's internal policy states: "Churches are looked upon as reform groups. Therefore, we must act like a reform group." (1-196) "Church" policy instructs members to lie to inquiring officials. (1-226,227) Scientology's religious image check list is designed to falsely portray a religious image to mislead public officials. (2-238,239)

The Church of Scientology has nothing to do with religion. The Church did not adopt the religious guise until it was necessary to seek First Amendment protection. (4-405)

Directly or indirectly, the paradox affectinE Wollersheim's case always was, whether Scientology qualifies as a religion. At the law-and-motion stage, a judge granted summary adjudication on this issue. That court ruled Scientology indeed was a religion. And at the trial stage, another judge reinforced this ruling by submitting the case to the jury with an instruction that Scientology is a religion.

But it was just two affidavits, one by Scientology's own Bruce Gaines, a Guardian Officer "minister" and the other an outside religion expert-that became the weight which tipped the balance at the law-and-motion stage which allowed Scientology, in Wollersheim's case, to assume the legal privileges and sanctuary of the exercise clause. Despite Wollersheim's protest and attempts to disqualify these affidavits as being tainted by Guardian Office involvement, they were still relied upon for the ruling.

At the law-and-motion stage, the trial court also granted summary adjudication that "auditing" was a "religious practice" of Scientology.

Wollersheim contended that auditing was not a religious practice case and that the court below did not summarily adjudicate that "auditing" was a religious practice. Instead, that comment was made by the court in the process of considering and denying certain Scientology motions in limine. That occurred in late October, 1985, when the case was pending in the first trial court to which it was assigned for trial, just before the trial was reassigned, on November 7, 1985, to the court that conducted the actual trial.

Accordingly, the procedures, protections and authority of Section 437(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the motions in limine and that court's reference to "auditing" as a religious practice did not rise to the level of a binding summary adjudication of an undisputed fact.

Later in limine, an order was given that because of religious immunities no inquiring into auditing could be made by our experts regarding its effectiveness or from the experiences of other people who went through auditing similar to Wollersheim's.

On July 22, 1986 the jury issued a unanimous judgment after 4-1/2 months of trial based on what they saw, heard, examined as evidence, and found to be factual beyond a reasonable doubt. They issued a 5 million dollar compensatory award and a 25 million dollar punitive damage award knowing full well that Scientology "claimed" most vehementlv that they only had an 18 million dollars net worth. The jury chose to ignore the "good faith" sincerity of Scientology's balance sheet prepared in late April 1986 and chose instead to believe evidence Wollersheim entered which exposed a conveyance of approximately 90% of the assets, an estimated 250 million dollars, out of the church of Scientology of California starting just after Wollersheim filed his lawsuit and ending just prior to beginning Wollersheim's trial. This conveyance was coincidentally concurrent with Scientology's attorney's on-the-record acknowledgement that Scientology had accumulated approximately 250 million dollars in pending lawsuits.

In spite of the jury being denied many key evidences demonstrating Scientology's reprehensibility and vile mockery of bonafide religion they saw and heard enough of the admitted evidences to determine, that the punitive damage award must be substantial enough so as to deter and purge those types of outrageous behaviors from ever re-occurring in the civilized society of America.

Reduction of punitives to two million dollars to an organization whose conservative estimated net worth is from l/2 billion to 1 billion dollars could be reasonably seen as rendering impotent the very intention behind punitives. Had not Wollersheim been unfairly hindered and burdened by the counterfeit religion paradox and denied key evidences, how much In~ would the appeals judges, realizing the additional mockery, have punished Scientology?

Wollersheim respectfully submits that ScientoloEY has previously been assessed punitive damages which were reduced in Allard v. Church of ScientolofiY in 1979. (Allard v. Church of Scientolo~v of Ca~fo_In~, 58 Cal.App. 3d 439 [19761.) As a consequence, and most importantly, Scientology has not been deterred whatsoever in continuin~ its ~attern of outrageous and oft-times ille~al condu~. The jury's punitive award was justified and the sociallypurging purpose behind punitive damages should now finally be confronted and accomplished with respect to Scientology. (Schroeder v. Auto Driveway Company, 11 Cal. 3d 908; BAJI 1471).

Furthermore, Wollersheim offered to prove that Scientology's net worth exceeded $500,000,000.00 (500 million dollars) at the time. Moreover, Wollersheim's evidence revealed that at just one of Scientology's many locations, Scientology was receiving over $1,000,000.00 (1 million dollars) cash per week for NOTS auditing at the Flag base in Clearwater in 1978 and 1979. Under these figures, Wollersheim's total jury judgment would be approximately 6% of its conservative estimated net worth or 20% of its 1 year estimated annual gross income from just one location.

From the state of the evidence as presented to and accepted by the jury, Scientology was an incredible money-making machine, throughout the time relevant to the Wollersheim case. As such, the jury was entitled to accept it or to reject the truth of Scientology's balance sheet. Can it be really reasonable to assume the jury issued their unanimous verdict after a 4-1/2 month trial only to have it looked at as mathematically preposterous?

Moreover, the trial judge, who observed the witnesses, the evidence, and the trial first hand, denied Scientology's post trial motions for a new trial and rejected their excess damage claims in a remititur of damages. In addition to the unanimous jury verdict, such a determination by the trial court is deserving of great weight on appellate review of the judgment and reasonably should have been accorded greater weight than that apparently given it in the Decision. (Kover v. McComber, 12 Cal. 2d 175 at p. ]X2 I19381 and Schroeder v. Auto Driveway Co., 11 Cal. 3d 908 at 918 11974].)

In closing, in 1982 at the Supreme Court of Victoria, during its Boar-d of Inquiry into Scientology, Australian Justice Brookings made a statement which may continue to be a harbinger of this paradox until it is resolved "... it is none-theless clear that the teaching of Scientology and the practice of Scientology will result in the commission of many offenses and may well result in the commission of many others." (The Church of New Faith v. The Commissioner of Pavroll Tax May 5, 1982 Decision).

From a secret document siezed in the authorized search on the "church" of ScientoloEy~s Guardian Offices, one sees the CORE of the ~ENUINE Scientology's real intentions:

"The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are: (T 1) Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration. (T2) Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads of proprietors of all news media. (T3) Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures. (T4) Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shiFting them to a loss precarious finance standard." (From the document headed "Targets" FBI authorized search documents).


I respectfully ask that this petition be granted for writ of certiorari for all the reasons stated previously, for all the victims of Scientology, and the hope of protecting ~he sanctuary of the establishment and exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution from uses antithetical to the intentions of our constitutional forefathers.

Respectfully Submitted Lawrence D. Wollersheim



No. C332027

Larry Wollersheim, Plaintift`,


Church of Scientology of California, et al Defendants.

This action came on regularly for trial on February 19, 1986, in Department 55 of the Superior Court, rhe Honorable Ronald E. Swearinger Judge Presiding; the plaintiff(s) appearing by attorney(s) Charles O'Reilly and Leta Schlosser and the defendant(s) appearing by attorney(s) Earle Cooley, John Peterson, Paul Moore, and Robert Herke.

A jury of 12 persons was regularly inpaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the specia~ is~ues su'omittec\ to the jury anc\ the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows, to wit:

(Here quote entire Special Verdict With Special Findings Verbatim)


We, the jury in the above entitled action, find with regard to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress di the plaintiff, Lawrence Dominick Wollersheim, discover or should he have discovered the facts which he alleges constituted Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress before July 28, 1979?


We, the jury in the above entitled action, find for the plaintiff, Lawrence Dominick Wollersheim, and against the defendant, Church of Scientology of Califo~ia, as follows:

A) On the Third Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

B) On the Fourth Cause of Action (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

We assess compensatory damages in the sum of $5,000,000.00

We assess punitive damages as to the Third Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) in the sum of $25,000,000.00;

We do not assess punitive damages as to the Third Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).

Dated: July 22, 1986

Andre A. Anderson Foreman