Scientology and the Courts

Commentary - Legal Actions involving the Church of Scientology

Last revised: February 19, 1997

Cataloged here, with explanatory discussion, are some of the judicial opinions in the many cases involving the Church of Scientology and its affiliated organizations. In many cases, the citations to the opinions are linked to copies of the actual opinions, either on this web site or elsewhere. Links to the opinions are provided as the material becomes available to me in electronic form. In some cases, portions of the case files are available.

INTRODUCTION | SCIENTOLOGY LEGAL NEW | CASES - Lists | CASES - Commentary | MISCELLANY

Allard, L. Gene, v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. 45562, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2., May 18, 1976). Action brought by Gene Allard, former scientologist and Flag Banking Officer, for malicious prosecution for criminal charges filed by COS claiming Allard stole funds from the COS when he left. The COS cross-claimed for conversion of the stolen money. A jury awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages and found against the COS on its cross-claim. The appellate court upheld the judgment but reduced the punitive damage award to $50,000. The appellate court opinion discusses the "fair game" policy. This case is discussed at length in the COS Form 1023 submission to the Internal Revenue Service in 1993, in particular the fact that when Allard left the COS he took documents concerning COS finances, and took them directly to the IRS. In the submission, the COS claims that "the Church has long suspected" that Allard had been an IRS agent since he joined COS in 1969. Among the evidence they cite is the fact that Allard testified for the IRS in the 1981 trial which ultimately resulted in the recission of the COS tax exempt status.

Bridge Publications, Inc., et al. v. Vien, et al. Action brought against Enid Vien in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Docket No. CV 92-1539 H(M)) by Bridge Publications, Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International against Enid Vien for copyright infringement under federal law and trade secret misappropriation under the California trade secrets statute. Vien left the COS and started her own enterprise using scientology's "Advanced Technology" materials, and the plaintiffs sought an injunction against her use. The trial court found that the trade secret status of the materials had been established as a matter of law.

Opinion of the District Court granting summary judgment against the defendant on copyright and trade secret claims. 827 F.Supp. 629 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
An appeal from the grant of the motion for summary judgment was filed but later withdrawn pursuant to a settlement. See Docket No. 94-1082, 53 F.3d 344 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(table case).

Church of Scientology v. Fishman and Geertz, No. CV 91-6426 HLH (Tx) (C.D. Cal.). Tort action brought against former scientologist Steven Fishman and his psychiatrist, Uwe Geertz, and later dismissed upon the motion of the plaintiff.

A selection of affidavits and other documents filed in the case is available at the web site of David S. Touretsky at Carnegie Mellon University.
Available on this web site are the Affidavits of Andre Taboyan and Mary Taboyan, both of whom were high-ranking scientologists who left the organization after 20 years and were prepared to testify in the case as expert witnesses on the subject of scientology and scientology organizations.

Church of Scientology of California v. Gerry Armstrong. Action brought by COSC against Armstrong, former scientologist, to recover documents taken by Armstrong when he left scientology. Armstrong counterclaimed. Mary Sue Hubbard intervened to assert her interest in the documents. The case was ultimately settled, resulting in a payment from COSC to Armstrong, and the imposition of a gag order on him. In subsequent proceedings the COSC enforced the gag order in contempt proceedings.

Subquesent to the settlement in the case, the COS of C and Mary Sue Hubbard appealed from an order unsealing the file in the case, and from the finding that Armstrong's conversion of the documents was justifiable. The opinion at 283 Cal. Rptr 917, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 (Cal Ct. App., 2d Dist. 1991) gives a helpful overview of the case.

The Armstrong case is extensively discussed by the COS in its 1993 submission to the Internal Revenue Service. Among other things, the COS asserted that "Armstrong's fanatical hatred of Scientology ingratiated him with the LA CID [of the IRS] and earned him the status of IRS operative in an unlawful scheme to infiltrate and destroy the Church through, among other things, the seeding of Church files with forged or manufactured documents. " This theme is developed further in the IRS Form 1023 submission.

Docket No. C420153 Memorandum of Intended Decision, Hon. Paul Breckenridge (Superior Court of California, June 20, 1984). The plaintiff's and intervenor's tort claims against Armstrong were dismissed. The documents filed with the court clerk were ordered to be retained by the clerk pending the disposition of the equitable claims. IRS attempts to supoena the documents for use in their litigation with the COS became the subject matter of separate litigation, see U.S. v. Zolin.
Armstrong was interviewed for an article in the American Lawyer
Post from usenet group alt.religion.scientology comments upon text of order sought by COS in proceeding held on October 6, 1995, in the Superior Court of California, Marin County, San Rafael, CA.
Report in net magazine "Biased Journalism" on subsequent hearing on Armstrong case, also including a portion of the order imposed on October 17, 1995.
NEWS...In late January, 1997, in response to Grady Ward's public call for declarations documenting Scientology's fair game policy, Gerry Armstrong defied the gag order imposed on him and filed a lengthy affidavit in the COS v. Grady Ward "internet" litigation The affidavit gives an in-depth account of Armstrong's own litigation history with scientology, and explains Armstrong's reasons for defying the gag order imposed as part of his settlement with scientology in the 1980's. Defying the gag order, on

Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn, No. 83-6494, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Action for defamation brought by COS of CA against Flynn, an attorney who represented former scientologists in lawsuits against the COS. The district court denied Flynn's motion to dismiss the action. Opinion, 744 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1984).

Church of Scientology of California v. Foley. Action for defamation against federal Department of Labor employees (Docket No. D.C. Civil 77-0495 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia). Docket No. 77-2134, 640 F.2d 1335; 205 U.S. App. D.C. 364 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(upholding the District Court dismissal of the action).

Church of Scientology of California v. Richardson.Action brought by COS to enjoin FDA ban on import of E-Meters.

Docket No. 24276, 437 F.2d 214 (9th Cir. January 11, 1971). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court denial of the injunction.
No. 80-1693., 452 U.S. 961(1981)(denying petition for certiorari).

Church of Scientology of California v. James Siegelman, Flo Conway, J.B. Lippincott Co. and Morris Deutsch. Federal court action brought by COS of California and Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. against authors and publishers of book "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change," and a former scientologist, for defamation.

Opinion of the federal district court granting motions of defendants for dismissal of all counts of complaint except single count against former scientologist; and denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims for prima facie tort, abuse of process, and conspiracy to deprive defendants of their civil rights. Opinion, 475 F.Supp. 950 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
Opinion of federal district court denying motion of former scientologist for reconsideration of court's refusal to dismiss single defamation count; and grant of motion to dismiss counterclaims. Opinion, 481 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
Opinion of federal district court dismissing action in its entirety due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with discovery orders; denying defendant's claim for award of attorneys' fees and granting defendant's motion for award of costs. Opinion, 86 F.R.D. 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
Opinion of federal district court granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendants' tort counterclaims and denying defendants' motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional harm. Opinion, 94 F.R.D. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).

Church of Scientology of California v. Lawrence Wollersheim, Nos. B084686, B086063. Action brought by COS of CA against Lawrence Wollersheim, seeking to set aside the multi-million dollar verdict obtained by Wollersheim against the COS in Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, on the grounds of newly-discovered evidence of bias on the part of the original trial judge. The complaint was dismissed under the California Anti-Slapp statute, and Wollersheim was awarded $130,000 in attorney fees. On appeal by the COS of CA, the California Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the action and the award of attorney fees, and held that Wollersheim was entitled to attorney fees for defending the appeal, the amount to be determined on remand to the Superior Court. Opinion, ___ C.A. ___ (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). According to a message posted on May 25 on alt.religion.scientology, the California Supreme Court has refused to hear the COS's appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, and immediately issued a remittur allowing Wollersheim's attorneys to proceed with efforts to collect the judgment.

Church of Scientology International, Citizens' Commission on Human Rights v. Eli Lilly & Co., PaineWebber Inc., and Ronald Nordmann. Action in federal court by COSI and CCHR against pharmaceutical company which manufactures Prozac, for libel; for allegations made concerning COSI and CCHR opposition to drug.

Defendants' motion to dismiss action granted in part and denied in part. Opinion, 778 F.Supp. 661 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
A related action was brought by COSI against Mitchell Daniels, a Vice President of Eli Lilly. See Church of Scientology International v. Mitchell Daniels, 992 F.2d 1329 (4th Cir. 1993)(upholding trial court grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment).

Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., Time Inc. Magazine Company and Richard Behar. Action in federal court by COSI against Time Magazine, publisher and reporter for statements made in 1991 article "The Rising Cult Of Greed and Power."

806 F.Supp. 1157 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). The trial court refused to grant Time Warner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.
Complaint dismissed on all counts except one. Opinion, 903 F.Supp. 637 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Final count dismissed and thus entire case dismissed on July 16, 1996. Opinion and order.
Time-Warner sued its insurer, TIG International, for payment of $7.3 million in legal fees incurred in defending the suit. A Dow Jones news report dated May 8, 1996, stated that the suit had been settled on undisclosed terms.
See also the related action In re Behar, Index No. M8-85, No. 90-3506 DWW, 779 F.Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. and C.D. Cal.)(October 18,1991). In this action, the COS served a supoena upon Behar, seeking to depose him in its lawsuit against the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act, with respect to the allegations in his story concerning COS harrassment of him. The court quashed the supoena on the basis of Behar's reporter's privilege under both federal evidence law and the New York State "Shield Law."

Church of Spiritual Technology c.s. v. foundation XSFALL c.s.: Action by Church of Scientology to enjoin proliferation of the so-called "Fishman documents" on computers in the Netherlands. For more information, see The Internet Cases.

Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States, No. 581-88T, 26 Cl.Ct. 713, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5233 (Court of Claims 1992). This case was an appeal from a decisin rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue refusing tax exempt status to the CST because it failed to establish that it was operated exclusively for tax exempt purposes. Note that the Church and the IRS came to terms following this opinion and the IRS granted tax exempt status in a non-public settlement which is being challenged in Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service (see below).

Florida Bar v. Vannier. Action by the Florida Bar in which attorney Merrell Vannier was disbarred for ethical violations connected with his representation of the Mayor of Clearwater, Florida, Gilbert Cazares. The record upon which the disbarment was based showed that Vannier, a member of the Church of Scientology, was dispatched by the COS to Florida to spy on Cazares. Vannier offered to represent Cazares in his litigation against the COS, and then acted as an undercover agent for the COS, in violation of his ethical obligation to Cazares. During the same time period, Vannier used his position as an attorney to gain access to the files to the State Attorney General's Office, which was conducting an investigation of the local scientology organization. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the recommendation of the referee that Vannier be disbarred. Opinion, 498 So. 2d 896; 11 Fla. Law W. 621 (Fla. 1986).

Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Webster. Federal court action against the F.B.I. alleging an extensive campaign of harrassment against scientology. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit because of the failure of L.Ron Hubbard to appear for a deposition to inquire into his status as a managing agent for the organization. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Docket No. 85-5885, affirmed the dismissal by the District Court. 802 F.2d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1986) [Note:Previously mis-cited here as 667 F.2d 117 (D.C. Cir. October 2, 1981]. In reviewing the evidence concerning Hubbard's status as a managing agent of the Church of Scientology (and thus his susceptibility to being deposed upon notice) athe court note Hubbard had presided over the Guardian Office which conducted the "Snow White" conspiracy (see United States v. Hubbard, et al., below), and had been named by the grand jury in that case as an unindicted co-conspirator. The court also referred to the Church of Scientology v. Commissioner, 83 Tax Court 381 (1985) (see above), in which the Tax Court upheld the denial of the organization's tax-exempt status in part based upon Snow White conspiracy.

Newly added... Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Verlag. Libel action against author, editor and publisher of article in West German magazine Neue Revue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal of the action by the District Court for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conviens. 536 F.2d 429, 175 U.S. App.D.C. 402 (June 1, 1976). The Circuit Court noted that there were "two virtually identical suits" in New York and California, dismissed on the same grounds, and other suits filed in West Germany (Wiesbaden and Munich) and in Holland and California). See COS of California v. Herold, No. C-66230 (California Superior Court, L.A.County), dismissed Mar. 12, 1974).

Hill v. Manning(July 20, 1995). Libel action brought by government prosecutor in Ontario, Canada who handled The Queen v. The Church of Scientology of Toronto, et al, against COS and its attorney, Manning, for defamation.

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada upholding a multi-million dollar jury verdict against the Church of Scientology and its attorney.
Canadian newspapers reported that the judgment upheld in this case was paid in full in early September 1995.
See the entry for The Queen v. The Church of Scientology of Toronto, et al., for a link to more information about scientology in Canada.

In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, For Premises at 2125 S. Street, Northwest. Action by the Founding Church of Scientology for the return of documents seized in the search of scientology headquarters in the District of Columbia.

436 F.Supp. 689 (D.C.D.C. 19__). The District Court, Judge Bryant, held that the search and seizure was not unconstitutional, and ordered the return of the documents.
667 F.2d 17, 215 U.S. App. D.C. 74 (D.C.Cir. October 2, 1981). The Circuit Court vacated the order of the District Court, and held that the search and seizure was not unconstitutional.

Lyman D. Spurlock v. the Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 94-55506, Opinion, ___ F.2d ___ (9th Cir. 1995) (No. CV-91-05602-R in the United States District Court for the Central District of California). Spurlock sought to require the FBI to produce documents exempt under the Freedom of Information Act which pertained to an investigation resulting from allegations by a third party that Spurlock, along with other members of the Church of Scientology, attempted to blackmail a federal district court judge. The FBI investigated and ultimately declined to prosecute. Spurlock contended that the allegations were made by Joseph Yanny, a former COS counsel, and Vicki and Richard Aznaran, based upon their depositions in other COS cases. The lower court ordered the FBI to disclose the exempt documents, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court order.

Missouri Church of Scientology v. James E. Adams. Action brought in Missouri state court in the 1970's, against the publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and two writers for libel, for a series of critical articles published about scientology. The case was dismissed at the trial level, and the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. 543 S.W.2d 776 (Miss. 1976).

New Era Publications International, ApS v. Carol Publishing Grp. Action in federal court by New Era against Carol Publishing to enjoin publication of a biography of L.Ron Hubbard, "A Piece of Blue Sky," by Jonathan Atack, a former member of the Church of Scientology, claiming that material quoted in the biography infringed on New Era's copyrights in the works of L.Ron Hubbard.

Opinion of the District Court holding that many of the quotations in the biography infringed the copyrights, and enjoining the publication of the book. 729 F.Supp. 992 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the District Court was overruled, the injunction was dissolved, and the publication of the biography was allowed to go forward. 904 F.2d 152 (2nd Cir. 1990).

The Queen v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, et al. (Ontario Court, General Division). This Canadian criminal case arose out of factual circumstances which took place in 1977 through 1983 in Canada, when church members infiltrated government and medical organizations and stole documents. This is one of a number of related legal actions involving scientology in Canada arising out of interrelated factual circumstances, including , Hill v. Manningabove. Select this link for further information on this case, in which the criminal proceedings which ensued from these events continued for over ten years and are ongoing, on appeal, as of September 1996. Scientology officials Jane Kember (convicted in the U.S. in the Snow White conspiracy, see United States v. Hubbard, et al, below) and David Miscavige testified at the trial, which ultimately resulted in the Church of Scientology of Toronto being convicted of breach of trust and sentenced to pay a $250,000 fine. This case is of current interest due to news reports that the Church and one of the defendants has filed an appeal from the criminal convictions on the ground that the jury pool, restricted by law to Canadian citizens, was not representative of the population.

Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. NET, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Docket No. 95-B-2143. Copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought in federal court by RTC against F.A.C.T.Net, Lawrence Wollersheim and Robert Penny. The action was commenced with the issuance of an ex parte writ of seizure under the U.S. Copyright Act. For further information, go to The Internet Cases.

Religious Technology Center v. Henson, Docket No. Case No. C-96-20271 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). Federal copyright and state trade secret action brought against Keith Henson in connection with "NOTS" documents posted on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. For further information, go to The Internet Cases.

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, et al., Docket No. 95-110 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia). Action brought in federal court against Arnoldo Lerma for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The action was commenced with the issuance of an ex parte writ of seizure under the U.S. Copyright Act. The Washington Post and two of its reporters were later added as defendants. For further information, go to The Internet Cases.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom Online Communication Services, Inc., et al., et al., Docket No. C-95-20091-RMW (EAI) United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Copyright infringement action brought by RTC against Dennis Erlich, Tom Klemesrud, and Netcom. For further information, to The Internet Cases.

Religious Technology Center v. Ward, Docket No. No.96-20207 RMW (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). Federal court action against Grady Ward under federal copyright and state trade secret statutes, seeking relief against "GRADY WARD, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and to those persons in active concert or participation with him, including, but not limited to SCAMIZDAT." For further information, see The Internet Cases.

Religious Technology Center v. Scott AND Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, et al. Multiple related federal court actions brought in the Central District of California commencing in 1985 by RTC AND Church of Scientology International against against Robin Scott, Lawrence Wollersheim, David Mayo, the Church of the New Civilization and others concerning allegedly stolen COS religious scriptures. RTC v. Gerbode, a related case filed in the Northern District of California, was later transferred and consolidated with these. Docket Numbers as follows:

Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al., Docket No. CV 85-711 MRP
Religious Technology Center et al. v. Wollersheim, et al., Docket No. CV85-7197 MRP
Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, Docket No. CV 93-2226 AWT
Church of Scientology International v. Kolts, Docket No. CV 93-1390-RSWL (EEx)
Atkinson-Baker & Associates, Inc. v. Kolts, Docket No. 93-55336 (reported at 7 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1993).

The opinions rendered in these actions are as follows:

796 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986), (captioned "RTC v. Wollersheim), reversing trial court grant of preliminary injunction ordering rival church from using certain scriptural material, on the grounds that there is no injunctive relief available in a private right of action under RICO; and that COS religious scriptures did not meet the definition of trade secrets under California law under the facts presented.
660 F.Supp. 515 (C.D.Cal. 1987) (captioned RTC v. Scott). On remand from 796 F.2d 1076, denying re-application for preliminary injunction against defendants that would have prohibited use of allegedly infringing religious scriptural material.
869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989) (captioned RTC v. Scott). Upholding denial of application for preliminary relief in 660 F.Supp. 515, remanding for further consideration.
971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992) (captioned RTC v. Wollersheim), upholding dismissal of claims against attorney defendants who represented Wollersheim in his state civil suit (see Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology International, below), and against experts who testified in that suit.
Opinion of the District Court (C.D.Cal. April 17, 1992), captioned, RTC v. Scott, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with discovery orders. Provides a helpful summary of the history of the action. Upheld by the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 1996 (see below).
Opinion of the District Court (C.D.Cal. January 20, 1993), captioned RTC v. Scott, awarding $2.9 million in attorney fees to the defendants. The opinions states that "Plaintiffs have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes "extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct". As such, this case qualifies as an "exceptional case" and fees should be awarded pursuant to the Lanham Act." Upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 1996 (see below).
Opinion, reported in [Current Transfer Binder] RICO Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) par. 8595 (C.D.Cal. May 2, 1994) (captioned RTC v. Gerbode), assessing attorney fees in the amount of $8,887.50 against both Helena Kobrin and the law firm of Bowles & Moxon under Federal Rule 11 for filing frivolous amended complaint under RICO statute in the case in chief.
Atkinson-Baker & Associates, Inc. v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1993). Opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the dismissal of an action brought by the plaintiff court-reporting firm against Kolts, the special master appointed to hear various aspects of the case in chief. Kolts removed Atkinson-Baker based upon the a defendant's claim that the firm had a conflict of interest due to the owners' membership in the plaintiff church. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the special master was absolutely immune from suit; the circuit court affirmed.
846 F.Supp. 873 (C.D.Cal. 1994) (captioned COSInt'l v. Kolts), dismissing action brought against special master apointed by the court in the case in chief, seeking master's removal from the case.
Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al., Docket No. 94-55781, slip opinion (not for publication), (9th Cir. 1996). On April 11, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court actions dismissing the complaint of the RTC, COS of California and COS International against the defendants, David Mayo, the Church of the New Civilization, as well as Larry Wollersheim, Robin Scott and others, and awarding the defendants $2.9 million in attorney fees. The circuit court also reversed the district court dismissal of the counterclaims of Mayo and the CNC, and sent those claims back to the district court for trial. In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims that the trade secret status of its religious scriptures was non-justiciable, the circuit court commented that "there is little doubt that RTC is playing 'fast and loose' with the judicial system as required in the minority view of estoppel. To first assert that *its* unfair competition and false designation of origin claims are justiciable and at the same time assert that Mayo's identical claims are not is at best questionable; in light of RTC's documented history of vexatious behavior, RTC's actions are indefensible."
On July 2, 1996, the parties entered into a settlement that resulted in the cases being "dismissed with prejudice." The settlement agreement apparently includes a gag order, leaving inquiring minds to wonder how much the COS and RTC had to pay David Mayo in attorney fees and other consideration to close the case.
On July 5, 1996, notwithstanding the filing of the Stipulation of Dismissal entered on July 2, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the COS and RTC motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service, Docket No. 94-CV-00220 (TFH) (U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia). Case brought by Tax Analysts, a nonprofit corporation which publishes tax information, against the Internal Revenue Service, under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking access to files concerning the settlement between the COS and its affiliate organizations and the IRS which resulted in the IRS recognition of the COS as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a).

Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (June 29, 1995). This document is useful as it sets out the plaintiff's case and the factual information gleaned through the discovery process. According to the Plaintiff's Statement, the IRS adopted unique procedures to handle the resolution of the COS tax exemption applications, that bypassed the customary administrative and review proedures.
The motion of Tax Analysts for summary judgment against the Internal Revenue Service was granted on March 15, 1996, and the IRS was ordered to disclose information about the IRS 1992 settlement with the COS which resulted in the COS being granted federal tax exempt status.Order and Memorandum Opinion (March 22, 1996).

United States of America, Libellant v. An Article or Device, Docket No. 1-63, 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.C. D.C. 1971). Action brought by the Food and Drug Administration seeking nationwide condemnation of L. Ron Hubbard's E-Meter because of false scientific and medical promises for cure of illness. Judge Gesell ruled that the Church of Scientology could use the E-Meters only in connection with religious practices, and in accordance with labelling and other requirements imposed to make it clear to users that the device was to be used only in religious activity and that it was not medically or scientifically capable of improving health or bodily functions.

United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Richard Weigand, Gregory Willardson, Cindy Raymond, Mitchell Hermann a/k/a "Mike Cooper," Gerald Bennet Wolfe, and Sharon Thomas. Criminal No.78-401 (U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia). Federal criminal prosecution resulting in guilty plea by all defendants, and sentences of incarceration. Mary Sue Hubbard was the wife of scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard; the other defendants were high-ranking officials in the scientology organization. The code name for the operation undertaken by the scientologists was "Snow White."

Stipulation of Evidence agreed to and signed by all defendants, specifying acts which formed the basis for the prosecution and plea. In three parts, each lengthy: Stipulation #1 (152K), Stipulation #2(172K), Stipulation #3(125K).
In a series of messages posted to the usenet group alt.religion.scientology, I summarized most of the Stipulation of Evidence under the heading "Scientology Crimes, Snow White #1, etc." Those posts are compiled here.
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, upholding the convictions. Extensively discusses the background of the criminal prosecution and the procedural matters related to it. 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C.Cir. 1981).

United States v. Frank S. Zolin. . In connection with a tax investigation, the United States brought an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to compel the production of documents in the custody of the clerk of the California state court (Frank S. Zolin, the nominal defendant) in Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong. The plaintiff, Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L.Ron Hubbard, intervenor, objected to the production of the documents on various grounds, including relevance and attorney client privilege.

Docket No. ___, U.S. D.C. C. D. Cal. United States District Court Judge Harry Hupp ordered the production of some of the documents sought by the IRS.
Nos. 85-6065, 85-6105, 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. Feb.9, 1987). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court.
832 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 1987), The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its affirming opinion and granted the petition of the COS and Hubbard for a rehearing en banc.
842 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. March 28, 1988). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its order granting an en banc hearing.
850 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. July 5, 1988)(amending 842 F.2d 1135).
Docket No. ___, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (19__). the United States Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.
905 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. June 20, 1990). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the tapes sought to be produced were admissible in the tax investigation proceeding under the crime/fraud exception to the attorney client privilege.
U.S. v. Zolin, No. 91-55506, 984 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. January 21, 1993)

Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California. State court damages action brought by former church member Lawrence Wollersheim against Church of Scientology International for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional harm for imposing religious practices upon him against his will. A jury verdict in the amount of $30 million was rendered by the trial court.

212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331 (2d Dist. 1989) upholding jury verdict but reducing the $30 million verdict to $2.5 million.
The reduced jury verdict was upheld in a series of appeals (see entry in the Index of Legal Actions for list of citations to the subsequent appellate dispositions). As of this date, the judgment is uncollected.