[. . .]UNDERLYING FACTS
NORDQUIST LAWSUIT
17. On or about February 5, 1992, Jonathan Nordquist filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that CAN had fraudulently induced Nordquist to do volunteer work for it by concealing its true nature, and that when Nordquist discovered CAN's true nature he suffered severe mental distress.
18. Nordquist's complaint was filed by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran and the defendant Los Angeles law firm of Bowles &
Moxen.
19. On or about May 21, 1993, Nordquist, then proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss his action with prejudice, stating in the motion, "The lawsuit is without foundation in fact and was instigated by the Church of Scientology."
20. On or about May 21, 1993, Judge Odas Nicholson granted Nordquist's aforesaid motion to dismiss his action with prejudice.
[. . .]
Entire document follows. Of course we're expected to believe he did this all for free. Well, except for the $300 from Eugene Martin Ingram for "expenses."
---
------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
(Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111
This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------atty # 18751 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, Plaintiff, v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, No. 941 00804 BOWLES & MOXEN, Call_____ CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ILLINOIS, Trial By Jury Demanded ANDREW BAGLEY, MOTION CALL C GLEN BARTON, GREGORY BASHAW, JURY DEMAND CHARLES BENEDETTI, VALON MITCHELL CROSS, SAMUEL DEMETER, JOE LEWIS, MARION MELBERG, LARRY MILLER, DAVID SCHRAM, and LYNN WARD, Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AT LAW
Now comes the Plaintiff, Cult Awareness Network, by and through its attorneys, John M. Beal and George N. Vurdelja, Jr., and for its complaint against the defendants Church of Scientology International, Bowles & Moxen, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward alleges as follow:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Cult Awareness Network (hereinafter "CAN") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Barrington, Cook County, Illinois.
CAN has nineteen affiliate organizations around the United States.
2. Defendant Church of Scientology International (hereinafter "Church of Scientology") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
3. Defendant Bowles & Moxen is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a law firm with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
4. Defendant Church of Scientologyof Illinois, on information and belief, is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a not-for-profit organization under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
5. Defendant Andrew Bagley is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of Kansas and a member of the Church of Scientology.
6. Defendant Glen Barton is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of California and a member of the Church of Scientology.
7. Defendant Gregory Bashaw is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
8. Defendant Charles Benedetti is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
9. Defendant Valon Mitchell Cross is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of San Francisco, California and a member of the Church of Scientology.
10. Defendant Church of Scientology International (hereinafter "Church of Scientology") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
11. Defendant Joe Lewis is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Lake County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
12. Defendant Marion Melberg is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
13. Defendant Larry Miller is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
14. Defendant David Schram is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
15. Defendant Lynn Ward is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology.
NATURE OF THE CASE
16. Defendants have brought a series of unfounded lawsuits against CAN for the purpose of interfering with CAN's regular activities, particularly that of educating its members and the public as to religious rights, freedoms and responsibilities, by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, and employees: 1) to devote a large portion of their time to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits and 2) to expend CAN's resources on the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities.
Defendants have further sought to bankrupt CAN and thereby cause CAN to be unable to function at all, by means of the aforesaid lawsuits. Defendants have further sought to disrupt and interfere with the ability and right of CAN, its members, and the members of its affiliate organizations to freely and voluntarily assemble together and associate with each other.
UNDERLYING FACTS
NORDQUIST LAWSUIT
17. On or about February 5, 1992, Jonathan Nordquist filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that CAN had fraudulently induced Nordquist to do volunteer work for it by concealing its true nature, and that when Nordquist discovered CAN's true nature he suffered severe mental distress.
18. Nordquist's complaint was filed by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran and the defendant Los Angeles law firm of Bowles &
Moxen.
19. On or about May 21, 1993, Nordquist, then proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss his action with prejudice, stating in the motion, "The lawsuit is without foundation in fact and was instigated by the Church of Scientology."
20. On or about May 21, 1993, Judge Odas Nicholson granted Nordquist's aforesaid motion to dismiss his action with prejudice.
BAGLEY LAWSUIT
21. On or about March 9, 1992, Andrew Bagley filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that CAN had discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to join CAN because he is a member of the Church of Scientology.
22. Bagley was represented in this case by the Law offices of John Thomas Moran and the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
23. On or about October 22, 1992, United States District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber granted summary judgment against Bagley and in favor of CAN, ruling that CAN had, in fact, allowed Bagley to join CAN when he applied and that the case was moot.
WARD et al. LAWSUITS
24. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology of Illinois (Lynn Ward, Marion Melberg, Charles Benedetti, and David Schram) filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Cult Awareness Network, Illinois, CAN's Illinois affiliate organization, alleging that CAN Illinois had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.
25. The four Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran.
26. On or about March 29, 1993, United States District Court Judge John A. Nordberg granted summary judgement in favor of CAN Illinois nd against the four Scientologists in the aforesaid lawsuit, on the grounds that the Cult Awareness Network is not a "place of public accommodation" under Title 42, U.S.C. 2000a.
DEMETER and CROSS COUNTERCLAIMS
27. On or about November 23, 1992, Samuel Demeter and Valon Mitchell Cross, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed counterclaims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the plaintiff Cult Awareness Network, alleging that CAN had refused to recognize them and certain of their associates as CAN affiliate organizations, in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
28. The two Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran.
29. On or about September 14, 1993, United States District Court Chief Judge James B. Moran granted CAN's motion to dismiss Cross's counterclaim on the grounds that the California courts had determined that the Unruh Act does not apply to CAN. Demeter had previously voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim.
BASHAW et al. PETITION
30. On or about July 27, 1992, three members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Gregory S. Bashaw, Larry Miller, and Joe Lewis) filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against the Cult Awareness Network, asking the Court to enter a temporary restraining order requiring CAN to admit the three Scientologists into CAN's administrative offices in Barrington, Illinois, "to allow (the three Scientologists) to volunteer their services to CAN".
31. The three Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran.
32. October 13, 1992, Judge Lester Foreman entered an order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
NEILSON et al. PETITION
33. In February, 1993, eight members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Bob Neilson, Sandra Woodard, Bob Shuch, Charles A. Van Breeman, Gary Gum, Vicki J. Dries, Patricia Ross, and Jennifer Beaubien) filed against CAN in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a Petition to Register a Foreign Judgment. The judgment was for $6009, and had been obtained in the Superior Court of the state of California for the County of Los Angeles.
34. The eight Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran.
35. On or about May 11, 1993, Judge Glynn Elliott dismissed the petition because the judgment had been paid in full in California as soon as it was due to be paid.
BARTON LAWSUIT
36. On or about March 29, 1993, Glen Barton filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that he had been denied admittance to CAN's annual meeting held in November, 1992, in Los Angeles, California, because he is a member of the Church of Scientology.
37. Barton has been represented in the aforesaid case by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran.
38. Barton's complaint alleges that because he was not admitted to CAN's annual meeting, he "suffered severe and profound mental distress, anguish, humiliation, grief and suffering. The conduct of defendants and each of them was intentional, outrageous, despicable, malicious, in excess of the bounds of decent society and committed with a willful and wanton disregard for the health, well-being and rights of" Barton.
39. The aforesaid action remains pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
CALIFORNIA CASES
CLEGG FEDERAL LAWSUIT
40. On or about May 19, 1992, Frizell Clegg, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.
41. Clegg was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
42. On or about July 20, 1993, United States District Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of CAN and the other defendants in that case and against Clegg, on the grounds that the Cult Awareness Network is not a "place of public accommodation" under Title 42, U.S.C. 2000a, et seq.
SLESAR and WESSLING LAWSUITS
43. On or about March 4, 1993, Michael Slesar and John Wessling, members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to form CAN affiliate chapters because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52, and common law fraud, both based upon diversity jurisdiction.
44. On or about November 8, 1993, United States District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of CAN and against Slesar and Wessling, on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not state a claim alleging, in good faith, damages exceeding $50,000, and the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
WISEL LAWSUIT
45. On or about February 28, 1992, Jack Wisel, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Northern California had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq., and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 and 52.
46. Wisel was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
47. On or about October 14, 1993, United States District Court Judge Stanley A. Weisel granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of CAN and the other defendants in that case as to all claims asserted by Wisel.
CASSELMAN FEDERAL LAWSUIT
48. On or about October 5, 1992, Donna Casselman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN had refused to allow her to attend CAN's 1992 annual meeting in Los Angeles because she was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq., and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 and 52.
49. On or about January 4, 1993, United States District Court Judge Dickran M. Tevrizian dismissed this case on the grounds that defendants were not a public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. 2000a.
CASSELMAN STATE LAWSUIT
50. On or about December 10, 1992, Donna Casselman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN had refused to allow her to attend the 1992 CAN annual meeting, held in Los Angeles, because she was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
51. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
WOODARD et al. LAWSUIT
52. On or about November 1, 1993, Sandra Woodard, Gary Gum, Bob L. Neilson, Cheryl Schwalbe, and Glen Barton, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN was refusing to allow them to attend the 1993 CAN annual meeting, to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
53. After Judge S. James Otero denied plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order the complaint was voluntarily dismissed.
HARNESS LAWSUIT
54. On or about July 21, 1992, Kevin Harness, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
55. On or about October 9, 1992, the action filed by Harness in the County of San Diego was dismissed.
56. In or about September, 1992, Kevin harness filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles an action identical in all material respects to the one described in paragraph 49. This action was voluntarily dismissed on or about September 24, 1993.
TRAMMELL CASE
57. On or about March 2, 1992, Corey Trammell, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
58. Harness was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
59. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
HAWKINS CASE
60. On or about September 25, 1992, Craig Hawkins, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda against the Cult Awareness Network's Northern California chapter alleging the Northern California chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
61. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
CAN AFFILIATE OF SAN FRANCISCO
62. On or about November 19, 1992, seven unincorporated associations and their representative members, all members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento against the Cult Awareness Network and its board of directors alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiff associations as affiliate organizations of CAN in violation of the California Nonprofit Corporations Law provisions pertaining to public benefit corporations, including California Corporations Code 5233 and 5520, et seq. and for violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
63. In December, 1993, this case was dismissed by Judge Ronald B.
Robie.
BEARDMORE, O'MEALY and SHAW LAWSUITS
64. On or about March 5, 1993, Charlotte Beardmore, Abby O'Mealy, and W. Russell Shaw, all members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiffs and other persons associated with plaintiffs as affiliate organizations of CAN in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
65. The Beardmore and Shaw cases were voluntarily dismissed on or about September 24, 1993, and the O'Mealy case was voluntarily dismissed on or about October 21, 1993,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ORANGE COUNTY, et al. LAWSUIT
66. On or about September 23, 1993, the Church of Scientology of Orange County, Church of Scientology Western United States, and Church of Scientology of Stevens Creek, all affiliated with the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had engaged in fraudulent business practices in violation of California Civil Code 17200, et seq., interference with contractual relations, and abuse of process.
67. Plaintiffs were represented in this case by the defendant law firm, Bowles & Moxen.
68. A motion to dismiss this lawsuit was granted in favor of CAN and against defendants on December 21, 1993, with leave to amend.
LIPPMAN LAWSUIT
69. On or about January 13, 1993, Robert Lippman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN was liable for assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress for events occurring during the CAN 1993 annual meeting, which was held in Los Angeles.
70. Plaintiff is represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
71. This lawsuit remains pending in the Superior Court, although a non-binding arbitration award was entered on December 10, 1993, in favor of CAN and against plaintiff.
CHURCHEL, HARTE and MCCALLEY LAWSUITS
72. On or about December 3, 1992, Beverly Churchel, Brian Harte, and Diane McCalley, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, each filed actions in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow them to join because they are members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
73. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
74. These cases remains pending in the Superior Court.
CLEGG STATE LAWSUIT
75. On or about July 22, 1992, Frizell Clegg, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and CAN's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
76. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
HART LAWSUIT
77. On or about January 24, 1992, Philip Hart, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and CAN's Los Angeles chapter alleging that CAN and the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
78. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction from the Superior Court asking the court to order CAN's Los Angeles chapter to make him a member. The injunction was denied, and plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal. On January 28, 1993, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court ruling that "application of the Unruh Act in this case would place a heavy burden on . . . CAN-LA's constitutionally protected freedom of association under the federal and California constitutions." Plaintiff petitioned to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
79. Plaintiffs is represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen.
80. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
GONZALEZ LAWSUIT
81. On or about September 22, 1992, Ray Gonzalez, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51 and 52.
82. This case remains pending in the Superior Court.
STERLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LAWSUIT
83. On or about November 25, 1991, The Emery Wilson Corporation, d/b/a Sterling Management Systems, a corporation owned and operated by members of the defendant Church of Scientology, and with many employees who are members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and others alleging that CAN was liable for interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage under California law.
84. This lawsuit remains pending in the Superior Court.
MASSACHUSETTS LAWSUITS
85. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Robert Castagna, Liza Cowenhoven, Chris Garrison, and Kelly Ledoux) filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Cult Awareness Network, and the Cult Awareness Network Boston ("CAN Boston"), the CAN affiliate in Boston, alleging that CAN and/or CAN Boston had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.
86. The four Scientologists were represented in the aforesaid case by the law firm of Bowles & Moxen and local counsel.
87. After defendants filed case dispositive motions for summary judgment, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed these cases.
MICHIGAN LAWSUIT
88. On or about July 31, 1991, Dorothy Jean Dickerson, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland against the Cult Awareness Network and others, including Sally Jesse Rafael and Multimedia, Inc., the company producing the Sally Jesse Rafael Show, alleging that defendants had invaded plaintiff's privacy and inflicted emotional distress upon her by portraying plaintiff and her "religion" in a false light.
89. CAN was dismissed from this action on July 23, 1992.
90. On December 2, 1993, a jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants remaining in the suit at that time.
MINNESOTA LAWSUITS
91. On or about July 1, 1993, Holly Haggerty, a member of the Church of Scientology, filed a lawsuit against Free Minds, Inc., the CAN affiliate in Minnesota in the District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that CAN had discriminated against her under Minnesota law by refusing to allow her to join Free Minds, Inc. because she is a member of the Church of Scientology.
92. In August, 1993, the district court denied Haggerty's request for an injunction ordering Free Minds, Inc. to allow her to join, on the grounds that Free Minds, Inc. is not a public accommodation under the Minnesota human rights law.
93. Free Minds, Inc. has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, which is pending.
94. On November 5, 1993, Brian O'Malley, Bertid Haglund, and Jean Hornness, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed a lawsuit against the Cult Awareness Network in the District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that CAN had discriminated against them under Minnesota law by refusing to allow them to attend CAN's 1993 annual meeting, held in Minneapolis, because they were members of the Church of Scientology.
95. After a motion for an injunction was denied, the aforesaid action was voluntarily dismissed on or about November 12, 1993.
NEW YORK LAWSUITS
96. On or about October 29, 1992, three members of the Church of Scientology, Thomas Waters, Marlerie Hammerling, and Diane Workman, each initiated a lawsuit against the New York and New Jersey affiliate of the Cult Awareness Network in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging that CAN New York/New Jersey had discriminated against them under New York law by refusing to allow them to join CAN New York/New Jersey because they are members of the Church of Scientology.
97. The suit by Waters was dismissed on the grounds that Waters had not actually applied to join CAN New York/New Jersey. The other two suits remain pending.
OREGON LAWSUIT
98. In November, 1993, an unincorporated association calling itself Cult Awareness Network Portland, and constituted of members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the Oregon Circuit Court for the County of Multnomah against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiff association as an affiliate organization of CAN in violation of the California Nonprofit Corporations Law provisions pertaining to public benefit corporations, including California Corporations Code 5233 and 5520, et seq.
99. This case was voluntarily dismissed on December 22, 1993.
WASHINGTON, D.C. LAWSUITS
100. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Brenda Hilderberger, Pat Jones, Betty Kerner, and Tim Mantis) each filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Cult Awareness Network, Washington, D.C. ("CAN DC"), the CAN affiliate in Washington, D.C., and Rudy Arkin, a member of the board of directors of CAN DC, alleging that CAN DC had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.
101. The four Scientologists were represented in the aforesaid cases by local counsel. However, on information and belief, defendant Bowles & Moxen was actually in control of the litigation.
102. On or about February 26, 1993, United States District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted defendant's Motion to Dismiss the aforesaid four lawsuits.
103. On or about April 22, 1992, Church of Scientology member Jerry Newman filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against CAN and CAN DC alleging that CAN and CAN DC had discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to join CAN and CAN DC because he is a member of the Church of Scientology.
104. On or about October 9, 1992, United States District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, which was filed after the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the case involuntarily.
105. The plaintiff was represented in the aforesaid case by the law firm of Bowles & Moxen and local counsel.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINTS
PENNSYLVANIA COMPLAINTS 106. On or about April 22, 1992, Church of Scientology members Sharon Battershall and Francis Dimartino each filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission against Cult Awareness Network of Pittsburgh ("CAN Pittsburgh"). CAN Pittsburgh is the CAN affiliate Western Pennsylvania. Battershall and Dimartino allege in their complaints that CAN Pittsburgh had discriminated against them by refusing to allow them to join because they are members of the Church of Scientology.
107. In April, 1993, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission dismissed the Dimartino complaint at the request of the complainant. The Battershall complaint remains pending.
ILLINOIS COMPLAINTS
108. On or about June 10, 1992, John Meizes and George Seidler, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.
109. These complaints remain pending before the Department of Human Rights.
110. On or about December 23, 1993, Gregory Bashaw, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed a complaint with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow him to attend CAN's 1993 annual meeting held in November in Minneapolis in violation of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.
111. This complaint remain pending before the Commission.
MARYLAND COMPLAINTS
112. In 1992, 18 members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed complaints with the Maryland Human Relations Commission against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Maryland human rights laws.
113. In June, 1992, the Commission closed the cases for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that CAN is not a public accommodation,as defined by Maryland law, and CAN's activities, including membership selection, are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
CALIFORNIA COMPLAINTS
114. In 1992, over 30 members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
115. The Commission declined to accept the complaints on the basis that CAN is not a public accommodation, as defined by California law.
COUNT ONE
CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
116. Paragraphs 1 through 115, above, are hereby incorporated in Count One by reference.
117. Defendants Church of Scientology International, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, Lynn Ward, and others did and continue to conspire, confederate, and agree:
(a) with each other, (b) with the other individual plaintiffs and with the attorneys of record in the lawsuits and complaints set forth in the underlying facts, above; (c) with the lawyers and paralegals of the defendant law firm Bowles and Moxen; and (d) with others known and unknown to CAN, to commence lawsuits against CAN in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and to file complaints against CAN before the human rights commissions in the States of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California.
118. The filing of each lawsuit and complaint in Illinois, California, Massachusttes, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above, constitutes a separate overt act in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy.
119. The lawsuits set forth in the Underlying Facts, above, were filed with malicious and improper purposes, namely to impede and prevent CAN from performing its public education functions, as set forth in paragraph 16, above; and to bankrupt CAN and cause it to cease functioning.
120. The aforesaid lawsuits were not meritorious; the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them; and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al.
suits, the Demeter and Cross Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al.
petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Horness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C.
suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California.
121. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. find that the defendants have conspired to engage in malicious prosecution,
b. find that the aforesaid conspiracy was entered into wilfully and wantonly,
c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants,
d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 plus plaintiff's costs herein,
e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and
f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT TWOMALICIOUS PROSECUTION
122. Defendants Bowles & Moxen, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward did commence lawsuits against the Cult Awareness Network in Illinois and/or complaints before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, as set forth in paragrphs 19 through 39 and 108 through 111, above. Defendant Bowles & Moxen was involved in the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Nordquist.
123. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were filed with malicious and improper purposes, namely to impede and prevent CAN from performing its public education functions, as set forth in paragraph 16, above; and to bankrupt CAN and cause it to cease functioning.
124. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious;
the plaintiffs in those suits have not prevailed in any of them;
and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Ragley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Demeter and Cross Counterclaims, the Sashaw et al. petition, and the Neilson et al. petition.
125. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action by defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. find that the defendants have engaged in malicious prosecution,
b. find that the defendants acted wilfully and wantonly,
c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants,
d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein,
e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and
f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT THREE
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH RI6HT OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
126. Paragraphs 1 through 115, above, are hereby incorporated in Count Three by reference.
127. Defendants Church of Scientology International, Bowles &
Moxen, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward did conspire, confederate, and agree: (a) with each other, (b) with the other individual plaintiffs and with the attorneys of record in the lawsuits and complaints set forth in the underlying facts, above; (c) with the lawyers and paralegals of the defendant law firm Bowles and Moxen; and (d) with others known and unknown to CAN, to commence lawsuits against CAN in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and to file complaints against CAN before the human rights commissions in the States of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California.
128. The filing of each lawsuit and complaint in Illinois, California, Massachusttes, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above, constitutes a separate overt act in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy.
129. The Cult Awareness Network and members of CAN and its affiliate organizations have a right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to associate together, and to consult with each other, as guaranteed by Article I, 5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
130. The lawsuits and complaints set forth in the Underlying Facts, above, were filed with malicious and unlawful purposes, to wit, to interfere with the right of CAN and the members of CAN to exercise their aforesaid right of association and assembly by bankrupting CAN and causing it to cease functioning, and by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, directors, and employees to devote a large portion of their time and other resources to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities.
131. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious;
the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them;
and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Cross and Demeter Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al. petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Harness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C. suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California.
132. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, by having chilled the right of assembly and association of CAN and its members and the members of its affiliate organizations, and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. find that the defendants have conspired to infringe upon defendant's right of assembly and association,
b. find that the aforesaid conspiracy was entered into wilfully and wantonly,
c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants,
d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein,
e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and
f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT FOUR
INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY
133. Defendants Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward have brought the lawsuits and complaints set forth above in paragraphs 21 through 39 and 108 through 111.
134. On information and belief, the Church of Scientology International, Bowles & Moxen, and Church of Scientology, Illinois have suggested, instigated, encouraged, and assisted the named plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints, and all of the other lawsuits and complaints set forth in paragraph 17 through 115, above.
135. On information and belief, defendants Church of Scientology International and Bowlee & Moxen have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits pleadings that have been commissions.
and complaints with draft and final filed in court and with the human rights commissions.
136. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International and Bowles & Moxen have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with financial assistance in the prosecution of the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints.
137. The members of the Cult Awareness Network and its affiliate organizations have a right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to associate together, and to consult with each other, as guaranteed by Article I, 5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
138. The lawsuits and complaints referred to in paragraphs 133 and 134, above, were filed with malicious and unlawful purposes, to wit, to interfere with the right of CAN and the members of CAN to exercise their right of association and assembly under Article I, 5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, by bankrupting CAN and causing it to cease functioning and by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, directors, and employees to devote a large portion of their time and other resources to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities.
139. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious;
the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them;
and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Cross and Demeter Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al. petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Horness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C. suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California.
140. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid actions of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. find that the defendants have unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's right of association,
b. find that the aforesaid infringement was engaged in wilfully and wantonly,
c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants,
d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein,
e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and
f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT FIVE
MAINTENANCE
141. Defendant Church of Scientology International has officiously intermeddled in all of the lawsuits and complaints set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above.
142. On information and belief, the Church of Scientology International has suggested, instigated, encouraged, and assisted the named plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints.
143. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International, by its own means and through defendant Bowles &
Moxen, has provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with draft and final pleadings that have been filed in court and with the human rights commissions, and with other legal assistance.
144. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International and Bowles & Moxen, a law firm working for and at the direction of the Church of Scientology International, have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with financial assistance in the prosecution of the aforesaid lawsuits
145. The Church of Scientology International is not a party in any of the lawsuits or complaints set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above.
146. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid actions of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being impeded in and prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. find that the defendant Church of Scientology International, aided and abetted by defendants Bowles and Moxen and Church of Scientology of Illinois, is guilty of maintenance,
b. find that defendant Church of Scientology International, aided and abetted by defendant Bowles and Moxen and Church of Scientology of Illinois, engaged in the aforesaid maintenance wilfully and wantonly,
b. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants,
d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein,
e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and
f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
(John Beal) Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATIONUnder penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this affidavit are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
William R. Rehling Dated: January 17, 1994
John M. Beal Attorney at Law 321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 (312)408-2766 atty #18751
George N. Vurdelja, Jr.
George N. Vurdelja & Associates 14 East Jackson blvd., Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 427-3777 atty #50499
================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning.WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: HT.TXT
DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: HT.TIF
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:
SECURITY CODE:
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
NAME FOR BBS: Affidavit of Complaint, Cult Awareness Network v.
Church of Scientology et al., Cook County Illinois, January 17, 1994.
SORT TO:
CONTRIBUTOR:
LOC. OF ORIG: FACT
NOTES: CAN sues Scientology et al. for damages of $1,000,000 compensatory and $3,000,000 punitive alleging Malicious Prosecution, Interfering with Right of Assembly, Infringement, and Maintenance.
Many alleged malicious suits are given with names, dates, places.
For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension.UPDATED ON: 3/16/94
UPDATED BY: FrJMc
=================================================================
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:20:10 -0500, <John.Nordquist@kenosha.ws> wrote:
>Listen PTSC, I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting the
>CAN suit against Scientology. All it states is that my suit existed and was
>dropped by me. I've said as much.
>Do you believe I was paid by Scientology to do the suit against CAN?
You were given tens of thousands of dollars in free legal resources in order to prosecute "your" suit.
>Do you believe I was paid by CAN to cancel the suit out?
No, I think you just realized you were getting into deep shit with your perjury and decided to back out before you got in some real trouble.
Not that prison time would have been anything new to you, considering your extensive criminal history.
>What could my motive have been in dismissing the suit?
>How about in starting the suit?
Simple, money.
>Why on earth would I drop the suit when it was going so well?
Who said it was going well? You? Considering what a lying, criminal guttersnipe you are, your testimony about anything is completely incredible.
>I don't know who you are, but you seem very personally hurt by all the chain
>of events. I'm sorry for that. All I can say is that I was sincere in
>believing I was doing the right thing with the Religious Freedom Project -
>and still believe that it was the right thing to do. It would have been
It's probably better than some things you've done in your crime-riddled life.
>better had I stuck to the facts and not taken third party stories as first
>party fact - which I admit I had done. The suit was dropped because I knew
Not taking payoffs to sign blank "affidavits" would have been another nice place to start.
>I would not be able to testify to a few key facts without committing
>perjury - since those facts were not truly known by me, but rather were
>third party recollections.
Yes, that perjury problem again.
>I contacted CAN's lawyer (I forget her name) freely and voluntarily (not a
>red cent involved) and she set up a deposition at their offices downtown
>Chicago. They acted quickly to setup a meeting with the judge and it was
>over.
That saved you the trouble of being prosecuted.
>Regarding me being a mercenary, well, no, I'm not.
Okay, so you lie and take money for fake affidavits and file lawsuits with no factual basis just for the fun of it. At least when you're not behind bars.
Glad we got that straight.
ptsc
From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Subject: $300 for Nordquist for "lunch" (from Cynthia Kisser)
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:03:25 -0400
Organization: ARS: Definitely the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <510onukeuo1417r9hrm5qbs09m35fq4leg@4ax.com>
Oh, the "expenses" for the payment by Eugene Martin Ingram, a disgraced LAPD cop fired for being a pimp, was $300 for the huge expenses involved in eating lunch. It just coincidentally happened to be right at the time he signed a perjured affidavit.
I guess that was some really expensive ink, considering the "affidavit" was otherwise blank at the time.
Some jackasses would rather make fools of themselves defending a perjuring liar and Gene Ingram, just for a chance to take a whack at me, but Nordquist is a lying, mercenary creep like Scarffbag. He doesn't even have the guts of Cipriano, who at least admitted to his motives. Suck it up, you creeps.
Here's what Cynthia Kisser says about Nordquist's perjury and the payment he received for it.
---
Another plaintiff, Jonathan L. Nordquist of Chicago, fired his attorney and asked a judge to dismiss his lawsuit. He said Eugene Ingram, a private investigator for the Church of Scientology, paid him $300 to have lunch, and he agreed to be a plaintiff. Nordquist said he signed a blank page for Scientology attorneys.
"Scientology planned, instigated, coordinated and sponsored a plan to subject CAN to multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions in order to overwhelm and eliminate it or take it over and control it," said Leipold.
---
CounterPoint - Cynthia Kisser on Scientology Disinformation An Apologetics Index research resource Cynthia Kisser is the former Executive Director of the real Cult Awareness Network (CAN)
Ms. Kisser's comments follow this news article:
LOS ANGELES -- The Church of Scientology is complaining loudly about a Boston banker's effort to finance anti-Scientology activities, including a wrongful death lawsuit against the church in Tampa.
Scientology has blasted Robert S. Minton Jr. for donating more than $1.25-million to its critics, calling his actions "nefarious" and underhanded.
The church contends he is illegally interfering with lawsuits involving Scientology.
But earlier this decade, Scientology officials themselves backed several lawsuits against one of the church's own adversaries, the Cult Awareness Network.
Attorneys and top officials for Scientoloy say there is no comparison because Minton's motives are "sordid" and their efforts in the lawsuits against CAN were in defense of religious freedom.
"The only thing that's the same is that there are lawsuits involved," said Kendrick Moxon, a long-time Scientology attorney based in California. "If you say that's a contradiction, that's just a lie," he said. "That's just Southern prejudice" against Scientology.
Minton's donations include $100,000 to Tampa lawyer Ken Dandar, who represents the estate of Lisa McPherson in a wrongful death lawsuit against the church.
McPherson was the 36-year-old Scientologist who died in 1995 after a 17-day stay at the church's Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater. Police investigators have recommended criminal charges in the case.
In an effort to get more information about Minton, the church is using a bankruptcy case involving a church critic to subpoena records of Minton's donations. At a hearing scheduled today in Tampa, Dandar is expected to argue against the church's effort.
Dandar said he never heard of Minton until church lawyers asked about him this summer. He said he inquired about Minton over the Internet and Minton responded, offering financial aid in the McPherson case.
Minton also has given money to a number of other church critics, including three people whom the church brands as criminals for infringing on Scientology's copyrights.
But Minton's contributions are a fraction of the money and effort Scientology poured into lawsuits that bankrupted CAN, according to a lawyer who has defended the group. Attorney Daniel Leipold puts CAN's legal expenses at roughly $2-million, and "for every nickel we spent, they spent at least a dollar."
CAN was formed in 1973 by California families who had children in cults, but these days a call to the Cult Awareness hot line is likely to be answered by a Scientologist. A Scientology lawyer bought the network's name and hot line after CAN declared bankruptcy in 1996.
For years Scientology had publicly denounced CAN, issuing news releases that accused the group of bigotry, kidnapping and other crimes. CAN countered with public denunciations of Scientology as a harmful cult that breaks up families, fleeces people out of money and endangers the lives of its members.
In 1991, CAN chapters around the country began getting letters from Scientologists who wanted to join the organization. There were strong similarities of language between the letters, which expressed sympathy with CAN's efforts to help people "make responsible and informed decisions when it comes to religious choice."
CAN admitted some of the Scientologists as members but rejected others. Within months, more than 35 discrimination lawsuits had been filed against CAN by individuals in California, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon and the District of Columbia. Most were filed in various California courthouses.
Then Scientologists wrote to insurance companies that carried policies for CAN, asking that they stop paying the group's legal bills.
CAN had five mostly part-time employees, a network of volunteers, an annual budget of about $300,000 and an 800-telephone number. Many of the callers were parents worried that their sons or daughters were in cults.
CAN turned to Leipold, an Orange, Calif., lawyer who handled defense cases for medical malpractice insurance companies. Lloyd's of London paid the first $1-million in legal fees and costs, but costs are now double that figure and still counting.
As he defended CAN in the California suits, Leipold found himself in court against long-time Scientology attorneys and other lawyers who were being paid by Scientology.
And, as he took statements from individual Scientology plaintiffs, Leipold found a remarkable lack of knowledge. Several of the plaintiffs said they had not seen or signed the lawsuits, even though the court papers bore their signatures.
Brian Hart, one of the first Scientologists to file a suit against CAN in December 1992, said he did not see the lawsuit until 10 months later -- three days before he testified in a deposition.
Hart told lawyers he could not remember how he got the name and addresses of CAN officials. Nor could he remember many other circumstances that led to the lawsuit, including who asked him to write to CAN.
Another plaintiff, Jonathan L. Nordquist of Chicago, fired his attorney and asked a judge to dismiss his lawsuit. He said Eugene Ingram, a private investigator for the Church of Scientology, paid him $300 to have lunch, and he agreed to be a plaintiff. Nordquist said he signed a blank page for Scientology attorneys.
"Scientology planned, instigated, coordinated and sponsored a plan to subject CAN to multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions in order to overwhelm and eliminate it or take it over and control it," said Leipold.
Moxon, the church attorney, said there was no grand plan. "My office handled quite a few of (the cases)," he said. "We understood that type of discrimination."
He said his firm represented the plaintiffs mostly at no charge and that individual churches within Scientology "helped a little bit, but very little."
Most of the CAN lawsuits were dismissed before trial after the organization agreed to allow Scientologists as members, but not before running up the legal tab.
It was a 1994 suit filed in Seattle that was the final straw for CAN. Jason Scott was kidnapped after his mother called a CAN volunteer and was referred to a cult deprogramer to retrieve her 18-year-old son from a Pentecostal group.
Moxon filed suit for Scott and won a $1.8-million verdict against CAN. The judgment has been appealed, but CAN already has declared bankruptcy.
After a Scientology lawyer purchased the CAN name in bankruptcy court, Scott fired Moxon and hired Graham Berry, a Los Angeles lawyer who often has represented clients against Scientology. Now Scott says he believes he was a pawn in Scientology's plan to eliminate CAN. In an interview, Berry called Scientology "a bunch of hypocrites" for complaining about Minton.
But church officials say there is a clear distinction between Minton's activities and Scientology's role in the CAN lawsuits.
Scientologists were working successfully to preserve First Amendment rights for themselves and all religions, while Minton "is funding people who have been proven to be copyright infringers," said Michael J. Rinder, a top Scientology official in Los Angeles. "These people are a pack of criminals," he said.
Rinder also said that Minton, by his involvement in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit, is supporting an effort by Dandar to extort $80-million from the church.
Dandar said the Florida Bar told him the arrangement with Minton was ethical, provided Minton did not control the case or have access to confidential information. He said Minton agreed to those terms and gave the money "with no strings attached."
Scientology sponsored suit against opponent, St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 23, 1997
I am circulating the article [above], which is basically well written, but it does contain one significant error which reflects an incorrect statement often made by Scientology, picked up by Morgan and Tobin, about the litigation against the real Cult Awareness Network which Scientologists subjected CAN to from 1991 to its closing in 1996.
The statement made by Morgan and Tobin is:
"Most of the CAN lawsuits were dismissed before trial after the organization agreed to allow Scientologists as members, but not before running up the legal tab."
The real Cult Awareness Network never agreed to allow Scientologists as members as a result of the litigation by Scientologists. CAN had two levels of membership, membership in the local chapters and membership at the national level. Local membership was controlled at the local level by the affiliates themselves; the local chapters were the voting members of the corporation, electing the national board of directors. Membership at the national level gave such members no voting rights, but simply entitled these members to CAN's monthly newsletter for the annual contribution of $35.00. CAN toughened its local membership requirements, rather than softening them, after Scientolgists began suing the local chapters to force the chapters to let them become members.
CAN, with all the local chapters' approval, established a committee made up of members of the national board of directors to make the final decision about local membership. The California Supreme Court upheld judgment in favor of CAN in the Hart v. CAN lawsuit, and the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld judgment in favor of CAN in the Clegg v. CAN case, establishing the right of private organizations such as CAN to decide who does and does not become a member or attend meetings, In the nine years I was executive director, CAN always let anyone who wanted to be a national member become one. For example, in the late eighties, Alan Brooks, President of the Church of Scientology of Illinois, wrote on Scientology letterhead wanting to become such a national member, and was permitted to do so. Over the years hundreds of Scientologists, who identified themselves as Scientologists in sending in their contributions, were permitted to join CAN at the national level. The feeling of the board of directors, to my recall, was that it might be beneficial for these Scientologists to read CAN's monthly newsletter. No Scientologist ever won a single lawsuit over membership in CAN at either the local or national level, and CAN never modified its policies after the litigation against it by Scientologists began, and never let any Scientologists join as members who had previously been denied membership. CAN won everyone one of the membership lawsuits, or the Scientolgoists withdrew them themselves before trial. As a face-saving tactic Scientology has made such a claim that CAN did reform its membership policies as a result of all the litigation, and relies on Bagley v.
CAN, for this lie. In Bagley v. CAN, the Scientologist, Andrew Bagley, did not even attempt to apply for membership before bringing suit in Illinois state court claiming he was denied such membership. In the Bagley case, once CAN pointed out to the court (as the court record reflects) that Bagley could not support his discrimination claim that he had been denied national membership in CAN since he had never applied, Bagley promptly applied, his check was cashed, and he began receiving the CAN News. The court found Bagley's discrimination claim moot, and it was dismissed.
Early in the litigation wars by Scientologists, a state trail court judge in California did order that CAN let eight Scientologists attend one CAN meeting being held in California, issuing a temporary injunction, while their discrimination suit over being denied attendance at this one meeting was pending. This was not a suit over membership rights, but over alleged discrimination in terms of being able to attend a private meeting, and the temporary injunction did not in any way establish any legal case law that was binding in future cases. The eight Scientologists withdrew their lawsuits over CAN's objection (as CAN wanted the chance to present its case to the court) once the eight attended the conference but before the case could be heard on its merits. However, this in no way resulted in any "reform" on CAN's part either.
The Hart decision, which came down from the California Supreme Court later, established the right of CAN to keep anyone out of private meetings as well as control membership, and it was binding on future cases. CAN successfully won a lawsuit the following year in state court in Minnesota in which Scientologists who had a reputation for being harassing of CAN members were excluded from a private CAN meeting. Note that other Scientologists who did not have such a reputation had been permitted by CAN to attend the same meeting. After Scientologists lost this 1993 case, no Scientologist ever sued CAN again to get into one of its private meetings, though CAN held meetings in 1994 and 1995 before closing in mid-1996.
I am very proud that CAN was able to make case law supporting the rights of private associations to control their own membership and admittance to attendance at their private meetings. The protection by CAN through case law in federal and California courts of the freedom of association rights of private organizations reflects the true spirit of the true CAN's work, and is a legacy which Scientology cannot erase, only try to undercut by misrepresenting the truth and hoping that legitimate media repeat this misinformation.
Cynthia Kisser is the former Executive Director of the real Cult Awareness
Network
Caution: The organization currently operating under the name ''Cult Awareness Network'' is a hategroup affiliated with the Church of Scientology.
From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Subject: Re: $300 for Nordquist for "lunch" (from Cynthia Kisser)
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 03:47:58 -0400
Organization: ARS: Definitely the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <4hjonuoqbhoqkqngel2dgps4krbo9h9biq@4ax.com>
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 05:47:30 GMT, Grouchomatic <Grouchomatic@cox.net> wrote:
>It really wouldn't make any difference. The attorney would be guilty of
>a gross breach of ethics. Having a client sign a blank piece of paper
>for the purpose of manufacturing evidence at a later date is an unlawful
>act EVEN if the information on the page is truthful. Your admission of
>this unlawful act is evidence that Moxon suborned this unlawful act.
>Thank you.
This is one of the main problems with the kind of individual Mr. Nordquist is. He thinks that if he's committed a whole world of crimes, that admitting to one thing somehow absolves him of the rest of his crimes. I completely fail to be charmed by his naif act in which he flounces about pretending not to know his actions were illegal.
Nordquist is just another of the individuals who swarmed around the destruction of CAN by the amoral thugs of Scientology. He's peas in a pod with Mark Blocksom, another individual who, strung out on drugs, took money from Scientology to sign a perjured affidavit claiming Cynthia Kisser was a "topless dancer." The difference is that Blocksom got himself straight and recanted his perjury, so actually perhaps "peas in a pod" is unfair to the drug addict who at least had an excuse.
The routine is simple. Ingram finds a whorish individual, then pays them to commit perjury and lie about someone. Then Ingram reports the lies back to his boss Elliot Abelson or Moxon or whoever ( http://abelson.da.ru for Abelson). Then Moxon or Abelson spout the lies in court or otherwise spread it to OSA operatives. Then the OSA operatives "discover" it in the court file and "report" it. Since the statements were made in court the operatives can claim to have "researched" the material and thus to be protected from a defamation action under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for defaming a public official which requires "actual malice," which often (as in Kisser's libel case) devolves into a simple matter of having done sufficient research. The OSA operative can claim to have done the research in court and to have relied on the testimony as accurate.
The lawyers are protected by the absolute litigation privilege against defamation. The PI claims to have relied on the claims of his informant.
(Even though he paid him to lie it's usually impossible to prove and even if the perjurer later recants and says he was paid to lie who is going to believe a perjurer?) Any communications between the lawyer and the PI is also privileged against discovery. The testimony of a self-confessed perjurer will generally be not enough evidence to invoke the crime-fraud exception.
The only person in danger of really getting screwed here is the perjurer.
However this is usually some marginal character nobody cares about anyway, and what evidence is there against the perjurer? None but his own if he fesses up!
Prior to Nordquist, another example of this is Anthony Apodaca, a transvestite prostitute heroin addict who Scientology lawyer Donald Wager dredged up in a haul of the dregs of the LA County prison system. Amusingly enough, Anthony Apodaca's price for perjury was also $300. Apodaca later recanted his perjury, admitting he never even had met Graham Berry before the court hearing.
Another such individual was Robert Cipriano, who was paid to file a perjured affidavit alleging that Graham Berry was a child molester. Cipriano also recanted his perjury and admitted to being paid large sums of money for his lies by Kendrick Moxon.
Nordquist is just one of the low, craven individuals of this sort, who will whore himself out for a few filthy pennies and a hotel room. Like Blocksom or Scarff, he is interesting only as an example of a type.
Why this clown is showing up on ars now is beyond me, but I very much doubt he has any legitimate reason for being here.
One wonders why he posts from a Kenosha, Wisconsin email address while actually using the address of a high school Internet dialup near Zion, Illinois. I guess it's smart to live near a border when you might end up wanted on one side or the other of it.
ptsc
From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Subject: Re: $300 for Nordquist for "lunch" (from Cynthia Kisser)
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:19:20 -0400
Organization: ARS: Definitely the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <qpeonuckol15sj8lsckjtbmg5sg8s7v3bs@4ax.com>
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:26:26 -0500, <John.Nordquist@kenosha.ws> wrote:
>Again, I have little to argue upon regarding my past with CAN or with the
>Religious Freedom Project (Sci). My arguement with "ptsc" is that I was
>never financially motivated on either side. I worked for probably a bit
>over two years. The project I worked on was never funded by anyone.
I've heard some stories about you mooching off parents with your "I'm a poor downtrodden ex-cultist" boohoo stories. Care to comment about that, Jonathan/John?
>Religious Freedom Project offices were in my home, and the phone number was
>my personal one. The computer database was mine, as well as the BBS
>(remember those days folks?). The media contact was a wonderful PR person
>from Scientology in Chicago (MaryAnn), and the spokesperson was a very
That would be Mary Ann Ahmad of OSA.
>committed Christan preacher from out east named George Robertson, whom I met
This would be the "George Robertson" who is another of Scientology's paid whores. He's now connected to the "new" Cult Awareness Network.
>with a few times when he was in Chicago.
>There was never a time when I was paid for any of this - and there was never
>any money even if I wanted reimbursement. Even when I showed up in NYC
>diring the CAN conference to do the Religious Freedom counter-conference, I
>drove there myself, and stayed at the big Unification Church hotel gratis.
That's quid pro quo just like any other money you mooched, borrowed or otherwise slimed your way into.
>I paid all my own meals, as did all participants in the project.
>So the $300. from Mr. Ingram is an issue? Because HE gave it to me rather
>than Bowles & Moxon? Lawyers and PI's typically do that - pay the expenses
>of the people they meet with, particularly when the fly them in and require
>overnight stays. I had literally no concept that that would ever become an
>issue.
You never had an idea that signing a blank piece of paper would become an issue? How much money did it cost you to sign a blank piece of paper anyway? That must have been some expensive ink.
>The $300./lunch quotation by CKisser is, I assume, either an
>oversimplification or tongue-in-cheek.
No, it's from your own statement in court.
Shall I quote you?
A. Okay. First of all, I was living here in Chicago. And Scientology and Bowles & Moxen's chief investigator, a guy named Gene Ingram, came to Chicago to interview me. And he paid me right on the spot .
I mean, you know, he is like a slick talker and all of that kind of staff. He paid me like $300 cash to have lunch with him to talk. Anci ha took notes. He didn't record anything; he just took notes while we talked.
That's from your deposition.
>The blank piece of paper is true, but it sounds also exaggerated. I spent
>many, many hours giving a statement to lawyers. In the end, I don't recall
>whether it was the attornies or Ingram, but the blank page was so that in
>case there were any missed items. (I don't know if it was ever used - but
In other words, so they could add whatever they felt like.
Just so you know, it's illegal to take money for fact testimony, whether it's $3 or $300.
>the depositions and statements I made there in LA came to more than a couple
>hundred pages, each page signed by me).
That's an awful lot to do for free when just a few casual lies over lunch netted you $300.
You're a slimeball.
Lower than a Scarff's belly.
ptsc
Go Back
to Shy David's Scientology Page.