Superior Court Of the State of California For The Los Angeles County Church of Scientology of California, Plaintiff Vs. Lawrence Wollersheim Case No. BC074815 Reply to Scientology's Complaint to Set Aside Judgment and for Equitable Relief. April 11, 1993 P.O. Box 10910 Aspen, Co. 81612 To the Honorable Justice Kakita, The defendant, Lawrence Wollersheim replies pro se 0to the complaint which Scientology has filed in this case as follows: GENERAL INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Scientology's allegations and its First Cause of Action are false and without merit. The First Cause of Action and "facts" presented are not fairly presented in light of the facts and evidence contained in the 25,000 page trial record in Wollersheim Vs. Scientology, No. C 332 027, (the case it is asking to be set aside.) The allegations, First Cause of Action, and the arguments Scientology presents are not supported by any credible evidence. In the following brief and appendices0 I will provide detailed evidences and references concerning and refuting Scientology's current meritless allegations and First Cause of Action. I will document Scientology's relevant current activities and history. I will correct gross inaccuracies and other premeditated perjuries contained within Scientology's complaint. I will do these things in honor of Justice Swearinger's fine memory,0 in memory of the tens of thousands of fearful world wide victims of Scientology, and for myself. In the following pages and included appendices I will clearly demonstrate in specific detail the real reasons this malicious and frivolous suit has been filed, and show that this suit is intended to act as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, (SLAPP)0 -- in that this suit was, in part, premeditatedly designed as part of an ongoing campaign to harass me into submission or silence. Specifically, this suit seeks to deter me from: 1.) exercising my First Amendment rights of petition in Wollersheim Vs Scientology, No. C 332 027, 2.) exercising my First Amendment rights to speak freely on civic matters of grave and compelling danger to the public safety and well-being, as these concern Scientology, and 3.) exercising my First Amendment rights of participating in and with government to protect the public from the grave and compelling danger posed by Scientology to the public well-being. SUMMARY OF SCIENTOLOGY'S COMPLAINT The five premises Scientology alleges as reasons for asking the court to hear this case are: A.) that Justice Swearinger was prejudiced and biased when he ruled on my case, B.) that he tainted the jury with his prejudice and bias, C.) that Justice Swearinger deliberately concealed these facts from Scientology's attorneys, D.) that Scientology JUST newly discovered these facts, and E.) that Scientology's real purpose in filing this complaint is a sincere and good faith effort to use the justice system to redress an actual rather than fictitious injustice. I will demonstrate flaws and lack of fact and merit in all five of these foundational premises upon which Scientology bases its complaint and request to this court. Because the premises are not true and valid, their arguments cannot stand and therefore this suit cannot stand either. FALSE PREMISES A, THAT JUSTICE SWEARINGER WAS PREJUDICED AND BIASED WHEN HE RULED ON MY CASE The speciousness of this allegation by Scientology is demonstrated by the following facts, disclosures, and evidences: 1.) The only individual (Justice Swearinger) who could provide factual evidence to refute those allegations and/or provide context to the said allegations, or defend his reputation from such malicious slander, has JUST passed away. Almost immediately after Justice Swearinger died, Scientology's attorneys bravely filed this suit claiming the judge's alleged bias had tainted the original Wollersheim jury and trial. Scientology's attorneys0 now feel bold enough to author a slanderous bias script for an honorable dead man. 2.) No credible evidence has been referenced in Scientology's brief. The best of what is offered by Scientology as "evidence" is only hearsay generated solely by Scientology's attorneys or by individuals with very possible significant or compelling undisclosed financial or other relationship and interaction with Scientology. In its brief, Scientology presents no credible evidence but only hearsay -- with the source of the hearsay being Scientology's own attorneys reinterpreting the remarks which they heard from one William Horn and an "unnamed attorney" who had represented Lawrence Wollersheim at some past date.0 Scientology's allegations fail to reference the existence of any verifying and corroborating affidavits by William Horn or the unnamed attorney for Wollersheim. They fail to reference the existence of any verifying and corroborating audio tapes of any of the alleged conversations with Justice Swearinger. The timing of this action is highly relevant as an urgent signal to direct the court's attention to Scientology's extensive and ongoing history in the civil and criminal court system, particularly Scientology's proven lack of integrity in the handling and presenting of "facts" in these legal areas. Extraordinary diligence is called for by the "coincidence" that this action was filed immediately after the death of the only qualified individual (Justice Swearinger) who could provide factual evidence to refute Scientology's malicious bias allegations. To document the proven legal history of Scientology's abuse of the legal process, I have included appendices called "The Criminal History of Scientology and "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." 3.) Scientology fails to fully disclose that throughout the five-month Wollersheim trial they repeatedly accused Justice Swearinger of prejudice and bias and tried to remove him from the bench. "California Superior court judge Ronald Swearinger, who presided over the Wollersheim trial, describes the case itself as anything but normal: Church trial layer Earl Cooley and his co-counsel the late John Peterson filed a number of unsuccessful "writs and motions" throughout the trial in an attempt to halt it, according to Judge Swearinger. Three days into the trial the judge says they moved for his disqualification based on, "some secret conversation I had with someone I never heard of." They also filed a section 1983 federal civil rights action against both him and the judge who sat on the case prior to him, says Swearinger, on the theory that by allowing the case to go to trial, the judges were denying the church its civil rights."0 This statement, and the previously-mentioned appendices, show Scientology attacking judges on anything and everything Scientology can invent. The record shows that this is standard policy and procedure for Scientology in and out of the courtroom. Scientology's history in civil and criminal trials, detailed in the appendices, provides an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the truth of this statement. The trial record in the five-month Wollersheim Vs. Scientology trial shows repeated examples where, in sum and substance, Scientology accused and implied that Justice Swearinger was prejudiced and biased, that he tainted the jury -- and just about anything else they could think of -- in a relentless effort to remove him from the bench and stop or obstruct the trial from proceeding. 4.) Scientology fails to disclose its obstructionist policy of arguing passion and prejudice, bias by the judge, the jury, the court system, the justice system in America, and anyone and everyone it could possibly implicate. The record shows this standard Scientology policy in almost every brief, writ, and motion Scientology has filed SINCE Wollersheim filed his original suit against Scientology, and in all their briefs on appeal after the verdict in the original Wollersheim Vs. Scientology case in 1986. The obstructionist argument being presented to this court is a very, very, very tired one. It has been refuted on two separate occasions by the California Court of Appeal, several times by the California Supreme and twice by the U.S. Supreme court. Never, after an extensive and detailed review of 25,000 pages of trial records, has any Appellate court given any of these obstructionist allegations any merit. In our opinion, these obstructionist policies represent a last-ditch act of sheer desperation, an effort to throw mud at a wall hoping that something will stick. With this policy, we believe, Scientology mocks the common sense of this court, trying to "back door" this court and do an "end around" the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court (at which the Wollersheim vs. Scientology case is now pending). When the trial court reviews a full and unaltered copy of the trial transcript of Wollersheim Vs. Scientology, and all the appeals transcripts which Scientology has made, the court will conclusively see that it is being back door'ed on issues that, in sum and substance, have been repeatedly heard and denied. The court will see, as every other court has seen, that every effort at fairness and remedy which our systems offers already has been provided to Scientology. 5.) In addition to Scientology's extensive history of attacking and harassing judges, it would be difficult to find any judge who has sat and heard a Scientology case of significance who has not been attacked for bias, prejudice, or some such other charge. This meritless attack on Justice Swearinger is no more than another ongoing extension of Scientology's secret policy to obstruct justice. The credibility of Scientology's allegations against Justice Swearinger should be carefully reviewed and weighed in light of its judge-attacking history. For more details on Scientology's outrageous history of attacks on judges, see the two newspaper articles "Prior Sect Try at Judge Reported" and "Scientology's War Against Judges" at the end of the appendix section titled "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." In addition to the numerous examples of Scientology's continuous attack strategy against judges, described in the two previously mentioned articles, the relentless ongoing pattern of attacking every judge on bias can be seen happening again. "Just last fall Cooley was brought in to argue the church's motion to recluse Los Angeles Federal Judge James Ideman who was sitting on three cases involving Scientology, based on the judges supposed bias toward the church... The church lost the reclusal motion and eventually appealed the decision up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to grant certiorari."0 6.) The current actions and proven history of Scientology create a unique set of difficulties for every judge who presides over a Scientology case. This unique set of difficulties must be carefully considered when one evaluates Scientology's allegations of bias and prejudice in this new lawsuit. Affidavits and trial records should be reviewed from the former criminal and civil judges, prosecutors, and opposing attorneys who have had the unique first-hand experience of trying to apply justice in a court of law to Scientology. From these records, and review of the Wollersheim trial record, this court will quickly get a clear perspective of what a nightmare Justice Swearinger had to deal with. They will discover a pattern that demonstrates Scientology deliberately tries to create its own bias and prejudice -- as a tactic to create its own mistrial. In light of the months of continual hammering by these Scientology mistrial-promoting tactics 0 and in light of its other deliberate intimidation and stress-promoting tactics to obstruct the justice process, Justice Swearinger can be seen to have handled an unbelievably stressful and difficult situation in an exemplary manner that brings honor to the Court. "At the [Wollersheim] trial Scientologists packed the courtroom and hallways of the courthouse and regularly interrupted the proceedings by protesting against alleged religious discrimination. "I'd let the jury out, let the [protesters] blab on, and then let the jury back in," says Swearinger. "It didn't bother me." Swearinger says he thought Cooley's histrionics were "comical" rather than effective, and that he often caught the jury, "rolling their eyes" at Cooley's "loud talk and hostility to opposing counsel and witnesses." 0 To assist the court in developing an insight into what Justice Swearinger had to handle, the following is a partial list of former criminal and civil judges, prosecutors, and opposing attorneys who have had the unique first-hand experience of trying to apply justice to Scientology in a court of law: Judge Breckenridge, LA Superior Court Judge Robert Jones, Portland Oregon Judge Steffan Graae, U.S.D.C. Judge Brown, Cal. Sup. Ct. Judge Krentzman, U.S.D.C., Florida Justice K. Skelly Wright, D.C. Judge Ritchey, D.C.D.C. 0 Los Angeles Federal Judge James Ideman Los Angeles Federal Special master [judge ] James Kolts Los Angeles Federal Judge Spencer Letts former LA District Attorney Raymond Baunoon Former Federal Criminal Prosecutor Joseph E. Di Genova City Attorney's for Clearwater Florida M.A. Goldbrath and James T. Russell former opposing attorneys: Michael Flynn of Boston Gary McMurray of Portland Joe Yanni of Los Angeles Charles O'Rielly of Los Angeles Ford Green of San Francisco John Contas of Los Angeles? Lawrence Levi of Los Angeles. Scientology creates a unique set of difficulties for every judge who presides over a Scientology case. These unique difficulties must be carefully considered when one evaluates Scientology's bias and prejudice allegations in this new lawsuit. "On April 17 of this year {1992} Cooley, church general counsel William Drescher, and Bowles and Moxon named partner Kendrick Moxon were among a team of church lawyers soundly rebuked in a federal court ruling for their willingness to " literally flout court orders and defy the authority of the courts." In his opinion Los Angeles Federal Special master [judge] James Kolts called the church's tactics a "cynical and unfair use of the judicial system."0 "Cooley's [one of Scientology's lead attorneys] conduct quickly put him at odds with Judge Letts, according to a transcript of the hearing. Despite having been admonished not to raise issues covered in the briefs -- which included the Time cover -- Cooley jumped right in. "I'd like to address that Time magazine article, Your Honor, because I think its crucial," he told judge Letts. The judge disagreed, but that apparently did not deter Cooley. When Cooley continued to bellow over the ringing of the judges gavel, Letts summoned the marshals. According to the opposing lawyer Cooley scurried out of the courtroom moments before two marshals arrived."0 Any reasonable person will see an intentional pattern of obstruction and of Scientology creating its own "prejudice" problems: in the proven ways Scientology behaves in and out of court (detailed here and in the appendices), and in light of the stress and security concerns Scientology deliberately put on the LA court system when the Wollersheim case was being tried. To summarize, we argue that Scientology's actions, described in this document and its appendices, show a pattern of: punishing anyone who dares to use the justice system against them, obstructing justice at every possibility juncture, deliberately engineering scenarios to try to create their own mistrials (to avoid a certain and just verdict), and, when all else fails, Scientology does everything in its power to intimidate and harass the plaintiff, the opposing attorneys, the judge and jury and the whole judicial system. Scientology tries to create its own mistrials to avoid court defeats and negative precedents 0 It deliberately tries to create bias and prejudices which, it hopes, will taint legal actions against it. Through repeated such actions, Scientology has lost any credibility in claims of bias. Adjudication of "bias" in Scientology cases must consider: A.) As just mentioned, Scientology attempts to create grounds for mistrial. They commit outrageous and unsociable acts in the courtroom which are designed to create an impression of bias or prejudice -- as a fall-back position for appeal if they lose. Because its acts are repugnant and threatening, these acts may make people feel wary and alienated. That is not prejudice! B.) Any Justice who tries Mafia, dangerous gang, or terrorist cases involving individuals and organizations who make a practice of outrageous, vengeful, and repugnant crimes will have a good idea of the difficulties of trying a Scientology case. A judge who is aware of the history of such an organization or individual will take reasonable security precautions and make extra efforts to keep the justice process rolling -- despite efforts to obstruct and prejudice the case and so circumvent and stop the justice process. Justice Swearinger was confronted by just such a case. He faced a continuous barrage of carefully orchestrated mistrial-generating attempts, which Scientology deliberated enacted to inflame fear of itself, passion, bias, and prejudice, and to create a false appearance of passion, bias, and prejudice in the court. After such behavior they cannot now come to the court with clean hands and a clean heart and claim they are the victims of their own cynical actions. This Mafia/dangerous gang/terrorist case scenario is faced by many judges. They do as well as any human could to ignore intimidation and obstruction, and keep the justice procedure going. From a careful review of Scientology's outrageous activities in the Wollersheim trial transcripts, any reasonable person would come to the logical conclusion that in spite of what occurred on and off the record0 Justice Swearinger conducted himself in an exemplary if not saintly manner and demonstrated unbelievable fairness and patience toward Scientology. Scientology's allegations that Justice Swearinger believed Scientology was harassing him and that this belief was the basis of bias and prejudice which disqualified him from hearing the Wollersheim case, is wild speculation without credible evidence. There is another, quite different and more probable explanation concerning this allegation. Over the years, Justice Swearinger might have received many threats, made many enemies of criminals he had sentenced. Many individuals or groups (beside Scientology) might have reasons to seek revenge against him. As a rational man, Justice Swearinger did not know the true source of any unusual events that happened during the Wollersheim trial. The perpetrators of those acts (if there were acts, and if there were perpetrators) might have been any from a long list of "maybes." But "maybe" does not make bias and prejudice in the legally-trained mind of an experienced jurist. To suppose otherwise is an insult to Justice Swearinger. Because the late Justice can no longer speak for himself, it is now possible for Scientology to seize upon any unexplained event during the Wollersheim trial and ASSERT that Justice Swearinger interpreted said event in a biased manner. The words thus put into the late Justice's mouth are words quite inconsistent with his experience and training. It is far more reasonable to believe that, like every Judge who has rendered unpopular decisions against hardened and vengeful criminals and criminal organizations like Scientology, Justice Swearinger was simply aware of all the maybes and took appropriate security precautions by informing the proper court personnel -- and went on with trying the case at hand. C.) Scientology further attempts to establish Justice Swearinger's "bias" by reference to the undocumented hearsay testimony of an "unnamed attorney" who previously represented Wollersheim. Besides the obvious, being an "unnamed source" of reinterpreted hearsay, Scientology provides no reference or verifying affidavit by this "unnamed source" and no reference or verifying audio tapes of alleged taped interviews with Justice Swearinger. If Scientology's "unnamed source" is my former appellate attorney, Barry Van Sickle, Scientology's allegations do not match the facts of Barry Van Sickles direct statements to me or in his Appellate briefs. To provide some possible context and refutation of Scientology's allegation concerning the "unnamed source," I offer the following information (assuming the unnamed source to be Barry Van Sickle). Barry Van Sickle suggested to me that, to explore the possibility of settlement with Scientology, I needed to give him permission to contact Justice Swearinger and ask him to help us by acting as a go-between to help bring the parties together. Barry clearly implied to me, and seemed to sincerely believe, that Justice Swearinger would have a positive influence with and on Scientology, as a go-between in exploring a possible settlement with Scientology's attorneys. I did not understand Barry's suggestion for using Justice Swearinger because I believed Scientology viewed him as a bitter enemy. Because I trusted Barry's advice, I gave him my permission to contact Justice Swearinger and he did so. Barry told me no settlement was reached. Scientology's allegations concerning this "unnamed source," in sections 17, 18, and 19 of their brief, do not reflect any of the information relayed to me by my attorney -- who was there at the time and directly involved in those negotiations. Scientology's allegations, in sections 17, 18, and 19 of their brief, are of so serious a nature that, if they did occur, my attorney would not only be under obligation to tell me but also would be required as an officer of the court to report said statements to the court. Scientology's allegations, in sections 17, 18, and 19 of their brief, also directly contradict the trial record. During the five-month Wollersheim trial, Justice Swearinger personally reviewed a preponderance of evidence that, since Wollersheim filed his suit, Scientology had fraudulently and systematically conveyed 290 million dollars in assets out of the Scientology corporation. Thus it would be self-contradicting and illogical for Justice Swearinger to state that a 30 million dollar judgment against a corporation with well over 300 million in assets was excessive. This becomes even more true in light of evidence presented in court, implying that Scientology's (hidden) real net worth was very possibly between one and two billion dollars. The following is from Barry Van Sickle's appellate brief which, in sum and substance, was also presented and argued by my previous attorney, Charles O'Reilly, before justice Swearinger at trial: "Third, the [Appellate] Court found that Scientology's net worth was only $18 million and, thus, the award exceeded net worth. As will be shown regarding Scientology's true net worth, such evidence was the result of a fraud0 perpetrated by Scientology and its counsel in part for the MCCS project.0 The reliance on such evidence was a fraud on the court. This alone would justify reinstatement of the full original jury award. The undisputed evidence showed that after plaintiff filed his complaint, Scientology in 1981 and 1985 made two transfers of assets to related entities under common control and transferred 90% of its assets to these "new" corporations. (R.T. 14,309-11, plaintiff's trial exhibits No's 2, 7, and 405.) These entities were related to Scientology and subject to common control by L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology's other leaders. (R.T. 7859-62; 7912-14.) These transfers were in part an outgrowth of the MCCS project, which was characterized by the 9th Circuit as involving the "cover up of [of] past criminal wrongdoing" and "planning of future frauds against the IRS with the connivance of Scientology's attorneys." Hubbard "maintained control in administrative matters. . ." and "possessed [ultimate control] until his death" over all Scientology organizations. (Founding Church v. Webster (D.C. Cir. l986) 802 F.2d 1448,1453,1456, cert. den. 484 US 871 (98 Led. 2d l5O, 108 S.Ct. l99].) Scientology and those related entities could have properly been considered by the jury to constitute one entity with a net worth of 300 to 500 million dollars. Alternately, the jury could properly have determined that Scientology and these related entities constituted a "corporate family whose entire net worth was to be considered in determining punitive. (Downey Sav.Loan Ass'n. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1100, review den.; cert den. 486 US 1036l [100, L ed.2d 610 108 S.Ct. 2033] (holding that a jury properly considered evidence of the net worth of defendant insurer and its parent company in awarding punitive damages)." In any event, the jury's award in this case was only a fraction of actual net worth of Scientology and not 160% of net worth. The jury rejected Scientology's evidence as a fraud and another "fair game" act being perpetrated on the court. It rendered its unanimous financial verdict based on the factual financial evidence presented by the plaintiff, partially from former high level Scientology executives, which it believed to be credible." FALSE PREMISE B, THAT JUSTICE SWEARINGER TAINTED THE JURY WITH HIS PREJUDICE AND BIAS Scientology implies, in section seven of its brief, that Judge Swearinger's alleged bias had tainted the jury because: Terri Reuter, a juror, allegedly told Scientology counsel after the trial that "unnamed court personnel" had told her [Terri Reuter] that Judge Swearinger's tires had been slashed. Again Scientology's logic is grossly flawed and non sequitur. First, Scientology offers no affidavit by Ms. Reuter or tape transcript to demonstrate that Scientology's interpretation of her alleged remarks accurately represents Ms. Reuter's actual remarks, complete with all relevant context. We again have Scientology's attorney's hearsay for testimony. Second, assuming and implying that Judge Swearinger was the alleged "unnamed court personnel" who made statements about slashed tires which allegedly tainted the jury, is wild speculation and totally unfounded. There were serious and expensive security risks for those associated with this trial; at times there were as many as thirteen armed sheriffs in the court. It is far more likely that court personnel involved with security, as part of normal security procedures, were appraised of any unusual, possibly threatening, occurrences happening to Judge Swearinger. Even if it were shown that a juror learned of such an event, this would not prove that the Judge tainted the jury with alleged bias. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that such knowledge, if it existed, would have influenced the jury's unanimous verdict against Scientology. The alleged quote in section 14 of Scientology's brief implies contradiction of Scientology's position that there was substantive trial or procedural error or omission that would have resulted in a reversal of the verdict. Part of this alleged quote from Justice Swearinger supports the defendant's position in this brief, that Justice Swearinger was handling the maybes and possibilities as any exemplary judge would do: "But there was nothing overtly threatening, and I didn't pay any attention to the funny stuff." This quote, from section 14 of Scientology's brief, shows Justice Swearinger dealing with the normal occupational hazards that come with the job of judge, in the proper way. Finally, in light of Scientology's history of "dirty tricks," the court must wonder if it was not Scientology itself, through its own covert operatives, who leaked the alleged statements to Ms. Rueger and then sent their own attorneys later to interview Ms Rueger and "discover" these new facts. The motivation would be to create grounds for a mistrial, in anticipation of a decision not favorable to Scientology. See appendices "The Criminal History of Scientology" and "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." FALSE PREMISE C. THAT JUSTICE SWEARINGER DELIBERATELY CONCEALED HIS ALLEGED BIAS AND PREJUDICE FROM SCIENTOLOGY AND ITS ATTORNEYS Scientology argues in section 15 of their brief that Justice Swearinger did not reveal his alleged belief or concern that Church personnel were responsible for acts of harassment against him. In section 14 they reference an alleged quote of Justice Swearinger that was written in the July\August issue of the American Lawyer by a writer named William Horne. In reading this quote there are several factors to be considered: A.) This is a noncontinuous, undated alleged quote without the full context of the statements allegedly made to William Horne by Justice Swearinger. Scientology provides no reference or verifying affidavit by William Horne that the brief correctly represents Horne's many alleged statements to Scientology's attorneys, or that the brief correctly represents what Justice Swearinger said to Horne. B.) Scientology provides no reference or verifying tapes of Horne's Swearinger interviews where Justice Swearinger's unaltered voice on tape could be verified. In light of the history and ongoing acts of Scientology as disclosed in the included appendices ("The Criminal History of Scientology" and "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries"), the ability to completely and independently verify every allegation and claim made by Scientology becomes absolutely imperative and indispensable. C.) The question must also be raised, in light of Scientology's history of undercover operations on adversaries, does William Horne have an undisclosed financial or other compelling relationship with Scientology? Having 23 years experience dealing with Scientology tactics (approx. 10 years inside Scientology and 13 years outside), I am very familiar with Scientology's standard operating procedures. I have both perpetrated them (as a member) and been the victim of them (after filing suit against them). On these grounds I must wonder whether Horne has reason to make false or deliberately misleading statements about the alleged interviews that took place with Justice Swearinger. One of Scientology's favorite intelligence operations is to have a Scientology undercover operative pose as a reporter to gain information, to plant or create false information, or to create discord in the organization of a perceived enemy. This technique was related directly to me by one of Scientology's top intelligence operatives while I was still in Scientology. I myself was sent to infiltrate the AMA at their Chicago headquarters, using the reporter impersonation ploy. I was to impersonate a free lance reporter to gain file access to obtain information, or if needed, plant false information for Scientology. See detailed verification of such activity from FBI records in enclosed appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." After I left Scientology and sued them, Scientology used a paid operative in Aspen, Colorado, posing as a reporter, to "interview" me and steal personal materials. This individual along with other operatives carried out a local black PR campaign of outright lies and distortions which destroyed my business and eventually caused me to move out of Aspen. D.) If Scientology does not have a covert operative to pose as a reporter, it is well within their standard intelligence procedures and history to offer a previously legitimate reporter or person a large amount of money to create a story that is favorable (or less unfavorable) to their interests, that forwards Scientology propaganda attacks, or that attacks their adversaries' credibility and interests. When the LA Times ran a scathing six part article exposing Scientology's illegal and other antisocial activities, Scientology spent over 1 million dollars for billboards all over LA misquoting the article to make it appear to the uninformed that the Times was in some way endorsing Scientology. After TIME magazine's May 6, 1991 cover issue on Scientology, Scientology purchased an estimated 3 million dollars of full page ads in major U.S. magazines and newspapers in another desperate attempt at damage control. They also sent letters to religious editors at all the major U.S. newspapers. The religion editor of the Arizona Republic ran a reply to Scientology's influence efforts: "The church has embarked on an aggressive national advertising campaign in newspapers and on television. The campaign is so aggressive that it looks like an act of desperation." Covertly financing underpaid reporters to "turn" the story is economical compared to the cost of damage control after honest reporters do their homework, as they did for the LA times and for TIME magazine. One can only wonder how much pressure Scientology would use to "turn" an underpaid or intimidatable reporter.0 If an individual cannot be bought, the next level of influence is to intimidate or investigate the reporter or individual for potential blackmail. For more on Scientology and reporters, see the Quill magazine article "Shudder into Silence" by LA Times reporter, Robert Welkos, at the end of the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." E.) Legitimate reporters who have done their homework are not fooled into forwarding Scientology's enemy attack propaganda and disclaimer positions.0 When a story appears to do those things, there is reason at least for suspicion of who the reporter is actually or secretly working for. While I am not directly stating that William Horne is a Scientology operative, there is much in his story that fits pattern of a "turned" reporter, including the following: 1.) Positions that forward or legitimize Scientology's standard propaganda lines. In Horne's article, in a section called "What is Scientology," Horne gives Scientology a glowing one-sided advertisement, without any mention that the courts have exposed the dangerous thought reform nature of Scientology auditing and other coercive practices. Horne also fails to mention the suicides, attempted suicides, psychosis, and neurosis proven to be caused by Scientology's practices, as disclosed in court or related by past members. This section is so pro-Scientology it appears to be written by Scientology's public relations staff. Scientology's intelligence people in the public relations divisions determine their production statistics by going through articles written about Scientology and totaling the number of column inches that are pro-Scientology. Whoever in Scientology wrote the "What is Scientology" section and got Horne to print it hit the column-inch jackpot. No legitimate reporter who had done his homework and had access to all the information Horne did, could possibly have allowed so much false information, dangerous to the public well-being, to be printed without at least some indication that dissenting information exists. From another section of Horne's article: "Lubell is just one of a stable of reputable lawyers the church has hired over the last decade, who range from Yingling to criminal tax expert Gerald Feffer0 of D.C's 133 lawyer Williams and Connolly (Yingling's husband) to the church's general counsel William Drescher, a former partner of LA's now defunct Wyman,, Bautzer, Kuchel and Silbert. "These lawyers give credence to the church leaders assertion that while a small 0 group of Scientologists ran amok in the 1970's, the church has since cleaned house. (Italics added for emphasis.) The leaders say the allegations of brainwashing, harassment and other "fair game" tactics that the civil plaintiffs cite today in tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress -- and the similar allegations in Behar's article -- are baseless attacks on First Amendment protected religious practices."0 2.) Positions that forward or legitimize Scientology's standard enemy attack lines. Horne's article faithfully forwards and lends the American Lawyers' legitimacy to Scientology's attack propaganda against its current major enemies: "Sometimes the churches alleged over-zealousness is difficult to access. For example, over the last year the church has mounted an all out war against the Cult Awareness Network. According to the can Executive director Cynthia Kisser, there are nine suits pending against CAN by individual Scientologists and church entities in five different jurisdictions, with charges ranging from discrimination -- alleging that CAN'S refusal to admit Scientologists to join as members constitutes religious discrimination -- to fraud and deceit. "They are trying to bankrupt CAN," claims one lawyer involved in the litigation. "Its as simple as that." In this dispute its hard to take issue with hardball tactics against an organization that has labeled Scientology "a destructive cult."0 (Italic emphasis added.) More from Horne's article: "Documents recently obtained from the IRS and the FBI (and provided to the American Lawyer by Church lawyers) seem to vindicate some of the paranoia of the church leaders in the late 70's, apparently showing that the church was improperly targeted by several government agencies for special investigations. But suing a federal agency with which the church is trying to mend relations -- in an effort to make excuses for prior criminal behavior and to rehabilitate past acts by former leaders who current leaders admit were out of control -- seems shortsighted."0 The italics above were added for emphasis and to highlight the intelligence cover stories that Scientology has been trying to "sell" for years, doing what intelligence agencies are meant to do -- rewrite history with a new set of facts and plausible interpretations to forward the present goals of the organization or government. Anyone familiar with Scientology's real attitude toward the government is belly-laughing when they hear Horne forward the public propaganda line that the "church is trying to mend relations." The included appendices show in detail that Scientology's intelligence cover stories are blatantly false. More from Horne's article: "Plaintiffs attorney Charles O'Rielly claims he became a target for retaliation after he won a 30 million dollar jury verdict against the church on behalf of former Scientologist Larry Wollersheim... O'Reilly contends that, in the years following the verdict, he was questioned by the California State bar for substance abuse (the inquiry was eventually dropped), by the IRS (the investigation is ongoing), and by the state tax franchise board (no charges were ever brought). The evidence of church involvement in these matters is circumstantial -- and thin. (Italic added for emphasis.) O'Rielly is the only lawyer to defeat Scientology twice in court. The above has been Scientology's standard attack line on O'Rielly throughout his involvement with the Wollersheim case. But Horne fails to mention, though he was probably well aware, that O'Reilly had been mysteriously pistol whipped the night before he argued the Wollersheim appeal at the California Appellate court. On that same night, drug paraphernalia was planted in his home. More from Horne's article: "Boston personal injury lawyer Michael Flynn, for example who at one time represented more than two dozen plaintiffs against the church, was sued more than a dozen times in four jurisdictions for everything from contempt of court to defamation. All of the suits were eventually dropped and dismissed. In addition the church wrote nine letters of complaint to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers about Flynn alleging unethical conduct...Cooley insists that at least one complaint against Flynn was justified. "Flynn had a corporation called FAMCO in which shares were sold to lawyers throughout the country to participate in a nationwide program of civil litigation against the church!"...according to a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers Flynn has never been the subject of a disciplinary action.0 "I find the church is being harassed with fictitious allegations designed to extort money," growls Cooley, who derides the propaganda of plaintiffs.0 (Italics added for emphasis.) 3.) Positions that forward or legitimize Scientology's standard legal liability limiting disclaimer positions. "Wollersheim had alleged that the church's fair game harassment tactics and coercive religious practices, such as auditing, exacerbated an existing mental illness."0 (Italic added for emphasis.) Here again Horne picks up and forwards one of the key falsehoods used by Scientology's propaganda machine to try to limit the precedent in the anticipated loss of the Wollersheim case. This false story is essential to Scientology's history-rewriting. They cling to it in hope of diffusing the pending hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation relating to the dangerousness of Scientology's coercive thought reform practices, hoping to limit the Wollersheim precedent to only those victims who had prior or existing mental illnesses. They attempt to confuse the harm they cause with prior or existing mental illness. There simply was no prior or existing mental illness in Wollersheim or in the credible evidence presented to the jury in the Wollersheim trial. The "existing mental illness" story is a black PR intelligence tactic and false history rewrite, of the type explained in the "Propaganda" section in the appendix called "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." More from Horne's article: "As Armstrong leaves the cafe, he points out a middle aged man across the street holding a camera. "That's one of them," he says excitedly as we walk away, "Watch this." Sure enough, just before we round a corner, the man swings his camera in our direction. When Armstrong trots back and confronts him, the man appears befuddled, denying he is a detective and explaining that he is taking pictures for a photography class.... The photographer may have been innocent, (Armstrong is, after all an intriguing photography subject); he may have been an investigator. But what is certain is what is symptomatic of the paranoia displayed on all sides by most of the 65 lawyers judges and litigants interviewed for this article...while opposing and counsel and see Scientology behind every untoward occurrence in their lives, from near misses on the freeway to hangup phone calls..." (Italics added for emphasis.) Horne is forwarding another tired, standard Scientology attack line, denigrating the credibility of Scientology's critics. After reading the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries," it is clear that suspicion toward Scientology is not only appropriate but essential, if one is to survive as a Scientology target.0 While there is 40 years of accumulated good reason for being "paranoid" of Scientology, Horne conspicuously offers no real reasons for the attitudes he ridicules -- except some "unnamed documents" provided to The American Lawyer by probably the second worst source of credible information on the subject: "unnamed" Scientology attorneys. Somehow these few "unnamed documents" now become to Horne a powerful counterbalancing source that "seem to vindicate some of the paranoia of the church leaders in the late 70's, apparently showing that the church was improperly targeted by several government agencies for special investigations." Who were these unnamed attorneys for Scientology? Were they Scientology's intelligence division members sliding altered or manufactured "evidence" to an unsophisticated editorial staff at the American Lawyer. Why is Horne all alone in selling Scientology's probable covert operation documents which no other credible reporter or source has ever seen? From another part of Horne's article: "The strident propaganda fostered by civil plaintiffs and their counsel are repetitive time and time again on matters of such ancient history as have no relevance to the present time."0(Italics added for emphasis. Again Horne fails to disclose that Scientology's behavior toward its adversaries has not changed but that it still functions as a para military intelligence agency. This important omission once again helps Scientology sell its disclaimer story of the wolf in the hen house who has miraculously changed into a sheep. Scientology's inability to tell the truth about itself or truly change its behavior follows from the self destructive attack policies built into the organization by founder L. Ron Hubbard. The state of affairs is well described in TIME magazine's defense against a Scientology libel suit: "Our second ground [for dismissal] is that Scientology is libel proof," says Abrams [defense counsel]. "The church has so often been held to commit evil and despicable acts by courts and so often been written about in an extremely critical manner by others that it has no reputation for libel laws to defend or rehabilitate."0 Horne acts as if he were oblivious to all this. 4.) Apart from the specific content of Horne's article, I would also note that overall (compared to TIME magazine and other articles on Scientology included with this brief) it is strangely out of character and out of tone with other articles on Scientology. It is the only article ever written, out of the hundreds that I am aware of, that gives so much credibility to Scientology's propaganda lines. This is suspicious because it so stands alone. Horne apparently suffered none of the abuse inflicted on writers whose articles were truly exposes, rather than a pretended one. See the Quill magazine article "Shudder into Silence" by LA Times reporter Robert Welkos, at the end of the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." The lack of intimidation is completely out of character for Scientology -- unless the reporter was in essence under their direct or indirect control. While Horne was writing his article, I sent him a pack of materials similar to what the court is now receiving with this brief. I offered myself for consulting or interview related to his article but received no reply, acknowledgment, or contact. This is odd because Horne, in his article, says he interviewed over 65 people for the piece. Yet the plaintiff in the most publicized legal battle with Scientology was not interviewed or contacted -- even after that person volunteered a willingness to assist him. My theory is that the Horne article was probably a set up by Scientology for the main purpose of attacking Justice Swearinger, to set up a plausible0foundation for the allegations of this suit. This theory of a sting operation similar to what Scientology has done to other judges, is well within Scientology's proven past actions. As Scientology senses the seemingly inevitable loss of the Wollersheim case, it is desperate to mitigate the pending consequences in any way it can. Horne's too-convenient alleged conversation with Swearinger has Scientology's intelligence signature (history-rewriting and manufacturing) all over it. "But Swearinger's recollections of the Wollersheim case go beyond court filings: "I was followed (at various times) throughout the trial... and doing the motions for a new trial, the judge claims. "All kinds of things were done to intimidate me, and there were a number of unusual occurrences during that trial. My tires were slashed. My collie drowned in my pool.... "Civil Liberties lawyer Eric Lieberman, a partner at New York's 12 lawyer firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin Standard, Krinski, and Lieberman who worked on the appeal of Wollersheim and has represented the church for 14 years, claims Swearinger's charges are yet another example of judicial bias with which the church must contend. " That is highly, highly improper! he shouts. Even if the judges assertions are) true, it was the height of impropriety for him to continue sitting (on the case.)" 0 The price of using the American Lawyer magazine as an unwitting shill through a compromised reporter or a covert operative, would be very cheap if it could derail the Wollersheim case. Although some would read this article and say there are negative things about Scientology in it, those who are really familiar with Scientology and what Horne could have written do not consider this a bad or consequential Scientology expose. Even the apparent "negatives" serve an important purpose: Horne offers just enough criticism of Scientology on minor or inconsequential issues to provide the "adversarial" cover needed to set up the Swearinger attack. I have not directly heard Horne's side of the story or seen verification, such as audio tapes of Horne's conversations with Scientology, of what Scientology attorneys claim he is alleging about his conversations with Justice Swearinger. I say only that the possibilities of an undisclosed Horne-Scientology relationship must be considered because of Scientology's criminal history and because Horne's article fits so exactly with Scientology's legal and public relations positions. Consequently, the complete taped voice interviews with Justice Swearinger must be examined and independently verified before any credibility is given to Horne's remarks. Further, Mr. Horne's relationship with Scientology must be completely investigated to rule out any hidden financial or other compelling inducement which may be at play. The remarks of a U.S. federal prosecutors memorandum to the judge, urging stiff sentences for nine top-ranking authorities and leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges, bears repeating in light of the statements of the last section of this brief. "The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes." FALSE PREMISE D. THAT SCIENTOLOGY JUST NEWLY DISCOVERED THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THEIR BRIEF Scientology's statement that they have just discovered these facts is false because: 1.) The Wollersheim trial record shows that Scientology, in sum and substance, repeatedly implied that Justice Swearinger was biased and prejudiced during the trial and that the jury was tainted. Scientology tried repeatedly to remove the judge from the bench during the proceedings. 2.) Scientology has argued, in sum and substance, the "new" facts it alleges to this court in every appeal it has made since the trial. These tired arguments have been refuted on two separate occasions by the California Court of Appeal, several times by the California Supreme and twice by the U.S. Supreme court. Never, after extensive review of 25,000 pages of trial records, has any appeals court given Scientology's "new" allegations merit 3.) Scientology's own intelligence files and the files of private investigators, of their investigations and actions upon Justice Swearinger and Wollersheim and their families, verify they have been in possession of (or have been creating) the information in these allegations long before they claim they have just discovered it FALSE PREMISE E THAT SCIENTOLOGY'S REAL PURPOSE IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT IS A SINCERE AND GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO USE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO REDRESS AN ACTUAL INJUSTICE The falseness of this premise is shown by the actual reasons Scientology has filed this frivolous, meritless, and malicious lawsuit. This suit was filed to act as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). This suit follows the Scientology pattern of prolonged, excessively-high-cost massive legal campaigns which harass and intimidate less-wealthy critics into submission or silence. This systematic abuse of the legal process effectively co-opts the court to assist in harassment and intimidation. A.) This suit attempts to deter me from exercising my First Amendment rights of petition in Wollersheim Vs Scientology suit, No. C 332 027. Scientology's repeated lawsuits and other actions against me are designed to bankrupt me and put me in a position where I must settle on Scientology's terms (i.e., silence about Scientology's criminal activity). Over the last 13 years I have, because of Scientology's actions, had to go almost $1,000,000 in legal and security related debt. I have also had to liquidate all my assets. As part of Scientology's ongoing efforts to punish me for exercising my First Amendment right of petition, Scientology filed a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act) suit against me, knowing they would never prevail. In hope of pounding me into submission financially, they kept appealing loss after hopeless loss, merely to maximize my financial punishment, legal and security expense, and work.0 After 12 years and hundreds of thousand dollars in cost the RICO suit against me was dismissed in July 1992. Only a few months after that dismissal, Scientology filed the new punishment suit against me, Scientology V. Wollersheim. No. C 332 027. This lawsuit, like the earlier RICO suit, was designed not to seek justice but to continue to punish me with expenses, an overwhelming work load, and to "back door" and do an "end run" on a lower court that Scientology hopes will not catch on what they really are doing. Besides being designed to confuse the issues described below, with false information, this new suit is designed to improperly derail the actions above. If Scientology was sincere about this lawsuit and they truly felt it had solid factual merit, that it was vitally important, and that there was actually newly discovered evidence, they would have already brought the matter directly to the California Supreme Court while the Wollersheim case is pending there. There are provisions for submitting ACTUAL new disclosures to a court reviewing a case if the matter is truly important enough to the execution of fairness and justice of a case being decided. Scientology has not done this, for good reason. Scientology's transparent brief submitted to LA Superior court is simply worthless. The California Supreme court knows about Scientology, its history, and the Wollersheim record. Consequently, Scientology is trying to back-door and end-around the California Supreme Court by sidestepping into LA Superior court with a new judge. When the court carefully reads this brief and the accompanying appendices, it will discover and realize that Scientology's purpose in filing this suit is not sincere and in good faith. It is merely trying, in bad faith, to circumvent or further delay its probable loss and punishment at the California Supreme court. B.) This lawsuit was not designed to seek justice, but to continue a criminal intelligence operation to destroy Charlie O'Rielly, his reputation, his means of livelihood, and to discourage him, inhibit him, and lessen his ability to rejoin the Wollersheim case as a potential attorney or co-attorney. In its continual attack on Charles O'Rielly, Scientology is further trying to impede my First Amendment right of petition by intimidating my former attorney -- as a clear signal to warn and dissuade any other attorney who might consider assisting with the case. The warning is simple and exactly in keeping with Scientology policy on dealing with "enemies." "My God, look what happened to O'Rielly when he opposed Scientology. Look how they attacked his reputation. Look what the Scientology case did to his thriving old law firm. Look how he was mysteriously beaten up the night before he was to argue the Wollersheim case before the California Appellate court. Look at all the meritless complaints that were filed against him at the state bar and in other places. Look at all the other bizarre thing that have happened to him since he was courageous enough to take on Scientology. And look what they are still doing to him, years after he was no longer on the case. What a nightmare! Those people are ruthless fanatics. You gotta be nuts to take a Scientology case." In addition to Scientology's attacks on Mr. O'Rielly, my most recent attorney, Barry Van Sickle, asked to be taken off this case because he didn't want to and wasn't going to handle any more Scientology cases. He said they were very upsetting to the partners and the smooth running of his law firm, that they generated tremendous expenses and fear and caused him great personal and relationship stress. In other words the negatives were so intense it just wasn't worth continuing. Through Scientology's past attacks and continual attacking of my former counsels they are trying to impede me from regaining my former attorney or acquiring new counsel. This blocking of my acquisition or maintenance of proper counsel directly impedes my right to adequate representation so that I am able to pursue and exercise my First Amendment right of petition in a meaningful and effective way. C.) This meritless and malicious lawsuit was not designed to seek justice. It was designed,in significant part,to use the court, the judge, and the California Judicial system as an unwitting shill and vehicle to lend legitimacy to Scientology's Black PR public relations damage control campaign. As mentioned before, Scientology is anticipating a disastrous defeat on the Wollersheim Appeal and case. According to secret internal Scientology policy directives it must blindly and compulsively continue to attack Wollersheim0and most of the key figures associated with this case, to create a plausible public relations damage control story.0 An allegedly biased Judge and a judge-tainted and biased jury is a wonderful and absolutely necessary cover story to tell an information-controlled membership already victimized by the covert application of dangerous thought reform programs.0 B.) This suit attempts to deter me from exercising my First Amendment right to speak freely on civic matters of grave and compelling danger to the public safety and well-being, insofar as these concern Scientology. This lawsuit was not designed to seek justice but, in significant part, to make an example of me by brutalizing and punishing anyone who has or continues to dare to speak out on the ongoing grave and compelling danger to the public safety and well-being that Scientology represents. Scientology is aware that I continue to assist victims and families of victims of Scientology. The materials in the included appendices are similar to the materials I provide to victims and victim-assistance agencies. Recently, to help victims have access to legal and other parts of Scientology's document history, I filed an Amicus Brief in Civ #'s B025920, B038975, The Church of Scientology of California Plaintiff-Appellant and Mary Sue Hubbard, Intervenor- Plaintiff -Appellant V. Gerald Armstrong Defendant -Respondent. This pre-SLAPP-law action by Scientology sought to seal court records so as to stop Gerry Armstrong's rights and my rights to speak freely on civic matters of grave and compelling danger to the public safety and well-being concerning Scientology. It also sought to bar my access to crucial court and other documents needed for my ongoing legal actions against Scientology. Scientology lost this action0 and in part has filed the present suit as punishment for my role in that action, as well as to continue their efforts to dissuade me from continuing my current at the California Supreme court. C.) This suit attempts to deter me from exercising my First Amendment right to participate in and with government to protect the public from the grave and compelling danger posed by Scientology to the public well-being. Scientology is aware that I have been investigating the massive financial fraud and fraudulent conveyance they perpetrated with the aid of their attorneys on the original Wollersheim court, the state of California, and the U.S. Government.0 They are aware that I have been doing everything ethically possible to locate witnesses and documents related to those crimes and their other criminal acts before, during, and after the original Wollersheim filing. They are aware that I am active on a national and international level to bring them to justice using the various national justice systems. They know that I cooperate with and assist authorized governmental agencies to do this. They know that I am involved in a worldwide program to debrief former members who are willing to speak out and disclose the past and present crimes that Scientology has committed or is presently involved in. It is reasonable for Scientology to suppose that I will assist in new civil suits and in further criminal actions against them, as witnesses, former members willing to testify, and documentation becomes available to complete the evidence needed to conclusively prove in a court of law their criminal activities to obstruct justice in the Wollersheim case and in other cases. In view of the defeats they suffered in the original Wollersheim suit and their appeals and harassment suits relating to it, I expect that they will refocus and once again increase their efforts to stop me, bankrupt me, harass or intimidate me (their infamous out-of-court activities) or overwhelm me in work generated from more frivolous and meritless suits (like the present case) to intimidate me into submission or silence. In summary of the SLAPP argument, Wollersheim has been subjected to a continuous effort over the last 13 years to suppress his right of petition by: A.) Repeated use of frivolous and expensive lawsuits to deter his right to petition and pursue his case, and to deter him from continuing to say anything critical of Scientology (the RICO suit and now this suit). B.) Attempts to use federal trade secret laws designed for business usage to prevent access to critical materials necessary for him to exercise his right of petition and pursue his case (information similar to the "Secret Scientology" section in appendix 5.0 C). Attempts to establish new interpretations of copyright laws to silence or suppress factual information feared by Scientology, but necessary to pursue Wollersheim's case. The recent "Hubbard biography" copyright precedent0contains some new restrictive copyright interpretations and the RICO action. D). Attempts to seal, or successfully sealing, court cases, witnesses, and records for the purpose of denying Wollersheim information and witnesses necessary to pursue his right of petition (The Armstrong case and other Scientology cases). E.) Abuse of the legal process for harassment and intimidation, as described in the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries," directed toward Wollersheim, his family, his attorney, his counselors, and those in and out of the court system who are trying to protect his rights. The most fundamental of constitutional principles is involved in this case. It is the very assumption upon which our democratic society and system was founded. This principle is contained in the Jeffersonian concepts that man is a rational animal and that if he or she is allowed to be rational, our system will work. John Dewey distilled this underlying essential principle even further when he said, "The human power to respond to reason and truth protects democracy." Since rationality depends in significant part on the availability and quality of information, it follows naturally that if we do not protect the very processes for establishing rationality we could eventually elect, empower, or become the victims of those who would destroy us and our democratic system. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson.) To protect the rationality upon which our constitutional freedoms depend, we have established checks and balances like SLAPP laws, free press, open court records, outlawing subliminal advertising, and other procedures or laws to allow our population to become as fully and openly informed as possible. Our founding fathers knew that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing -- and that the best way to keep good men doing nothing was to keep them uninformed of dangers or frustrated and inhibited in their ability redress wrongs in a civilized manner through the justice system. In the case at hand, to allow Scientology's transparent effort to deny Wollersheim's right of petition, by the before-mentioned abuses, would be a worse case violation of the constitutional checks and balances which protect a rational, informed consent process. Scientology must not be allowed to avoid censure and correction by hiding its crimes and abuses, by brutalizing people into submission or silence. "As long as the organization's opponents and victims are successfully squelched, Scientology's managers and lawyers will keep pocketing millions of dollars by helping achieve its ends." (from TIME magazine May 6, 1991.) OTHER RELEVANT FALSEHOODS PRESENTED IN THE SCIENTOLOGY BRIEF 1.) Scientology claims on the front page of its brief, in the first sentence, that it is a non profit religious corporation. It is neither. It has deliberately perjured itself in representing it true classification to the court. Scientology has had its nonprofit status revoked by the IRS. The complete details are included in the appendix "Financial Fraud and Scientology." Scientology is not a religious corporation because it is not a religion. It is an international organization established for criminal purposes and for financial profit. "In Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Breckenridge presiding, the court record was found to be "replete with evidence" that Scientology "is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by [use of] pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect." This is only the smallest fragment of new evidence calling for a challenge to Scientology's fraudulent "non-profit" and "religious" classification claims. Complete details of how and where Scientology's religious status has been removed, and complete details of the pretext of religion Scientology holds up as a front to shield its criminal activities, are included in the appendix "Pervasive Pretext of Religion." 2.) On line 27, page one, of Scientology's brief, Scientology and its attorneys continue to premeditatedly perjure themselves and perpetrate fraud on the California Judicial system by claiming the true and actual complete net worth of Scientology is 14 million dollars.0 Complete details on the largest fraudulent conveyance in the history of California is detailed in the appendix "Financial Fraud and Scientology." 3.) In section 7 of Scientology's brief, Scientology's attorneys imply that Charles O'Reilly, through investigators he allegedly hired, perpetrated the dirty tricks that William Horne alleges Justice Swearinger told him about, for the purpose of implicating Scientology in those dirty tricks and prejudicing the jury against Scientology. The appendix sections, "The Criminal History of Scientology" and "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries," will help the court put Scientology' s meritless allegations concerning Charlie O'Rielly in a more factual and historical perspective. CONCLUSION This brief and its appendices show that the superior right in this case lies clearly in striking Scientology's complaint. The law, constitutional principle, and one's innate sense of justice and compassion demand it. The disclosures contained in this brief and its appendices show that there is only one fair and legal course of action this court should execute: it should refuse to hear Scientology's frivolous SLAPP lawsuit. It should immediately move to strike Scientology's complaint because it violates both the letter and the spirit of the new SLAPP laws and because Scientology's complaint and cause of action are the direct result of legal exercise of my right to petition. There is no credible new issue presented to this court in Scientology's complaint. There is no new evidence that Scientology's attorneys and intelligence division has not been alleging for years. The only thing new is what the masterminds of Scientology's legal strategy consider their big break: the untimely death of the only individual who could fairly answer these allegations. If by some chance the court decides or is obligated to hear this non-case, then I formally request that the court: 1.) Because of the SLAPP applicability: that Scientology immediately prove probability of prevailing on the merits. 2.) Because of the way the complaint brief is filed by Scientology: that Wollersheim be allowed to prove that Scientology is not entitled to file this lawsuit and foist itself fraudulently on the court as a religion and nonprofit religious corporation. For this purpose, Wollersheim will bring and provide new documents and new religious, lay, and government experts from the U.S. and abroad as well as top level former Scientology executives, former Scientology intelligence operatives and private investigators, former members, and former celebrity members to conclusively prove that Scientology is an extremely dangerous for-profit criminal organization operating under a bogus religious front and a dangerous, secular political facilitation organization. This new evidence will establish that Scientology is not entitled to the privileges, protections, and immunities afforded to the class of legitimate religions and non-profit religious corporations and organizations. If by some chance the court decides or is obligated to hear this non-case, then I also formally request that the court allow or require the production of: 1.) Verifiable audio tape conversations allegedly held between Justice Swearinger and all the named and unnamed individuals Scientology alleges in its brief had conversations with Justice Swearinger. 2.) Verifiable audio tape conversations allegedly held between William Horne and Scientology's attorneys regarding Horne's allegations about Justice Swearinger's statements to him. 3.) Verifiable audio tape conversations allegedly held between "an unnamed individual" who represented me in the past and Scientology's attorneys, relevant to Justice Swearinger's remarks as alleged in Scientology's brief. 4.) Verifiable audio tape conversations allegedly held between Terri Rueger and Scientology's attorneys regarding what and when she heard the statements ascribed to her by Scientology's attorneys. 5.) Affidavits from all the above named verifying the exact statements and allegations of Scientology ascribed to them in Scientology's brief. 6.) All of Scientology's separate intelligence division files and the private investigator files which were paid for by Scientology's attorneys on Justice Swearinger and every member of his family, including a summary of any and all legal actions, writs, motions or appeals they filed on or related to Justice Swearinger and every member of his family in any jurisdiction. Next, all of Scientology's intelligence division and private investigator files on Charlie O'Rielly, Barry Van Sickle, Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, and The Brown Green Law firm as well as Lawrence Wollersheim and every member of their families including any and all legal actions they filed or have been involved in as a party against Charlie O'Rielly, Barry Van Sickle, Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, and The Brown Green Law firm and/or Lawrence Wollersheim and every member of their families. 7.) A complete summary of all motions, writs, actions and appeals Scientology has filed on the following individuals directly related to the Wollersheim case or in assisting Wollersheim in pursuing his rights of petition against Scientology: Charlie O'Rielly, Barry Van Sickle, Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, The Brown Green Law firm members, Lawrence Wollersheim, and every member of their families. (This will help disclose in more detail the other SLAPP-related actions Scientology has taken against Wollersheim and his team.) 8.) Affidavits from all the former criminal and civil judges, prosecutors, and opposing attorneys who have had the unique first-hand experience with trying to apply justice in a court of law to Scientology. From these affidavits the court will quickly see that, in light of Scientology's various tactics and standard policies when faced with near-certain loss to deliberately create bias and prejudice as a tactic to create its own mistrial, and in light of other tactics to obstruct the justice process, Justice Swearinger handled a stressful and difficult task in a manner that honors the bench. The former criminal and civil judges, prosecutors, and opposing attorneys who have had the unique first-hand experience with trying to apply justice in a court of law to Scientology, who should be contacted for affidavits, are: Judge Breckenridge, LA Superior Court Judge Robert Jones, Portland Oregon Judge Steffan Graae, U.S.D.C. Judge Brown, Cal. Sup. Ct. Judge Krentzman, U.S.D.C., Florida Justice K. Skelly Wright, D.C. Judge Ritchey, D.C.D.C. 0 The following prosecutors and attorneys should similarly be contacted: former LA District Attorney Raymond Baunoon Former Federal Criminal Prosecutor Joseph E. Di Genova City Attorney's for Clearwater Florida M.A. Goldbrath and James T. Russell former opposing attorneys: Michael Flynn of Boston Gary Mc Murray of Portland Joe Yanni of Los Angeles Charles O'Rielly of Los Angeles Ford Green of San Francisco John Contas of Los Angeles? Lawrence Levi of Los Angeles. 9.) Require Scientology to provide a complete list of all current and past members of its intelligence divisions (the Guardians Office and the Office of Special Affairs) since 1979 when Wollersheim filed his original suit against them. Require Scientology to provide a complete list of all private investigators and private investigation firms it has used since 1979 when Wollersheim filed his original suit against Scientology. 10.) Allow Wollersheim to call to testify former members of Scientology's intelligence divisions (the Guardians Office and the Office of Special Affairs) and former private investigators and members of private investigation firms it has used since 1979 when Wollersheim filed his original suit against Scientology. 11.) And finally, because of the nature and seriousness of the malicious defamation of a long-time LA Superior Court Judge in good standing, the family of Justice Swearinger and other interested parties and agencies should be allowed to join with Wollersheim in some capacity in the defense of this suit. Scientology's strategy in this frivolous and malicious lawsuit illustrates the familiar legal saying, "If you have a good case, you argue the facts. If the facts don't suit you, you argue the law. If you don't have the law on your side, confuse the issues." Scientology's new extension of this saying is, "If you can't confuse the issues, you kill the case, attack, harass, intimidate and maliciously slander the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney, the judge, the jury, the court personnel, and the judicial system. (And if you still can't win, you go after parties who can't defend themselves because they're dead.)" I submit this brief in honor of the memory of my recently deceased father, Lawrence Wollersheim Sr., the Honorable Justice Swearinger, formerly of the Los Angeles Superior court, and the tens of thousands of living and deceased victims of Scientology. Lawrence D. Wollersheim ____________________________________ P.O. Box 10910 Aspen, Co. 81612 May ___ 1993 0 According to guidelines for Pro Se submissions, this court is required that no matter however unartfully drafted compared to the rigorous standards applied to members of the California bar, it must allow me a less rigorous standard suitable to my different station in life and out of logical fairness dictated by the extraordinary circumstance of my previous attorney declining to continue on this case just after his most recent final victory at the Appellate court. I am confident in serving the interests of justice, (allowing all relevant issues the opportunity to be heard), you will give me every benefit of the doubt if you are uncertain of any point or feel that I have in some way stated my claims or arguments insufficiently or improperly. I believe you will find that the information I present has arguable merit and some possible ground within my case for presenting it. Although I am not a lawyer I make a rational argument under some arguable construction on law and facts in support of the positions forwarded in this Opposition Brief. 0The included appendices are important for the court to review carefully. In sum and substance they have been included in pro se briefs that the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme are reviewing in relation to the pending Wollersheim Vs. Scientology case (No. C 332 027) now before them. They also contain essential documentation to establish a preponderance of proof that this new complaint by Scientology is the perfect case to demonstrate why the SLAPP laws were enacted in California. 0It is no coincidence that Scientology waited until the Honorable Justice Swearinger, who is the focal target of their complaint and whose reputation they are now maliciously defaming, can no longer defend himself. He died just months before Scientology filed this complaint. 0SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, went into effect January 1, 1993. 0Only one of Scientology's numerous law firms was desperate enough to attempt this end-run on the court and slander of Justice Swearinger. It is: 1.) oddly out of character for Bowles and Moxon to be the driving force alone on this new suit. This is the first time in 13 years that Scientology has not used 2, 3, or 4 law firms simultaneously against Wollersheim. 2.) Bowles and Moxon is Scientology's in-house law firm, the one most closely associated with Scientology's infamous and brutal intelligence operations division (the Guardian's Office, now renamed the Office Of Special Affairs), spoken of in the enclosed appendices. From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992, the relevance of this connection is made clearer. "Bowles and Moxon was formed in 1987 with two lawyers. Moxon and name partner Timothy Bowles opened an office later that year in the church's Hollywood headquarters complex. Today seven of the firm's lawyers are Scientologists, including all four partners. Moxon for example, has a long history with the church. In the late 1970's he served a stint as the District of Columbia Assistant Guardian for the Legal Bureau, working in the very office where massive covert operations against the government were being run at the time, according to a stipulation of evidence that was agreed to by all parties in the 1979 federal criminal case against nine of the church leaders. "It's true that I was there doing legal work as a paralegal," says Moxon, 42... but he denies criminal operations being run out of the office: "I wasn't aware of it." For a better understanding of Mr. Moxon's last statement see the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries" and particularly the training materials for guardian office staff which include a training policy called TRL, Training Routine Lying. 0Scientology presented in their brief some slightly less reinterpreted and indirect allegations -- in the form of their attorney's interpretations of conversations allegedly held with Justice Swearinger. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. More information will be presented on Scientology's 40-year history of attacks on judges. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0Scientology usually uses several attorneys, sometimes as many as 5-6 randomly or at once during trial to barrage the court room in a continuous stream of attack and intimidation antics that maximize court stress and rapidly alienate most social individuals. See the appendix "Coercive Persuasion and Scientology" to gain a greater understanding of the techniques Scientology likes its attorneys to imitate. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From "Scientology's War Against Judges" The American Lawyer 1980 and "Prior Sect Try At Judge Reported," The Clearwater Sun January 24, 1984. See copy at end of chapter. Scientology spent over $200,000 trying to set up one of the judges. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0Scientology has hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits world wide pending against it. It also has a 40-year backlog of victims waiting to see some "light at the end of the tunnel" and file new suits. Because of this pending disaster, Scientology pursues a scorched earth policy in doing anything and everything to prevent judgments and precedents from making it all the way through the system. This policy of targeting the key lead cases to discourage other suits or possible new suits has only served to delay the inevitable while immeasurably magnifying the ultimate costs far beyond what they would have been if Scientology had pursued a rational course and corrected its immoral behavior. 0The Wollersheim story and Scientology's antics were front pages stories for weeks around the country. 0Scientology, in offering net worth evidence that was a fraud upon this Court, effectively required that this Court reinstate the jury's original entire punitive award. (See, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hanford Empire Co. (1944) 322 US 238 [88 L.Ed 1250, 64 S.Ct. 997].) From the affidavit of Gerry Armstrong of February 11, 1985: "The whole purpose of the MCCS project was to defraud the federal government, litigants against the church,., (emphasis added) and the courts into believing Hubbard had no involvement with Scientology." (Gerry Armstrong was the primary credible witness upon which the IRS relied for its MCCS-related legal actions against Scientology.) 0(See appendix "Financial Fraud and Scientology" for full details on the MCCS fraud and Scientology's legal history regarding the credibility of its financial representations.) 0When I contemplate this possibility, I recall a principle taught to every Scientology intelligence operative in their training from a book that was described to me by one of their top operatives as the bible of Scientology's intelligence division, The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. The principle is that it is far wiser and more effective to attack your enemies plans and frustrate them before they can activate them so you don't have to defend your cities, people, and army. Attacking and "turning" the plans of a reporter doing an expose on Scientology fits nicely within a prime directive in Scientology intelligence strategy. 0Horne's story picks up the Scientology attack line against Scientology's adversaries. One example is the falsehood that Wollersheim had a prior mental condition before entering Scientology. This is a damage control precedent-limitation propaganda position that Scientology pushes with a passion. For complete details on this, see appendix???????? section???? Mention other point after you read Horn's article TOO! Charlie's comments defending Scientology.??????????????? 0Feffer was a former deputy assistant attorney general in the tax department of the Justice Department. Feffer, as a new member of Scientology's legal team, in November 1986, somehow quickly disposed of a nascent criminal tax investigation on Scientology at the Justice Department Tax division. The questions remains. "Did Scientology buy influence in an "old buddy you owe me one" network to avoid justice? Is this the type of situation Clinton called unfair influence in the revolving door of government jobs to private sector jobs? Review of this whole transaction should be considered at the Justice Department by seniors of the individuals who cut the deal with Feffer. 0Thousands of the most senior level Scientology executives world wide and other security cleared Scientologists were involved in Guardian office covert operations. This was no small or renegade group. See appendix "Scientology's Policies Toward Its Adversaries." 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0Particularly, see the section on Scientology's Black propaganda training in the appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries." Quote from The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0I recall one time I said to my psychologist, who is familiar with Scientology, "I am feeling paranoid." She replied "you're only paranoid if you are imagining someone is trying to harm you. Scientology definitely wants to harm you. You're not paranoid at all." 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0Plausible only to someone unfamiliar with Scientology's ongoing actions and history. 0From The American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology," by William Horne, July\August 1992. 0 As a result of my final victory, Scientology cannot claim copyright infringement when plaintiffs use Scientology's copyrighted materials in litigation. This is now considered "fair use." 0See appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries" for the specific shocking and outrageous policy directives. 0See appendix "Scientology's Actions Toward its Adversaries" 0Appendix section "Coercive Persuasion and Scientology" explains in detail how Scientology coercively manipulates its members into believing false damage control stories. 0From the concluding argument of that Amicus brief: " Millions of dollars in taxpayer money has been spent globally to expose the dangers and contradictions in Scientology's presentations of itself, L. Ron Hubbard, its actions, its nature, and its intentions. The Armstrong documents represent the single most unifying hub of all this information. After the disclosures of the F.B.I.'s authorized search of Scientology's headquarters, the Armstrong case is the most critical and focal single piece of the Scientology puzzle that ever has become available. It is the key missing piece. It is the completing piece of the mosaic from which one can finally ascertain with certainty, just what one is really looking at. The rights of the convicted felon, Mary Sue Hubbard, and an organization with an extensive criminal history, Scientology, desiring to keep their frauds and abuse of the public secret for unfair financial gain or to inhibit legitimate future liability do not supersede the rights of the many for informed consent, peace, protection, and safety. Thus, the Armstrong record must remain open." 0See appendix "Financial fraud and Scientology." 0See Religious Technology Center v. Robin Scott. (The appeals Court has since ruled there is no such thing as trade secrets for religion.) 0 New Era Publications, an affiliate of the Church of Scientology, sued publisher Henry Holt & Co. to prevent publication of Bare Faced Messiah, a biography of L. Ron Hubbard, the Scientology founder. The book's author, Russell M. Miller, had quoted 132 pages from unpublished letters and documents, many obtained from government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. 0This fraud was mentioned earlier in this brief. 0From "Scientology's War Against Judges," The American Lawyer 1980 and "Prior Sect Try At Judge Reported," The Clearwater Sun January 24, 1984. (See included copy.) Scientology spent over $200,000 trying to set up one of the judges.