||||| From: ptsc Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: More of the torturous Wollersheim litigation Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:02:29 -0400 Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet Message-ID: <6155euspcckop9m6mq1nbn8iilu9ugijrp@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 394 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!zapata.tvd.be!news.tvd.be!newsfeed.online.be!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1515828 This is from the FACTnet site at http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/b118114.html?FACTNet Particularly telling in this is scumbag lawyer Samuel D. Rosen's harangue about how the cult he whores himself to merely intended to stretch out the litigation as long as possible. Needless to say, the court was not impressed with Rosen's abuse of the legal system and ruled against the crime cult. --- During the hearing on the motion to vacate, Scientology's attorney Samuel Rosen, made it painfully clear that it is Scientology's intent to prolong this already 17 year old case as long as possible. In argument to the Court, Attorney Rosen threatened to drag out the appellate process unless plaintiff Wollersheim would agree to submit certain issues to a referee. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is the reporter's transcript of the proceedings of December 11, 1997. The salient portion of counsel's argument is as follows: "You know what I'm going to do, I will suggest you go a step beyond. Judge Weil has a marvelous reputation. I have not had the privilege of being before him, but he is able to settle cases. I will give him a complete mandate if he wants to try to settle the case, that is fine. If he wants to try the case, that is fine too. What is the implication to Wollersheim if we do that? Well, there is going to be a delay, three, four, five months, whatever it is, depending on Judge Weil's schedule before he can give us the hearing that we are entitled to. That pales next to the five years that Mr. Wollersheim is going to stand and wait because the bond does not do him any good. All that says is at the end of the day within five years from now you will get money." (Exhibit "C", reporter's transcript of proceedings December 11, 1997, page 16, line 26 through page 17, line 12.) (emphasis added). Attorney Rosen indicated further on in his argument: "If you want to go through several more years of litigation -- which by the way, whether we win or lose, you don't get attorneys' fees for pending this situation in the Court of Appeals and beyond. So the best you do is five years from now, you get the additional interest. Let's do it right. If we do it right and we lose, we will be going to appeal." (Exhibit "C", reporter's transcript of proceedings December 11, 1997, page 18, lines 2-8). This appellate court has already addressed some of the issues being raised on this appeal, as well as in this motion for calendar preference. In Church of Scientology of California v. Lawrence Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, this Court specifically saw through the veil of deception that is continually used by the appellants when it affirmed the lower court's dismissal of an action brought by CSC against Wollersheim under California's anti- SLAPP suit statute (C.C.P. ^U425.16). --- IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT B118114 __________________ CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant, vs. LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________ APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HONORABLE JOHN P. SHOOK, JUDGE L.A.S.C. No. C 332027 __________________ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND A PREFERENCE ON THE HEARING CALENDAR __________________ Pursuant to Rule 19.3 of the California Rules of Court, appellee, Lawrence Wollersheim (Wollersheim) moves this Court for issuance of an expedited briefing schedule and a preference on the hearing calendar. This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the accompanying declaration of Daniel A. Leipold, the declaration of appellee Wollersheim, the Court's file on this appeal, and this Court's opinion in Church of Scientology of California v. Lawrence Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628; 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES WHY APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED Good cause exists for the granting of appellee's motion for calendar preference on the following grounds: 1. Appellant's attorneys have on the record revealed Scientology's plans to prolong the appellate process as long as possible. 2. This appeal is simply a continuation of Scientology's prolonged battering of plaintiff Wollersheim under the Church's "fair game" policy. 3. This appeal is collateral to Scientology's ultimate goal of denying appellee Wollersheim the necessary financial resources he needs to defend himself in a pending copyright infringement case filed by Scientology in the Colorado District Court. APPELLANT'S ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ABUSE THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND MAXIMIZE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON WOLLERSHEIM This appeal challenges an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court amending Wollersheim's 1986 judgment against the Church of Scientology of California (CSC) to include as alter ego entities appellants, Church of Scientology International (CSI) and Religious Technology Center (RTC). On October 29, 1997, the Court granted Wollersheim's motion to amend the judgment against CSC finding, among other things, that CSI and RTC are the alter egos of CSC (Exhibit "A"). On November 14, 1997, an order amending judgment nunc pro tunc and judgment thereon was entered in favor of Wollersheim and against CSC, CSI and RTC (Exhibit "B"). Subsequent to those orders, on December 11, 1997, the Superior Court entertained a motion to vacate judgment filed by CSC, CSI and RTC. The motion to vacate was denied by Judge John P. Shook of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. During the hearing on the motion to vacate, Scientology's attorney Samuel Rosen, made it painfully clear that it is Scientology's intent to prolong this already 17 year old case as long as possible. In argument to the Court, Attorney Rosen threatened to drag out the appellate process unless plaintiff Wollersheim would agree to submit certain issues to a referee. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is the reporter's transcript of the proceedings of December 11, 1997. The salient portion of counsel's argument is as follows: "You know what I'm going to do, I will suggest you go a step beyond. Judge Weil has a marvelous reputation. I have not had the privilege of being before him, but he is able to settle cases. I will give him a complete mandate if he wants to try to settle the case, that is fine. If he wants to try the case, that is fine too. What is the implication to Wollersheim if we do that? Well, there is going to be a delay, three, four, five months, whatever it is, depending on Judge Weil's schedule before he can give us the hearing that we are entitled to. That pales next to the five years that Mr. Wollersheim is going to stand and wait because the bond does not do him any good. All that says is at the end of the day within five years from now you will get money." (Exhibit "C", reporter's transcript of proceedings December 11, 1997, page 16, line 26 through page 17, line 12.) (emphasis added). Attorney Rosen indicated further on in his argument: "If you want to go through several more years of litigation -- which by the way, whether we win or lose, you don't get attorneys' fees for pending this situation in the Court of Appeals and beyond. So the best you do is five years from now, you get the additional interest. Let's do it right. If we do it right and we lose, we will be going to appeal." (Exhibit "C", reporter's transcript of proceedings December 11, 1997, page 18, lines 2-8). This appellate court has already addressed some of the issues being raised on this appeal, as well as in this motion for calendar preference. In Church of Scientology of California v. Lawrence Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, this Court specifically saw through the veil of deception that is continually used by the appellants when it affirmed the lower court's dismissal of an action brought by CSC against Wollersheim under California's anti- SLAPP suit statute (C.C.P. ^U425.16). Plaintiff Wollersheim invites this Court to recall its specific findings: "In the instant action, the Church's actions clearly fall within the ambit of ^U425.16. Among its other litigation strategies, the Church has filed two non-meritorious federal court actions as well as this one (footnote omitted). The Church has filed numerous appeals in state and federal courts and prolonged Wollersheim's 1980 lawsuit for 15 years. When the litigation actions of the Church are analyzed in the light of the entire litigation history between the parties, it appears the instant lawsuit was brought by the Church against Wollersheim: (a) in retaliation for his 1980 lawsuit against the Church; (b) to punish him economically for bringing that lawsuit; and, (3) to obliterate the value of any victories over the Church by forcing him to abandon his efforts to recover the damages awarded in the prior action by making it too costly to do so. (footnote omitted). The Church argues that it has every right to exhaust its legal remedies, including appeal rights. We agree. However, when a litigant continuously and unsuccessfully uses the litigation process in filing unmeritorious motions, appeals and lawsuits, such actions have constitutional implications which might be reviewed on a motion under ^U425.16." 42 Cal.App.4th at 649. (emphasis added). This Court also found that Wollersheim had already: " . . . liquidated all of his assets, personally spent about $300,000, and gone more than $900,000 into debt, not including attorney fees, during the litigation of the main action and related litigation over an 11- year period." Here, Scientology intends to use a prolonged appellate process as a means to the illegitimate ends of fostering its policy of punishing Wollersheim economically. The statements of Attorney Rosen clearly reflect Scientology's intent to prolong this appeal as it did the appeal from the trial, and to make it as costly as possible. Moreover, as noted in the accompanying declaration of appellee Wollersheim, Scientology has filed a copyright infringement claim against him in the Federal District Court of Colorado. Although the merits of the copyright action, albeit suspect, are not at issue herein, the very existence of that lawsuit manifests Scientology's continuing pattern and practice of bludgeoning its "enemy" Wollersheim with litigation. Appellee Wollersheim needs a determination of this appeal as soon as possible to allow him to finance his defense in the pending district court action. By granting appellee's motion for calendar preference, this Court will be accomplishing several things: First, it will partially remove from the grasp of Scientology its ability to continue its bad faith and frivolous tactics of abusively prolonging litigation and making it as expensive as possible. As noted in the statements of Attorney Rosen, the Scientologists fully intend to drag out the appeal process as long as five years. Second, and more importantly, plaintiff Wollersheim has waited 12 years to collect a judgment that was rightfully awarded to him by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury. Along the way, he has been sued four times and as noted by this Court herein, those suits were unmeritorious, unsuccessful and had clear constitutional implications. Appellee Wollersheim is confident that he has submitted more and better evidence of alter ego than has ever been submitted in any reported California case and that therefore, Judge Shook's order will be affirmed by this Court. By granting appellee's motion for calendar preference, this Court will provide appellee with light at the end of the tunnel and the opportunity to obtain the financial resources he requires to continue to defend himself against Scientology's malicious litigation tactics. APPELLANTS ARE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PUNISH APPELLEE SO AS TO FORCE HIM TO ABANDON HIS EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO HIM In Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim, supra at p. 649, this Court analyzed the entire litigation history between the parties and held that CSC had acted to economically punish Wollersheim in order to force him to abandon his efforts to recover the damages awarded to him. The appellants herein, CSI and RTC are collaterally estopped from denying the application of this finding to themselves. In Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221; 236 Cal.Rptr. 285, the appellate court discussed the concept of collateral estoppel. At page 225, the Court stated: "A second action between the same parties on a different cause of action is not precluded by a former judgment . . . but the first judgment 'operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.' [citation.]" The Court went on to use the Second Restatement of Judgment's definition of "actually litigated" at page 226: "When an issue is properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined, the issue is actually litigated within the meaning of this section. . . ." CSI and RTC are aligned parties with CSC sharing substantially the same identity. C.C.P. ^U1910 states: "The parties are deemed to be the same when those between whom the evidence is offered or were on opposite sides in the former case, and a judgment or other determination could in that case have been made between them alone, though other parties were joined with both or either." Putting aside Judge Shook's finding that CSI and RTC are the alter egos of CSC in the within action, one has only to look at a small portion of the undisputed evidence to determine that RTC and CSI are parties with substantially the same identity as CSC. 1. Neil Levin, the president of CSC during the pendency of the SLAPP action testified CSC was a "dormant corporation" (pg. 57, line 23 through page 58, line 10); he receives no compensation from CSC (pg. 49, lines 17-22); but was actually employed by CSI in its Office of Special Affairs (pg. 55, lines 13-23). (Exhibit "D"). 2. CSI and CSC's attorneys admitted in open court that CSI entirely funded the SLAPP action. (Exhibit "E"). 3. RTC is a plaintiff in two of the actions cited by this Court in its litigation history between the parties. (Exhibit "F"). APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE IS TIMELY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED California Rule of Court 19.3 states: "A motion for preference on the calendar, supported by points and authorities, shall be filed no later than the last day for filing the appellant's reply brief. Failure to comply with this rule may be deemed a waiver of the claim of preference." This Court may grant a motion for calendar preference upon a showing of good cause, and the pendency of another related action is sufficient grounds for the granting of such a motion. Arden Group, Inc. v. Burk (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1411, footnote 1. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, appellee Wollersheim, hereby requests that this Court grant plaintiff's motion for a calendar preference and expedited briefing schedule, and that it provide the parties with a scheduling order for the filing of briefs and documentation with this Court and set a date for oral argument no later than six months from the date of the order granting appellee's motion herein. Dated: February 5, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Daniel A. Leipold, Esq. HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY Attorney for Appellant Lawrence Wollersheim By____________________________ DANIEL A. LEIPOLD TABLE OF CONTENTS WHY APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPELLANT'S ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ABUSE THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND MAXIMIZE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON WOLLERSHEIM . . . . . . . . . 2 APPELLANTS ARE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PUNISH APPELLEE SO AS TO FORCE HIM TO ABANDON HIS EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO HIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE IS TIMELY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arden Group, Inc. v. Burk (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 6, 8 STATUTES California Rule of Court 19.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Code of Civil Procedure ^U1910. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9