||||| Reply-To: "FACTNet International" From: "FACTNet International" Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: WOLLERSHEIM VS SCIENTOLOGY - 1986 - (Missing from the net) Lines: 101 Organization: FACTNet International X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:53:20 EDT Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:06:55 -0700 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.online.be!news-hub.siol.net!newsfeeds-atl2!e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1515381 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. 117N Date: September 26, 1986 HONORABLE: RONALD SWEARINGER JUDGE R. GRUVER, Deputy Sheriff C 332 027 E. ROBERTS, Deputy Clerk E. SCHNEIDER Reporter (Parties and counsel checked if present) Counsel for Plaintiff: VS DEPUTY DISTRICT ANY: CHARLES 0 'REILLY Counsel for Defendant: GEORGE ROSENBERG EARLE COOLEY JOHN PETERSON LARRY WOLLERSHEIM VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS MOTION DEFENDANT' S MOTION FOR A WAIVER OF UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL CAME ON FOR HEARING AND IS DENIED. The Court rules as follows: Defendant has contended that this court is empowered by Section 993.240, Code of Civil Procedure, to waive or reduce the money judgment bond requirement of Section 917.1, Code of Civil Procedure. This contention ignores the specification of Section 993.020(a) as to the inapplicability of Section 995.240, Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent that it is inconsistent with any statute of this state. Section 917.1 is highly specific. In order to stay enforcement of a money judgment, an undertaking is mandatory in twice the amount of the judgment or one-and-a-half times if given by a surety. This court is without any authority to waive or reduce undertaking under Section 993.240. If the court had the power, it would exercise its discretion under that Section by denying the motion for a number of reasons. First, the court does not believe defendant's claim of relative indigency. Proof has shown that it transferred virtually all of its assets and functions out to other Scientology entities subsequent to the filing of this action and as late as just before a scheduled trial date in this case. If the defendant is indeed indigent, it is an indigency of its own making. Proof has shown that Scientology as an overall entity is comprised of numerous operating entities, including defendant, and that they are all inter-related, being parts of a monolithic whole. Transfers of assets and function from one entity to other entities are more pro forma than actual. In the case of the transfers in question here, they are seen as mere "jiggery pokery." The power to transfer out to a sister entity is the power to transfer back in "when the heat is off," so to speak. The claim of relative indigency is not believed by the court and the court has had ample opportunity to examine and consider the credibility of the defendant during 5-1/2 months of trial and extended post-trial proceedings. Second, the claim that a failure to grant the relief requested would deny parishioners of the defendant an opportunity to observe religious practices is pure sham. Proof has shown that the real estate, furnishings, fixtures and stock in trade of Scientology are in possession and control of other Scientology entities and not in the defendant, which is, as of this time, merely a shadow of its former self and an entity whose sole present function is to operate a single operation of Scientology apparently known as the Office of Special Affairs. Third, a waiver of bond would be grossly unfair to the plaintiff who, having obtained judgment, would be effectively foreclosed from collecting on any portion of it should he prevail on appeal. Any compromise of the bond requirement of Section 917.1, Code of Civil Procedure, would be exceedingly harmful to his cause. The court is directed to such a consideration by Section 952.240, Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, it is to be noted that the defendant may seek relief pursuant to Section 923, Code of Civil Procedure, as to its need for a waiver of undertaking and is therefore not without a remedy to pursue. Parenthetically, it is to be noted that if the defendant's financial condition is indeed as precarious as it claims it to be, a levy of execution on the judgment herein would not produce very much. If defendant is to be believed, it does not need an undertaking to stave off execution since the defendant has little that is not otherwise pledged or subject to Internal Revenue Service and state agency seizure. The court declines to extend the stay of execution pending perfection of appeal that has been heretofore granted to defendant pursuant to Section 916, Code of Civil Procedure. That stay was granted many, many weeks ago to enable the defendant to posture itself as to enforcement of the judgment during the period of appeal and to preserve status quo while post-trial motions were pending. Those motions have been disposed of by denial and the time has come for defendant to perfect its appeal. MINUTE ORDER MINUTES ENTERED 9-26-86 COUNTY CLERK