Wollersheim v. Scientology
(Los Angeles County Superior Court Case # C332027)

The next phase of this 25 year legal battle, is scheduled for a jury trial soon, on the question of how much money Leta Schlosser, the former legal assistant for Wollersheim, will receive from the remaining $2 million or more, (left from the $8.6 million of the 2002 award in the case). This case may be the longest-running still-active civil case now under jurisprudence in Los Angeles County.

It's been stated Wollersheim's counsel estimates that at most Leta Schlosser may be entitled to would be in the range of $120,000 to $160,000, instead of an amount that would effectively take all the remaining funds. It has also been stated, that Leta may have been a Scientology "plant" in Wollersheim's legal team, and that her claim is a deliberate move to deny Wollersheim from receiving so much as "one thin dime," as another of the "fair game" type "dirty tricks" practiced by Scientology's legal staff. Relevant evidence will likely include an itemized invoice of some type by Leta Schlosser, to uphold her claims.

Without commenting on the veracity of any statements, it is interesting to review the documents that are available in LA County court records, pertaining to Leta Schlosser since she originally made her over $2 million dollar claim (at a court hearing on July 15, 2002).

Apparently the very night that Leta made her claim in court, her husband Frank Bonin, who is described in a police report as being 5'8" tall yet weighing 450 lbs (!!four hundred fifty!!), tried to choke her with both hands in their shared home and tried to destroy their TV set, then tried to intimidate their daughter. Then about 3 weeks after that, apparently on the same night that Leta sought outside counsel for her monetary claim, another domestic argument ensued, and Frank Bonin was taken away by the LAPD in handcuffs. Leta did retain that outside counsel, and later was sued by that counsel for unpaid bills.

Question: What do you suppose could have made Frank Bonin, a California Attorney so upset? They had a 27-year marriage at that point, and apparently, Frank's relative had helped to have a segment on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired, which was critical of Scientology in the late 1990's. Could Frank have felt justifiably betrayed, by the effectively pro-Scientology actions of his wife Leta?

Case #LQ000632
Filed 8/8/2002 in Van Nuys Division,
of Los Angeles Superior Court

Plaintiff: Leta Schlosser
Defendant: Franklin Anthony Bonin
Cause of Action: Domestic Violence & Request for a
Temporary Restraining Order

"Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order"

Restraining Order was issued against:
Franklin Anthony Bonin
Male, 5'8" height, 450 lbs (!) weight,
Blonde hair, Blue eyes,
Date of Birth 4-30-1945

Premises are the home of Leta Schlosser (wife, married 10-17-74)
and Alexandra E. Bonin (daughter, b/d 2-8-1988),
at 5758 Jamieson Avenue in Encino, CA.

Quote Leta: "My daughter & I have no other place to go. I have been paying all the upkeep on the house... I am asking for a kickout order."

Description of Conduct leading to TRO request:

"Defendant is my husband & the father of our child.

(On 8-7-2002, following a verbal dispute), Defendant tried to get into the house using his 450lb. weight. He grew irritated & threatened to urinate on the door, unless I let him in. He threatened our daughter because she would not let him in.

She asked defendant to please go away & calm down & come back in a little while. Defendant got very angry, got a wrench & broke porch window, threatening to destroy more property. I called the police. They came and cuffed him & spoke to us both.

Defendant attempted to choke me with both hands on July 16, 2002 & has also attempted to destroy the TV. Later that evening, Defendant attempted to intimidate our daughter. I am afraid of Defendant & so is my daughter."

Case #LC069671
Filed 10/21/2004 in Van Nuys Division,
of Los Angeles Superior Court

Plaintiff: Leta Schlosser
Defendant: David B. Parker of Parker, Mills & Patel LLP

This case was filed, to resolve a billing dispute of Leta Schlosser, who hired Attorney David B. Parker and his law firm in 8/2002, to represent her claims to over $2,000,000. of the settlement from the Wollersheim litigation. Leta had earlier worked in a support role for Wollersheim during the long-term case (although others' contentions are that she acted as a "mole" for Scientology). Leta's claims, are the last hurdle holding up the balance of the $2,000,000+ award for Wollersheim.

In this case, Parker's law firm submitted a bill of $98,498.39 for initial representation. Leta Schlosser paid $67,270.89, and the $31,227.50 balance was arbitrated in favor of Parker on 8-18-2004. Among other items, Leta complained that exhibits were forwarded to the arbitrators, indicating the size of her claim to the Wollersheim settlement, and that this biased the arbitrators against her. Leta expressed her concern, that an advocate hired to represent her who later was engaged in a fee dispute, now held records that were private and critical to her success of pressing that large claim. The decision in this case seemed to rest on how Leta Schlosser chose not to respond to an interrogatory served on her by Parker. Leta's claims were dismissed on 2/28/2005, and additional sanctions of $2400. (based on CA CCP 2030(k)), were also awarded to Parker's firm.

An interesting detail, is a copy of a letter to Schlosser, detailing how Parker and his firm wanted to deal with her case (in the beginning). This letter was sent by fax on August 7th, and may have led to the argument and dispute of later that evening (resulting in the domestic violence case):

Letter of August 7, 2002 from David B. Parker of Perker, Mills & Patel LLP (of Los Angeles):

RE: Schlosser adv. Wollersheim

Dear Ms. Schlosser,

Jay Patel and I thought we would complete our respective legal careers and never have another thing to do, with the Church of Scientology.

Two tours of duty for me, representing Michael Flynn and Joe Yanny, convinced me that enough is enough and Jay Patel, who was not with me during our first campaign, spent the greatest amount of time and contributed the most to our success in defending Joe Yanny against the Church's claims. And then a friend calls and it all changes. It was good to hear from you and,of course, we would be pleased to represent you, most particularly because we have unique knowledge about what it means to have labored so hard and so long in litigation with the Church and it saddens us that Wollersheim has lost sight of the meaning and value of devotion and hard work.

I do not usually begin engagement letters or retainer agreements on the poetic side, but it reflects unique aspects of the proposed engagement and the earnestness with which we approach the task of pursuing your claim for compensation against Wollersheim. It also reflects, of necessity, the limitations of the engagement and it is just as important that we spell those out so that there is a clear understanding between us.

Before I get into the terms, I have one other general comment, As you know by now, just from our several conversations, I propose a rather single minded focus on two objectives: (1) Recovering the maximum possible compensation, and (2) Protecting you from liability to Wollersheim or third parties, most notably the Church. If it doesn't relate to either objective, it isn't worth of our time and attention. If you hire us, it's because you value our knowledge and expertise and, just as important, our focus and objectivity. I will be impatient with digressions into history and skeptical of conspiracy theories. I will focus on eviddence and what it takes to prove the case if the issue is tried. When I ask questions, I want straight answers. If your answer is incomplete I won't hesitate to draw more out of you, but I need to focus on the question so that I get what I need to do my job and don't spend more of my time and your money than is necessary.

Leta, we have proposed and by your signature below you will have agreed to engage our services on an hourly basis for a limited period of time and for the purpose of addressing ourselves to certain specific issues, all of which is set forth in this letter.

I anticipate the vast majority of the work will be performed, certainly in the early going, by Jay patel and I acting as a team. At some point and for some purposes it will probably be cost-effective and in your interest for us to involve the services of an associate, probably Nicholle Noyes whose prior experience in the area f insurance bad faith may be of some value. Because of our past relationship and your own circumstances, we have agreed to offer our services at a highly discounted hourly rate of $250.00 for partners and $185.00 for associates. Our paralegal is charged ut at $90.00 an hour and our paralegal assistant at $40.00 an hour.

We expect to involve you to a significant degree and wherever you can assist us and further the objectives and urge you to do just that. Ultimately, of course, you will decide what is in your best interest, taking into account your knowledge, availability, and cost considerations. Your proposal of being co-counsel of record should be the subject of further discussion, as I have reflected more upon it since our recent conversation. For example, you have spent 12 years trying to remain behind the scenes and now, when you are the center of attention, you are contemplating being of record, knowing, of course, that it gives them license to communicate directly with you and creates the risk that they will try to go around us. We should thing this through very carefully.

You also mentioned wanting to depose Wollersheim. If you want to incur this expense or set up the possibility of a motion if he fails to appear, that is your call as the client. If you insist on the deposition being taken, you will not hear an argument from us. We will only ask you to constantly weigh cost and benefit. Depositions are expensive; but they are among best discovery options available. Jay and I have each taken hundreds of depositions, we have the experience of handling cases like this, and we possess the objectivity that is important. It all goes into the mix of your decision-making process.

Though it is imposible to set a date certain, we contemplate that this fee arrangement and our services will cover a period of approximately two months. At the end of the initial period, we are hopefull that we will either have obtained a settlement or have positioned the case so that you can go forward, whether through our office or through the services of another lawyer, quite possibly on a contingency basis, to conclude the matter.

Our areas of responsibility would be the following: (1) Responding to the Cross- Complaint in Interpleader (which involves numerous considerations and tactics and more than one option, including timing considerations; (2) Dealing with the client demand for turnover of client papers and property; (3) Protecting you against potential liability to the Church for future uses of those documents by Wollersheim following their turnover; (4) Attempting to effectuate an expedited settlement of your fee claim; and (5) Advising you concerning the merits, strengths, and vulnerabilities of your claims against Wollersheim. We would take on incidental matters as we may agree during the process. For example, our working with Greene's office may be useful to you and if so we can incorporate it into our set of responsibilities, though it is probably and incident to pursuit of the fee claim.

our engagement will not (underlined) include defending Cross-Complaints or prosecuting any cross-claims except for breach of contract and quantum merit (legal fees) against Wollersheim, other than to plead the claims in some form of responsive pleading when and if that becomes necessary. Nor will we pursue claims for indemnity against other lawyers or other third parties as part of this particular engagement. You raised the issue of taking Wollersheim's deposition, which clearly involves prosecuting or defending a claim. If you determine that it should be taken in the next sixty days and propose to involve our services, we are willing to incorporate it into this agreement.

Clearly, we should develop a game plan and carry it out carefully, with contingency plans as needed. We want to be organized, focus and efficient in pursuing this matter. We should meet soon to begin this process, after we have preliminary discussions with Craig Strein and Greene, which today you have authorized me to undertake.

You are privileged to terminate our services at any time, as in any other case. We may withdraw from further representation in the event of non-cooperation or non-payment of fees or any of the other grounds permitted by law.

Neither you nor our firm has committed to any future arrangements pending the results of the efforts we propose to take as part of this particular agreement.

We will direct our invoices and correspondence to your address as indicated above. We will use the telephone number you have given us for fax purposes. We will not e-mail you without your permission and though we are mindful that you are married to an attorney, our communications will be directed to you only and we will leave it to you to determine to what extent your husband is to be involved, if at all, in these matters.

We will require a retainer of $5,000.00 payable within one week of you signing the Agreement as set forth below. This is designed to be an "evergreen" retainer. That means that we will bill you for our services on a monthly basis and you will pay those statements within 30-days of submission. We are authorized in advance to draw down on the retainer to discharge such statements after a reasonable period of time. Your payments in response to our invoices will then be deposited into the trust account to replace the funds previously withdrawn. At the conclusion of the agreement, the balance in the retainer account after payment of the last invoice will be returned to you.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or Jay.

Very Truly Yours,

David B. Parker, of Parker, Mills & Patel LLP

(Note: Signed as "Agreed and Accepted" by Leta Schlosser on 8-8-2004)

Go Back