It's interesting to see how often $cientology cases get referenced in other court cases.

http://store.law.com/search_resultscontent.asp?lsrchtype=site&lqry=Scien tology&lprodtyp=&lcnttyp=&lsrchmode=quick&lscope=1&lsrchconstid=1 A large number of them require a subscription to see the full text.

This one might be handy to review given Cof$'s abuse of the discovery process: "See Church of Scientology v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272, 1289 (5th Cir. Mar. 1981) (reviewing decisions determining scope and effect of discovery for abuse of discretion);"

This one is juicy:

Restaurant Manager Sues, Claims He Was Fired Over Scientology Claiming he was fired for refusing to follow the teachings of Scientology, a New York man has filed suit against the Le Bus chain of restaurants and its CEO, David Braverman.

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/ View&c=Article&cid=ZZZKKII83FC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 Steering the Second City's Top Notch Legal Department Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges likes the 'action' her new job entails One of Georges' more interesting cases while at Rock Fusco was representing the Church of Scientology in U.S. District Court. She and Crowe won the 1997 jury trial in the case involving a defamation complaint by the church against the now defunct Cult Awareness Network.

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/ View&c=Article&cid=ZZZEU00N1FC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 More interesting legalese about discovery:

The rationale underlying the Cobbledick rule is distorted, however, when a discovery order runs to someone other than an adverse party (a phenomenon that occurs when, say, a court enforces a subpoena duces tecum served upon a non-party). Since a third person "presumably lacks a sufficient stake in the proceeding to risk contempt by refusing compliance," Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n.11 (1992), this circumstance justifies a different approach. Under what has been termed the Perlman rule, a discovery order addressed to a non-party sometimes may be treated as an immediately appealable final order vis-à-vis a party who claims to hold an applicable privilege. See id.;

see also Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 12-15 (1918). Courts frequently have invoked Perlman when a client (who is herself a party or a grand jury target) seeks to appeal an order compelling her attorney (who is neither a party nor a target) to produce allegedly privileged materials. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 146 F.3d 881, 883 (D.C. Cir.

1998); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 123 F.3d 695, 699 (1st Cir. 1997);

Conkling v. Turner, 883 F.2d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1989); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1036 n.3 (2d Cir. 1984).

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/ View&c=Decision&cid=G19201-2000Mar21&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 An interesting article by Mike Godwin
The Net Effect: You can't buy it in a bookstore, but you can download
the Hit Man
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=A15150-2000Feb3&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0

Religious Pressure at Texas Vet Clinic Leads to $150,000 EEOC Settlement Employment Law Weekly December 29, 1999 An Arlington, Texas veterinary clinic agreed earlier this month to pay $150,000 to six employees who claimed in a suit backed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the company unlawfully pressured employees to subscribe to beliefs of the Church of Scientology (EEOC v.

I-20 Animal Medical Center, N.D. Tex, 398CV2316-X, settlement approved 12/2/99).

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=A12404-1999Dec28&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 Surprisingly, the Pacific Legal Foundation's Zumbrun, a Sacramento attorney, cites Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App. 4th 628, as the main source of trouble in California. But if there was ever a SLAPP suit, Wollersheim is it.

The case began when Wollersheim, a former member of the Church of Scientology, sued the church in 1980. He claimed that the church inflicted severe emotional distress on him through its "auditing"

procedures and other church practices. His five-month trial in 1986 resulted in a verdict of $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages, which was reduced by a California appeals court to a total of $2.5 million. But Wollersheim didn't finally prevail until 1994, fourteen years after he had begun -- after trial, appeal, reversal by the United States Supreme Court, reinstatement of the judgment by a second appeals court, the granting and subsequent vacating of a hearing by the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, the denial of a second petition for certiorari.

Wollersheim also survived a RICO action (brought by the church against him, his lawyers, and his expert witnesses while his case was pending) -- plus a federal civil rights action filed against the trial judge in his case, and the church's motions to disqualify both the entire Los Angeles County Superior Court and the entire United States District Court for the Central District of California. In a ruling described by the California appeals court as "unprecedented," the 9th Circuit struck the church's federal recusal motion from its records.

In 1993, while the church's final appeal was still pending in the state supreme court, the church sued Wollersheim in a new action, seeking to set aside the original judgment based on "newly discovered evidence."

The court of appeal ruled that the suit "clearly" fell within the anti-SLAPP statute: Given "the entire litigation history between the parties," the church had acted "in retaliation, ... to punish [Wollersheim] economically, ... and to obliterate the value of [his] victories...."

But that didn't end the court's inquiry. Although the burden shifted to the church to prove the "probability" it would prevail in its case, the court held, consistent with other California cases, that the church only had to show it had a prima facie case, the lowest possible standard.

Only when it found that the church had not met this minimal burden did the court find for Wollersheim.

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=A842-1999Apr22&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 Lots of links to other sites to check out...

Ron of that iilk.

Go Back