LE SECTICIDE L'ANTI - SCIENTOLOGIE antisectes.net

Michael Pattinson

 Sent by Michael Pattinson, to-day Feb 11th 1999:     GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503) LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY One Wilshire Boulevard Twenty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 833-5900 Facsimile:  (213) 833-5909 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL P. PATTINSON   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA     MICHAEL PHILIP PATTINSON,   Plaintiff, vs.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California Corporation; CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a California Corporation; BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a California Corporation; THE SEA ORGANIZATION, a California unincorporated association; MARY SUE HUBBARD, an individual; CAPTAIN DAVID MISCAVIGE, an individual; KENDRICK L. MOXON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,  Defendants.  Case No. 98-3985CAS (SHx) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1)  Fraud (Counts 1-6)(2)  Constructive Fraud(3)  Unfair Business Practices(4)  Breach of Fiduciary Duty(5)  False Imprisonment(6)  Invasion of Privacy(7)  Intentional Infliction of      Emotional Distress(8)  Interference with      Business Relations (9)  Negligence(10) Breach of Contract and     Breach of the Covenant of      Good Faith and Fair      Dealing(11) Restitution(12) Unjust Enrichment,      Accounting, Equitable      Tracing and Imposition      of Constructive Trust(13) Declaratory and      Injunctive Relief JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDTrial Date:            None Discovery Date:        None Motion Cutoff:         None  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT COMES NOW Plaintiff, Michael Pattinson, and for his Third Amended Complaint against these Defendants, and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This case originally arose, inter alia, under and was brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization laws (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §1964, and 42 U.S.C., §§1983, 1985 and 1988; the matter in controversy exceeding $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest, and by the United States Government being a Relief Defendant herein. Confronted by Defendants' written policy of using litigation as a means to "overwhelm," "harass," and "destroy" an opponent, Plaintiff has dismissed those claims and certain non-appearing Defendants in order to expeditiously advance Plaintiff's other claims to trial. Venue in this district is authorized under 187 U.S.C. §1965 in that the Defendants herein reside, are found, have agents, have transacted or transact affairs within this district and that 'minimum contacts' and 'national contacts' exist. This Court continues to have ancillary and pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims stated herein in that they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. The torts herein alleged involve substantial identity of persons, wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants and resulting damage to Plaintiff herein. SECULAR ACTION 2. This Third Amended Complaint is not directed at any of Defendants' religious beliefs or freedoms. It is only directed at Defendants' demonstrably secular policies, processes, practices and conduct in connection with, at the very most, religiously motivated conduct which is subject to regulation for the protection of society. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff MICHAEL PHILIP PATTINSON ("Plaintiff") is an individual domiciled and residing in the State of California, County of Orange. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 4. Defendant Church of Scientology International ("CSI") is a California corporation with its principal office in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5. Defendant Religious Technology Center ("RTC") is a California corporation with its principal office in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6. Defendant Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST") is a California non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7. Defendant Building Management Services ("BMS") is a California non-profit religious corporation, with its principal offices in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 8. Defendant Sea Organization ("Sea Org") is an unincorporated California-based entity or association housed in the various business offices of the corporate Defendants herein, and is one of the alter-ego entities which control the Scientology enterprise throughout the world. 9. Defendant Mary Sue Hubbard ("MSH") is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 10. Defendant Captain David Miscavige ("Captain Miscavige" or "David Miscavige") is a resident of the State of California and does business within the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles. 11. Defendant Kendrick L. Moxon is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 12. Defendants are sued, inter alia, because: CSI is the mother church of Scientology and the successor to Church of Scientology of California which was the mother church in Fall 1973; RTC is the holder of Scientology's trademarks and responsible for the purity of Hubbard's "technology" and holder of the copyright to "Keeping Scientology Working #1 ("KSW #1"), and other of Hubbard's copyrighted materials; BMS is the owner of much of the corporate Defendants' real estate; the Sea Organization is an unincorporated association that is the alter ego controlling entity of the entire Scientology enterprise; Mary Sue Hubbard was one of Scientology's managing agents in Fall 1973 and responsible for substantial conduct complained of herein in her then number two position as "The Guardian"; David Miscavige is now the managing agent of the entire Scientology enterprise and personally participated in the wrongs complained of by Plaintiff herein; Kendrick Moxon is an attorney, and was once with the Guardian's Office, through whom much of Scientology's fair game policies and practices complained of herein are conducted and he is personally conducting the current fair gaming of Plaintiff. In essence, Miscavige directs the abuses of those inside and outside the Scientology enterprise and Moxon implements the abuses of those outside of the Scientology enterprise. References to Defendants herein shall include their predecessors, both corporate and "post," and the then agents of same. 13. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants, Does 1 through 10, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint when the true names of said Defendants have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitious Defendants was in some way responsible for, participated in or contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff complains herein and, in some fashion, has legal responsibility therefore. 14. There exists, and at all times relevant hereto, has existed, such a unity of control and interest among the corporate Defendants, and the Sea Org, such that any individuality and separateness between each of them has ceased and each is the alter ego or agent of the others. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Defendant corporations and of the Sea Org would permit an abuse of corporate privilege and would promote injustice in that, via the unified control, the assets of the corporate Defendants and Sea Org can be transferred at will and thus concealed from corporate debts, liabilities, government obligations and taxes and other obligations. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Defendant corporations and the Sea Org would also be inequitable because the Managing Agents and/or subdivisions of the Scientology enterprise can transfer personnel and control of documents from one entity to another, thus allowing the Defendants to avoid legitimate discovery and thereby to effect the continuing abuse of process, obstruction of justice, and improper manipulation of the judicial system. 15. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants and/or their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities, and each of the Doe Defendants, was the agent, servant, employee, fellow member, associated and/or joint venturer or conspirator of each of the other remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, employment or joint venture, and acting with the express and/or implied knowledge or consent of the remaining Defendants, and each of them. The acts of each Defendant were approved and/or ratified by each other Defendant, and together, constitute a single course of conduct. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD) (Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive) 16. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above, and paragraphs 66 to 80 below, as though each were fully set forth herein. * COUNT ONE (Scientifically Proven Claims To Cure Illness and Disease) 17. From Fall 1973 to Fall 1997, the predecessors of the corporate Defendants herein, and their agents, made numerous misrepresentations and non-disclosures regarding their responsibilities in connection with Commodore Hubbard's Policy Letter "Keeping Scientology Working Series #1 ("KSW #1"). Such responsibilities included ensuring that Hubbard's ("LRH") "standard tech," ethics and administration would be fairly and uniformly applied for Plaintiff's betterment. Between 1991 and Fall 1997 RTC, CSI, and in particular, Captain Miscavige, failed to adequately and effectively ensure that LRH's "standard tech," ethics and administration were applied to Plaintiff's benefit in accordance with KSW #1. Instead, RTC, CSI, and Captain Miscavige in particular, denied the correct Hubbard technology from being applied to Plaintiff in breach of their duties pursuant to the contents of KSW #1. 18. RTC, CSI, and in particular Captain Miscavige, not only denied Plaintiff LRH's "standard tech," ethics and administration as mandated by KSW #1 but also denied Plaintiff the recourse that they were duty bound to provide to Plaintiff pursuant to Hubbard's Policy Letters such as contained in Volume One of the Organization Executive Course ("O.E.C.," the "administrative" works of Hubbard). Despite having usurped their positions and authority, RTC, CSI and Captain Miscavige were required by LRH's "standard tech" and KSW #1 to enforce technology applications, warranted by Plaintiff's circumstances, such as "third party investigations," assigning "ethics conditions" to offending staff members, correcting justice actions, permitting Plaintiff to face his accusers and other "standard tech," "ethics" and "admin" "handlings." 19. RTC, CSI and Captain Miscavige's destructive denial of the purported benefits of KSW #1, standard tech, ethics and admin to Plaintiff, contrary to Defendants' express representations to Plaintiff, and to provide him proper recourse as promised, caused Plaintiff substantial duress, distress and damage as alleged herein. Such distress and damage is now aggravated by Defendant Moxon's "fair gaming" of Plaintiff in the form of filing a retaliatory complaint captioned Reveillere v. Pattinson (O.C.S.C. Case No. 800981) and using tax exempt section 501(c)(3) monies to prosecute the private lawsuit of a fellow OSA staffer to collect a private debt allegedly existing between two Scientologists, using information culled from Plaintiff's confidential counseling files therein, and utilizing "Black Scientology" and destructive fair game operations in deposing Plaintiff in that litigation. 20. Beginning in or about the Fall of 1973, agents and representatives of various of the Defendants herein, including Colette Byasson, Hank Laarhuis, Jean-Pierre Vogel and Cathy Vogel, at the Scientology enterprises' premises then at Rue de Londres, Paris, France, began a long-term series of misrepresentations, and non-disclosures, to Plaintiff concerning the nature and source of Scientology's "technology", and the advantages to be derived therefrom. These misrepresentations and non-disclosures were, inter alia, set forth in the "Keeping Scientology Working No. 1" ("KSW #1") Policy Letter ("PL"), Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health ("DMSMH"), Handbook for Preclears (13th Act, p. 204), Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters ("HCOPL") "Safeguarding Technology" and other Scientology promotional materials and magazines. These misrepresentations included claims that Scientology was a science which had objectively been proven to be able to improve one's IQ, cure a person of his/her physical ailments and "cure" a person of his/her homosexuality. In addition to the oral and written misrepresentations made, and set forth above, misrepresentations on the part of various of the Defendants were made from Fall 1973 to Fall 1997 by way of the various publications, tapes, books, and promotional material supplied by Defendants and their agents to the Plaintiff. 21. Between Fall 1973 and Fall 1998, the various misrepresentations made, and material non-disclosures not made, to the Plaintiff, were false, misleading and untrue in numerous respects, including, but not limited to: representations concerning the scientific qualifications of L. Ron Hubbard as in Hubbard's biographical data in various of his books, i.e., DMSMH, Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, What is Scientology?, The Creation of Human Ability, All About Radiation, etc.; the scientific basis for Scientology; the source of materials and the "technology"; the nature and quality of Scientology services; the scientific "underpinning for the tenets of Scientology" ("Axioms and Logics" booklet, now in Scientology 0-8); the validity of various copyrights and trademarks; and the use to which they were being put; and the various benefits, including on-going good health, that Plaintiff could expect from training and processing provided by Defendants. Additionally, representations were made to Plaintiff that problems that he believed he was suffering from, as a result of his sexual orientation were not, in fact, a problem of orientation, but rather were a physiological/ psychosomatic manifestation that, supposedly, according to LRH, were the result of "engrams" and "implants" affecting Plaintiff that could and would be cured by purchasing more services from Scientology, and, in particular, by continued Scientology "auditing" with the E-meter. 22. In the Fall of 1973, Plaintiff began taking courses in "auditing" through the Scientology organization at Rue de Londres, Paris, France, where Scientology staff member, Colette Byasson, used Hubbard's dissemination procedure on Plaintiff to "find his ruin," which Defendants have consistently identified as his homosexual orientation, considered by Defendants to be a curable psychosomatic or mental condition, and to use that "ruin" to induce Plaintiff to pay for Scientology services administered by Defendants. 23. The Scientology enterprise, through its agents, expressly reassured Plaintiff that Scientology was the answer to all of Plaintiff's personal problems that were "ruining" his life, including his homosexuality which Plaintiff was then having difficulty accepting. Through their representations and material non-disclosures, between Fall 1973 and Fall 1997, Defendants induced Plaintiff to utterly commit to the Scientology enterprise and the writings and teachings of Commodore Hubbard and his adherents as a cure for his perceived suffering and "ruin." 24. Initially, in the Fall of 1973, Plaintiff was expressly told by Colette Byasson of Scientology's Paris Org, that Scientology was not a church. Much later, after an adverse federal court ruling regarding the E-meter, and after coercive indoctrination, it was represented to Plaintiff, at Flag in 1976 and 1977, and by Jane Kember and other Guardian's Office personnel, in briefings at Versailles and other places, in 1977 and 1978, and expressly for public relations, regulatory and tax purposes, that it was a church that co-existed with other churches, the adherents of which could concurrently practice Scientology and their other faiths without inconsistency. This was part of a fraudulent scheme to exert total control over Plaintiff and over his mind, morals and money. 25. At all relevant times between Fall 1973 and Fall 1997, agents of the various Defendants represented to the Plaintiff the various purported physical and mental advantages to be obtained through following the practices of Defendants and, in particular, as to his continued good health and well being, and the "handling" of his homosexuality, as long as he continued in the courses of Scientology study and auditing in accordance with Defendants' express and implied representations and material non-disclosures. Reasonably relying on those representations, and the material non-disclosures, described herein, and in the face of representations by various agents of the Defendants that he had no need of conventional, medical or mental health therapy to, among other things, "handle" his homosexuality or "ruin," Plaintiff refrained from seeking such conventional therapy or counseling, or other conventional medical attention, while a member of Scientology to his physical, mental and financial detriment. 26. In or about April 1975, Plaintiff became a staff member at the "Scientology Org" in Paris, France. During his tenure as a dedicated Scientology staff member in Paris, he worked from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 11:30 p.m. seven days a week for months at a time for pay that was at or below the poverty level. The resulting combination of fatigue, stress and reliance upon Defendants as his only perceived support group made Plaintiff increasingly susceptible to coercive indoctrination and influence, particularly as a result of the use of a new lexicon with words being defined differently from the commonly accepted definitions. Because Defendants regarded Plaintiff's subsequent departure from the staff of the Paris Org to be a breach of his commitment to Defendants, they submitted Plaintiff with a "freeloader bill" in the amount of$30,000.00.  Such monies allegedly represented the dollar value of the "indoctrination procedures" Plaintiff had received from the Defendants while being on staff at the Paris Org.  That is, Defendants, charged Plaintiff for each "session" in which the E-meter had been used and for all indoctrination sessions and other "services" received whilst he was engaged in training at Flag Land Base and then while in virtual slave labor for the Scientology organization at the Paris Org.  Plaintiff understood that the consequences of failing to pay the "freeloader bill" was a certainty of "fair game" and/or "disconnection" from friends within "the group".  27. After leaving the staff of the Scientology org. in Paris in 1978, Plaintiff continued his auditing and processing through the State of "Clear" and up to the "O.T. Levels" in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Continuing to reasonably rely upon the misrepresentations and material non-disclosures of Defendants and their agents, and being increasingly subjected to their coercive indoctrination, group hypnosis, brainwashing and other mind control techniques, Plaintiff continued to undergo Scientology auditing, processing and to take other Scientology courses at the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida between the years 1982 to 1989.  In February 1990, Plaintiff completed the then highest-known Scientology level called New OT VIII.  28. In February 1986, Plaintiff signed the Sea Org's "billion year" employment contract, as a direct consequence of the LRH Death Announcement Event, which Plaintiff attended at the Flag Land Base Auditorium in Clearwater, Florida, and at which Defendant Captain Miscavige and "Loyal Officers" Pat and Annie Broeker made material misrepresentations which Plaintiff reasonably relied upon to his damage and detriment including but not limited to:  (a) That, in accordance with the Scientology policy regarding the telling of an "acceptable truth," LRH's body had become such a restraint that he had to leave it behind or "drop" it, on a self-determined basis, in order to continue his research into upper OT levels, whereas the real truth was that LRH had died as a degraded and hermit-like incoherent fugitive, unkempt, with rotting teeth, long nails, and withered appearance, having suffered a major stroke with numerous recent needle marks on his body and whilst being administered psychiatric drugs including, but not limited to, Vistril which was expressly contrary to Defendants' own rules and regulations; (b) The continued availability of the upper level materials beyond OT VIII, despite LRH's death.  Specifically, Pat Broeker displayed a transparency on the screen of the auditorium on which was LRH's purported handwriting showing approximately 33 sets of 3 numbers in series representing an astronomical figure which represented a date which Pat Broeker claimed came directly out of LRH's OT X materials (which did not exist, at least at that time) and that he had been personally assisting LRH with his research into the upper OT levels, was privy to them, was now personally in charge of them and was now a loyal officer under LRH's absent auspices; (c) That, according to Pat Broeker, LRH had left all the subsequent OT levels up to OT XV (Total Freedom), in a state of readiness to be released when he (being Pat Broeker) and RTC deemed it appropriate.  Plaintiff reasonably relied upon these misrepresentations to his damage and detriment believing that those additional OT levels were available to him when, in fact, they were not, as Defendant Captain Miscavige well knew.  29. The aforesaid misrepresentations and non-disclosures materially induced Plaintiff to assist the Sea Org's efforts and goals to "Clear The Planet" by becoming the OT Cramming Officer on the upcoming Sea Org OT VIII ship which was subsequently the M.V. Freewinds.  When Plaintiff signed the Sea Org Contract, vowing to serve the Sea Org for the next one billion years, the Sea Org recruiter (Dee Ann Rule) put Plaintiff on a "Project Prepare" in which he had to eliminate all personal debts prior to activating his contract through a procedure known as a Fitness Board.  However, Plaintiff was subsequently required to continue to pay for Scientology auditing and therefore his debts increased, and he was thus prevented from completing the "Project Prepare."  30. Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, and material non-disclosures, and Plaintiff's reasonable and detrimental reliance thereon, to his great damage, continued throughout his nearly 25 years of membership in the Scientology enterprise .  For example, while taking the Scientology courses in auditing, he was constantly reminded by Scientology "registrars" (whose job it is to obtain monies from Scientologists for the purposes of the Scientology enterprise and those of Defendants herein) of his "ruin" and that the next course or auditing or "brand new Hubbard breakthrough" would solve his "ruin," or "cure" his homosexuality and other mental and physical ailments, forever.  At the time Plaintiff was persuaded that they could "handle" his homosexuality with "processing," Defendants never advised him of the H.A.S.I. Directive No. 152 stating that "persons with long homosexual histories" are "forbidden" from receiving the very processing he was paying for.  31. In 1995 agents of Defendants, including Mary Voegeding, implicitly referred to the "success story" of John Travolta in that regard while both John Travolta and Plaintiff were simultaneously "on lines" at Defendant's Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida, while failing to disclose published reports of John Travolta's homosexual relationship with porn actor Paul Barresi.  32. Defendants coercively indoctrinated Plaintiff into believing that LRH was the "Source" of all knowledge so that Plaintiff was brainwashed into continuing to rely on Defendants' misrepresentations and material non-disclosures including the fact that Scientology had not handled LRH's numerous physical ailments, nor Captain Miscavige's illness, nor Moxon's illness, all being matters clearly indicating that Scientology does not work, contrary to the public statements of Scientology nor that Scientology public relations chief Heber Jentzsch's wife, Yvonne, died after her health problems were not handled by auditing even though LRH intervened to personally "handle" her "physical condition."  33. After Plaintiff completed Scientology's most advanced course, New OT VIII, in February 1990, he returned to Paris, France, reasonably relying upon Defendants' representations that his personal problems ("ruin") such as his homosexuality, had been finally resolved.  However, two months later, Plaintiff's "ruin", being his homosexual urges, returned even more strongly than before.  Although Plaintiff had done the New OT VIII course on the M.V. Freewinds, at such great expense as to totally ruin him financially, he could not return to the M.V. Freewinds for further "handling" of his "ruin" unless he paid the Defendants even more money.  Moreover, Plaintiff knew that if he could not/did not pay Defendants even more money for their courses and auditing then he could be "off loaded" for being unable to pay Scientology's "fixed donations."  34. Consequently, Plaintiff moved to Mexico to convalesce and to recover financially.  Having been destroyed financially by Defendants, and as a direct consequence thereof, Plaintiff lost all of his personal possessions in Paris.  In 1995, Plaintiff then proceeded to the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida with the intention, and confidence based on Defendants' misrepresentations dating back 20 years, that his continuing "injustice problems" and "ruin" could be resolved by Defendants and their "tech," "ethics," and "admin," including KSW #1.  From 1995 through the end of May 1997, Plaintiff's "condition" worsened despite Defendants' continuing misrepresentations.  At the time, Plaintiff had been so coercively indoctrinated, brainwashed, subjected to hypnotic suggestions and other methods of mind control, that he did not recognize the mentally manipulative effect of Defendants carrot and stick, bait and switch, "ethics" handlings, rewards and punishment.  35. During this period of time, Plaintiff was in communication with the most senior echelons of the Scientology hierarchy including Captain Miscavige personally, who expressly promised to see to a complete and final resolution of the "injustices" perpetrated, but failed to do so in disregard of KSW #1.  At the end of 1996, while Plaintiff was still under the coercive indoctrination, hypnosis, mind control and mental manipulation techniques of Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to attend a "briefing" in the restaurant of Scientology's Sand Castle Hotel in Clearwater, Florida.  Plaintiff was informed that the Scientology senior management had discovered that the New OT VII level of Scientology had been delivered and applied erroneously and that its results on the "public" were in some unspecified way defective and he could, thereby, be suffering life-threatening defects himself.  However, Plaintiff was denied entry to the briefing by Captain Miscavige, and permission to read the related publication, even though he had, in fact, paid for and completed the New OT VII and New OT VIII levels.  36. Contrary to the misrepresentations and material non-disclosures, and the writings and teachings of Hubbard and his adherents, including KSW #1, Defendants did not solve the major personal "ruin" that Plaintiff had described to Defendants, nor cure his homosexuality, notwithstanding 25 years of avid dedication, the expenditure of over half a million dollars in actual "fixed donations" of money, the participation in innumerable hours of auditing, processing and training in exclusively Scientology techniques, the expenditure of skill and labor in the employ of the Scientology enterprise, and his eventual ascent to becoming one of the approximately 1,200 elite Scientologists who had undergone the extensive range of auditing from "introductory sessions" through to Operating Thetan Level 8 ("New OT VIII").  Moreover, in the representations made by LRH in DMSMH, particularly the chapter entitled "The Clear," detailed description is given of the qualities possessed by a "clear."  Plaintiff was determined to have attained the purported state of "clear" in 1979 and has since discovered that he did not receive the promised benefits.  In particular:  poor eyesight, recall and "aberrations" persisted.  The "clear" Plaintiff was clearly not "clear" as per the LRH definition of that term.   COUNT TWO   (Concurrent Practice of Other "Religions")  37. Defendants expressly represented to Plaintiff in 1976, and have represented to the public at large since then, that one does not have to give up one's "other" religious beliefs in order to become a Scientologist and that such "other" religious beliefs can be concurrently practiced consistently with Scientology.  In late 1996, while attempting to obtain "eligibility" as set forth above, one Danny Keogh learned that Plaintiff still maintained Christian beliefs, as he had before joining Scientology in 1973.  Mr. Keogh reported this matter to Lieutenant Rathbun, one of Scientology's most senior international officials, who then personally subjected Plaintiff to a "religious deprogramming of Christian Belief."  38. Defendants' attempts to religiously deprogram Plaintiff took place in two "interviews" or interrogations, using Scientology's device called the E-Meter as a lie detector.  Lieutenant Rathbun conducted the religious deprogramming as a harsh coercive interrogation which had the basic intent of forcing Plaintiff to give up his Christian religious faith in order to obtain RTC's "eligibility authorization" to see the secret New OT VII "Inspector General" document.  39. During this "False Data Stripping" and "religious deprogramming", Plaintiff asked Lieutenant Rathbun repeatedly if he could be misunderstanding Hubbard's and RTC's intent as Plaintiff stated that he could not believe that, in order to be able to continue in Scientology, he would have to renounce his other, Christian, religious faith.  Defendant was told that he had not misunderstood and that anyone practicing any kind of "other" religious faith would be shunned and ineligible to continue in Scientology as it was considered an "illegal other practice" under RTC policies.  40. Defendants' religious deprogramming coupled with Defendants' coercive indoctrination of Plaintiff led Plaintiff to falsely conclude that his belief in Christianity had caused him to commit a punishable crime against Defendants rendering him ineligible for more secret Scientology courses until he recanted his "other" Christian religious beliefs.   COUNT THREE (Inurement, Human Rights Abuses, Crime and Fraud)  41. At the time Plaintiff was recruited into Scientology, it was represented, in essence, that Scientology was a peaceful, law abiding organization that respected its members' rights and that monies given it did not unlawfully inure to the benefit of any individuals.  Those representations were false and the non-disclosures material.  The misrepresentations were part of an elaborate scheme and artifice to obtain money and assets by creating organizations for handling, inter alia, physiological/ psychosomatic conditions as described above and for allegedly religious tax-exempt purposes and, subsequently, ordering the payment of such assets for Commodore Hubbard's personal use and subsequently the personal use of his successors and the inurement to the benefit of certain celebrity Scientology members such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.  42. Contrary to the material misrepresentations, and material non-disclosures, of Defendants and their agents, upon which Plaintiff reasonably relied to his detriment and damage, Plaintiff has, among other things, discovered the following wrongful conduct by Defendants:  (a) That the corporations and churches of Scientology are not a bona fide legitimate religion but a vast money making invasive and subversive political movement, commercial enterprise and criminal organization that has perpetrated a fraud on the Plaintiff; (b) That Defendants were engaged in the operation of a para-military, and politically subversive organization engaged, among other things, in the denial of the civil rights, and the human rights, of the Plaintiff; (c) That Defendants had maintained a totalitarian-like compartmentalization within the Scientology enterprise in order to prevent Plaintiff discovering the real truth regarding the actual nature of the Scientology enterprise and the material non-disclosures that Defendants withheld from the Plaintiff; (d) That Defendants recruited and used celebrities, especially John Travolta, to further their frauds and crimes against the Plaintiff as set forth herein; (e) That Plaintiff had a "direct line to Source", i.e., Commodore Hubbard, and that the letters he received "from Ron" [Hubbard] were genuine when in fact they were not; (f) That Defendants had engaged in fraud in not telling Plaintiff about the criminal history and massive criminal activities of Department 20 of the Guardian's Office, now OSA.  Defendants subsequently claimed that these criminal activities had been conducted by a small unit within the Guardian's office and that all persons responsible for this criminal conduct, such as Defendant Moxon who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the same, had been expelled from Scientology.  Plaintiff has recently learned that this was not true; (g) That Defendants had engaged in fraud in not telling Plaintiff of the real truth regarding LRH's background, illicit drug use, psychiatric drug use, the abuse of his wives and children, abuse of his followers, abuse of the legal system, criminal convictions, money laundering through the R.R.F., and the "suspicious" circumstances, and fraudulent conduct, preceding, surrounding and following his death; (h) Defendants further engaged in fraud by not telling Plaintiff, at the time of his recruitment or thereafter, that they maintained special schools, and "cadet org" facilities, where children were coercively indoctrinated, subject to substandard living conditions and diet, subjected to hard labor, indoctrinated with LRH's study tech to their academic disadvantage, subjected to sexual and other abuse that was not timely or properly remedied and punished by Defendants; (i) That Defendants had engaged in fraud in not advising Plaintiff of the full extent of the Rehabilitation Project Force, alleged Scientology-related deaths, suicides and financial frauds and Scientology's past criminal convictions, public investigations, lawsuits and other anti-social activities and conduct in violation of the Constitutional and civil rights of both its own members and its critics; (j) Defendants also failed to ensure that its celebrity spokespersons and recruiters were fully and properly briefed, informed and knowledgeable as to all of the activities of the Scientology enterprise as alleged herein before permitting and/or requiring them to make misleading public statements and/or representations in support of Scientology, many of which were reasonably relied upon by Plaintiff to his manifest damage and detriment; (k) That contrary to their misrepresentations, Defendants do use hypnosis, brainwashing, mind control and other mentally manipulative and coercive indoctrination techniques; (l) That Defendant(s) omitted to tell Plaintiff that it obtained IRS Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status through intimidation, misuse of his monies contributed to Defendants, the withholding and hiding of relevant and requested documents, the use of private investigators, blackmail, and other matters; (m) That Defendants had misused monies that Plaintiff contributed to and donated to them by engaging in criminal conduct, fraudulent conduct, tax fraud, financial fraud, loan fraud, and credit card fraud; (n) That Defendants also failed to disclose to Plaintiff that Scientologists may not, per Scientology policy, testify without bias or truthfully against the interests of a Scientologist or Scientology; (o) That contrary to the Defendants' representations, express and implied, to Plaintiff, Defendants engaged in the systematic abuse of families and children and prohibited all Sea Org staff members ("staffers") at the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida, and elsewhere from having children, and ordered woman to have abortions, even if they were married and wished to have children, under threat of expulsion from the Sea Org; (p) That Defendants misused Plaintiff's contributions and fixed donations in connection with their claims to "Clear the Planet," create "an ethical society" and a "world without crime and drugs" and failed to timely disclose to him that "Clearing the Planet" meant ruling the World, eliminating and/or exterminating critics or opponents of Scientology and that an "ethical" planet meant one ruled only and exclusively according to Scientology practices and further that "criminals" were those who were impeding Scientology's worldwide takeover; (q) That contrary to Defendants' claims, the use of the E-Meter and the practice of auditing was a dangerous and potentially life-threatening fraud; (r) That Defendants engaged in misrepresentations and material omissions to Plaintiff, in connection with the use of portions of his monies and donations for the activities of OSA, lawyers principally being Defendant Moxon, and private investigators against former Scientologists, critics of Scientology and the like; (s) That contrary to Defendants' claims to Plaintiff, Scientology does not work as claimed and the "Bridge to Total Freedom," from the Personality Test through New OT VIII, and all related writings such as Dianetics, Scientology, A World Religion Emerges in the Space Age, What is Scientology?, and all of the so-called Advanced Technology, or upper levels, are a secular fraud despite Defendants' contrary representations, and material non-disclosures, made to Plaintiff; (t) That in violation of U.S. Federal Court injunctions, and contrary to their express representations to Plaintiff that Defendants were law abiding entities and peaceful citizens, Defendants were engaged in the unlawful practice of medicine through various of LRH's policies, practices and procedures, such as NOTS 34 and the related use of the E-Meter, and that these activities had been fraudulently cloaked with sham religious claims in order to prevent and evade government regulation, prohibition and penalty; (u) That Defendants' material non-disclosures to Plaintiff, involved among other things, their policy and practice of preventing his exposure to any materials and information critical of Scientology including "entheta press," thus delaying his discovery of the Scientology enterprise being a international commercial enterprise and political movement maintaining the post-founding pretense of religiosity in order to operate tax-free in countries where it was convenient to do so.  In such manner, Defendants ordered Plaintiff not to read or otherwise access materials that may have otherwise permitted him to discover the frauds and other wrongful conduct alleged herein; (v) That, among other things, Defendants prevented Plaintiff from timely learning that:  LRH had been found by a California court to be "a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements"; (w) That various of the corporations and churches of Scientology, and numerous executives, including LRH and Defendant Mary Sue Hubbard, had been arrested, indicted and convicted of criminal conduct in numerous countries (and that Defendant Moxon had been named as a co-conspirator in some of the same activities).  That civil judgments for fraud and other tortious conduct had been entered against various of the corporations and churches of Scientology in numerous courts in various countries.  That various governments had investigated Scientology, issued damning reports, public statements condemning it and had restricted or banned its activities and representations.  That each of the above enumerated facts was known to Defendants and each of them, and at all times material hereto were hidden from Plaintiff by said Defendants.  Had Defendants permitted Plaintiff to access these various judicial, official investigation, legislative and executive branch and other pronouncements as to the fraudulent and criminal nature of the policies and practices of the Scientology enterprise, he would not have suffered the deprivation of civil and human rights, and the financial exploitation and destruction, that he endured for nearly 25 years.  43. Defendants' criminal and fraudulent conduct directed at Plaintiff, between 1973 and 1997, also included, but was not limited to, the following documents, policies, practices, procedures and activities which were material non-disclosures, when Defendants' recruited the Plaintiff:  (a) The HCOB titled "The By-Passed Case" written by L. Ron Hubbard and denoted as "Top Secret"; (b) The document written on May 2, 1991 that arbitrarily stripped the Plaintiff of all "O.T. status" without any recourse.  Plaintiff had paid a great deal of money (approximately $500,000.00) to Defendants for the "O.T." levels and then Defendants publicly canceled his attainment of them without due compensation; (c) The application, by the "Sea Org," of LRH's directive of (circa) 1976: "THIS IS OUR PLANET, MOVE IN!" The Defendants' goal of "taking over the Planet" and imposing a worldwide totalitarian Scientology government upon it was not disclosed to Plaintiff when Defendants recruited him; (d) Specifically, by way of example only, Defendants and others have misrepresented to Plaintiff that certain of Hubbard's books such as Dianetics, Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth, were on the New York Times' best seller list at the number one point for several weeks as a result of their widespread popularity when the true facts were that Defendants carried out a secret operation using Norman Starkey, Ronnie Miscavige and other personnel from throughout the Scientology enterprise, and using monies Plaintiff had contributed to, to purchase those books back from retail book stores as false and fraudulent "customers" to create a false front and fraudulent claim of a best seller when in fact the book(s) was a poor seller; (e) The action, by Defendants, of prescribing excessive and dangerous doses of niacin and vitamins during the "Hubbard Purification Rundown". In this program, in 1979, under the supervision of the Scientology case supervisor, the Plaintiff was instructed to take, over a period of approximately three weeks, such daily doses as 10,000 mg. (40 pills of 250 mg. each for the first three days) of vitamin B1 and up to 5 grams (5,000 mg. of niacin, etc.) and subjected to no less than five hours a day in a sauna at a constant high temperature. The promise to Plaintiff, in the Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin (HCOB) on the program administered by Plaintiff, was that it would make Plaintiff survive the Third World War. However, Plaintiff suffered hardship and barely survived the hazardous doses of sauna and vitamins, all resulting from misrepresentations and material non-disclosures of Defendants; (f) The practice, by Defendants, of creating a moronic and/or docile permanent dependency on themselves by Scientology's followers through the methods of inner esoteric language such as in the "Technical Dictionary" and "Management (Admin) Dictionary," elimination (by indoctrination and by "auditing" and training) of a follower's sociability in the "wog" (non-Scientology) world, and by alienation of other spheres and support structures of society that otherwise followers might enjoy in the absence of Commodore Hubbard's critical tirades in his tapes, policy letters, issues and bulletins; (g) The use, by Defendants, on many occasions of the "eligibility" process by RTC to degrade, vilify, control and secure contribution and blind loyalty of the Plaintiff. As part of this Plaintiff was subjected to an emotionally wrecking religious deprogramming by Lieutenant Rathbun and RTC; (h) The fraudulent series of actions and omissions by RTC and other Defendants in the refusal to allow Plaintiff to have access to the information in the "secret" 13 page document written by Defendants' "Inspector General" on the defects of the delivery, practice, results and techniques of "New OT VII." Plaintiff alleges fraud and misrepresentation in the delivery of his own "New OT VII" which caused the most severe emotional, spiritual and mental suffering in the life of the Plaintiff from 1982 onwards; (i) The fraudulent practices of the IAS where it ignores, in practice, the advertised goals it is supposed to have, and instead used funds from the trusting Plaintiff to lobby local, state and the federal governments, to antagonize foreign governments, such as Germany and Sweden for example, to feed its own false image with expensive "public relations" and generally create new "wars" for Defendants to use to extract further donations from Plaintiff and its membership generally. Moreover, Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiff that the IAS took over one million dollars from Gerhard Haag, in Germany, to "protect and defend" Scientologists. Haag was financially ruined, got no help from the I.A.S. and had to flee to exile in Albania. As Haag was a major customer for Plaintiff's paintings Plaintiff was thereby materially and extensively harmed by this criminal and fraudulent conduct of the IAS which had secured his paying membership with representations of behavior to the contrary; (j) Defendants inducing Plaintiff to pay for their Ministers Course, which requires only several days of study but entitled Plaintiff to wear a clerical collar, perform weddings and to call himself a Reverend. After Plaintiff had assisted with the unsuccessful defense of Commodore Hubbard on charges of fraud in 1978, Defendants arbitrarily stripped him of his status as a Scientology reverend. Since Plaintiff had to be a "minister" to use an E-meter at that time, he could no longer perform the functions of this post at the Paris Org. Plaintiff wrote to LRH personally and received a reply purportedly from Hubbard but which he has now learned was not. Plaintiff was then advised that although he could remain in Scientology, he would have to pay a$30,000 "freeloader's debt" in order to do so; (k) Defendants, through "WISE's", accepting Plaintiff's funds (of at least $6,000) and then failing to deliver any service of commensurate value; (l) Defendants' fraud upon Plaintiff, whereby it was broadly advertised that "OT VIII CAN ONLY BE DELIVERED ON A SHIP" so Plaintiff donated monies to contribute to the purchase of the M.V. Freewinds. Contrary to Defendants' representations as to why they needed vast amount of funds to purchase the M.V. Freewinds, the IAS' real intention was just to get off the land and into international waters so as not to be held accountable for its fraud, other illegal and wrongful conduct and "war tactics"; (m) Defendants' failure to disclose the heavily armed, fortified and dangerous character of the Scientology base at Gilman Hot Springs, the military assault weapons and other armaments on the M.V. Freewinds, and the assault armaments at other Scientology locations. COUNT FOUR (Hubbard's Achievements and Character) 44. Throughout the period that the Plaintiff was a member of the Church of Scientology, and from the Fall of 1973 until at least the Fall of 1997, numerous written fraudulent representations about LRH were made to the Plaintiff. These written representations were included in numerous books and publications written by or concerning LRH which Defendants required Plaintiff to read. These representations included that: (a) LRH is the sole "Source" of Scientology writings and teachings; (b) LRH was a nuclear physicist, with degrees from certain universities, including being a graduate of George Washington University, who had conducted over thirty years of scientific research into the nature and causes of disease, the nature of the mind, and the nature of human organizations; (c) LRH had served for four years in combat in the United States Navy during World War II, that he commanded a corvette squadron, that he was one of the most highly decorated officers during the war, that he was severely wounded in combat and received the Purple Heart, was crippled, blinded, twice pronounced medically dead and that he cured himself with Dianetics; (d) LRH was sent by the U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California; (e) LRH had traveled for years in the Far East and Asia, studying with great Eastern religious leaders and that he was able, in part, to formulate Scientology because of his knowledge of the East; (f) LRH's health was perfect as a result of personal applications of the principles of Dianetics and Scientology; (g) LRH was a person of unblemished and unquestionable integrity, motivated solely by benevolent purposes, with no interest in exploiting Scientology to make money for himself; (h) Scientology is scientifically proven to provide an array of benefits, including a higher I.Q., a cure for neuroses, criminality, poor eyesight, insanity, psychosomatic ills, homosexuality and drug dependence; (i) Scientology's goods and services are offered on a satisfaction or money back basis; (j) Scientology has scientifically guaranteed to cure, among other things, asthma, arthritis, rheumatism, toothaches, pneumonia, colds and color blindness; (k) Scientology corporations, and agents of such corporations, never committed any criminal acts or any acts in violation of the policies and rulings of the Internal Revenue Service and that no part of the net earnings of any Scientology organizations inured to the benefit of LRH or his agents, Defendants or any of Scientology's celebrity members such as John Travolta, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman; (l) None of the policies, practices, actions or procedures of any Scientology organization were contrary to law or to public policy and that no part of the earnings of any Scientology organization was used for illegal purposes; (m) As stated by LRH in the pamphlet "What Your Fees Buy," it was also represented that LRH was never paid for the "researches of Dianetics and Scientology," that he forgave the Scientology organizations the$13.5 million that they owed him for services rendered, that he did not collect his 10% or his royalty fees for lectures, loans, and out-of-pocket expenses that the Scientology organizations owed him, that he donated the royalties of his first book, a best seller, to the Scientology organizations, that he did not collect the paperback royalties on that book, and that he drew "less than an org. staff member (e.g., then $30 per week)." 45. The above representations, and others set forth elsewhere herein, are false. In fact, inter alia, Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges as follows: (a) LRH received a failing grade in the only nuclear physics course that he took at George Washington University and was dismissed for poor academic performance after attending for one and one-half semesters; (b) The only degree LRH ever received was from a mail-order college which he created and/or owned in the early 1950's; (c) LRH did not serve in combat during World War II and was relieved of duty on at least three occasions while serving in the United States Navy; (d) LRH was not assigned to break up Aleister Crowley's black magic ring in California, but was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual acts in it; (e) LRH never commanded a corvette squadron; (f) At the end of his military service, LRH was a psychiatric in-patient at Oak Knoll Military Hospital and seeking a navy disability pension; (g) LRH was never pronounced dead, never received any war wounds, was not crippled and blinded and did not receive the Purple Heart or any other decorations for bravery or injury; (h) LRH had, from at least 1945 to January 1986, suffered from chronic duodenal ulcers, arthritis, bursitis, skeletal weakness, diabetes, pulmonary embolisms and a host of other diseases and ailments; (i) LRH married his second wife, Sara Northrop, while still married to his first wife, Margaret Louise Grubb; LRH practiced ritual abortions on both his first and second wives, attempted to murder his second wife and lied on camera to Granada television about the number of wives he had had; (j) LRH was arrested and convicted of petty theft in San Luis Obispo in 1947; (k) The Dianetics and Scientology corporations formed by LRH were not formed for benevolent purposes but were conceived for the purpose of making money through deceit, deception, fraud and misrepresentation. 46. Defendants knew or should have known the representations set forth herein were false, and undisputedly knew they were false following the decision in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C 420153 ("Armstrong I") on June 20, 1984, and the decision in Re B&G (Wards) by English Justice Mr. Latey, but permitted those fraudulent misrepresentations to continue to be made to the Plaintiff from 1984 to Fall 1997. Defendants, their agents and employees, made said representations with the intent that the Plaintiff act and rely upon the representations made. Among other things, representations made in LRH's pamphlet "What Your Fees Buy" were deliberately misleading and false in the following particulars: (a) ASI skimmed millions of dollars from the Scientology organizations for LRH. From March 1982 to October 1982 alone, LRH's personal estate within ASI grew from$10 million to over $40 million; (b) ASI billed the Scientology organizations for services it allegedly performed for the Scientology organizations, including management; (c) In 1982-1984, Captain Miscavige and RTC extracted millions of dollars from Scientology Mission Holders and deprived them of their livelihood by using his "Finance Police" and Sea Org personnel at and after the San Francisco "Mission Holders Conference"; (d) LRH collected the royalties he claimed he had forgiven from the Scientology organizations. These included paying LRH for the use of St. Hill Manor in England, buying LRH's personal possessions for a future museum, paying LRH to set up a museum where he and his family had once lived, and paying royalties for films, course materials and tapes LRH had created including the OT III tape. LRH diverted over$100 million from Scientology organizations to bank accounts controlled by him between 1972 and 1981; (e) In March 1982, LRH received over $200,000 in royalties each week from the Scientology organizations. This figure increased until some weeks LRH received over$1 million per week; (f) It was LRH himself who required Captain Miscavige and ASI to find ways for him to get as much money as he could from the Scientology organizations.  At the same time, he required ASI to hide his receipt of these monies so that the Scientology organizations that had non-profit status would not lose their status due to inurement; (g) Millions of dollars in money from Scientology organizations were transferred, often by "messengers" carrying millions of dollars in cash, to bank accounts which LRH controlled in Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Luxembourg.  Receipts and documents "legalizing" these "transfers" were drawn up after the fact.   COUNT FIVE (Confidentiality of Files)  47. Between Fall 1973 and Fall 1997, Defendants, their agents and employees made written representations to the Plaintiff that all information conveyed by a member of Scientology to the Church of Scientology during a Scientology process known as an "o/w write-up" (an overts and withholds write-up) or "auditing" was to be strictly confidential and was never to be revealed to anyone except the member's auditor or case supervisor.  Under no circumstances, the Plaintiff was informed in writing, would information disclosed in auditing ever be used against the person providing the information.  The information obtained was taken down in files or folders (hereinafter referred to as auditing or "PC" files) called "preclear," "PC," "processing," "auditing," "confessional," and/or "ethics" files.  48. In 1990, as part of Plaintiff's volunteered efforts to do better, he participated in a confession of sins with the hope of unburdening his conscience and with the trust that such would be kept within the bounds of the claimed priest-penitent privilege and confidentiality represented in LRH's writings to exist within the Scientology enterprise.  49. Contrary to Defendants' representations as to the confidentiality of Scientology processing, and the claimed priest-penitent privilege, Plaintiff's "confessional" statements were disseminated from the M.V. Freewinds to the Celebrity Center in Paris, France.  This was done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff's Scientology friends to "disconnect" from him, to not purchase his art work and thereby to destroy his business, and to otherwise engage in conduct contrary to the express representations and material non-disclosures Defendants had made to Plaintiff throughout his 25-year relationship with the Defendants.  50. In late May 1997, the President of Flag Service Organization, Mrs. Mary Voegeding, threatened Plaintiff by telling him that the contents of his recently volunteered "religious" confessions "just might come out publicly" if he left the Scientology organization.  51. At all relevant times prior to Defendants' attempted blackmail and extortion of Plaintiff, Defendants had represented to Plaintiff that these matters were all subject to the priest-penitent privilege and that they were contained in his "pre-clear" and "ethics" folder which were confidential and which would not be released or misused in any way.  Plaintiff relied upon these fraudulent misrepresentations to his damage and detriment because Defendants concealed from Plaintiff their demonstrable history and practice of "culling" parishioners Pre-Clear and Ethics folders, and using such information for their own purposes relating to the coercion, control and/or punishment of Defendants' members or former members.  52. From at least 1969 until the present, Defendants have had a secret written policy to extract the confidential information from "PC" files and use it for purposes of blackmail and extortion, in violation of the above representations.  This policy was written by Defendant Mary Sue Hubbard and has been extensively implemented by Defendants.  Although, a material matter to Plaintiff, Defendants' failed to disclose the existence of this practice to the Plaintiff.  Defendants, through Defendant Moxon, are now further using such confidential information in Reveillere v. Pattinson, O.C.S.C. Case No. 800981.   COUNT SIX (Fair Game)  53. At various times herein between Fall 1973 and the present day, the Defendants, and in particular Defendant Moxon, as part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice or otherwise control and silence dissenters and opponents such as the Plaintiff herein, practiced what is known as the "Fair Game" policy.  Pursuant to this practice, an enemy of Scientology "may be deprived of property of injured by any means, by any Scientologist, without any discipline of a Scientologist.  He may be tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed."  Despite public disavowal of the term "Fair Game" (for conceded public relations purposes), Defendants retain the policy itself in force and practice.  Accordingly, Defendants, and particularly Defendant Moxon, in concert with others, continue to engage in illegal, outrageous, oppressive, tortious and harassing activities against those who they deem to be "enemies" of Scientology.  The enterprise considers itself able to carry out its pattern of illegal activity against the Plaintiff and others, with the knowledge that only rarely will witnesses dare to come forward and testify against Defendants.  54. The Defendants' Fair Game policies and practices include "declaring" its own members, or non-members opposing Scientology, "suppressive persons" by way of "suppressive person declares" and stating that they are subject to "Fair Game".  On October 20, 1998, Defendant Moxon further implemented Defendants' "fair game policies and practices" by filing fellow OSA staffer Michel Reveillere's retaliatory lawsuit against Plaintiff (Reveillere v. Pattinson, O.C.S.C. Case No. 800981).  55. Defendants' "Fair Game" policy was not disclosed to Plaintiff when he was recruited by Scientology and this was a material non-disclosure by Defendants.  The "Fair Game" policy directs that any individual or employee who expresses a lack of loyalty to Defendants is open to any form of harassment, economic ruin, or subject to any covert plan designed to cause economic ruin, or subject to any covert plan designed to cause emotional or physical harm and/or financial ruin.  The plans include the destruction of a person's business, reputation, family, and/or framing of false charges of criminal acts.  Throughout Plaintiff's affiliation with Defendants, he was constantly psychologically tormented with threats of becoming "Fair Game" within the context of the specialized meaning given the term by Defendants.  At certain times during the course of his affiliation with Defendants, Plaintiff was extensively subjected to "Fair Game" and ruined financially and vocationally at the hands of, and for the benefit and unjust enrichment of Defendants and continues to be subjected to Fair Game by Defendant Moxon. *  56. Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiff, as set forth herein, were continued through a LRH policy prohibiting Plaintiff from discussing his "case" with other Scientologists and thereby prevented him from learning of the experiences, abuse, deprivation and frauds being perpetrated upon other victims of Scientology.  57. Defendants thereby intentionally caused Plaintiff to delay discovering the fraud they were perpetrating upon him by manipulating him into believing that any failures of Scientology processing and courses to deliver what had been represented, and not disclosed, were the result of his own mistakes and errors and not an experience shared with others and which was a Scientology crime to discuss with others.  Plaintiff's manipulation and isolation was aggravated by Defendants' use of so-called Scientology celebrities to engage in fraudulent misrepresentations to the public and other Scientology members.  58. Contrary to Defendants' material and fraudulent misrepresentations and material non-disclosures, including but not limited to "The Role of Earth" tape upon which Plaintiff reasonably relied, the "Bridge to Total Freedom," and all of Defendants' writings, teachings and so-called upper levels (OTI through OT VIII), are a form of "bait-and-switch" fraud in that what Plaintiff was told he was buying turned out to be something different and materially much more expensive.  Had Defendants disclosed these matters to Plaintiff at the time they recruited him he would never have purchased their "courses", auditing and cure or "handling" of his homosexuality or "ruin".  59. At the time these misrepresentations and non-disclosures were made to Plaintiff, Defendants herein knew, or should have known, that those representations were not true.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that they are not qualified and/or properly licensed to render medical treatment or advice, and that "auditing" does not prevent or cure disease, illness, or alter one's sexual orientation and/or preference and that they had been judicially enjoined from making such representations.  60. The representations, misrepresentations and omissions were made, with the intent to induce Plaintiff to rely thereon, and enter into a relationship with the Defendants, expend enormous sums of money for the benefit of Defendants, to travel interstate and internationally, to endure exhaustion, coercion, trickery, quackery, brainwashing, hypnosis, and manipulation, and to embrace and espouse the processes and practices of Defendants, and each of them.  61. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the above-mentioned misrepresentations, and material non-disclosures, as a direct result of the success with which Defendants were able to carry out their activities of brainwashing, mind control, hypnosis, exhaustion, coercion, trickery, quackery and manipulation.  62. If Plaintiff had known that part of the money he gave to Scientology was being fraudulently diverted to LRH personally, or that the Defendants were involved in overt criminal and fraudulent acts, and activity to harass and coerce agencies of the government and citizens of the state, partially through Defendant Moxon, he would not have paid said money or provided said labor and he would not have disclosed confidential personal information to the Defendants.  63. In relying upon Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of monies paid, and for labor provided, all of which will be ascertained according to proof but which exceed $500,000. 64. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, despicable, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Fraud) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive 65. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth herein above as though fully set forth herein. 66. In or about Fall 1973, Plaintiff read the book Dianetics by LRH. Dianetics purports to explicate the "modern science of mental health" as per its title. That book expressly states that Dianetics is an "exact science," comparable to, but simpler than, physics or chemistry. The book Dianetics refers to a process known as "auditing." Auditing is a means by which an individual applies the "science" of Dianetics. The individual applying the "science" of Dianetics is referred to in the book as a "patient." 67. The book explains that the "science" of Dianetics can be used by a Dianetics practitioner, who is referred to as an "auditor," to cure the "patient" (also referred to as a "pre-clear") of certain illnesses, including "perversion," which Dianetics defines as including, inter alia, "homosexuality, lesbianism . . ." The illness of perversion, and Dianetics' approach to curing it, are said by the author, LRH, to be "a scientific fact." The book read by Plaintiff and entitled Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy was published by the Hubbard College of Scientology. 68. In Fall 1973, induced by the claims made in Dianetics, to the effect that Dianetics and Scientology, described in Dianetics as the application of the science of Dianetics, offered a cure to the "illness" of homosexuality, Plaintiff visited the Scientology location nearest him, where he then lived in Paris, France. Plaintiff was greeted at the Scientology enterprise location in Paris, then a small converted residential apartment, by Colette Byasson, to whom Plaintiff expressed an interest in learning more about the "science" of Dianetics. Ms. Byasson gave Plaintiff what was purported to be a "personality test," which she invited Plaintiff to complete. Plaintiff completed the personality test and returned it to Ms. Byasson within a matter of one to two days. 69. When Plaintiff returned the personality test to Ms. Byasson, she "graded" it while Plaintiff waited, and reviewed Plaintiff’s scores with him. Plaintiff scored low on a number of categories, which were represented to Plaintiff by Ms. Byasson to be "scientifically determined" categories. Ms. Byasson told Plaintiff that such low scores could be accounted for only by problems in the life of the test-taker. Ms. Byasson asked Plaintiff what problems he was experiencing at that time. Plaintiff informed Ms. Byasson that he was suffering shame, embarrassment, and fear because of his homosexual sexual orientation. 70. Ms. Byasson informed Plaintiff that he could begin a scientifically proven cure for his illness of "perversion" if he paid for and took Dianetics and Scientology courses. Ms. Byasson further informed Plaintiff that the cure would work only if he provided her with a statement acknowledging his "illness," and stated that Scientology was scientifically proven to be the only means by which Plaintiff could ever by cured of his illness. 71. At the end of his first Scientology course, Plaintiff was informed by a Scientology staff person that he could partake of the scientifically proven cure for his "illness" only by paying for in advance and taking a second course. Plaintiff had difficulty doing the course "Student Hat" as it had nothing to do with his "ruin." In order to prevent Plaintiff from ceasing the course, the Scientology staff person would remind Plaintiff of his "illness" of perversion, and would again tell Plaintiff that the sole means by which he could be cured was through continued study of the science of Dianetics, as applied by the Scientology enterprise. 72. Upon the completion of the reading course described in the preceding paragraph, Plaintiff was told that he would have to pay in advance for, and take, another course. During each of the courses taken by Plaintiff, he was told that Dianetics and Scientology were the only means by which he could be cured of his "illness of perversion." Plaintiff was also repeatedly told, during his first several months of course-taking, that Dianetics and Scientology were the only scientifically proven cure for his "illness." 73. At no time during the first year of Plaintiff’s involvement with Scientology was he ever told that Scientology was, or purported to be, a religion. Indeed, Plaintiff was repeatedly told that Scientology was a rigorously tested science, much like physics or chemistry. Plaintiff was never told that he was required to exercise faith in order to be cured of his alleged illness, nor was he ever told during his first year of course-taking that Scientology provided a spiritual or spiritually-based cure for the "illness"; rather, he was only told that Scientology was a modern science with scientifically proven cures as set forth above. 74. After nearly one year of paying for and taking Scientology courses, "disconnecting" from the outside world critical of Scientology or Hubbard, and spending the majority of his income in support of the promised "scientific" cure for Plaintiff’s "illness," Plaintiff was nearly isolated from any person not connected with Scientology. Only after Plaintiff had become psychologically dependent on Scientology through a year-long process of brainwashing did Scientology personnel reveal to Plaintiff that Scientology purported to be a religion but only for conveniently false and ulterior purposes. 75. Upon revealing Scientology to be a purported religion, expressly for public relations, regulatory and tax purposes, Plaintiff was informed by Hank Laarhuis and Ms. Byasson that he would be condemned to misery, unhappiness, illness, and personal failure unless he continued to pay for expensive Scientology courses and auditing with said e-meter. This proposition was also reiterated in writings and directives issued by LRH and also by LRH's successors as head of the Scientology enterprise, Captain David Miscavige, Lieutenant Mark Rathbun, Sea Org registrars on many occasions, and Mary Voegeding. Plaintiff’s reliance upon these statements were reasonable in that, at the time they were made to Plaintiff, he had been brainwashed by Defendants. 76. The statements made by LRH, Captain Miscavige, and their agents, as set forth herein above were false in that neither Dianetics nor Scientology have ever produced "scientifically proven" cures to any illness, nor been scientifically proven to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and in that neither LRH nor his successors ever believed or understood Dianetics or Scientology to be either a science or a religion, but in fact simply manufactured the appearance of a science or a religion for the purpose of fraudulently cloaking their secular, commercial enterprise and thereby falsely and fraudulently enticing persons to serve as unwitting customers of that enterprise. 77. The statements made by LRH, Captain Miscavige, and their agents, as set forth herein above were known by them to be false at the time they were made, as set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, as demonstrated, inter alia, by: (a) In 1973, when Plaintiff first visited the Scientology facility in Paris, France, he asked Ms. Byasson whether Scientology and/or Dianetics purported to be a religion. Plaintiff specifically informed Ms. Byasson, who was acting at all times as an agent of the Defendants, that he did not wish to become involved with a religion or a cult. Ms. Byasson assured Plaintiff that Scientology was not a religion, nor a cult, but was in fact a science; (b) In 1976, at the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, Florida, on occasions on which local Clearwater officials, dignitaries and/or residents were being given guided tours of the Scientology facility located within the hotel, officials of the Scientology Guardian’s Office would arrange bogus "religious ceremonies" to be viewed by such officials, dignitaries, and/or residents, explaining in advance to those Scientologists participating in those sham ceremonies that they had to "put on a show" for the purpose of tricking the individuals observing the ceremonies that the enterprise located in the hotel was a legitimate religious enterprise under the false name "United Churches." 78. The knowingly false statements made by Defendants, as set forth above, were made for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to pay them money for bogus "courses" and "auditing" which payments by Plaintiff inured to LRH and his successors' personal economic benefit. Plaintiff at all times reasonably relied upon the statements of Defendants and their agents, in that Plaintiff initially reasonably relied upon what appeared to him to be a credible-sounding scientific therapy for "curing" him of his sexual orientation. Plaintiff’s later reliance upon the Defendants’ continued statements that he could be cured of his "illness" through the "religion" of Scientology was reasonable under the circumstance of his having been brainwashed and made utterly psychologically dependent upon Scientology. 79. In reasonably relying upon Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, and material omissions, Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of monies paid, and for labor provided, all of which will be ascertained according to proof but which exceed$500,000.  80. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, despicable, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter.   THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Business Practices) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10  81. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth herein above  82. Each and every Defendant, except those Defendants sued herein only for declaratory relief, is a person, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or organization within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code §17201, and is subject to the provisions of §§17200-17209.  83. By engaging in the conduct described herein above, including, but not limited to:  (a) luring Plaintiff into a psychological reliance upon Scientology and inducing him to pay money to Scientology by falsely and fraudulently asserting that Scientology was a science akin to chemistry or physics, offering "scientifically proven" cures for physical and medical illness; (b) by falsely representing to Plaintiff, after he had become brainwashed and dependent upon Scientology personnel, that Scientology is a religion, and that the money paid by Plaintiff and others was solely used for charitable and/or religious purposes, when in fact such money was used by Defendants for purely commercial and secular purposes, sometimes criminal or fraudulent ones too, from which they, and each of them, personally benefited; (c) by wrongfully and fraudulently seizing and confiscating the assets of the Mission Holders and other persons declared by Defendants to be "Suppressive Persons" for the personal and corporate economic gain of the Defendants herein, and each of them; and (d) by creating "shell" corporations and hiding and shifting assets to avoid judgments as alleged herein above for the purpose of preserving economic gains which have already inured to the benefit of Defendants as part of their commercial and secular enterprises which they falsely and fraudulently represent as religious; Defendants have engaged in  unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of the Business and Professions Code §§17200-17209.  84. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’, and each of their, conduct, Plaintiff has lost over one half million dollars in funds spent on fraudulent "courses" and "auditing," has lost thousands of hours of wages during years in which he worked for Defendants herein in their commercial enterprises for less than the statutory minimum wage, or for no wage at all, and has incurred attorneys fees and costs, and suffered other economic loss, in a sum according to proof.  85. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, as a result of their unfair business practices as described herein above, have reaped profits from Plaintiff and others, which have inured to the Defendants, and each of their, economic benefit.  86. Because of the fraudulent and unfair business practices of Defendants, as set forth herein above, Plaintiff is entitled to: the disgorgement and restitution of any monies, including any profits, obtained from Plaintiff by Defendants as a result of their unfair business practices; the disgorgement and restitution to other persons of any monies, including any profits, obtained from such other persons by Defendants as a result of their unfair business practices; the trebling of all such sums paid as restitution under Business and Professions Code § 17082; attorneys fees and costs; interest according to law; costs of suit; and any and all other relief which the Court deems just and proper, including enjoining Defendants herein from representing that Scientology is a religion, rather than a purely secular, commercial, enterprise, and enjoining Defendants from failing to disclose the secular purpose to which fees for "auditing" and "courses" are put.   FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach Of Fiduciary Duty) Against All Defendants And Does 1-10  87. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above as though each were fully set forth herein.  88. When soliciting the Plaintiff to join Scientology, Defendants, their agents and employees invited and expected Plaintiff to place his trust in the Defendants and to come to them with his most personal and intimate concerns and personal history.  Plaintiff did indeed place his confidence in the integrity of the Defendants and Defendants voluntarily accepted such confidence.  By encouraging Plaintiff to repose his trust and confidence in their integrity, and by voluntarily accepting such trust and confidence, Defendants assumed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff.  89. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges as follows:  Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff, among things, by:  (a) Permitting a non-officer of the Scientology Churches, LRH, to control and dominate the churches of Scientology; (b) Failing to disclose to Scientology, and/or Plaintiff, that a non-officer of the Scientology Churches controlled and dominated the Church of Scientology; (c) Permitting money paid by the Plaintiff, and income earned through the Plaintiff's labor, to be used to finance overtly criminal, unlawful, anti-social, tortious and seditious operations and activities, many conducted by Defendant Moxon, such as those identified in various paragraphs herein; (d) Permitting Defendants Mary Sue Hubbard, Captain David Miscavige, and others to assume dominion and control, under LRH's direction, of the Churches of Scientology's assets and property without having corporate authority to do so; (e) Permitting the transfer of millions of dollars of Scientology assets to LRH through ASI and RRF without proper corporate authority; (f) Failing to disclose the transfer of millions of dollars of Scientology assets to LRH through ASI and RRF and doing so contrary to LRH's 1969 publication "What Your Donations Buy"; (g) Failing to ensure that Scientology processes and practices, including the Purification Rundown and New OT VII, were delivered to Plaintiff in a proper and safe manner.  90. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to disclose the facts alleged above and had they done so, Plaintiff would not have given a sum in excess of one-half million dollars to the corporations and Churches of Scientology or provided thousands of hours of unlawfully remunerated labor to the corporations and Churches of Scientology.  As a result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff's money and labor was never used for the purposes Plaintiff intended.  91. In reasonable reliance upon Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and material non-disclosures, Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of monies paid, and for labor provided, all of which will be ascertained according to proof but which exceed $500,000. 92. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, despicable, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Imprisonment) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive 93. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above as though each were fully set forth herein. 94. In 1983, while Plaintiff was a student on a course at the Celebrity Center Paris, France, he was taken from the course room, where he was the only remaining student, and ordered to go into a basement room where two naval uniformed members of LRH's para-military Sea Org (Andre Meyer and Ms. Quenneher) were waiting for him. Defendants' agents then locked the door of the basement room so that the Plaintiff could not voluntarily leave and threatened that if he did not cooperate he would be immediately expelled from the Church (by what is called a "Suppressive Person Declare" which, in Plaintiff's then coercively manipulated mind, was the worst fate that could befall him as a Scientologist). 95. Plaintiff was then involuntarily interrogated as part of a Scientology secular process called "security checking", or "sec checking," which, when engaged in by more than one auditor (a Scientology term for counselor), is colloquially known within Scientology as a "gang bang security check" or "gang bang sec check." During this "gang bang sec check" Plaintiff, having broken down in tears and having agreed to cooperate, was interrogated (again on the E-Meter) about the most intimate and personal aspects of his recent sexual life. He was forced to "confess" to and finally, only when he had no more private information to provide, he was allowed to leave the locked basement room and the premises of the Paris Scientology Celebrity Center. 96. In June 1991, at the orders of Defendants, and at his own personal expense, Plaintiff traveled from Paris, France to the M.V. Freewinds in the Netherlands Antilles. There he was again held forcibly against his will and additionally was forced to pay$7,400 for further Scientology auditing that he could not afford at the time.  Defendants even threatened Plaintiff with the withholding of his passport from him until such time as he paid the demanded amount of money.  Plaintiff then tried to retrieve his passport from the ship's "Port Captain's office" but his passport was being held in the safe and he was not permitted to retrieve it until such time as he paid the monies demanded and received the auditing processes ordered by Defendants.  97. In June 1996, Defendants again held Plaintiff against his will, and falsely imprisoned him, in the Scientology building known as "Sand Castle Hotel" in Clearwater, Florida.  Plaintiff was unlawfully detained by two naval-uniformed officers of the para-military Sea Org and was ordered to pay for further Scientology auditing before he would be released.  98. When Plaintiff refused to borrow further monies to pay for Scientology processing that was inconsistent with the O.T. status that had been stripped away from him, the naval uniformed Sea Org officers refused to let Plaintiff out of the room and physically blocked the exit door to the reception area to prevent him from leaving of his own free will.  Plaintiff eventually escaped through an unlocked door, managed to get out of the building and away from the uniformed Sea Org officers, who had been imprisoning him against his will.  99. Defendants' conduct as set forth above was tortious and without any applicable privilege.  As a proximate result of the said acts of Defendants, Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme and severe mental anguish.  All damages set forth herein are subject to proof at the time of trial.  100. Defendants' false imprisonment of Plaintiff, as herein alleged, was willful, wanton, despicable, malicious, and oppressive, and their acts justify the awarding of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.   SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Invasion Of Privacy And Injunctive Relief) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive  101. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above as though each were fully set forth herein.  102. Plaintiff has heretofore availed himself of certain purported "counseling" services offered by Scientology.  In the course of said counseling services, Defendants represented that Scientology was a benevolent, law-abiding organization and that confidences given by Plaintiff would be maintained inviolate.  The confidential information was collated in documents known as "Pre-Clear Folders," "Ethics Folders and/or Files."  103. Plaintiff, in reasonable reliance upon such represen-tations, including the representation of confidentiality, made disclosures to persons holding themselves out as "religious" counselors under the aegis and authority of Defendants.  104. Subsequent to his induction and indoctrination as set forth above, Defendants held themselves out, among other things, to be "religious" organizations and endeavored to gain the trust and confidence of those who came to them seeking guidance.  As a consequence of these representations, these Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, including a duty to keep matters he confided to them in the strictest confidence.  105. Pursuant to the promises of Defendants regarding psychological counseling, Plaintiff was forced to participate in "counseling sessions" in which he was forced to reveal his innermost private thoughts and feelings.  Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiff that all such information received from the so-called "auditing sessions" and/or "sec checks" employing the use of various psychological techniques, including, but not limited to, the use of the E-Meter, as described above, would be held in confidence and would never be disclosed or put to any use.  Said information was of no legitimate public concern.  106. In violation of their fiduciary duty to maintain the confidentiality of material gained during the counseling sessions, these Defendants, through their agents, servants, counselors and employees, have disclosed, and have attempted to disclose, the confidential material to third parties, and are likely to continue to engage in such unethical conduct, for extortionate purposes and other objectives contrary to Defendants' aforesaid representations to the Plaintiff.  107. At all relevant times prior to Defendants' blackmail and extortion of Plaintiff, Defendants had represented to Plaintiff that these matters were all subject to the priest-penitent privilege and that they were contained in his "pre-clear" and "ethics" folder which were confidential and which would not be released or misused in any way.  Plaintiff relied upon these fraudulent misrepresentations to his damage and detriment because Defendants concealed from Plaintiff their demonstrable history and practice of "culling" parishioners pre-clear and ethics folders, and (principally through Defendant Moxon) using such information for their own purposes relating to the coercion, control and/or punishment of Defendants' members or former members.  108. As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged herein and other acts constituting tortious invasion of privacy, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, damages, including damages for emotional distress.  109. These Defendants, and each of them, engaged in said invasion of privacy with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff and his business and society.  This conduct is despicable, oppressive, malicious and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.  Therefore, Plaintiff requests exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at time of trial of this matter.  110. Plaintiff further seeks a temporary and permanent injunction, and the return of all of Plaintiff's PC Folders and Ethics Folders as well as any and all copies of such contents so that these Defendants, and the Scientology enterprise, will be unable to compromise further the confidences entrusted to them by Plaintiff.   SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive  111. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above as though each were fully set forth herein.  112. Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiff that they were rendering services of a mental and psychological nature that would make Plaintiff a better person.  These representations included statements that Scientology would scientifically improve Plaintiff's well-being and make him psychologically and physiologically a better person.  These representations were falsely made by Defendants, and each of them, and known to be false when made.  Based on the relationship of trust developed between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants and each of them, were fully aware of the particular susceptibility of Plaintiff to emotional distress imposed by them.  113. Defendants' conduct as set out in the complaint above was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and physical distress.  The conduct of Defendants in confirming and ratifying that conduct was done with the intent that Plaintiff's emotional and physical distress would thereby increase upon application of the indoctrination techniques used by Defendants. Such conduct was done with a conscious and reckless disregard for the consequences to Plaintiff's physical, mental and emotional well being.  114. As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged herein and other acts constituting tortious invasion of privacy, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, damages, including damages for emotional distress.  These damages are not presently calculable, but exceed $500,000, and Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to conform to proof presented at trial. 115. These Defendants, and each of them, engaged in said invasion of privacy with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff and his business and society. This conduct is despicable, oppressive, malicious and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, Plaintiff requests exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at time of trial of this matter. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Interference With Business Relations) Against All Defendants And Does 1-10, Inclusive 116. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 117. Defendants were aware at all times of Plaintiff's business relationships with and between other Scientologists for the purpose of engaging in the sale of his art works. 118. In April 1991, Plaintiff, being a professional artist of considerable repute, started an independent group of artists and art lovers for the purpose of assisting them to do better in the field of art as a result of learning from the experiences of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's art group successfully grew until when Mrs. Sarit Rosenberg, President of the Church of Scientology Celebrity Center in Paris, France, ordered Plaintiff to her office for an "interview." She then ordered him to cease all activities concerning his independent art group and Plaintiff was told that if he failed to do so his life in Scientology would be made "a living hell" by the use of Defendants' administrative personnel to cause all of Plaintiff's Scientology friends to disconnect from him, and that Scientology's upper management would cancel his "O.T. status" completely, and that official Scientology publications or "issues" would be directed against him, and they were. 119. Defendants, through the conduct described above, and intending to injure, destroy, and otherwise interfere with Plaintiff's independent art group and with his business and prospective business in terms of the sale of art works created by him, did intentionally, maliciously, willfully and without justification or privilege whatsoever, induce Plaintiff's customers to breach their legal duty to Plaintiff and, through the conduct set forth above, induced various persons not to do business with Plaintiff and/or cease doing business with Plaintiff and to cause numerous persons who otherwise would have become purchasers of Plaintiff's work not to deal with Plaintiff. 120. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has lost sales, profits and damages in an amount to be determined at trial. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive 121. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph set forth above as though each were fully set forth herein. 122. During the course of his relationship with the various Defendants, Plaintiff entered into a relationship in which he placed trust in Defendants and their claims concerning the mental, psychological and other benefits they claimed they were providing to him. During the course of his involvement with the various Defendants, Plaintiff developed a relationship in which he depended upon the Defendants for his emotional, mental and physical health and well being. Defendants violated this trust. Further, by undertaking to provide Plaintiff with advice and treatment concerning his physical, mental and emotional well being, Defendants had a duty of care toward Plaintiff as to his physical, mental and emotional health and well being. 123. From Fall 1973 until Fall 1997, Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiff that they were rendering services of a secular, mental, psychological and physiological nature that would make Plaintiff a better person. These representations included statements that Scientology technology would "scientifically" improve Plaintiff's well-being and make him psychologically a better person. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew, or should have known, that their conduct was likely to result in causing him to suffer severe emotional distress. 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress in the form of fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered damage to his health, loss of income, and loss of earning capacity. All damages set forth herein are subject to proof at time of trial in this matter. 125. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. 126. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, despicable, malicious, and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach Of Contract and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) Against All Defendants And Does 1-10, Inclusive 127. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 128. During the years from Fall of 1973 through Fall 1997, and through to the present day, Defendants and their agents entered into both oral and express agreements with Plaintiff, in which Defendants promised Plaintiff certain "scientifically proven" benefits, including, but not limited to, the "handling" or cure of his "ruin" or homosexuality and other misrepresentations and promises as more fully set forth above. Defendants also promised to provide mental health and other psychological benefits to Plaintiff. Based upon such express and oral promises, Plaintiff engaged in professional Scientology training, obtained permanent certification from Defendants, and paid for Scientology "auditing" and other processing. 129. Defendants, and each of them, breached the said agreements by not providing any mental health or psychological services, but rather, providing coercive indoctrination, bureaucratic and psychological coercion, duress and stress, all designed to break Plaintiff's will so that he would remain a compliant servant to Defendants for the remainder of his life, and to the use of Defendants in furtherance of their illegal conduct and money making schemes and scams. As the result of said breaches of contract as set forth above, Plaintiff has lost the value of the reasonable services he rendered to Defendants, and each of them, during his 25 year affiliation with Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has lost 25 years of his life that would have otherwise been spent developing his career, financial security and the pursuit of freedom and happiness for himself. 130. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, constituted a breach of the oral and express agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants, and upon which Plaintiff had detrimentally relied. 131. Plaintiff has performed all obligations to Defendants, except those obligations Plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing. Plaintiff suffered damages legally and proximately caused by Defendants breach of agreement. Said damages are in excess of$500,000, the total amount of which will be proven at the time of trial.  132. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, also breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was wanton, despicable, malicious and oppressive and justifies the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.   ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Restitution) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive  133. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein.  134. Defendants, and each of them, publicly advocate, inter alia, that any person who takes Scientology courses and becomes dissatisfied with the same, is entitled to a refund of the financial compensation paid for the same.  This representation by Defendants, and each of them, is part of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants for Scientology technology services Plaintiff has received.  Pursuant to said agreement, Plaintiff is hereby making demand upon Defendants, and each of them, for the return of the financial compensation, and interest thereon, paid for such training and courses.  The monies paid by Plaintiff to Defendants for the alleged services they rendered is at least $500,000.00. 135. Furthermore, Plaintiff demands the reasonable value of the services he provided to Defendants, and each of them, whilst a full-time employee of Defendants as more fully described above and in an amount according to proof at trial and interest thereon from the date of service. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment, Accounting, Equitable Tracing And Imposition Of Constructive Trust) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive 136. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 137. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that as a result of the wrongful conduct herein alleged, Defendants and each of them, are now in possession of substantial sums of money and valuable property belonging to Plaintiff and which properly should be refunded, paid and transferred to Plaintiff. No part of said sums of money or property has been refunded or delivered by Defendants to Plaintiff. 138. By reason of the wrongful manner in which Defendants obtained said sums of money and property, and the product of his labor, Defendants are involuntary trustees, ex maleficio, holding said sums, property and profits in constructive trust for Plaintiff, and with the duty to convey said sums and property to Plaintiff forthwith. Plaintiff is unable to ascertain the exact amount of said sums, property and profits, held by the Defendants as constructive trustees, ex maleficio, without a full and complete accounting from Defendants and each of them, and an equitable tracing with regard to Defendants and each of them. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory And Injunctive Relief) Against All Defendants and Does 1-10, Inclusive 139. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 140. During Plaintiff's membership in, and participation in, Defendants' Scientology enterprise, he was required to sign various purported agreements such as "Church of Scientology of FSO Enrollment Agreement," dated October 7, 1995, "Church of Scientology of FSO Enrollment Agreement," dated July 26, 1995, "Church of Scientology of FSO Enrollment Agreement" (All Services Excluding Div. 6 Basic Courses), dated April 3, 1988, "Church of Scientology of FSO Enrollment Agreement" (All Services Excluding Div. 6 Basic Courses), dated November 27, 1987, "Church of Scientology Enrollment Agreement" (For All Services Excluding Div. 6 Basic Courses), dated April 18, 1992, and others of like and different content. 141. These purported agreements required Plaintiff to: (a) Give up the right of any claim or cause of action against Defendants and to indemnify them and hold them harmless; (b) Submit any claim, dispute or controversy Plaintiff may have with Defendants to their International Justice Chief (I.J.C.); (c) refrain from, in all events, submitting a claim or controversy to a court of judicial determination and that Plaintiff was waiving his right to have disputes decided in a court of law, before a judge and a jury; (d) Never discuss or publicize his Scientology related experiences outside of Scientology; (e) Acknowledge that he had not been coerced or pressured by any person to sign said agreements. 142. Said agreements were required to be signed by Plaintiff after he had paid for certain courses, processes, and auditing. If Plaintiff did not sign the said agreements, and any others that may have borne his signature at that time, he clearly understood that he would not continue to receive Defendants' services, processing, auditing and other courses that he had also paid for. In that event, Plaintiff clearly understood that his only recourse would have been to either considered the monies paid gone forever, or to ask for a "refund." Plaintiff knew that if he had asked for a "refund," he would have been expelled from Scientology forever, prohibited forever from receiving the gains, cures, and other alleged benefits he had been promised and would thereby be subject to Defendants' policies of Fair Game directed at the handling of "Suppressive Persons," that would then be applied to a person such as Plaintiff in a requested refund situation. 143. As a result of the aforesaid administrative blackmail and brainwashing, Plaintiff executed any and all such agreements under coercion, duress, and undue influence, thereby rendering any such purported agreements either void or voidable at the option of Plaintiff. In addition, any and all such purported agreements were procured from Plaintiff through fraud in either the inducement or inception and therefore all provisions of any and all such purported agreements, including, but not limited to, any purported arbitration provisions, are either void or voidable at Plaintiff's option.  144. An actual controversy has arising and exists between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the validity of any and all such purported agreements, including his right to approach this Court for the relief requested therein. 145. Plaintiff therefore desires a judicial declaration that any and all agreements executed by Plaintiff with Defendants, or any one of them, were procured by fraud, coercion, duress, fraud in the inducement/inception, and are therefore void and/or voidable at the option of Plaintiff, thus entitling him to the relief sought herein and rendering any purported arbitration provision in any and all such purported agreements null, void and invalid. 146. Plaintiff further desires judicial declarations, and related temporary and permanent injunctive relief that, inter-alia: Defendants' activities, as set forth in its "Fair Game" policy, principally carried out through Defendant Moxon, constitute civil rights violations and a violation of Defendants' non-profit and tax-exempt federal and state status, and a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants' further practice of the "Fair Game" Policy. 147. Plaintiff further desires judicial declaration that the purported one billion year contract between himself and Defendants is null and void, or voidable, as being, among other things, contrary to public policy, illegal, and the product of fraud in its inducement, inception and execution. 148. Plaintiff further desires a judicial declaration that Defendants' Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), and that the RPF's RPF violate applicable provisions of Federal and State law, including California Civil Code Sections 52.1(a) and (b), and a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining any continued operation of the RPF and/or any likeness thereof. 149. Plaintiff further desires judicial declarations enjoining Defendants' policies and practices relating to the "Purification Rundown", the "Introspection Rundown", NOTS 34, "O.T. eligibility requirements" by RTC as well as any RTC curtailing of freedom to retain and study and/or practice the religion of choice of any person and other policies and practices of Defendants that are dangerous, mentally and physically harmful, and/or constitute the unlawful practice of medicine. Such conduct will continue to occur, and to cause irreparable injury and/or death, unless temporary and permanent injunctive relief is granted by this court. 150. Defendants possess "confessional" files of the Plaintiff as described above. Because monetary damages cannot adequately approximate or redress Plaintiff for the damages Plaintiff will suffer resulting from disclosure of "confessional" files as alleged above, and because suit for monetary damages would not be feasible, and Plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if such disclosure occurred, Plaintiff requires a court order to temporarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, and each of them, all their agents or employees from examining said files, making and keeping separate copies from any part of them, and removing said files or any extracts therefrom from Defendants' custody so as to protect Plaintiff's constitutional rights to privacy. 151. To prevent further wrongful exploitation of the confidential material to the detriment of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to hold the information contained in the Plaintiff's files in constructive trust for him, and an order directing Defendants, and each of them, to return these files, and any copy or extract thereof or therefrom, regardless of the particular name they may now have or they may have previously borne. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks a temporary and permanent order restraining Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees from reproducing or in any manner disseminating or using the information contained in said files. PRAYER WHEREFORE, on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Causes of Action, Plaintiff requests: 1. Compensatory damages of at least$500,000, and interest thereon according to law; 2. Special damages according to proof; 3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an appropriate amount; and 4. An order requiring Defendants to return Plaintiff's "PC," "Ethics", and other confidential files as requested in paragraph 110 above. And on the Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff requests: 1. Disgorgement and restitution to Plaintiff in the amount of at least $500,000.00 including any profits thereon; 2. Disgorgement and restitution to any other persons of any monies, including any profits, obtained from such other persons by Defendants as a result of their unfair business practices; 3. The trebling of all such sums paid as restitution under Business and Professions Code § 17082; 4. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs and an appropriate Lodestar; 5. Costs of suit incurred herein; 6. An injunction enjoining Defendants herein from representing that Scientology is a religion rather than a purely secular, commercial enterprise; 7. An injunction enjoining Defendants from failing to disclose the secular purpose to which fees for "auditing" and "courses" are put; 8. Such other and further relief as may be proper and just. And, on the Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action Plaintiff requests: 1. Compensatory damages of at least$500,000, and interest thereon according to law; 2. Consequential damages according to proof; 3. Punitive or exemplary damages in an appropriate amount; 4. Costs of suit incurred herein 5. Such other and further relief as may be proper and just. And on the Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action Plaintiff Further Seeks: 1. The equitable relief requested in paragraphs 135, 136 and 139 herein; 2. A Temporary and Permanent injunction, the imposition of constructive trust, an accounting, restitution, disgorgement, and other relief as requested herein. 3. Costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. Such other and further relief as may be requested herein. And on the Thirteenth Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks: 1. The judicial declarations requested in paragraphs 146 to 152 herein. AND ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION HEREIN, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS: 1. Reasonable attorneys' fees where permitted by law; 2. Costs of suit incurred herein; and // // // // // // // //  3. Such other and further relief as may be proper and just. Dated:  February ___, 1999 LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY        By: ______________________________        Graham E. Berry        Attorney for Plaintiff        Michael Pattinson DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL  Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of these claims. Dated: February ___, 1999 LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY        By________________________________        Graham E. Berry            Attorney for Plaintiff           Michael Pattinson  PROOF OF SERVICE  I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.  I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Wilshire Boulevard, Twenty-First Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017.  On February 9, 1999, I served the foregoing document described as THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Pattinson v. Church of Scientology, United States District Court Case No. 98-3985CAS (SHx) on the interested parties in this action as follows: Eric M. Leiberman, Esq.RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C.740 Broadway, 5th FloorNew York, NY 10003 Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.MOXON & KOBRIN6255 Sunset Blvd., Ste 2000Los Angeles, CA 90028-6329 Barbara A. Reeves, Esq.PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLPTwenty-Third Floor555 South Flower StreetLos Angeles, CA 90071-2371 Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLPThirty-First Floor399 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10022 * BY MAIL:  I placed true copies thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated on the attached service list.  I deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the U.S. mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.  Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business.  I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration.  I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made.  Executed on February 9, 1999 at Los Angeles, California. Opposition to Demurrer of CSI in the Pattinson matter. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION 1 II. ARGUMENT 2 III. I. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ALLEGES INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE SECULAR ACTS, PRACTICES, POLICIES AND CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OFFERS DEFENDANTS. NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER FROM LIABILITY ARISING FROM SUCH SECULAR ACTS, PRACTICES, POLICIES AND CONDUCT. 2 IV. A Claim Brought on the Basis That Scientology is Purely a Sham is a Legitimate Claim Sustainable Under the First Amendment. 3 V. B. Scientology is not Entitled to Recognition as a Religion That is Entitled to Protection Under The First Amendment. 5, 6 VI. C. Representing to Plaintiff That Dianetics and Scientology are Scientifically Proven Methods of Curing Homosexuality, Criminality and a Plethora of Other Diseases, Afflictions and Vices, Whether or not Religiously Motivated, Is Not Protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 11 VII. D. The First Amendment Does Not Recognize the Unqualified Right to Practice Medicine as Defendants Claimed and Implied They Did. 16 VIII. E. CSI and RTC Breach Their Good-Faith Duty to Bring \to This Court's Attention Such Authority that is Inconsistent With or Contrary to Their Arguments. 18 IX. II. PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLEADS HIS CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACT-PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 21 X. A. Defendants Deceive This Court With Their Characterization and Misrepresentations of Prior Proceedings in Federal Court. 22 XI. B. Plaintiff's Complaint Does Not Comprise a "Pleading Monstrosity." 23 XII. C. CSI and RTC Bring Their Demurrers in Violation of the Rules Specifying That a Demurrer May Consider Only the Substance Contained Within The Four Corners of the Complaint at Issue. 26 XIII. III. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY ANY STATUTES OF LIMITATION. 27 XIV. A. The Statutes of Limitation are Tolled by Defendants' Ongoing and Current Acts in Furtherance of Their Conspiracy to Injure Plaintiff. 27 XVI. B. Through Continuous Means of Intimidation, Coercion and Duress Defendants Prevented Plaintiff from Inquiring Into Defendants' Tortious Activity and Thereby Concealed Their Tortious Acts. 31 XVII. C. Brainwashing Tolls the Statutes of Limitation" 33 XVIII. Exploiting a Fiduciary Relationship Tolls Limitations Periods. 34 IX. IV. RTC'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. 35 IX. CONCLUSION 35 Cases Aaroe v. First American Title Insurance Co., 222 Cal.App.3d 124, 128, 271 Cal.Rptr. 434 (1990) (Cal.App. 1st Dist. 1990) 28 Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797, (1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1091, 97 S.Ct. 1101, 51 L.Ed.2d 537 (1977) 9 Ballard 3, 20, 21 Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882 (1944) 20 Ballard, supra at 90, 888 20 Bank of America, 19 Ca. App.2d 807, 810, 122 P.2d 892 (1942) 22 Barrington v. A.H. Robbins Co. 39 Cal.App.3d 146, 157, 216 Cal.Rptr. 405, 412 (1985) 23 Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.App.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 721 (1985) 27 Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331 (Fifth Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 161, 14 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998) 16 Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 (U.S.T.C. 1984) 6 Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 231 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1989) 18 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988) 8 Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 (1983) 25 Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at 216, 197 Cal.Rptr. at 795. 25 Committee on Childrens Television, supra, at 213-14, 793. 26 Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604, 176 Cal.Rptr. 824, 830 (1981) 24 Doliner v. Pedone, 63 Cal.App. 2d 169, 172, 146 P.2d 237, 241 (1944) 24 Employment Division Department of Human resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) 12 Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, supra, 315 P.2d at 406. 5 Grassley v. Williams, 193 Cal.App.3d 639, 14 Cal.Rptr. 496, 498 (1961) 25 Green v. Palm, 15 Cal. 411, 417 (1860) 23 Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9 Cal.App.3d 566, 572, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 484 (1973) 24 Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) 8 Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal..App.3d 1092, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084, 109 S.Ct. 2110, 104 L.Ed.2d 670 (1989) 12 In re Rugiani's Estate, 108 Cal.App.2d 624, 630, 239 P.2d 500, 504 (1952) 35 Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson, 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881, 168 Cal.Rptr. 361,367 (1980); Afuso v. United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co.,Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, 217 Cal.Rptr. 490, 492 (1985) 27 Khoury v. Mali's of California, Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 708, 710 (1993) 25 Leeper 31, 32 Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195, 1 Cal.Rptr. 12 at 207-08, 21, 21. 31 Livett v. F.C. Financial Associates, 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1981) 28 Livett, supra 28 Molko 15, 16 Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1123 35 Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1124-25 33 Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal.App. .3d 176, 190, 98 Cal.Rptr. 814, 846 (1971) 33 Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 243 Cal.Rptr. 627, 630 (1988) 24 Patrick v. LeFevre, supra, 745 F.2d at 159 (1984) 5 People v. Williams, 97 Cal.App.3d 382, 158 Cal.Rpt. 778 (1979) 29 Perkins v. Supreme Court (General Telephone Directory), 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, 172 Cal.Rptr. 427, 429 (1981) 24 PH II, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.(Ibershof), 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682, 40 Cal.Rptr. 169, 171 (1995) 26 Reveillere case. Complaint at ¶ 53 30 Reveillere v. Pattinson, supra. Complaint at ¶ 51. 30 Robinson, 791 F.2d 1094, 1102 (3rd Cir. 1986), cert denied, 483 U.S. 1032, 107 S.CT. 3276, 97 L.Ed. 779 (1987); Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499, 1503-1504 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. Denied, 484 U.S. 1012, 108 S. Ct. 714,, 98 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988); Philbrook v. Ansonia Board of Education, 757 F.2d 476, 481-482 (2d Cir. 1985) 5 RTC's Memorandum at 2-5 16 Saliter, 81 Cal.App.3d at 296 34 Schlesser v. Keck, 125 Cal.App.2d 827, 834, 271 P.2d 588, 592 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1954) 28 Sears 33 Sears, supra 32 Stearns Ranchos Co., supra, at 36, 326 26 Stearns Ranchos v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40, 96 Cal.Rptr. 317, 329 (1981) 23 Tresemer v. Burke, 86 Cal.App.3d 656 (1978); Saliter v. Pierce Bros Mortuaries, 81 Cal.App.3d 292 (1978); Warrington v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 274 Cal.App.2d 564, 569-570 (1969). Molko, supra 33 United States v Kuch, supra, 288 F.Supp. 439, 443 (D. D.C. 1968) 5 United States v. Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357, 359 (D.D.C. 1971) 6 United States v. Zolin , 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 Van Schaick 11 Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-62, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 465, 475 (1996); Grieves v. Sup. Ct. (Fox), 157 Cal.App.3d 159,164-65, 203 Cal.Rptr. 556, 558 (1984) 26 Warrington 33, 34 Warrington, 274 Cal.App.2d at 570 34 Wollersheim 34 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 880, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (1989), cert. granted, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 499 U.S. 914, 111 S.Ct. 1298, 113 L.Ed.2d 234 (1991). 6 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 887, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331 (1989) 5 Wollersheim, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d 872 at 888 10 Wyatt v. Union Motgage Co., 24 Cal.3d 773, 786, 157 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1979) 27 Yoder, 406 U.S. at 235 4 GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503) LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY One Wilshire Boulevard Twenty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 833-5900 Facsimile: (213) 833-5909 Attorney for Plaintiff MICHAEL P. PATTINSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MICHAEL PHILLIP PATTINSON, Plaintiff, vs. CAPTAIN DAVID MISCAVIGE, an individual; MARY SUE HUBBARD, an individual; THE SEA ORGANIZATION, a California unincorporated association; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California Corporation; CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a California Corporation; BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC 207364 PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER. Dept.: 45 DATE: July 27, 1999 TIME: 9:00 a.m. ACTION FILED: March 19, 1999 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Trial Date: None Discovery Date: None Motion Cutoff: None MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Using smoke and mirrors, misrepresentations and irrelevancies, CSI and RTC conjure a straw man, only to proceed to show him to be an ephemera on a stage completely foreign to the one upon which Plaintiff grounds his Complaint. Indeed, in ¶ 2 of his Complaint, Plaintiff, Michael P. Pattinson (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), makes explicitly and unequivocally clear that his claims are not directed at any of the Defendants' religious beliefs or freedoms. To the contrary, the Complaint and the claims contained therein are directed only at Defendants' demonstrably secular policies, processes, practices, and conduct; none of which are protected under the First Amendment, and all of which are subject to the police powers of the states for the protection of their citizens and residents. In their memoranda in support of their demurrers, CSI and RTC both attempt to divert this Court's attention from the genuine legal issues underlying Plaintiff's claims: (1) by improperly attempting to prejudice this Court against Plaintiff by raising a procedural history in federal court that is neither final, nor material or relevant to these proceedings; (2) by relying on federal precedent that is wholly inapplicable and non-binding upon this Court; (3) by failing to cite this Court to clearly controlling authority; (4) by obfuscating the genuine issues in this case by conjuring that straw man, embodying that which Defendants only wish this case were about, in an attempt to create an appearance of First Amendment protection thereby defeating it; (5) by attempting to claim that many of the Defendants did not even exist when Plaintiff first became involved with other Defendants, overlooking Plaintiff's allegations of his involvement with those Defendants once they were indeed in existence; and (6) by raising specious statutes Of limitation defenses that do not apply and cannot stand to bar Plaintiff's claims brought in this Court. Clearly, CSI and RTC are determined to do anything to avoid confronting Plaintiff's claims, the facts he alleges (taken by this Court to be true as a matter of law), and the truly applicable and binding authority relating to the claims alleged in the Complaint herein. Moreover, CSI and RTC bring their demurrers in violation of the rules of civil procedure applicable to them. For all of these reasons, this Court should reject the Defendants' demurrers. Opposition to Demurrer of CSI in the Pattinson matter. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION 1 II. ARGUMENT 2 III. I. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ALLEGES INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE SECULAR ACTS, PRACTICES, POLICIES AND CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OFFERS DEFENDANTS. NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER FROM LIABILITY ARISING FROM SUCH SECULAR ACTS, PRACTICES, POLICIES AND CONDUCT. 2 IV. A Claim Brought on the Basis That Scientology is Purely a Sham is a Legitimate Claim Sustainable Under the First Amendment. 3 V. B. Scientology is not Entitled to Recognition as a Religion That is Entitled to Protection Under The First Amendment. 5, 6 VI. C. Representing to Plaintiff That Dianetics and Scientology are Scientifically Proven Methods of Curing Homosexuality, Criminality and a Plethora of Other Diseases, Afflictions and Vices, Whether or not Religiously Motivated, Is Not Protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 11 VII. D. The First Amendment Does Not Recognize the Unqualified Right to Practice Medicine as Defendants Claimed and Implied They Did. 16 VIII. E. CSI and RTC Breach Their Good-Faith Duty to Bring \to This Court's Attention Such Authority that is Inconsistent With or Contrary to Their Arguments. 18 IX. II. PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLEADS HIS CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACT-PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 21 X. A. Defendants Deceive This Court With Their Characterization and Misrepresentations of Prior Proceedings in Federal Court. 22 XI. B. Plaintiff's Complaint Does Not Comprise a "Pleading Monstrosity." 23 XII. C. CSI and RTC Bring Their Demurrers in Violation of the Rules Specifying That a Demurrer May Consider Only the Substance Contained Within The Four Corners of the Complaint at Issue. 26 XIII. III. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY ANY STATUTES OF LIMITATION. 27 XIV. A. The Statutes of Limitation are Tolled by Defendants' Ongoing and Current Acts in Furtherance of Their Conspiracy to Injure Plaintiff. 27 XVI. B. Through Continuous Means of Intimidation, Coercion and Duress Defendants Prevented Plaintiff from Inquiring Into Defendants' Tortious Activity and Thereby Concealed Their Tortious Acts. 31 XVII. C. Brainwashing Tolls the Statutes of Limitation" 33 XVIII. Exploiting a Fiduciary Relationship Tolls Limitations Periods. 34 IX. IV. RTC'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. 35 IX. CONCLUSION 35 Cases Aaroe v. First American Title Insurance Co., 222 Cal.App.3d 124, 128, 271 Cal.Rptr. 434 (1990) (Cal.App. 1st Dist. 1990) 28 Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797, (1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1091, 97 S.Ct. 1101, 51 L.Ed.2d 537 (1977) 9 Ballard 3, 20, 21 Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882 (1944) 20 Ballard, supra at 90, 888 20 Bank of America, 19 Ca. App.2d 807, 810, 122 P.2d 892 (1942) 22 Barrington v. A.H. Robbins Co. 39 Cal.App.3d 146, 157, 216 Cal.Rptr. 405, 412 (1985) 23 Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.App.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 721 (1985) 27 Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331 (Fifth Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 161, 14 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998) 16 Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 (U.S.T.C. 1984) 6 Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 231 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1989) 18 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988) 8 Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 (1983) 25 Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at 216, 197 Cal.Rptr. at 795. 25 Committee on Childrens Television, supra, at 213-14, 793. 26 Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604, 176 Cal.Rptr. 824, 830 (1981) 24 Doliner v. Pedone, 63 Cal.App. 2d 169, 172, 146 P.2d 237, 241 (1944) 24 Employment Division Department of Human resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) 12 Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, supra, 315 P.2d at 406. 5 Grassley v. Williams, 193 Cal.App.3d 639, 14 Cal.Rptr. 496, 498 (1961) 25 Green v. Palm, 15 Cal. 411, 417 (1860) 23 Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9 Cal.App.3d 566, 572, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 484 (1973) 24 Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) 8 Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal..App.3d 1092, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084, 109 S.Ct. 2110, 104 L.Ed.2d 670 (1989) 12 In re Rugiani's Estate, 108 Cal.App.2d 624, 630, 239 P.2d 500, 504 (1952) 35 Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson, 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881, 168 Cal.Rptr. 361,367 (1980); Afuso v. United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co.,Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, 217 Cal.Rptr. 490, 492 (1985) 27 Khoury v. Mali's of California, Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 708, 710 (1993) 25 Leeper 31, 32 Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195, 1 Cal.Rptr. 12 at 207-08, 21, 21. 31 Livett v. F.C. Financial Associates, 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1981) 28 Livett, supra 28 Molko 15, 16 Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1123 35 Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1124-25 33 Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal.App. .3d 176, 190, 98 Cal.Rptr. 814, 846 (1971) 33 Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 243 Cal.Rptr. 627, 630 (1988) 24 Patrick v. LeFevre, supra, 745 F.2d at 159 (1984) 5 People v. Williams, 97 Cal.App.3d 382, 158 Cal.Rpt. 778 (1979) 29 Perkins v. Supreme Court (General Telephone Directory), 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, 172 Cal.Rptr. 427, 429 (1981) 24 PH II, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.(Ibershof), 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682, 40 Cal.Rptr. 169, 171 (1995) 26 Reveillere case. Complaint at ¶ 53 30 Reveillere v. Pattinson, supra. Complaint at ¶ 51. 30 Robinson, 791 F.2d 1094, 1102 (3rd Cir. 1986), cert denied, 483 U.S. 1032, 107 S.CT. 3276, 97 L.Ed. 779 (1987); Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499, 1503-1504 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. Denied, 484 U.S. 1012, 108 S. Ct. 714,, 98 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988); Philbrook v. Ansonia Board of Education, 757 F.2d 476, 481-482 (2d Cir. 1985) 5 RTC's Memorandum at 2-5 16 Saliter, 81 Cal.App.3d at 296 34 Schlesser v. Keck, 125 Cal.App.2d 827, 834, 271 P.2d 588, 592 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1954) 28 Sears 33 Sears, supra 32 Stearns Ranchos Co., supra, at 36, 326 26 Stearns Ranchos v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40, 96 Cal.Rptr. 317, 329 (1981) 23 Tresemer v. Burke, 86 Cal.App.3d 656 (1978); Saliter v. Pierce Bros Mortuaries, 81 Cal.App.3d 292 (1978); Warrington v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 274 Cal.App.2d 564, 569-570 (1969). Molko, supra 33 United States v Kuch, supra, 288 F.Supp. 439, 443 (D. D.C. 1968) 5 United States v. Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357, 359 (D.D.C. 1971) 6 United States v. Zolin , 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 Van Schaick 11 Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-62, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 465, 475 (1996); Grieves v. Sup. Ct. (Fox), 157 Cal.App.3d 159,164-65, 203 Cal.Rptr. 556, 558 (1984) 26 Warrington 33, 34 Warrington, 274 Cal.App.2d at 570 34 Wollersheim 34 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 880, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (1989), cert. granted, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 499 U.S. 914, 111 S.Ct. 1298, 113 L.Ed.2d 234 (1991). 6 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 887, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331 (1989) 5 Wollersheim, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d 872 at 888 10 Wyatt v. Union Motgage Co., 24 Cal.3d 773, 786, 157 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1979) 27 Yoder, 406 U.S. at 235 4 GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503) LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY One Wilshire Boulevard Twenty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 833-5900 Facsimile: (213) 833-5909 Attorney for Plaintiff MICHAEL P. PATTINSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MICHAEL PHILLIP PATTINSON, Plaintiff, vs. CAPTAIN DAVID MISCAVIGE, an individual; MARY SUE HUBBARD, an individual; THE SEA ORGANIZATION, a California unincorporated association; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California Corporation; CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a California Corporation; BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC 207364 PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER. Dept.: 45 DATE: July 27, 1999 TIME: 9:00 a.m. ACTION FILED: March 19, 1999 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Trial Date: None Discovery Date: None Motion Cutoff: None MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Using smoke and mirrors, misrepresentations and irrelevancies, CSI and RTC conjure a straw man, only to proceed to show him to be an ephemera on a stage completely foreign to the one upon which Plaintiff grounds his Complaint. Indeed, in ¶ 2 of his Complaint, Plaintiff, Michael P. Pattinson (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), makes explicitly and unequivocally clear that his claims are not directed at any of the Defendants' religious beliefs or freedoms. To the contrary, the Complaint and the claims contained therein are directed only at Defendants' demonstrably secular policies, processes, practices, and conduct; none of which are protected under the First Amendment, and all of which are subject to the police powers of the states for the protection of their citizens and residents. In their memoranda in support of their demurrers, CSI and RTC both attempt to divert this Court's attention from the genuine legal issues underlying Plaintiff's claims: (1) by improperly attempting to prejudice this Court against Plaintiff by raising a procedural history in federal court that is neither final, nor material or relevant to these proceedings; (2) by relying on federal precedent that is wholly inapplicable and non-binding upon this Court; (3) by failing to cite this Court to clearly controlling authority; (4) by obfuscating the genuine issues in this case by conjuring that straw man, embodying that which Defendants only wish this case were about, in an attempt to create an appearance of First Amendment protection thereby defeating it; (5) by attempting to claim that many of the Defendants did not even exist when Plaintiff first became involved with other Defendants, overlooking Plaintiff's allegations of his involvement with those Defendants once they were indeed in existence; and (6) by raising specious statutes Of limitation defenses that do not apply and cannot stand to bar Plaintiff's claims brought in this Court. Clearly, CSI and RTC are determined to do anything to avoid confronting Plaintiff's claims, the facts he alleges (taken by this Court to be true as a matter of law), and the truly applicable and binding authority relating to the claims alleged in the Complaint herein. Moreover, CSI and RTC bring their demurrers in violation of the rules of civil procedure applicable to them. For all of these reasons, this Court should reject the Defendants' demurrers. C. Representing to Plaintiff That Dianetics and Scientology are Scientifically Proven Methods of Curing Homosexuality, Criminality and a Plethora of Other Diseases, Afflictions and Vices, Whether or not Religiously Motivated, Is Not Protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The critical point for this Court to grasp is that Plaintiff seeks redress for injuries and damages arising from purely secular tortious acts, practices, policies and conduct to which Defendants did conspire to subject, and did subject Plaintiff over 24 years. In fact, Defendants continue to conspire to subject Plaintiff to their tortious conduct. While religiously motivated beliefs enjoy unqualified First-Amendment protection, California's Supreme Court has made crystal clear that conduct, even when "religiously motivated," does not enjoy that same protection. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal..App.3d 1092, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084, 109 S.Ct. 2110, 104 L.Ed.2d 670 (1989). The Supreme Court of the United States' decree that religiously motivated conduct is subject to the same generally applicable laws as is all other conduct and does not enjoy unqualified First-Amendment protection, further reinforces the California precedent set in Molko. Employment Division Department of Human resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). Accordingly, both federal and state precedent are in perfect harmony regarding the very limited scope of the Free-Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As such, it is constitutionally permissible, based on religious doctrine or faith, to believe in murder, but not to practice it. In Molko, supra, as in this case, members of a religious organization solicited plaintiffs. Rather than disclosing their true identities and affiliation, the members, or "witnesses," misrepresented to one plaintiff that they were part of an "international community of socially conscious people." Their goal: to induce him to board a bus and travel to a farm where he was subjected to nearly two weeks of intensely rigorous exercise, prayer and discussion groups. A farm-community member finally admitted to him that Moon was their spiritual leader, and that they were all "Moonies", members of the Unification Church. Id. at 1104. A different pair of "witnesses" approached another victim for the same reasons. She asked them directly whether they belonged to a particular religious organization. Rather than tell her the truth, they misled her, telling her that all of their associates came from "different religious backgrounds." Id. at 1106. 128. Among other claims, these plaintiffs sued for fraud, alleging that they were induced to associate with the Unification Church under false pretenses and blatant misrepresentations, and also suffered from brutal indoctrination and emotional distress as a result. The court noted that the "witnesses'" misrepresentations were not "entirely secular" -- finding that Unification Church members engaged in a practice called "Heavenly Deception" in accordance with the Church's religious precepts. The court, however, held that the plaintiffs challenged the Church's practice of deceiving third parties, not its spiritual belief that it was acceptable to lie in order to lure unsuspecting third parties into its highly controlled and rigorous program of indoctrination. By sanctioning its members' misrepresentations, and the concealment of their true religious affiliation, albeit based on "spiritual doctrine," the court held that the Church exposed itself to liability for fraud. Id. at 1119-20, 137. Fraud is at the core of Plaintiff's Complaint herein, and at the core of the findings in favor of plaintiffs in Molko, the court highlighted the distinction between practice and belief. It found that regardless of the Unification Church's spiritual beliefs, its practices of deception (cloaked under the "Heavenly Deception" doctrine) was conduct. As conduct, it remained "subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id. at 1117, 135 (citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 304.) The Court in Molko also considered plaintiffs' allegations of brainwashing, and defendant's posturing (through its experts) that such allegations were preposterous and that brainwashing simply did not exist. Id. at 1109-10, 130-31. The Court held that whether defendants had brainwashed plaintiffs to present issues of fact necessarily determined at trial. Id. Beyond this, the Molko Court also held that the same allegations of misrepresentation also comprised allegations of extreme and outrageous behavior necessary to sustain claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 1112. Molko stands for a number of profound legal principles. It affirms the right of the individual (1) to be free of fraudulent and coercive schemes, the implementation of which would usurp his sovereign capacity for self-reliance, the ability to reason and the capacity to exercise an informed consent; and (2) the independent exercise of free choice. It stands for the proposition that (3) an individual's independent exercise of free choice can be captured and controlled by an outside agency without the person's knowledge or consent, and that (4) such usurpation can be accomplished by fraud and by undue influence absent any threat of force. It stands for the proposition that (5) the ascription of religious status to such an usurping organization shall not result in its immunization from accountability for the consequences of such intrusive and totalistic conduct. The rule of law derived from Molko provides that tortious conduct, whether motivated by, approved of, or even validated or sanctioned by religious or spiritual doctrine or beliefs, is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, Plaintiff squarely frames his allegations within the four corners of the Molko precedent by which this Court is bound. Allegations of Defendants' misrepresentations, false claims, baits and switches, and out and out lies, can be found throughout the Complaint. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 16, 27, 32, 42, 43, 44, 52, 57, 78, 82. Blatantly obvious, but ignored by Defendants, is the irrefutable fact that Defendants' misrepresentations as alleged by plaintiff in this case are far more extensive than those alleged in Molko. Not only did Defendants' agents and representatives initially deny they were part of a religious organization (Complaint at ¶ 23), they affirmatively represented that they were engaged in the practice of scientific methods capable of curing mental and physical diseases and afflictions. Complaint at 1935. Moreover, like the plaintiffs in Molko, Plaintiff here alleges that the Defendants engaged in practices aimed at intimidation, coercion, brainwashing, and further that Defendants did, in fact, brainwash him absent his knowledge and consent. Complaint at ¶¶ 16, 26, 27, 32, 42, 43, 44, 57, 70, 82. Beyond this, Defendants amassed a file packed with highly sensitive, private and confidential information, warranting to him that it would be held confidential and used only for his personal benefit. In fact, Defendants used this knowledge and information to extort additional sums of money and threaten Plaintiff with exposure if he did not comply with their dictates. Complaint at ¶¶ 46 - 51. A cursory look at the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint reveals that over 24 years, Defendants engaged in a complex game of Three-Card Monty: One second they were not a church (Complaint at ¶ 23); the next, they were a church, but only for the sake of diffusing the suspicions of a south Florida community (Complaint at ¶76 ); the next minute they are not engaged in religious practices, but rather, proven scientific methods (Complaint at ¶ 82); the next, these scientific methods are part of sacred scriptural doctrine along with writings formerly and currently characterized as science fiction. CSI's Memorandum at 10, 15; see also Complaint at ¶ 82 ) There are numerous other allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint documenting Defendants' false claims that they engaged in the practice of science; that they offered scientifically proven cures for Plaintiff's afflictions; and made claims as to the nature and background of the organization's leaders, as well as their accomplishments and qualifications. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20, 30, 43, 44, 45, 52, 65, 69, 82. This conduct, and misrepresentations made relative to it, find no protection under the First Amendment. Molko, supra. D. The First Amendment Does Not Recognize the Unqualified Right to Practice Medicine as Defendants Claimed and Implied They Did.
 Throughout their memoranda, Defendants attempt to claim First Amendment protection and privilege for the unbridled practice of medical science (psychology or psychiatry) upon third parties such as Plaintiff. CSI's Memorandum at 10-16. RTC's Memorandum at 2-5. Here, Defendants present the Court with a syllogism: The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion; religions sometimes practice medicine; therefore the First Amendment extends to religious organizations the legal right to practice medicine, or at very least, claim that they are doing so. But the First Amendment's purview is hardly so broad as Defendants would have this Court believe. While the First Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to pursue faith-based cures, and to reject scientifically or medically proven ones, it does not extend to religious organizations or churches the right to claim or warrant the scientific validity of their practices. In fact, courts have long ago found several of Scientology's medical claims to have been fraudulent and unreasonable. See, generally, United States v. An Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.C. Col. 1971). Courts routinely distinguish and separate belief from the curative conduct manifest or arising from such belief. Id. In Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331 (Fifth Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 161, 14 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998), a Baptist Minister falsely represented to the two female plaintiffs that he was qualified as a marriage counselor. Eventually the minister manipulated the women into having sexual relations with him. Plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Id. at 334-5. The defendant argued that marriage counseling was protected under the Free-Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit flatly rejected this argument stating: The constitutional guarantee of religious freedom cannot be construed to protect secular beliefs and behavior, even when they comprise part of an otherwise religious relationship between a minister and a member of his or her congregation. To hold otherwise would impermissibly place a religious leader in a preferred position in our society . . .By instructing the jury to consider whether Baucum's counseling, rather than his alleged misconduct, was "essentially secular" in nature, the district court provided Baucum with more than adequate protection under the Free Exercise Clause Id. at 336 (emphasis added). Plaintiff in this case alleges numerous times when Defendants falsely stated or implied that they were engaging him in a process comprised of clinical scientific methods and further, that if Plaintiff continued through the program, through all of its various levels, he would be cured of his homosexuality. Complaint at ¶ 19. Never did Defendants tell Plaintiff that his homosexuality was the result of some spiritual defect. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20. Rather they represented and warranted that they had cured others of the same "affliction" and that their methods were scientific and scientifically proven. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20, 30, 52, 65, 69, 82. In essence, Defendants held themselves out as therapists, sexual counselors and scientists, not in an effort to cure Plaintiff. They knew all along their methods would not and cannot cure anything. Rather, Defendants wanted to extort more and more money from him. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20, 46, 48, 51, 82, 87, 94, 101, 102, 103, 106. For these reasons, Defendants, cannot claim protection under any Clause of the First Amendment; Establishment, Free Exercise or otherwise. Their acts and practices (conduct) of falsely representing scientifically proven medical cures must be distinguished from their beliefs that such practices are reasonable, valid, spiritually based, effective methods. As such Plaintiff does not ask this Court to judge the validity of CSI's beliefs or doctrines, but rather, the conduct of misrepresenting material facts to induce Plaintiff to join and participate in its organization under false pretenses and claims of scientifically quantifiable effectiveness. E. CSI and RTC Breach Their Good-Faith Duty to Bring to This Court's Attention Such Authority that is Inconsistent With or Contrary to Their Arguments. Conspicuously absent from the memoranda of both CSI and RTC is any mention, reference or recognition of ample controlling precedent that militates in favor of this Court's rejection of their demurrers because of the clear and unambiguous holdings supporting allegations and claims such as those made in Plaintiff's Complaint. Both CSI and RTC completely ignore Molko, supra, as well as other well established cases that mandate the rejection of their demurrers. Most egregiously, Defendants fail to cite Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 231 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1989). Wollersheim establishes, as a matter of law, that claims such as Plaintiff has made herein are not protected by the First amendment, and that facts such as those alleged by Plaintiff herein support sustainable claims. Noting the absence of voluntary consent, the court went on to enumerate the kinds of intimidation and duress Scientology exerted over him stating: To leave the church or cease auditing [Wollersheim] had to run the risk he would become the target of "fair game," face an enormous burden of "freeloader debt," and even confront physical restraint. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens. * * * It is not only the acts of coercion themselves - the sabotage of [his] business and the episode of captivity on the ship - - which are actionable. These acts of coercion and the threat of like acts make the Church's other harmful conduct actionable. No longer is Wollersheim's continued participation . . . merely his voluntary participation in. /. . religious practices. . . Wollersheim was coerced into remaining a member . . . Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom do not shield such conduct from civil liability . . . Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts. Id. at 346-47. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges conduct by the Defendants, causation and injury, nearly identical to those elements alleged by Wollersheim. The case proceeded to trial and a jury found in his favor, awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages. That Defendants argue before this Court that Plaintiff's Complaint, containing strikingly similar allegations, should be dismissed by this Court only matches the outrageousness of the conduct alleged therein. In Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146, (D.C. Cir. 1969), the court held that: Not every enterprise cloaking itself as a religion can claim the constitutional protection conferred by that status. It might be possible to show that a self proclaimed religion was merely a commercial enterprise . . .Though litigation of the question where a given group or set of beliefs is or is not religious is a delicate business, our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred. Id. at 1160. Defendants distort this court's holding by taking out of context the quote from this case they rely upon. CSI's Memorandum at 11. The import of Founding Church does not support Defendants' demurrers. Likewise the court in Van Schaik v. Church of Scientology of California, 535 F. Supp. 1114 (D. Mass. 1982), expressly held that: It is well settled...that religious groups may be held liable in tort for secular acts. Causes of action based upon some proscribed conduct may, thus, withstand a motion to dismiss even if the alleged wrongdoer acts upon a religious belief or is organized for a religious purpose. Id. at 1125. In United States v. An Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.C. Col. 1971), the court highlighted numerous non-religious medical and scientific claims asserted by the Church of Scientology without any religious reference whatsoever. The court noted, "The bulk of the material was replete with false medical claims and scientific claims devoid of any religious overlay or reference." Id. at 361. Judicial notice may be taken of this court's findings in relation to Plaintiff's allegations regarding the contents of the literature used to defraud him as set forth in the Complaint. Complaint at ¶¶ 19-24, 41-43. Similarly, in Katz v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.3d 952 (1977), the court instructed: . . . There is a distinction between interference of a person's beliefs and a person's acts. Nevertheless where does belief end and action begin . . . Evidence was introduced of the actions of the proposed conservatees in changing their lifestyle. When the court is asked to determine that change was induced by faith or by coercive persuasion, is it not in turn investigating and questioning the validity of that faith? At the same time, the trier of fact is asked to adjudge the good faith and bonafideness of the beliefs of the conservatees preceptors. If it be assumed that certain leaders were using psychological methods to proselytize and hold the allegiance of recruits to their church or cult, call it what we will, can it be said their actions were not dictated by faith merely because others who engaged in such practices have recanted? The total picture disclosed must be tested by principles applicable to regulation of acts of religious organizations and their members. Id. at 987-88. Plaintiff in this case equally merits the protections afforded the plaintiffs in Katz, and the allegations in the Complaint make that abundantly clear. Curiously, the case upon which Defendants hang their First Amendment hat, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882 (1944), is wholly inapposite. None of the allegations contained in the Complaint this Court now considers might remotely be construed as challenging spiritual or religious doctrines or beliefs or the benefits accruing from them, as the allegations did in Ballard. The holdings in Ballard turned on "belief in a divinity and in a supernatural power." Id. at 81. The Court held that the issues presented were protected by the First Amendment as they were rooted in an individual's right to believe particular religious precepts. Hence, because sincerity of the beliefs only were placed at issue, the First Amendment guarantees prevented the court from adjudicating such issues. Ballard, supra at 90, 888. If anything, the Ballard opinion wholly undermines CSI's and RTC's posturing when it states, "Certainly none of respondents constitutional rights are violated if they are prosecuted for the fraudulent procurement of money by false representations as to their beliefs, religious or otherwise." Id. Sharply distinct factual allegations in the case at bar eclipse those contained in Ballard. Ballard clearly recognizes that conduct such as Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint is not protected under the First Amendment. Plaintiff alleges misrepresentations including, but not limited to, claims that Scientology was a science; assertions of objectively proven results ranging from improving one's I.Q. to curing physical and psychological ailments. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20, 30, 52, 65, 69, 82. Thus in this case, this Court is asked to adjudicate claims of deception and misrepresentation that are objectively provable; "scientific processes," not "divine" claims of "faith" and "supernatural powers" as in Ballard. Indeed, Defendants characterize these "scientifically proven processes" as "trade secrets." Again, Defendants blow smoke and angle mirrors in an effort to convince this Court that Plaintiff is alleging what Defendants merely wish his case were about, so that they can then appear to have effectively destroyed it. This ploy must fail. When this Court applies the precedent upon which Plaintiff relies to the facts alleged herein, the only reasonable conclusion this Court can possibly draw is that the Complaint adequately states sustainable causes of action that overcome Defendants' demurrers. II. PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLEADS HIS CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACT-PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Defendants engage yet another ploy to confuse this Court and divert its attention away from Plaintiff's validly pleaded Complaint. Initially, CSI dredges up the procedural history of a case similar to this one, previously filed in federal court. Plaintiff also cites Judge Snyder's comments in that case, affirmatively and falsely suggesting that those comments were directed at Plaintiff's Complaint now before this Court. Next, CSI would impose upon this Court the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their notice pleading requirements, wholly ignoring that California is a fact-pleading state. Additionally, CSI also attempts to bind this Court within federal precedent, citing no authority whatsoever that remotely suggests any reason; whether public policy, equity, or otherwise, that such federal precedent is, or should be, applicable here. Finally, both CSI and RTC violate the rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure respecting demurrers, which restrict defendants to addressing matters or defects within the four corners of the complaint at issue. For all of these reasons, Defendants' demurrers must fail. A. Defendants Deceive This Court With Their Characterization and Misrepresentations of Prior Proceedings in Federal Court. In its memorandum, CSI devotes four pages to wholly mis-characterizing proceedings in federal court relative to a case that is sharply distinct from the case at bar. Albeit similar in a few respects: same plaintiff, some of the same defendants, and some of the same allegations; the distinctions between the Complaint at bar and that referenced by CSI far outweigh the similarities. CSI devotes much time highlighting the Honorable Christina Snyder's comments with respect to "Plaintiff's complaint." Critically, CSI fails to inform this Court that those comments were directed at Plaintiff's original complaint filed in that action, and not the Complaint at bar. Moreover, the complaint Judge Snyder references contained 480 paragraphs in 312 pages, alleging 10 additional causes of action, against 57 additional non-Doe defendants. Even conceding, arguendo, that Judge Snyder's comments may have been apropos as to the complaint she addressed, that court never made any determinations, whatsoever, respecting the amended complaints Plaintiff subsequently filed there; or respecting the Complaint at bar. CSI's attempt to imply some final and binding decision that bears upon these proceedings lacks any foundation or substance. As such, CSI's arguments in this regard are wholly immaterial and irrelevant to any consideration this Court should give to the instant Complaint. See generally, Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Ca. App.2d 807, 810, 122 P.2d 892 (1942). Furthermore, CSI's reference to the imposition of sanctions must have no weight or bearing on these proceedings. Initially, the federal court made no determination or judgment respecting Plaintiff's claims there. As such, the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel are not implicated here, despite CSI's implying that they should be. CSI's Memorandum at 3-4 Moreover, the court's determination that sanctionable conduct occurred there is not evidence of the same in this Court. Beyond this, whether Plaintiff's counsel's conduct in that case was properly sanction-able remains to be seen, as Judge Snyder's Order will be subject to appeal, and review may well determine Judge Snyder erred by applying state-court fact-pleading requirements in the notice-pleading federal forum. CSI and RTC seek only to inflame prejudice and engender confusion with this diversionary tactic; merely more smoke and mirrors. B. Plaintiff's Complaint Does Not Comprise a "Pleading Monstrosity." CSI and RTC rely on archaic dicta contained in the California Supreme Court's 1860 opinion in Green v. Palm, 15 Cal. 411, 417 (1860). Originally, California's code-pleading rules were quite restrictive because parties had to rely upon them solely to prepare for trial. CSI and RTC ignore the substantial evolution of the law applicable to pleadings, ex post Green. In 1985, The California Supreme Court explicitly stated, "Any rule that penalizes a plaintiff for the mere form in which the pleadings are cast is inherently unfair and deserves to be discarded. Barrington v. A.H. Robbins Co. 39 Cal.App.3d 146, 157, 216 Cal.Rptr. 405, 412 (1985) (emphasis added). Furthermore, California's Code of Civil Procedure specifies that California is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and that fact pleading is unique to code pleading. CCP Sec. 425.10. It requires considerably more precision and detail than is required in notice pleading jurisdictions. The "facts" to be pleaded are those upon which liability depends, or facts constituting the cause of action. Such facts are characterized as ultimate facts, or those which raise issues upon which the right to recovery depends. While allegations of unnecessary details (evidentiary pleading) or argument (legal conclusions) may be objectionable, even if a complaint contains such allegations, it is not deemed by the law to be insufficient. Rather, such additional allegations as may be objectionable may simply be disregarded by the court as surplusage, or may be subject to a motion to strike. Stearns Ranchos v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40, 96 Cal.Rptr. 317, 329 (1981). Of paramount impact is the recognition that distinctions between "ultimate facts," "evidentiary matter" and "legal conclusions" is of diminishing importance. Courts have become increasingly liberal in their attitude. Perkins v. Supreme Court (General Telephone Directory), 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, 172 Cal.Rptr. 427, 429 (1981) ("What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief . . .") It is not even necessary that a sustainable cause of action alleged in a complaint be one intended by a plaintiff. A plaintiff may be wholly mistaken as to the nature of the case, or the legal theory on which he can prevail. If the facts essential to sustaining any cause of action appear within the allegations contained in the Complaint, it must be sustained and a demurrer overruled. Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9 Cal.App.3d 566, 572, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 484 (1973). Defendants attempt to make much of purported inconsistent statements contained within Plaintiff's Complaint and in prior pleadings as well. Defendants air a hollow argument. While a court may take judicial notice of inconsistent statements made in discovery or earlier complaints in the same lawsuit, it may also disregard conflicting factual allegations in the complaint. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604, 176 Cal.Rptr. 824, 830 (1981). In this case there are no inconsistent statements or admissions relative to any discovery. This court may disregard any of the purported conflicting allegations that Defendants point out in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiffs are also given the opportunity to plead around earlier admissions by including a satisfactory explanation in the pleadings as to why the prior admissions or allegations were incorrect. Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 243 Cal.Rptr. 627, 630 (1988). Moreover, pleading admissions in a different lawsuit may be rebutted at trial by showing mistake, lack of authority or other reasons. They are regarded merely as evidentiary in nature. Doliner v. Pedone, 63 Cal.App. 2d 169, 172, 146 P.2d 237, 241 (1944). While Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint is defective as a result of uncertainty, applicable authority instructs that demurrers for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, or determine what issues must be admitted or denied. Khoury v. Mali's of California, Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 708, 710 (1993). Moreover, defendants are required to refer to the page and line number where uncertain or inconsistent matters may be found. Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dist., 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809, 185 Cal. Rptr. 758, 765 (1982). Neither CSI nor RTC comply with this mandatory requirement in their motion or memoranda. Complaints that show some right to relief, even though not clearly stated, or which may contain allegations intermingled with irrelevant matter, or even demanding relief to which a plaintiff is not entitled, will be sustained over demurrer. Grassley v. Williams, 193 Cal.App.3d 639, 14 Cal.Rptr. 496, 498 (1961). Significantly, pleading certain conclusions with respect to intent, malice, fraud, oppression, coercion and conspiracy is permissible where the complaint also alleges sufficient facts to support these conclusions. Perkins, supra. Equally important are the particularity and specificity requirements relative to fraud claims. It is well settled that such actions are subject to much stricter pleading requirements. Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 (1983). Every element of the cause of action must be alleged in full to demonstrate the how, when, where, to whom, by whom, and by what means the false representations were tendered. Stansfield v. Starkey, 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73, 269 Cal.Rptr. 337, 345 (1990). Even here, exception is made and strictures relaxed when it appears, as it does in this case, that the facts lie more within the defendants' knowledge than the plaintiff's. Much less specificity is required where, as here, the defendants must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy. Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at 216, 197 Cal.Rptr. at 795. Plaintiff pleads his Complaint in compliance with California's code-fact pleading requirements. The Complaint contains all causes of action related to and arising from the tortious conduct of the named Defendants committed over 24 years. The counts for fraud and constructive fraud are pleaded with particularity to the extent that Plaintiff is able. Obviously, given the morass of organization that is CSI and its affiliates, the particularity requirements should be somewhat relaxed in this case. Even the question of Plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations that Defendants characterize as unlikely or preposterous does not militate in favor of sustaining the demurrers. Problems of proof are of no concern to this Court in deciding to sustain the Complaint and overrule Defendants' demurrers. Committee on Childrens Television, supra, at 213-14, 793. Furthermore, Defendants have brought general demurrers to Plaintiff's Complaint. The law makes clear that where there are several causes of action pleaded in a complaint, a demurrer to the entire complaint must be overruled if there is any one single cause of action properly pleaded. Stearns Ranchos Co., supra, at 36, 326. General demurrers, such as those brought by Defendants in the case at bar, challenge only the sufficiency of the causes of action pleaded, and must be overruled if any valid cause of action is pleaded, even if not properly denominated. Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-62, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 465, 475 (1996); Grieves v. Sup. Ct. (Fox), 157 Cal.App.3d 159,164-65, 203 Cal.Rptr. 556, 558 (1984). General demurrers such as those brought by Defendants in this case do not lie to only parts of a cause of action. If there are any allegations sufficient to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. PH II, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.(Ibershof), 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682, 40 Cal.Rptr. 169, 171 (1995). For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff does not present this Court with a "pleading monstrosity" as CSI and RTC erroneously contend. The Complaint, however, sufficiently states facts sufficient to warrant relief and to inform Defendants of the claims being made against them. Thus, CSI's and RTC's demurrers should be overruled. C. CSI and RTC Bring Their Demurrers in Violation of the Rules Specifying That a Demurrer May Consider Only the Substance Contained Within The Four Corners of the Complaint at Issue. CSI and RTC are fully aware that their demurrers are restricted to matters contained within the four corners of the Complaint and materials of which the Court may take judicial notice. Regardless, both CSI and RTC foist upon this Court allegations, arguments and hearsay that fall well beyond the strictures of the Code of Civil Procedure's rules respecting demurrers. Courts are only to consider the substance of the allegations contained in the complaint at bar, and those matters of which the court may take judicial notice. Courts may not consider extrinsic evidence or other matter, such as hearsay, that may or may not affect the sufficiency of the complaint. Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.App.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 721 (1985). Defendants violate these fundamental and elementary premises of demurrers by attaching two declarations and appendices containing improperly submitted extrinsic evidence. Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson, 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881, 168 Cal.Rptr. 361,367 (1980); Afuso v. United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co.,Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, 217 Cal.Rptr. 490, 492 (1985). These circumstances also militate in favor of overruling CSI's and RTC's demurrers. III. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY ANY STATUTES OF LIMITATION. It its memorandum, CSI attempts to defeat each and every count contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, in seratim; contending that they are all barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. CSI's Memorandum at 18-19. Defendants, however, completely ignore Plaintiff's allegations of conspiracy, duress and non-consensual brainwashing, pleaded in each and every count of his Complaint. Complaint at ¶¶ 33, 34, 41(k), 42. Likewise, Defendants also ignore Plaintiff's allegations of concealment, also alleged in each and every count of the Complaint at bar. Complaint at ¶¶ 40-43. As explained below, all of the applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled by acts committed by Defendants through to and including the present. A. The Statutes of Limitation are Tolled by Defendants' Ongoing and Current Acts in Furtherance of Their Conspiracy to Injure Plaintiff. For conspiracy to toll the statutes of limitation, all plaintiff must do is generally allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy against him, and state the last overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. Wyatt v. Union Motgage Co., 24 Cal.3d 773, 786, 157 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1979). Because of, ". . . the clandestine nature of the scheme or undertaking engaged in, its existence must often be inferentially and circumstantially derived from the character of the acts done, the relations of the parties and other facts and circumstances suggestive of concerted action." Schlesser v. Keck, 125 Cal.App.2d 827, 834, 271 P.2d 588, 592 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1954). Alleging a "last overt act" in furtherance, or "active concealment of material facts" are two separate and independent means by which applicable statutes of limitation are tolled. Aaroe v. First American Title Insurance Co., 222 Cal.App.3d 124, 128, 271 Cal.Rptr. 434 (1990) (Cal.App. 1st Dist. 1990). A "last overt act" is one that is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, but need not ultimately be necessary to defendants achieving the object of their conspiracy so long as it could aid in completing the tortious act(s) targeted by the conspirators. Whether, as a matter of hindsight, the act was absolutely necessary to have successfully completed the intended tortious object of the conspiracy is irrelevant to the determination and identification of a "last overt act." Rather, at the time the conspirator(s) committed the act, it must have been reasonably likely to prolong or continue the injury suffered by plaintiff. Livett v. F.C. Financial Associates, 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1981). In Livett, supra, a contractor and participant in a real estate development plan, alleged a conspiracy to deprive him of his compensation to be derived from the development, and to terminate the equitable interest he had in the realty by virtue of the development agreement. Id. at 416-17. The fraudulent scheme was to be achieved by agreement between the mortgagor and a parent company of the mortgagee at the time of foreclosure, whereby the mortgagor would acquire the real estate on behalf of the parent company and agree to resell it to the parent company for only the amount of the mortgagor's investment in the project. Id. Plaintiff contended that the effect of this scheme was to render the foreclosure sale a sham as it did not result in actual change of ownership. Its sole purpose was to destroy plaintiff's interest in the realty. The conspiracy was then furthered by sales of the realty to a newly formed paper corporation, financed by a newly formed finance company deriving its funds from the parent company. Id. Defendants argued that plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, framing the "last overt act" had been committed prior to the termination of plaintiff as consultant to the project; the purported object of their conspiracy. As the termination occurred more than three years prior to commencement of the action, defendants argued that the limitation period had run, thus the trial court properly granted summary judgment in their favor. Id. at 417, 413. The court rejected this argument, relying on People v. Williams, 97 Cal.App.3d 382, 158 Cal.Rpt. 778 (1979), which held that where the conspiracy alleged is comprised not only of the intended result of the conspiracy, but also its purposeful concealment for a period of time thereafter, a question of fact as to the scope and nature of the principal object of the conspiracy is presented requiring the admission of evidence on the subject. Id. at 419, 414. The court stated: The purpose of the conspiracy was to prevent those formerly interested in the realty from knowing that the purchasing group . . . continued as practical owners of the realty even after the foreclosure sale, so that the ultimate disposition of the realty for the benefit of this group was not to be questioned by those former owners. . . If the conspiracy be deemed not only a plan to remove [plaintiff] from the property, but also to package and dispose of the property in a manner so as to avoid alerting [plaintiff] to the substance of the transaction, the conspiracy becomes a conspiracy to conceal. Id. at 420-21. Recognizing myriad factual issues to be determined, the court held that trial court erred in disposing of the case as a matter of law. Id. at 421. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges numerous "last overt acts" falling squarely within the statutes of limitation applicable to each individual count contained in the Complaint. As such, all of Defendants' tortious acts, recurring in nature, as in Livett, and ongoing, thus toll the statutes of limitation given the "last overt acts" plainly alleged throughout Plaintiff's Complaint. Count 1 of the Complaint herein alleges fraudulent representations of scientifically proven claims to cure illness and disease. Paragraph 30 specifically alleges that in 1995, Defendants referred to the "success story" of John Travolta, who "allegedly" triumphed over his own homosexuality as evidence of the scientific validity of CSI's fraudulent claims. Complaint at ¶ 15. Paragraph 34 alleges that at the end of 1996, Plaintiff met with Captain Miscavige, who warned Plaintiff of life-threatening defects of the New OT VII, level restating the scientific nature of Scientology. Count 2 of the Complaint alleges Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentation that Scientology condoned and accepted concurrent religious beliefs as consistent with Scientology. Paragraphs 37 through 39 specifically alleged forced religious deprogramming of Plaintiff's Christian beliefs, occurring late in 1996. Count 3 alleges that Scientology materially misrepresented itself as a peaceful, law-abiding organization that did not allow its monies to fund tortious or criminal conduct. This misrepresentation continues to be made affirmatively and by way of omission. Complaint at ¶¶ 30, 34, 37-39, 45, 49, 51, and 80. Count 4 alleges numerous fraudulent statements respecting Scientology's founder's qualifications, achievements and scientific credentials. These statements have continued through and including the present. Complaint at ¶¶ 43-44. Count 5 specifically alleges that Mary Voegeding of the Sea Organization threatened to publicly reveal Plaintiff's confessions held in his "auditing" files to the Church publicly in late 1997. Complaint at ¶ 49. More importantly, the Complaint alleges further that Defendants are currently using these files to allege a case in the abusively prosecuted Reveillere v. Pattinson, supra. Complaint at ¶ 51. Count 6, for the same reason, is sustained by an earlier nondisclosure of CSI's "Fair Game" policy, and is alleged presently to be engaged to injure Plaintiff vis a vis the filing of the Reveillere case. Complaint at ¶ 53. The "last over acts" that toll the statutes of limitation relative to the first three causes of action have the same effect relative to the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth causes of action and were commensurate with the present release of the confidential information that Plaintiff entrusted to Defendants while in auditing sessions; Defendants' threat to release the content of those files in late 1997; and their introduction of those files in the context of day nine of Plaintiff's deposition taken in the case at bar on July 15, 1999 further tolled the statute. Complaint at ¶¶ 49, 51, 86. The "last overt act(s)" tolling the statute of limitations relative to the Tenth cause of action, were the fraudulent statements made by Defendant, Miscavige, regarding the scientific validity of Defendants' secular conduct made to Plaintiff in late 1996. Complaint at ¶¶ 34, 126. The contract was not for "spiritual salvation," as Defendants recklessly misrepresent, but for a scientifically warranted cure for homosexuality. Id. The "last overt act" tolling the statutes of limitation relative to the Twelfth Cause of Action, is the immediate and present refusal of Defendants to refund the money for courses Plaintiff took. The constant, timely, and horrendous tortious acts of Defendants demonstrate that Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his mind, morals, and money. That this conduct has gone on for 24 years is, by no means, a mitigating factor, despite the Defendants' contentions. B. Through Continuous Means of Intimidation, Coercion and Duress Defendants Prevented Plaintiff from Inquiring Into Defendants' Tortious Activity and Thereby Concealed Their Tortious Acts. Duress, or duress facilitated by fraud, tolls statutes of limitation until defendant no longer places plaintiff under duress, or ceases in its attempts to fraudulently deceive. Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195, 1 Cal.Rptr. 12 at 207-08, 21, 21. In Leeper, defendants placed a lis pidens upon some property owned by the plaintiff, thereby forcing sale of plaintiff's property for a third of the properties' fair market value, in order to pay an outstanding debt that defendants were aware plaintiff owed to a third party. Noting that the duress that defendants imposed upon plaintiff arose from an initial fraudulent deception (defendant's bad faith representation to the court that there was a debt which defendant owed to plaintiffs, which defendants did not); the court ruled that duress tolled the statutes of limitation for the period of time during which defendants placed plaintiff under the influence of the fraudulent belief. Said the court: Duress, as already pointed out in another connection, is a species of fraud. It also should be held that duress is fraud for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations . . . The two types of wrongdoing, duress and fraud, are often factually closely interconnected and indi stinguishable. . . . [I]t must be held that subdivision 4 of section 338 is applicable where the gravamen of plaintiff's action is duress. Leeper at 207-8, 21, 21 (citations omitted). Clearly, when defendants like CSI and RTC make somewhat unreasonable misrepresentations that a reasonable person might find suspect, but, in addition, creates a strong disincentive for plaintiff to question defendant's misrepresentations, courts may find the existence of duress. Sears, supra. The facts set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint vividly demonstrate fraud and duress imposed by Defendants upon Plaintiff by degree far exceeding that imposed upon the Sears plaintiff. Plaintiff feared (1) abandoning a cure for his homosexuality, (2) his "ruin", (3) embarrassment, (4) harassment, (5) his death, and (6) injury to his person. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 27, 29, 48, 49, 52. Such coercive fear, imposed upon Plaintiff and exploited by Defendants for over two decades, comprises only a portion of the duress specifically alleged in ¶ 18 of the Complaint. Defendants also impeded every attempt Plaintiff made at trying to establish his own autonomy by employing threats of physical harm (¶¶ 96, 115-19), false imprisonment (¶¶ 93, 96), sleep deprivation and fatigue, coupled with isolation from the world outside of Scientology. Complaint at ¶ 25. Constant exercise, and isolation from the outside world such as Defendants imposed upon Plaintiff in the case at bar has been held to present an issue of fact. Molko, supra. Because Defendants placed Plaintiff in such a state of duress, instilling such substantial disincentives to question their fraud and committed acts designed to physically and mentally control and intimidate him, as in Sears, this Court should flatly reject CSI's and RTC's statutes of limitation argument. C. Brainwashing Tolls the Statutes of Limitation" [A] cause of action does not accrue until [a] plaintiff knows, or should know, all material facts essential to show the elements of that cause of action." Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal.App. .3d 176, 190, 98 Cal.Rptr. 814, 846 (1971). When personal injury is suffered, for example, as Plaintiff suffered in this case, without perceptible trauma and by silent and insidious impregnation as a consequence of the act or omission of another, who knows, or who is charged with the responsibility of knowing that such act or omission may result in personal injury, and the injured person is unaware of the cause of his injury, and as a reasonably prudent and intelligent person could not, without specialized knowledge, have been made aware of such cause, no action for a tort resulting from such cause begins to accrue until the injured person knows or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the cause of such injury. Tresemer v. Burke, 86 Cal.App.3d 656 (1978); Saliter v. Pierce Bros Mortuaries, 81 Cal.App.3d 292 (1978); Warrington v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 274 Cal.App.2d 564, 569-570 (1969). Molko, supra, recognizes that causes of action for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and restitution would lie for conduct which caused a plaintiff to allow himself to be unwittingly exposed to coercive persuasion. The concept of brainwashing has received approval from the California Supreme Court as a variant of undue influence. Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1124-25. The fundamental theory is that brainwashing: [I]s fostered through the creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy and [of] the ability to think independently, which induces a subject's unyielding compliance and the rupture of past connections, affiliations, and associations. Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1109. When a person is subjected to coercive persuasion ("brainwashing") without his knowledge or consent, the results can be, and in the instant case have been, disastrous. Many individuals who have been subjected to coercive persuasion without their knowledge or consent "develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia . . .." Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1118. By definition, coercive persuasion can be imposed without the knowledge or consent of the subject and can cause severe psychiatric injury. Necessarily, under the standard set forth in Warrington, torts related to the imposition of coercive persuasion without the knowledge or consent of the victim, are proper subjects for the application of the rule of delayed discovery in connection with avoiding a statutes of limitation bar. Since Plaintiff asserts that fraud was employed to cause him to unwittingly expose himself to coercive persuasion, ". . . the statute of limitations [would] not begin to run until the Plaintiff discovered or had notice of all facts which are essential to the cause of action," Saliter, 81 Cal.App.3d at 296, particularly that he had been subjected to coercive persuasion without their knowledge or consent. Molko, 46 Cal.App.3d at 1118. D. Exploiting a Fiduciary Relationship Tolls Limitations Periods. There are further grounds for applying the rule of delayed discovery to the Plaintiff's emotional distress claim. When the unawareness of injury is induced by fraud, or some other valid excuse, and there is no perceptible trauma from which the injury or illness may reasonably be detected, the rule of discovery governs the time of accrual. Warrington, 274 Cal.App.2d at 570. Likewise, fiduciary relationship, continuing duty and accumulated injury can each excuse plaintiff's unawareness of what caused his injuries so as to justify application of the rule of discovery. The facts alleged in the case at bar fall squarely within the scope of Warrington and Molko. A confidential relationship exists, ". . . whenever trust and confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." In re Rugiani's Estate, 108 Cal.App.2d 624, 630, 239 P.2d 500, 504 (1952). Such relationships are found in religious recruitment situations such as that before this Court. Fraudulent inducement into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion is a breach of the duty established in a confidential relationship. Molko, 46 Cal.3d at 1123. For these reasons, not only does Plaintiff adequately plead fraud, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and every other cause of action contained in the Complaint, but his claims withstand the Defendants' statutes of limitation challenges on the basis of their having brainwashed Plaintiff; insidiously preventing him from discovering his rights any sooner than he did. Complaint at ¶ 26, 59, 60, 73. IV. RTC'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. RTC's memorandum adds nothing to this proceeding save a duplicative and repetitive mantra that Scientology is a religion. As discussed above, Plaintiff concedes that Scientology calls itself a religion, but that ample precedent militates for the scrutiny of the sincerity of those claims, as well as the prosecution of claims for injuries arising from tortious secular acts, practices, policies and conduct. Complaint at ¶ 2 CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should overrule the Defendants' demurrers, sustain Plaintiff's Complaint, and enter an Order finding that Plaintiff's Complaint adequately states causes of action against all the named Defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his Complaint, curing any defects this Court might enunciate upon disposing of Defendants' motions. Dated: July __, 1999 Respectfully Submitted: Law Offices of Graham E. Berry By:_______________________________ Graham E. Berry, Attorney for Plaintiff PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Wilshire Boulevard, Twenty-First Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. On July 21, 1999 I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER. on interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed and distributed as follows: [XX ] By Facsimile: I served the above described document(s) to the interested parties listed on the attached Service List herein. A copy of the transmission confirmation report(s) are attached hereto. [XX ] By Mail: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage fully paid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. [] By Messenger: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be served by messenger at the offices of the interested parties set forth below. See Proof of Service by Messenger attached hereto. [ ] HAND DELIVERY I served the above-referenced document(s) to be served on the following interested parites directly by hand. Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 287-4468 (Office) (213) 487-5385 (Fax) Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker, Thirty-first floor, 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4697 (212) 318-6000 (Office) (212) 319-4090 (Fax) [] Federal. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. [XX] State. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. Executed this 21st day of July, 1999, at Los Angeles, California. SCOTT A. MAYER _________________________ TYPE OR PRINT Scott A. Mayer SERVICE LIST CAPTAIN DAVID MISCAVIGE & RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER: Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Thirty-first floor, 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4697 (212) 318-6000 (Office) (212) 319-4090 (Fax) Michael Terrill, Esq., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Thirty-third floor, 555 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071- 2371 (213) 683-6000 (Office) (213) 627-0705 (Fax) MARY SUE HUBBARD: Mary Sue Hubbard 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90027 Eric M.Lieberman,Esq Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman,P.C., 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor, New York, New York 10003 (212) 890-6611 (212) 674-4614 (Fax) THE SEA ORGANIZATION: Elliot Abelson, Esq., 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90010 (323) 960-1935 (213) 487-5385 (Fax) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL: Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., MOXON & KOBRIN, 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 487-4468 (213) 487-5385 (Fax) Eric M.Lieberman,Esq Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman,P.C., 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor, New York, New York 10003 (212) 890-6611 (212) 674-4614 (Fax) CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY: Monique E. Yingling, Esq. Zuckert ,Scoutt & Rasenberger,LLP 888 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5509 (202) 298-8660 (Office) (202) 342-0683 (Fax) BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Richard Fond, Esq. Simke Chodos 1880 Century Park East Suite 151 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - 1615 (310) 203-3888 (Office) (310) 203-3886 (Fax)

Retour index général

Retour index