Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies.  I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report.  -  Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!cultxpt Mon Jul 10 17:03:04 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!cultxpt
From: cultxpt@primenet.com (Jeff Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: apparent precedent-setting case
Date: 8 Jul 1995 22:45:16 GMT
Organization: Primenet (602)395-1010
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <3tn1pt$amq@hang.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr3.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

from Los Angeles Daily Journal, June 17, 1976
"Scientology Church loses appeal; malicious prosecution affirmed"
[begin quote]

   The C.A. 2nd has affirmed a trial court award of $50,000
compensatory damages to plaintiff, a former member of the church
of Scientology, for malicious prosecution by the church, and has
modified a punitive damage award of $250,000 to $50,000.
   Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the facts
show that the plaintiff-respondent became a member of the church
in March of 1959.  He signed a billion-year contract agreeing to
do anything to help Scientology and to help clear the planet of
"reactive people."  He became director of disbursements and "flag
banking officer" for the church.  Only the plaintiff and his
superior, Boughton, knew the combination to the safe kept in
respondent's office.
   A few months later the plaintiff told Boughton and others that
he wanted to leave the church.  He was instructed to write the
founder, L. Ron Hubbard, to obtain permission to leave, and he was
warned that if he left without permission, he would be subject to
the church's "Fair Game" Policy, which encouraged adherents to
persecute dissidents by any means.  Church policy statements
allowed Scientologists to trick, sue, lie to, or destroy
"enemies."
   Plaintiff wrote to Hubbard and received no reply.  He
subsequently took documents from the safe and flew to Kansas City,
where he turned them over to the Internal Revenue Service.  Later
he was arrested in Florida on a charge of grand theft.  Boughton
had called the Los Angeles Police Department to report $23,000 in
missing Swiss francs.  Plaintiff waived extradition and spent
three weeks in jail.  The charge was eventually dismissed in the
interest of justice.  Plaintiff then sued the church for malicious
prosecution.
   The church appealed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on
several grounds.  It was contended that admission of evidence of
the church's doctrine and practices (such as the Fair Game Policy)
were irrelevant, unduly prejudicial and violative of defendant's
free exercise of religion.  The appellate court ruled that such
evidence was probative of credibility, a central issue to the
case, and was therefore properly admitted.  The court stated, "a
party whose reprehensible acts are the cause of harm to another
cannot be heard to complain that its conduct is so bad that it
should not be disclosed" because of prejudice.
   Another contention was that the church never authorized or
ratified the malicious prosecution and therefore should not be
liable for punitive damages.  The C.A. disagreed on the grounds
that the founder of the church promoted the official Fair Game
Policy, that no evidence was offered of its repudiation, and the
persons to whom plaintiff had communicated his desire to leave
were important managerial employees of the church.
   The only aspect of the verdict to be modified was the size of
the punitive damage award, which was reduced from $250,000 to
$50,000.  The appellate court considered the disparity between the
compensatory and punitive awards as indicating the jury had acted
more out of passion and animosity than out of a determination of
the amount necessary to deter the defendant from similar conduct
in the future.  Accordingly, the award was reduced to a more
"reasonable" amount.
   Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, C.A. 2nd, 2 Civ.
45562, May 18, 1976, per Beach, J. Gerald E. Agnew, Jr., Charles
B. O'Reilly and Morgan, Wenzel & McNicholas for respondent;
Michael B. Lawler, Tobias C. Tolzmann, Joel Kreiner, Murchison,
Cumming, Baker & Velpman, for appellant. (pjf)
[end quote]

   If this case was not overturned it is indeed a helpful, precedent 
setting case for all us critics to be aware of for many reasons.

--
//////
"It's like, a.r.s. is a GREAT BIG SUPER-SMART BRAIN, and Co$ 
confusion and disinformation tech is a leettle-bitty 
theety-wheety brain." (Daniel Davidson)
ftp.primenet.com /users/c/cultxpt