Jeanne Ragsdale v. Church of Scientology

Jeanne Ragsdale v. Church of Scientology
13 May 2001

new at Scientology Lies:

http://www.scientology-lies.com/sf-courts-ragsdale-871019.html

The Scientology-Lies Database

This site was compiled by Kristi Wachter. I welcome feedback, especially information contradicting anything I've stated here. Feel free to contact me at info@scientology-lies.com

Jeanne Ragsdale v. Church of Scientology et al

In 1987, Jeanne Ragsdale sued the Church of Scientology for general negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, clergy malpractice, assault, false imprisonment, and other allegations.

On November 1, 1989, Ragsdale had the suit dismissed with prejudice.

While it's impossible to know how this came about simply by reading the court papers, it seems likely that Scientology settled with Ragsdale. Her suit was dismissed in a similar manner to Andrew Lee's first suit, which was definitely dismissed as a result of a confidential settlement agreement.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JEANNE L. RAGSDALE and FRED SCHOORDYK, Plaintiffs,

vs.

) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, CHURCH
) OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
) SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF
) SAN FRANCISCO, ERICK BARNES,
) SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF
) SAN MATEO, ADVANCE ORGANIZATION
) OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN
) LOS ANGELES, MARY RIBERO, ESTATE
) OF L. RON HUBBARD, MIKE
) SILVERMAN, GREG WHYLAN, HAROLD
) SIMS, HERBERT GENTZ, FLAG
) SERVICE ORG, INC., MARY SUE
) HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
) INTERNATIONAL, RELIGIOUS
) TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ADVANCED
) ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO,
) DR. FRANK GERBODE, PAULETTE DOE,
) BRIAN GRIMES, DOES ONE through
) FIVE HUNDRED, inclusive,
)
) Defendants.

No. 882966

GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, BREACH
OF FIDUCIARY DUTY,
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, FRAUD,
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD,
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION,
CLERGY MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE, LACK OF
INFORMED CONSENT, ASSAULT,
FALSE IMPRISONMENT, LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM

1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES ONE through FIVE HUNDRED, and each of them, are unknown to

plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of when the same have been ascertained pursuant to the provisions of Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE was responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to plaintiffs, as hereinafter alleged, and either sues said defendants on negligent or some other actionable conduct or through the conduct of its agents, servants or employees.

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein, defendants, and each of them, were agents, servants or employees of their co-defendants, and were, as such, acting within the scope, course and authority of said agency and/or employment, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, was acting as a principal, who was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant and/or employee.

4. Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY and defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter collectively "SCIENTOLOGY", or "CHURCH") are corporations or some other legal entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal office and place of business in California and doing business in the State of California within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Defendant ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD (hereinafter "HUBBARD") is the estate of the founder of defendant SCIENTOLOGY and at all times material to this complaint was, by virtue of his role as the founder and leader of defendant SCIENTOLOGY, overall supervisor of the Guardian's Office and of the Sea Organization of defendant SCIENTOLOGY. The Guardian's Office and Sea Organization had agents operating in defendant SCIENTOLOGY under the ultimate control of defendant HUBBARD. Defendant HUBBARD was knowledgeable and had ultimate control over the activities of employees of defendant SCIENTOLOGY specifically over the Guardian's Office and Sea Organization as pled herein. Defendant HUBBARD was a resident of the State of California from early 1976 through several months into 1980 at which time some of the acts complained of herein against defendants, and each of them, commenced, although said acts and injuries and harm from said acts were not discovered until the spring of 1987. Defendant HUBBARD had a legal address in the State of California. The acts alleged herein of defendant SCIENTOLOGY are the acts as agent of defendant Hubbard and said acts constituted a course of conduct carried on within the State of California under the orders and supervision of defendant HUBBARD.

6. Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, hereinafter defendant "SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL", is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal office and place of business in California, and doing business in the State of California within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, hereinafter

defendant "RTC", is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal office and place of business in California, and doing business in the State of California within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

8. At all times herein mentioned, the individuals set forth herein, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SAN FRANCISCO, ERICK BARNES, SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SAN MATEO, ADVANCE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN LOS ANGELES, MARY RIBERO, ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD, MIKE SILVERMAN, GREG WHYLAN, HAROLD SIMS, HERBERT GENTZ, FLAG SERVICE ORG, INC., MARY SUE HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ERICK BARNES, MARY RIBERO, and other unnamed Scientologists were acting as agents and/or representatives and/or employees for defendant SCIENTOLOGY and/or ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO within the course and scope of their agency and/or representation and/or employment.

9. FLAG SERVICE ORG, INC. ("FLAG") is a Florida and/or California corporation owned, operated and controlled by SCIENTOLOGY which, at all times relevant, was doing business in the State of California.

10. MARY SUE HUBBARD is the wife of decedent L. RON HUBBARD, the founder of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA. MARY SUE HUBBARD held the title of "Controller" and "Commodore Staff Guardian" and as the second person in the hierarchy of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, had duties which included the supervision of the Guardian's Office. MARY SUE HUBBARD also did business in the State of California.

11. The ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO (hereinafter "ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER") is a corporation or some other legal entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal office and place of business in California and doing business in the State of California within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

12. At all times herein mentioned, the individuals set forth herein, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SAN FRANCISCO, ERICK BARNES, SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SAN MATEO, ADVANCE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN LOS ANGELES, MARY RIBERO, ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD, MIKE SILVERMAN, GREG WHYLAN, HAROLD SIMS, HERBERT GENTZ, FLAG SERVICE ORG, INC., MARY SUE HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ERICK BARNES, MARY RIBERO, and other unnamed members of ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER were acting as agents and/or representatives and/or employees for defendant ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER within the course and scope of their agency and/or representation and/or employment.

13. As to all of the defendants mentioned in this complaint, plaintiffs are presently unaware of the exact form and fashion in which these defendants are doing business. When such information has been ascertained, plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to insert same or, alternatively, to conform to proof at the time of trial.

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that all defendants including DOE defendants are, and at all times hereto were, shareholders, owners, principals and otherwise equity owners of other defendants.

15. Some of the wrongful acts of defendants, and each of them, as stated herein occurred in the City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs file this complaint within the jurisdiction of this Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco thereby.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that defendants CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, et al., and defendants ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER, et al., are organizations basically using the same "technology" and methodology.

Therefore, plaintiffs will lump allegations together in the course of this complaint. However, it should be noted that plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE actively participated in the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY only from approximately 1975 through 1982 and participated in the ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO from 1984 through 1986.

17. At all times material herein, the individual defendants and the corporate defendants held themselves out to plaintiffs to be part of legitimate, law abiding, scientific, educational organizations engaged in the business of providing goods and services as non-profit organizations wherever they were authorized by law to do business. Defendants perpetrated the acts set forth in this complaint as a matter of written and unwritten policy, proposed, implemented and enforced, by defendants against the plaintiff by the employees of defendants pursuant to written and oral directives and policies. The policies, doctrine and conduct alleged herein constitute a civil conspiracy by defendants to commit the torts set forth herein.

18. In approximately ]975, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE became a member of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, beginning counselling in a San Francisco Mission with defendant ERICK BARNES.

19. At that time, and at all times herein, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE was suffering from a mental illness and required treatment by a qualified psychotherapist. Due to her mental illness, she was particularly susceptible to the acts of defendants, and her fragility and "fertile soil" put her at risk for the type of "counselling" provided by defendants, and each of them, herein.

20. It was in 1976 that plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE began the "auditing" process. One of her auditors was GREG WHYLAN.

21. Plaintiff became a member of defendants, and each of them, because of the various promises and guarantees made to her by agents of defendants, and each of them.

22. Plaintiff became a member of defendants, and each of them, to get help with her emotional problems, to get help with her psychosomatic problems, to get rid of her drinking problem and to improve herself. Defendants, and each of them, told said plaintiff that they could cure her of all her problems and make a happier and better person. Defendants guaranteed their treatment.

23. From the very beginning, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE was hesitant and scared to maintain her membership in defendant "CHURCH" and was hesitant to receive and continue receiving the "treatment" provided by defendants, and each of them. However, she did continue to be a member and continued receiving treatments based upon guarantees, threats and promises made to her by defendants, and each of them, telling her their methodology was the way in which she could improve her situation and if she did not stay within the organization, she would be forever damned. Due to her susceptibility, plaintiff believed the promises and threats made by defendants, and each of them.

24. Plaintiff paid for services during this entire time provided by defendants, and each of them. By paying for and receiving said services, defendants, and each of them, guaranteed plaintiff a cure of all her problems and a happier life.

25. When plaintiff began with the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, she was told that she would no longer have a drinking problem, would be successful at her work, would be a highly intelligent being, and would do well within the CHURCH.

26. From 1978 to 1980, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE went to a SCIENTOLOGY Mission on Picadilly Lane in San Mateo. The Mission representative was defendant MARY RIBERO who, along with defendant ERICK BARNES, told said plaintiff that RON HUBBARD knows and has the ways out of the mud the planet is in and that mankind is about to destroy themselves. This, along with previously and subsequently mentioned representations, kept plaintiff within the CHURCH.

27. Plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE was promised confidentiality in everything which she said within auditing sessions. Said plaintiff later found out that this confidentiality had been breached.

28. From 1976 to 1979, defendants, and each of them, provided plaintiff with literature about the various "levels" and defendant MIKE SILVERMAN kept calling plaintiff to come to Los Angeles and "do the levels". A bulletin came out in 1979 from L. RON HUBBARD and mailed to plaintiff that a "Dianetic Clear" is at risk if he does do not "OT3" and must get ready for it and come to the advance organization in Los Angeles or Florida.

29. In approximately 1980, plaintiff began trying to do "OT3" in Los Angeles. Plaintiff began to severely decompensate and wanted to stop doing OT3; however, defendants, and each of them, made her stay in the program and made her return to the program two more times, despite the fact that plaintiff was severely psychologically decompensating and her mental health was worsening. Further, plaintiff was told that if she did not continue the program she would die and be "doomed for eternity".

30. She was continually told that her only chance of survival was to stay within the CHURCH and to complete the OT3 material.

31. At all times, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE was consistently told not to seek treatment with a psychiatrist or any non-defendant therapist. She was told that these health care practitioners were evil, would be out to destroy her, would ruin her and make her much worse. She was told that if she went to a therapist she would be doomed, would die, would suffer a terrible fate. At all times in which these statements were made, plaintiff was in desperate need for proper psychotherapy. Yet she did not seek out such treatment due to representations made by defendants, and each of them.

32. By 1982, plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE was severely psychologically decompensated and was probably suffering from a psychosis. Her ability to work had faltered and she was suffering from a severe depression as well as her psychosis.

Plaintiff was told by defendants, and each of them, that the reason she was having these problems were all her fault because she was not doing the material "correctly". Defendants, and each of them, were telling her that it was all the fault of her "reactive mind" and that she could be "repaired" if she only wanted to be. She was continually told not to see a psychiatrist or other mental health care professional and that she believed that if she did seek out this type of help she would be damned and destroyed. She was told that there was nothing wrong with her that needed treatment, it was simply that she had not worked hard enough within the CHURCH.

33. In approximately 1982 plaintiff stopped being an active member of the CHURCH because she could no longer afford "treatments" and she could no longer bear trying to successfully complete OT3. She was lost, confused, psychotic, had no understanding of what had happened to her or what was happening to her. She knew that she had failed at SCIENTOLOGY, but believed that SCIENTOLOGY was the only cure for her.

34. Plaintiff became desperate and her desperation increased through 1983 and 1984.

35. In February of 1985, plaintiff attended a meeting at the ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO conducted by defendant DR. FRANK GERBODE (hereinafter "GERBODE"). GERBODE stated at this meeting that he was no longer a member of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY and that he could deliver L. RON HUBBARD's technology. Gerald Finch also talked about RON HUBBARD's technology at this meeting. He stated that he believes in RON HUBBARD's technology just as the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY does.

36. Plaintiff then asked DR. GERBODE if she could get help from him. Defendant arranged for her to have a talk with one of his counsellors, defendant BRIAN GRIMES (hereinafter "GRIMES"). This occurred in the early part of March, 1985.

37. Plaintiff told both defendants GERBODE and GRIMES of the problems that she had been having since beginning with the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY particularly her problems surrounding OT3.

38. Defendant GRIMES said that he would convey her problems to the case supervisor defendant PAULETTE DOE and GERBODE.

39. In March of 1985, plaintiff began to get auditing from defendant GRIMES. At this time, GRIMES provided plaintiff with some bulletins from L. RON HUBBARD called "NOT'S". That material and/or defendant GRIMES said that anybody who was having trouble with OT3 could be cured by NOT'S.

40. Plaintiff received treatment sessions on a regular basis. Plaintiff began to actually get worse and further decompensate. Plaintiff began feeling pulling and stretching in her body and returned to see defendant DR. GERBODE. At this time defendant DR. GERBODE held himself out to be a "psychiatrist". Plaintiff became extremely confused due to the fact that DR. GERBODE as well as all people in SCIENTOLOGY and the ADVANCED

ABILITY CENTER put down psychiatrists.

41. When plaintiff went to see defendant GERBODE on or about April, 1995, she told him that she was getting worse since she had started on NOT's.

42. At this point, defendant DR. FRANK GERBODE began giving plaintiff medical advice after taking a medical history. He asked her what medicine she took and she told him that she took Estrogen and had to start on Ativan since it became so bad for her on NOT's. Defendant GERBODE told her that he could not understand why she was not getting better. Plaintiff could not afford any treatment at this time and DR. GERBODE told her that he would not help her unless she "bought twelve and a half hours of time which was $100 per hour." After this plaintiff got even worse; however, she was able to scrounge up the money for additional auditing.

43. At this time, defendants GRIMES, PAULETTE DOE and GERBODE told her that she had an "evil being" doing this to her and defendant GRIMES audited her on this.

44. In September of 1985, plaintiff was continuing to get worse and defendant GERBODE met with plaintiff privately in his office. At that time he told her that she needed a physical examination because there was no psychological explanation for her symptoms. DR. GERBODE told plaintiff to make an appointment to see her medical doctor, which she did. DR. GERBODE told plaintiff to tell plaintiff's medical doctor that he (DR. GERBODE) was her psychiatrist.

45. Plaintiff's medical doctor asked plaintiff if she had a psychiatrist because she need one, and she said yes, DR.

FRANK GERBODE. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Dr. Karnoff spoke to DR. GERBODE in October of 1985 regarding plaintiff's psychological and physical conditions.

46. After this, DR. GERBODE called plaintiff and insisted that she come back into the program. DR. GERBODE told her that they would continue auditing her.

47. Plaintiff returned to auditing and had certain "processes run on her".

48. Defendants, and each of them, kept telling plaintiff to "hang in there", that they would be able to do repair on her and that she was fine.

49. Subsequently DR. GERBODE told plaintiff to do the "solo course" and the "level OT3" again. She was told that defendant GRIMES would give her auditing on OT3 every day while she was on the course. She did this in November and December of 1985 until March of 1986, and continued to decompensate and get worse. She became frankly suicidal and devastated.

50. In March of 1986, defendants, and each of them, abandoned plaintiff telling her that they could not help her any more, that this was all her fault, that there was somebody in Oakland who could help her. Plaintiff became completely disorientated, psychologically decompensated and lost touch with reality. She continued to decompensate until she was finally hospitalized at Stanford Hospital from October 8th to October 18th, 1986. At this time she was diagnosed as psychotic, was disoriented and out of touch with reality and did not understand what had happened to her.

51. From 1976 to 1986, plaintiff gave substantial sums of money to various defendants in exchange for promises that she would, amongst other things, be cured of all her problems, that she would earn a lot of money from her work, that she would give up drinking and that her intelligence would increase. The various processes, programs, therapies, treatments and philosophies of defendants, and each of them, engendered the trust and reliance of people who go to thom for help like plaintiffs. Because of the nature of their training, defendants, and each of them, were in a position to effect a particularly severe impact on the plaintiff. A special relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants, and each of them, thereby. Defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiffs the highest duty of care as a result of this relationship. Defendants, and each of them, failed to foresee that the various processes, etc., which they had plaintiff go through would endanger the mental and physical stability of plaintiff. Defendants, and each of them, were aware that their processes could be emotionally distressing and should have reasonably foreseen that plaintiff would be endangered by such processes including, but not limited to, all the training programs and auditing. Defendants, and each of them, engendered the trust of plaintiff by promising and guaranteeing improvement in her life condition and then put her in a position in which her mental health was gravely endangered.

52. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to plaintiff by allowing her to continue in their programs and subjecting her to emotionally disturbing processes even when she began to show signs of emotional breakdown.

53. Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide proper care for plaintiff once she experienced serious breakdowns.

54. Defendants, and each of them, failed to properly screen people before subjecting them to the various processes and failed to have a proper screening procedure established. Thus, defendants, and each of them, exposed plaintiff to harmful effects that were foreseeable considering her pre-existing condition.

55. Defendants, and each of them, knew and should have known that plaintiff was susceptible to this type of harm from this type of program due to her pre-existing psychological condition.

56. During the course of plaintiff's membership/treatment in defendant organizations she received many booklets and books. These booklets and books include, but are not limited, to "What is Scientology", "OT2: Ability to Confront the Whole Track", "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", "Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary", "OT3 Expanded", "OT4: Certainty of Self", "OT6: Ability to Operate Exterior", "OT5: Cause Over NEST", "Scientology, The Parts of Man", "OT7: Intention", "Scientology Abridged Dictionary", "Clear Freedom from the Reactive Mind", "Scientology: Understanding Others", "ARC", "OT1: An OT Viewpoint", "Scientology Assists", "Scientology, The Eight Dynamics", "OT Levels", "Understanding the E-Meter". This material made promises of success and lured plaintiff into "treatments".

57. Between 1975 and 1987, plaintiff, at various times, was harassed and threatened by defendants, and each of them. This harassment included, but was not limited to, an event in 1984 when plaintiff went to see David Mayo for help and she was approached by two men in a car who yelled at her to stay away from David Mayo or "she would be sorry". The other man in the car got out and took a picture of her. At various times plaintiff believes that she was followed and her activities were monitored. At various time she was told that if she did not comply with the program her fate would be doomed and "bad things" would happen to her.

58. Defendants, and each of them, have for a period exceeding 20 years engaged in a pattern of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. In connection with said fraud, defendants, and each of them, wrote, published and disseminated the publications set forth below to plaintiff. The following publications contain selected examples of "non-religious", "false", secular representations as excerpted from a federal Judgment in the case set forth in paragraph 59 of this complaint, and made to plaintiff by defendants HUBBARD and SCIENTOLOGY, their agents, representatives and/or employees:

(a) Eight-page pamphlet entitled "What is Scientology?" "Scientology is today the only successfully validated psychotherapy in the world. Tens of thousands of completely documented cases exist in the files of the Hubbard association of Scientologists International."

"The first science to put the case of psychotherapy within the range of any person's pocketbook. A complete Freudian analysis costs $8000 to $15,000. Better results can be achieved in Scientology for $25.00 and on a group basis for a few dollars."

"The first science to make whole classes of backward children averagely briqht using only drills the teacher can do a few minutes in each day."

"The first science to determine the basic cause of disease."

"The first science to contain exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illnesses with complete predictable success."

"The first science of mind to prove conclusively that physical illness can stem from mental disturbance, a fact which Freud held only as a theory, and only seldom demonstrated."

(b) Twenty-four page pamphlet entitled "Ability Issue 71: Being Clear and How to Get There," by L. Ron Hubbard.

"Scientology, the optimum individual is called the clear. One will hear much of that word, both as a noun and a verb, so it is well to spend the time here at the outset setting forth exactly what can be called a clear, the goal of Scientology processing."

"A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenic (self generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills. These tests confirm the clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations. Additional tests of his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and satisfaction."

"Further, these results can be obtained on a comparative basis. A neurotic individual, possessed also of psychosematic ills, can be tested for those aberrations and illnesses demonstrating they exist. He can then be given Scientology processing to the end of clearing these neuroses and ills. Finally, he can be examined, with the above results. This, in passing, is an experiment which has been performed many times with invariable results. It is a matter of laboratory test that all individuals who have organically complete nervous systems respond in this fashion to Scientology clearing."

(c) Book entitled "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health," by L. Ron Hubbard.

"Simple though it is, dianetics does and is these things: 1. It is an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statement of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences.

2. It contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all psychosematic ills, with assurance of complete cure in unselected cases.

3. It produces a condition of ability and rationality for Man well in advance of the current norm, enhancing rather than destroying his vigor and personality.

4. Dianetics gives a complete insight into the full potentialities of the mind, discovering them to be well in excess of past supposition.

5. The basic nature of man is discovered in dianetics rather than hazarded or postulated, since that basic nature can be brought into action in any individual completely. And that basic nature is discovered to be good.

6. The single source of mental derangement is discovered and demonstrated, on a clinical or laboratory basis, by dianetics.

7. The extent, storage capacity and recallability of the human memory is finally established by dianetics.

8. The full recording abilities of the mind are discovered by dianetics with the conclusion that they are quite dissimilar to former suppositions.

9. Dianetics brings forth the non-germ theory of disease, complementing bio-chemistry and Pasteur's work on the germ theory to embrace the field.

10. With dianetics ends the 'necessity of destroying the brain by shock or surgery to effect 'tractability' in mental patients and 'adjust' them.'

11. A workable explanation of the physiological effects of drugs and endocrine substances exists in dianetics and many problems posed by endocrinology are answered."

"Chapter V PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLNESS"

"Psycho-somatic illnesses are those which have a mental origin but which are nevertheless organic.

Despite the fact that there existed no precise scientific proof of this before dianetics, and opinion as to their existence has been strong since the days of Greece, and in recent times various drug preparations have been concocted and sold which were supposed to overcome these sicknesses. Some success was experienced, insufficient to warrant a great deal of work on the part of researchers. Peptic ulcers, for instance, have yielded to persuasion and environmental change. A recent drug called ACTH has had astonishing but widely predictable results. Allergies have been found to yield more or less to things which depressed histamine in the body."

"The problem of psychosomatic illness is entirely embraced by dianetics, and by dianetic technique such illness has been eradicated entirely in every case."

"On the physical therapy level anything as violent as surgery or exodontistry in the psychosomatic place is utter barbarism in the light of dianetics. 'Toothache' is normally psychosomatic."

"Organic illnesses enough to fill several catalogues are psychosomatic. No recourse to surgery of any kind should be had until it is certain that the ailment is not psychosomatic or that the illness will not diminish by itself if the potency of the reactive mind is reduced."

(d) Twelve-page pamphlet entitled "Ability Issue 72."

(e) Sixty-four page booklet entitled "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought", by L. Ron Hubbard. Subtitle: "The Basic Book of the Theory and Practice of Scientology for Beginners".

"Scientology is that branch of psychology which treats of (embraces) human ability. It is an extension of DIANETICS * * * Scientology is actually a new but very basic psychology in the most exact meaning of the word. It can and does change behavior and intelligence and it can and does assist people to study life. Scientology, used by the trained and untrained person improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people. It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences. Scientology is employed by an Auditor (one who listens and commends) as a set of drills (exercises, processes) upon the individual, and small or large groups. It is also employed as an educational (teaching) subject. It has been found that persons can be processed (drilled) in Scientology with Scientology exercises and can be made well of many, many illnesses and can become brighter, more alert and more competent. BUT if they are only processed they have a tendency to be overwhelmed and startled and although they may be brighter and more competent they are still held down by an ignorance of life. Therefore, it is far better to teach AND process (audit, drill) a person than only to process him. In other words the best use of Scientology is through processing and education in Scientology. In this way there is no imbalance. It is interesting that people only need to study Scientology to have some small rise in their own intelligence, behaviour and competence. The study itself is therapeutic (good medicine) by actual testing.

Tens of thousands of case histories (reports on patients, individual records) all sworn to (attested before public officials) are in the possession of the organizations of Scientology. No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such grueling testing (proofs, exact findings). Scientology in the hands of an expert (Auditor) can cure some 70% of Man's illnesses (sicknesses). Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business organizations) on Earth. It is valid. It has been tested. It is the only thoroughly tested system of improving human relations, intelligence and character and is the only one which does."

(f) Seventy-one page booklet, entitled "The Problems of Work," by L. Ron Hubbard.

"Scientology is the first American science of man. It is the technical know-how of the American applied to himself. In contrast to the metaphysical thinking of Europe that has formed the basis of our concepts of ourselves, Scientology is a technology, is factual and is exact as the technologies that base the development of the atom bomb . . . and it has a like source - the first class in nuclear physics, taught at George Washington University."

"Scientology can and does change human behavior for the better. It puts the individual under control of himself - where he belongs. Scientology can and does increase human intelligence. By the most exact tests known it has been proven that Scientology can greatly increase intelligence in the individual. And Scientology can do other things. It can reduce reaction time and it can pull the years off one's appearance. But there is no intention here to give a list of all it can do. It is a science of life and it works. It adequately handles the basic rules of life and it brings order into chaos."

"The mysteries of life are not today, with

Scientology, very mysterious. Mystery is not a needful ingredient. Only the very aberrated man desires to have vast secrets held away from him. Scientology has slashed through many of the complexities which have been erected for men and has bared the core of these problems. Scientology for the first time in man's history can predicatably raise his intelligence, increase ability, bring about a return of the ability to play a game, and permits man to escape from the dwindling spiral of his own disabilities. Therefore, work itself can become a game, a pleasant and happy thing."

(g) "Hard cover book, 112 pages, entitled "All About Radiation, by a Nuclear Physicist and a Medical Doctor" (by defendant Hubbard).

"We care very little about whether there is radiation in the atmosphere because a person who is in excellent physical condition does not particularly suffer mentally and thus physically from the effects of radiation. When a person is at a level where his general physical health is good, then this worry is not capable of depressing him into ill-health. Radiation is more of a mental than a physical problem and Scientology handles that."

"The reaction to radiation in persons who have been given Scientology processing is by actual tests much lower than those who have not received it. We have conducted many experiments in that direction. But even we would find it very difficult and even antipathetic to get everybody together and give them the amount of group processing needed as safeguard against radiation."

59. The foregoing publications and representations have been excerpted and quoted directly from the "Appendix" in the case of United States v. Article or Device (Dis. Col. D. 1971) 33 F.Supp 356 at page 365, where a Federal Court found that the quoted publications were "Non-religious, and Samples of False or Misleading Claims. (Emphasis supplied.) The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the foregoing case, and issued a judgment condemning said literature and E-meters. In addition, said literature and E-meters were to bear a "Warning" to the reader/user that E-meters are not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease and are not capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.

60. Between the years 1972 and 1981 plaintiff was entitled to receive the "Warning" required by said Judgment specifically in connection with the following publications and the false and fraudulent representations therein, published by defendant Scientology and read and relied upon by plaintiff: (a) Eight-page pamphlet entitled "What is Scientology?"; (b) Book entitled "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health";

(c) Book entitled: "All About Radiation, by a Nuclear Physicist and a Medical Doctor".

61. Notwithstanding the foregoing "Judgment", between 1972 and 1981, plaintiff paid for and received from defendants Scientology and Hubbard the publications set forth in prior paragraphs and did not receive the required "Warning".

62. In or about 1971 and continuously through December, 1981, defendants, and each of them, through written publications and oral statements of their agents and/or representatives and/or employees, falsely and fraudulently represented to plaintiff that if plaintiff joined SCIENTOLOGY and ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO [underwent?] various course and auditing for money, the following benefits were scientifically guaranteed: (a) SCIENTOLOGY is an educational, scientific, law abiding, non-profit organization, abiding by the laws of the United States governing non-profit organizations, dedicated to the well-being of mankind and engaged in lawful, educational and scientific research, study and practices throughout the United States and the World; (b) SCIENTOLOGY and auditing were scientifically guaranteed to cure health problems and diseases; (c) SCIENTOLOGY and auditing were scientifically guaranteed to raise I.Q.; (d) SCIENTOLOGY and auditing were scientifically guaranteed to promote family unity and preserve marriages;

(e) Auditing disclosures were completely confidential;

(f) SCIENTOLOGY and auditing were scientifically guaranteed to prevent colds, improve eyesight, cure neuroses, cure mental, physical and emotional problems. HUBBARD was the living proof that physical illness such as combat wounds could be cured, and after the war he completely healed himself;

(g) SCIENTOLOGY and auditing were scientifically guaranteed to improve plaintiff's career opportunities;

(h) All scientifically guaranteed benefits of auditing would be obtained if plaintiff joined the Sea Organization of SCIENTOLOGY;

(i) All medical and dental needs would be taken care of if plaintiff joined the Sea Organization of SCIENTOLOGY;

(j) That by joining SCIENTOLOGY, plaintiff would be part of the most ethical group on the planet.

63. The representations so made by defendants, and each of them, were in fact secular and false. The true facts were:

(1) That SCIENTOLOGY and auditing did not scientifically guarantee: a cure for health problems and diseases; an increase in plaintiff's I.Q.; prevention of colds; improvement of eyesight; a cure for neuroses; a cure for all mental, physical and emotional problems; and an improvement in plaintiff's career opportunities;

(2) That defendants, and each of them, intended only to take plaintiff's money and enslave her mind;

(3) That defendants, and each of them, did not keep confidential the highly personal auditing disclosures of plaintiff;

(4) That defendant HUBBARD was a fake and a fraud as more set forth in paragraphs herein;

(5) That defendants SCIENTOLOGY and ADVANCE ABILITY CENTER do not constitute, operate or function as a legitimate scientific, educational, non-profit organization.

64. When defendants, and each of them, made the aforementioned representations contained in previous paragraphs, defendants, and each of them, knew said representations to be false and defendants, and each of them, made said representations with the intent to defraud and deceive plaintiff and with the intent of inducing reliance and dependence on the part of plaintiff to act in the manner hereinafter alleged.

65. During the years 1975 through December, 1986, to further induce plaintiff to join and stay with defendants SCIENTOLOGY and ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER and undergo various course and auditing for money, it was falsely and fraudulently represented to plaintiff, through biographical publications written by defendant HUBBARD and distributed by defendants, and through oral representations of their agents, representatives and/or employees that:

(a) Defendant HUBBARD was a medical doctor, that he graduated with an engineering degree from George

Washington University, that he did post-graduate work at Princeton University and that he was a nuclear physicist;

(b) Defendant HUBBARD had served four years in actual combat, commanded a squadron of Corvettes, and was crippled and blinded in World War II, but healed himself completely through Dianetic auditing;

(c) Defendant HUBBARD was a war hero and received two purple hearts and a total of 28 medals and palms;

(d) Defendant HUBBARD spent several years in Asia, travelling and studying, including studies under Tibetan Lamas in his travels to Tibet;

(e) Defendant HUBBARD was twice pronounced dead, but in 1950 given a perfect bill of health for mental and physical fitness;

(f) Defendant HUBBARD had never been involved with Black Magic, but had been voted into the Policeman's Hall of Fame for breaking up a Black Magic ring;

(g) Defendant HUBBARD studied the work of Sigmund Freud under a personal student of Freud's;

(h) Defendant HUBBARD had done the first complete mineralogical survey of Puerto Rico.

Plaintiff particularly and expressly relied upon the foregoing representations, all of which plaintiff didn't discover to be false and fraudulent 1987.

66. Contrary to the false and fraudulent representations made to the plaintiff, the true facts are that defendant Hubbard is not a nuclear physicist, nor a medical doctor; did not graduate from George Washington University or do post-graduate work at Princeton; did not serve four years in combat; did not suffer any wounds as a result of combat in World War II; did not cure blindness resulting from war wounds through auditing; was not a decorated war hero; was never twice pronounced dead and thereafter found to be physically and mentally fit; did not study under Tibetan Lamas or students of Freud; was involved in Black Magic; and never did the first complete mineralogical survey in Puerto Rico. Defendant Hubbard, in fact, never graduated from said universities, flunked the only physics course he ever took, never served in combat, spent four years in the U.S. Navy in the United States, except for three months in Australia; was relieved of duty on several occasions, once in June 1943 when he ordered to crew of a ship to fire "practice rounds" off the coast of Mexico; and again relieved of duty in September 1944 when he found a Coke bottle filled with gasoline with a wick attached on board his ship three days before the ship sailed to the South Pacific and into combat; sought disability from the Veterans Administration for suicidal tendencies and mental illness, and was diagnosed as suffering from duodenal ulcers; was involved in a bigamous marriage, stole funds from his partner, wrote bad checks and was generally chased by various authorities and creditors across the United States.

67. Plaintiff, at the time said aforementioned representations were made by defendants, and each of them, was ignorant of the falsity of the representations of defendants, and each of their, and believed them to be true. In reliance on said representations, plaintiff was induced to, and did, the following:

(a) Made personal disclosures about plaintiff's life during intensive "auditing" sessions, which plaintiff was promised would remain confidential and which defendants, and each of them, thereafter disclosed to third persons;

(b) Underwent course and "auditing" for which plaintiff paid money to defendants, and each of them, in a sum which is presently unascertained; plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this complaint when the same has been ascertained.

68. As a proximate result of the fraud and deceit of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was induced to expend eleven years of her time, energy and money in an attempt to derive the scientifically guaranteed benefits as represented by defendants, and each of them, by reason of which plaintiff has been damaged in a sum which is presently unascertained; plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this complaint when the same has been ascertained.

69. In or about 1975, and continuously through December, 1986, defendants HUBBARD and SCIENTOLOGY promised and represented to plaintiff that any and all information disclosed through "auditing" would remain confidential between plaintiff and the auditor.

70. Contrary to said promises and representations, defendants, and each of them, intentionally, oppressively and maliciously disclosed to third persons the confidential information disclosed by plaintiff during "auditing". Further, defendants, and each of them, intentionally, oppressively and maliciously engaged in a systematic course of conduct designed and intended to disclose said information received during "auditing" to control and manipulate plaintiff.

71. To further induce plaintiff into entering an agreement with defendants, and each of them it was promised and represented to plaintiff, that:

(a) Defendants SCIENTOLOGY and ADVANCE ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO are educational, scientific, non-profit organizations, abiding by the laws of the United States governing non-profit organizations, dedicated to the well-being of mankind and engaged in lawful, educational and scientific research, study and practices;

(b) Defendant HUBBARD was a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor with degrees from George Washington University and Princeton University; that defendant HUBBARD was a war hero, severely wounded after serving four years in actual combat in the South Pacific from 1941 through 1944; and that defendant HUBBARD cured himself through auditing while spending one year in a military hospital for wounds received in combat including blindness from an exploding shell;

(c) That "auditing" was completely confidential.

72. Plaintiff, due to her pre-existing weakened mental condition should never have been allowed to participate in any of the programs or therapies of defendants, and each of them.

Further, once plaintiff began decompensating, and defendants, and each of them, knew or should have been aware of this, she should have not been allowed to continue in defendants', and each of their, programs and therapies. Further, defendants, and each of them, should have referred plaintiff for proper treatment once she began decompensating.

73. Defendants, and each of them, by their actions as pleaded herein, including, but not limited to, harassing plaintiff, putting plaintiff in fear for her mental and physical well-being, prevented plaintiff from filing this complaint until this time.

74. During the course of plaintiff's "treatment" with defendants, and each of them, she developed a transference whereby she lost the ability to realize that the actions of defendants, and of them, were harmful to her and she was being injured thereby.

75. Further, defendants, and each of them, convinced plaintiff that they were not harming her and that all of her problems were due to her inability to properly complete the programs.

76. Through their actions, defendants, and each of them, made it impossible for plaintiff to reasonably discover that she had been harmed by them until the fall of 1987.

77. When defendants, and each of them did the acts alleged above, plaintiff was psychologically and emotionally very vulnerable. Plaintiff was very susceptible to influence from defendants, and each of them. Defendants, and each of them, commanded the trust, respect and confidence of plaintiff.

Defendants, and each of them, were in a fiduciary relationship to plaintiff and exerted a considerable amount of influence on her.

Defendants, and each of them, asked and plaintiff did put her faith in them. As a result of these factors, plaintiff was unable to discover that she had been harmed by defendants, and each of them, until the fall of 1987 when she became less in their control.

78. Defendants, and each of them, practiced a form of brainwashing on plaintiff which made it impossible for her to reasonably discover that she had been harmed by them until the fall of 1987 when some of their brainwashing began to wear off.

79. Plaintiff was aware that defendants, and each of them, threatened and practiced mental and physical harassment and violence on former members who sued them. Thus, plaintiff was intimidated from filing this lawsuit until the fall of 1987.

80. Up until the fall of 1987, plaintiff was mentally incapable of understanding that she had a cause of action against defendants, and each of them, and was mentally incapable of understanding that she had been caused any psychological, physical or emotional harm by defendants, and each of them.

81. Defendants, and each of them, orally represented to plaintiff that they would provide counselling and emotional and psychological support to her to help her deal with her mental and emotional difficulties.

82. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff paid valuable consideration for all of the counselling and treatment provided by defendants, and each of them. Defendants, and each of them, acted against plaintiff by way of a conspiracy.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that between 1975 and 1987, defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed amongst themselves to perpetrate a fraud and otherwise harm plaintiff.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(General Negligence)

83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges hereon as though fully set forth at length all paragraphs of the introductory portion of this complaint except for those paragraphs that would be inconsistent with a theory of negligence.

84. Defendants, and each of them, owed the highest duty of care to plaintiff vis-a-vis the special relationship that existed between plaintiff and defendants, and each of them. The therapies and processes performed by defendants, and each of them, engenders the trust and reliance of defendants', and each of their, clients. Because of the nature of "training", "counselling", "processes" and "therapies", defendants, and each of them, were in a position to effect a particular severe impact on plaintiff. A special relationship existed thereby between plaintiffs and defendants, and each of them.

85. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently counselled, advised, treated and cared for plaintiff as to breach their duty of care to plaintiff, participating in their organizations. The negligent acts include the above-alleged acts and also include, but are not limited to,

A. Failing to foresee that defendants' programs would endanger the mental and physical stability of plaintiff. Defendants, and each of them, were aware that their programs could be emotionally distressing to people like plaintiff and should have reasonably foreseen that plaintiff would be endangered by their programs. Defendants, and each of them, engendered the trust of plaintiff by promising her a more healthy, emotionally happy, intelligent life and then put her in a position where her health was endangered.

B. Allowing plaintiff to continue defendants' programs and subjecting her to emotionally disturbing events when she began to show signs of emotional breakdown.

C. Not providing proper care and referral for plaintiff when she began experiencing an emotional breakdown.

D. Failing to properly screen members and applicants to the program and failing to have a proper screening procedure established. Thus, defendants, and each of them, exposed plaintiff to harmful effects that were foreseeable considering her pre-existing condition.

E. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that due to plaintiff's pre-existing psychological condition, that she was susceptible to harm from this type of program.

86. Additionally, defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to adequately disclose the risks of said counselling, advisement, treatment and care to plaintiff, and negligently failed to obtain plaintiff's informed consent in light of the undisclosed risks. If plaintiff had been adequately informed of the inherent risks of said counselling, advisement, treatment and care, she would not have consented to same.

Defendants, and each of them, also negligently failed to determine that such counselling, treatment, auditing and care, was inappropriate and not advisable for plaintiff.

87. If there are any facts which would indicate that plaintiff has "waived" the liability of defendants, defendants, and each of them, are estopped from raising the waiver of liability between plaintiff and defendants, and each of them, as a bar to this action because the waiver is ineffective under the facts of this case. The actions of defendants, and each of them, constitute gross negligence and an act of infliction of emotional distress, and their outrageous conduct was a direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, plus plaintiff was not able to mentally consent to a waiver.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff suffered psychological breakdown, psychological decompensation, humiliation and emotional and physical distress, all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering, all to her damage. Leave of this Court will be sought to amend this complaint to set forth the exact amount of said general damages at such time as they are ascertained.

89. Plaintiff was compelled to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, nurses, psychiatrist and the like, to care for her and treat her, and did incur medical, hospital, professional and incidental expenses. Plaintiff is informed, and thereon alleges, that by reason of said plaintiff's injuries, she will necessarily incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future and when said amounts are ascertained, plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to amend this complaint.

90. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was unable to and did not attend to her usual occupation and did incur loss of wages and believes she will incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for damages as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Relationship)

91. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

92. Because of the relationship of confidentiality and trust fostered by defendants, and each of them, and plaintiff's reliance on and confidence in defendants, and each of them, a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants.

This relationship was fostered by defendants, and each of them, before, during and after plaintiff's involvement with defendants, and each of them. Thus, at all times mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff the highest duty of care.

93. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that their actions would cause damage to plaintiff.

Defendants, and each of them, in failing to act upon this knowledge, took advantage of the relationship of trust that existed between plaintiff and defendants for defendants' own profits. These actions, as previously set forth, constitute a breach of fiduciary relationship that existed between plaintiff and defendants, and each of them.

94. As a direct and foreseeable result of the actions of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff suffered injuries as set forth in other portions of this complaint.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

95. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

96. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, in subjecting plaintiff to severe emotional distress was outrageous and unreasonable and displayed a reckless disregard for the probability of causing plaintiff emotional distress. Defendants, and each of them, made statements and performed actions to intentionally disrupt plaintiff's self esteem, destroy her ego, and made plaintiff feel worthless. This conduct was done with knowledge that plaintiff's emotional and physical distress would thereby increase and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to plaintiff.

97. The actions of defendants, and each of them, are not privileged. The actions of defendants, and each of them, constitute gross negligence and an act of infliction of emotional distress, and their outrageous conduct was a direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the

intentional infliction of emotional distress by defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has experienced mental anguish and emotional distress as previously set forth.

99. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were willful, malicious, outrageous and oppressive and justify the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in the amount stated in the prayer.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

100. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all previous causes of action as if fully set forth herein, except for those paragraphs that would be inconsistent with a theory of negligence.

101. Defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff the highest duty of care and in engaging in the above-alleged conduct, defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that such conduct would cause plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

102. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to undertake her education, counselling, care and treatment and to render same in such a manner so as not to cause psychiatric injury, emotional trauma and/or emotional distress. Defendants, and each of them, breached this duty of care owed to plaintiff.

103. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence and carelessness, plaintiff has experienced mental anguish and emotional distress and has been damaged as previously set forth.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for Judgment as set forth below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud)

104. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all previous causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

105. At all times herein relevant, defendants, and each of them, falsely and fraudulently and with intent to deceive plaintiff, represented orally and in their literature and otherwise, facts and statements previously set forth. Said representations were false and constituted an intentional misrepresentation of fact to plaintiff and, when made, defendants, and each of them, knew that said representations were false.

106. Defendants, and each of them, in making such representations, intended that plaintiff should rely on said representations as inducement to participate in defendants' programs.

107. Plaintiff believed in and justifiably relied upon the representations of defendants, and each of them, and was thereby induced to participate in the programs of defendants, and each of them.

108. In making said representations and inducing said reliance, defendants, and each of them, acted in a conspiracy with each other.

109. Plaintiff did not discover the fraud and deceit practiced upon her by defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged until well after the date that her injuries were caused by defendants, and each of them, in fact, not until the fall of 1987.

110. As a direct and foreseeable fraud and deceit upon plaintiff, she has been damaged as previously set forth.

111. The acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, malicious and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive damages in the amount stated in the prayer.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Constructive Fraud)

112. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

113. In making the representations as previously set forth, defendants, and each of them, mislead plaintiff to her prejudice. The representations of defendants, and each of them, constitute constructive fraud and were a breach of the fiduciary relationship existing between plaintiff and defendants.

114. Plaintiff relied on her special relationship with defendants, and each of them, and the representations of defendants to her detriment.

115. Defendants, and each of them, conspired to commit said constructive fraud.

116. The constructive fraud of defendants, and each of them, was a direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries as previously set forth.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Misrepresentation)

117. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all previous causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

118. When defendants, and each of them, made the false representations as previously set forth, they had no reasonable grounds to believe that said representations were true, and defendants, and each of them, made said representations with the intent that plaintiff rely upon them.

119. Plaintiff believed in and justifiably relied upon the representations of defendants, and each of them.

120. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has been damaged as previously set forth.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Imprisonment)

121. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

122. Between 1975 and 1986, defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully restrained and detained plaintiff by means of mental coercion. This mental coercion compelled to stay and continue the programs of defendants, and each of them, to the end of these programs against her will.

123. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was injured as previously set forth herein.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Clergy Malpractice)

124. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein, except for those causes of action which would be inconsistent with a cause of action for clergy malpractice.

125. Defendants, and each of them, held themselves out as providing religious training and counselling to plaintiff.

126. Commencing in 1976 and continuing through 1986, defendants, and each of them, negligently and carelessly provided clergy counselling to plaintiff by actions and by failure to take action previously set forth in this complaint.

127. As a direct and proximate result of the clergy malpractice, plaintiff suffered damages as previously set forth herein.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Medical Malpractice)

128. Plaintiff repeats and realleges herein as if fully set forth all paragraphs of all causes of action except those paragraphs inconsistent with a cause of action for medical malpractice.

129. This cause of action is against the ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER OF PALO ALTO and DR. FRANK GERBODE only.

130. While plaintiff was participating in the programs of the ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER, DR. FRANK GERBODE held himself out to be a medical doctor, held himself out to be plaintiff's medical doctor, and held out the treatment which he provided plaintiff to be "therapy".

131. The actions of defendant FRANK GERBODE were performed during the course and scope of his duties at the ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER.

132. Plaintiff employed and engaged defendants, and each of them, to administer to her medical needs in return for compensation thereafter to be paid. Plaintiff was to be provided with complete service and adequate medical care and attention as well as other necessary services. Said defendants, and each of them, promised and undertook to treat, advise and care for plaintiff faithfully, skillfully and carefully. Defendants, and each of them, did negligently and carelessly examine, diagnose, test, treat, advise, monitor, restrain, attend, serve, counsel, administer to and audit plaintiff. In their respective examinations, diagnoses, testing, treatment, advice, administration to, auditing, counselling and care of plaintiff, the defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise and/or possess that degree of skill, care and knowledge commonly possessed and/or exercised by physicians, surgeons, hospitals, nurses, medical technicians, psychologists, assistants and/or laboratory technicians.

133. As a proximate and direct result of the aforesaid carelessness and negligence of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff suffered serious injuries as described hereinabove.

(Lack of Informed Consent)

134. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

135. At all times herein relevant, defendants, and each of them, failed to make a reasonable disclosure to plaintiff of all facts necessary for her to evaluate in order to make an intelligent and informed consent to proceed with the various programs of defendants, and each of them.

136. As a result of said failure to adequately make a reasonable and full disclosure and failure to adequately inform plaintiff of the risks and hazards of said programs, she consented to, and submitted to said programs and training to her detriment.

137. Had the true facts and statistics of the dangers of said programs and training been known to plaintiff, including its potential for causing injuries, plaintiff would not have consented to the same.

138. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of said defendants, and each of them, to adequately inform said plaintiff about said dangers and their negative implications, plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as previously set forth herein.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Assault)

139. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of all causes of action as if fully set forth herein.

140. Between 1976 and 1986, defendants, and each of them, assaulted plaintiff by means of mental coercion and threatening plaintiff, placing her in fear and apprehension of severe and immediate physical and mental harm.

141. By reason of the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendants, and each of them, and of the fright caused plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and physical pain and has been suffered In mind and body as previously set forth.

142. The aforementioned acts of defendants, and each of them, were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and justify an award of exemplary damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Loss of Consortium)

143. Plaintiff FRED SCHOORDYK hereby incorporates all of the proceeding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

144. Plaintiffs FRED SCHOORDYK and JEANNE L. RAGSDALE were, at all times herein relevant and now are, husband and wife.

145. By reason of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff FRED SCHOORDYK's wife, JEANNE L. RAGSDALE, was severely injured as hereinabove set forth.

146. By reason of the injuries suffered and sustained by plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE, plaintiff FRED SCHOORDYK has been denied the conjugal society, comfort, affection, companionship, services and love of plaintiff JEANNE L. RAGSDALE.

147. By reason of such deprivation, plaintiff FRED SCHOORDYK has suffered damages in an amount within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. For general damges within the jurisdiction of this Court;

2. For compensatory damages, including wage loss and lost benefits;

3. For punitive damages in the amount of FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: October 19, 1987.

By [signature] John D. Winer Attorneys for Plaintiffs