Response to Flag's motion that scientology is a religion and IR is a religious practice

18 January 2000

From: LMT_News (LMT_News) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: McPherson Case Civil: Response to Flag's motion that scientology is a religion and IR is a religious practice Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:38:26 -0500 Organization: The Lisa McPherson Trust, 33 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755, Telephone: 727 467-9335 Message-ID: <F3CWOAfvMt4MTTEQE8wscPnqEBEQ@4ax.com> Reply-To: info@lisatrust.net IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 97-01235 Section "H" CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON Defendants. _________________________________/ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO FLAG'S MOTION THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION AND THAT THE INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN IS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, through its undersigned attorney and hereby files its Response to FLAG's Motion that Scientology is a Religion and that Introspection Rundown is a Religious Practice as follows: Any group can call itself a religion. Only the sincerely held religious beliefs of a bonafide religion are protected by the constitution and statutes. Was Flag operating as a religious organization or a hotel when it practiced medicine without a license, falsely imprisoned, abandoned, and killed Lisa McPherson in its hotel for the last 18 days of her life? Since no religion can escape liability for these tortious actions, then why address the issue of religiosity? The following memorandum will demonstrate that Scientology is not a religion. If it is, then not all of Scientology technology can be claimed as being religious. In fact most of its technology, such as the Introspection Rundown and Isolation are secular in Hubbard's own words, involving no treatment at all. Most if not all of Scientology is secular in the sense that Dianetics and Scientology are psychological sciences according to Hubbard. Therefore, Scientology should not be blessed with an all encompassing blanket of religiosity. Case law discussed below requires that the sincerity of the religious claim must be determined and each material writing of Hubbard must be examined to recognize its status: secular or religious. Scientology's claim of religion is pretextual. It is a religion of convenience. It changes from a secular to a religious status depending upon the legal or societal or business circumstances it finds itself in and how it can exploit those circumstances to its benefit. In essence, Scientology is a fraud, a false religion. Unlike any other true religion, Scientology did not redefine itself as a religion in order to address mankind's ultimate concerns in the universe. It puts on its religion hat only when it serves its purpose to be protected by the Religion Clauses and Florida's RFRA. As a result of being declared a religion by default, courts have reluctantly, but narrowly, defined Scientology to be a religion (only to the specific case), since its founder appropriated metaphysical and religious trappings and nomenclature from other well established religions. Due to the way that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard decided to establish Scientology as a religion, that the Scientology non-amendable "scripture" are the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, and the testimony of former and current Scientologist's, as detailed below, the Plaintiff will not concede that Scientology is a religion entitled to constitutional protection for all intents and purposes. The Estate will stress to this court that even if it is a bonafide religion, not all of Scientology "technology" falls within the definition of religion, and therefore not all of Scientology, including Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization Inc., Flag, is protected by the Federal or State constitutions or statutes. Even if they were, the claim to religious status is not sincerely held to the extent for entitlement to First Amendment or RFRA protection. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Flag Service Organization (Scientology) has asked this Court to take judicial notice that it is entitled to constitutional protection as a religion under the First Amendment. The Court declined the invitation. Now, Scientology implores the Court to grant summary adjudication on the issue and to find that the Introspection Rundown merits First Amendment protection as well. Scientology seeks such adjudication as part of a litigation strategy which seeks to import constitutional protection for what otherwise is indefensible conduct. The strategy is that if Scientology can annex religious status to itself in this case, it can then claim that its right to believe in the Introspection Rundown and to condemn all mental health professions is absolutely protected. Seeking to craft a constitutional immunity for itself, Scientology will next seek to sweep its conduct within the scope of the absolute protection granted to religious belief. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, in conjunction with Scientology's characteristic conduct in the larger society, plaintiff will not defer by default to Scientology's religious claims. Plaintiff chooses to put Scientology to the test of its bona fides. Plaintiff will argue that it is inappropriate and unconstitutional to grant religious protection to an organization whose conduct features hatred, keeping an incompetent woman in captivity, while keeping her in captivity subjecting her to medieval treatment which is the modern equivalent to torture, watching her while she deteriorates to the extent that she dies, and then trying to cover up the cause of her death by lying so as to deny that her abuse, deterioration and death were part and parcel of what otherwise Scientology would claim to be religious belief and practice. Whether Scientology merits religious protection or not can be no more determined on summary adjudication that it can be pursuant to judicial notice. It has imprisoned, tortured, killed and lied. Plaintiff challenges Scientology to prove that this is bona fide religious belief and practice. In order to illustrate to the Court the importance and the depth of this challenge, particularly to illustrate Scientology's myriad forms of abuse and lying, plaintiff's statement of facts is, perforce, lengthy. Had Scientology treated her as one would expect a bona fide religion to do, Lisa McPherson's life would have been likely to be lengthy as well. II. SEEKING DETERMINATION OF RELIGIOSITY IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE ATTEMPT TO GAIN AN ADVISORY OPINION. This court should not succumb to the public relations strategy demand of FLAG to render an advisory opinion to determine Scientology is a religion and the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice for the following reasons: 1. Lisa McPherson was not participating in any claimed religious service during her stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel which is operated by Flag. 2. Even if Scientology and Flag are totally and sincerely religious and the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice, (a), neither the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Florida's constitution, nor Florida's RFRA will protect coercive conduct resulting in injury, and (b), nothing in Scientology permits forced medical services upon a member by unlicensed care givers. 3 Based upon all of the above, Scientology's demand to determine the religiosity issues is nothing more than seeking an impermissible advisory opinion. Whether or not Scientology is a religion is not dispositive of the issues of this case involving torts, since Lisa McPherson was not engaged in any claimed religious services or activities, and if she were, there is no protection for the Defendants based on the religiosity of Scientology. Cantwell. Flag never raised the religion issue in its filed answer to the original complaint. After the instant suit was filed, on February 22, 1997, attorney Sandy Weinberg, counsel for Flag in this case and the related criminal case, also wrote a letter to the Clearwater Police Department stating that Lisa McPherson was not at the Ft. Harrison for religious services: "you have also asked for the person who was in charge of Lisa's stay at the hotel in November and early December. Lisa was not at the hotel for services and therefore there was no auditor or case supervisor from the Church in charge. However, Alain Kartuzinski and Janice Johnson periodically received information on her status. (emphasis added) In fact, during depositions in the instant case, FLAG's counsel strenuously objected to any questions of parishioners concerning claimed religious practices or beliefs on the basis that "inquiring as to religious beliefs....has nothing to do with this lawsuit." (3-24-99 Deposition of staff member Paul Greenwood, p. 39:14-16.) Robert Johnson, the corporate attorney and resident agent for Flag, wrote a letter a year before the above letter in February of 1996 to the Clearwater Police Department, which was investigating the suspicious death of Lisa McPherson. There he stated that Lisa McPherson was merely a hotel guest "for rest and relaxation" at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. In that letter, attorney Johnson also misrepresented to the police that the personnel of the Medical Liaison Office, MLO, were not performing any medical functions but were only there to refer members or staff to a doctor or dentist. On a television news show, Inside Edition, airing in January of 1997, Elliot Abelson, chief corporate legal counsel for all of Scientology, also stated that Lisa was there as a hotel guest for rest and relaxation. In essence, Flag is seeking an advisory opinion from this court which is not permitted since the religiosity of Scientology and Flag has absolutely no bearing upon the issues of this case. In the interest of the Baby Boy G. v. Prospective Adoptive Parents, 703 So. 2nd 1103 (Fla. 2nd DCA ,1998), where the prospective adoptive parents sought a declaratory judgment to seek an opinion or factual findings on matters that would be determinative in other pending cases, which are not before the trial court, found to be an attempt to seek an impermissible advisory opinion. In State v. Schebel, 723 So. 2nd 830 (Fla., 1999), seeking a court opinion on speculative facts would necessarily be advisory in nature and therefore impermissible. Janice Johnson, a deputy in the Medical Liaison Office, who was responsible for handling staff employees in their dealings with health related professionals, told the police during her attached interview of May 29, 1996, that Lisa McPherson was only in the hotel as a guest for rest and relaxation. Johnson: The Church doesn't treat mental illness at all ... I mean...she did the usual thing. If you think somebody's mentally ill, then they go and get evaluated. You see...the point ...of Scientology isn't to treat physical or mental illness... Its strictly for spiritual gain. So it's not like a Christian Scientist ... Our guidelines is that ...if you are sick, you get treated...you get physically taken care of ...it's not like Christian Science where you avoid all medical treatments.. .you're supposed to depend on faith to heal you or something. That's not what's going on." (At page 59). Det. Sudler: But was Lisa ... was she...did she go to the Church for any courses or any programs to help her? Johnson: No. She .. She simply wanted to have a chance to get away from whatever pressures that she was under and chill out and just... Just relax and rest...That's not the purpose of Scientology... to treat any kind of mental or physical illness. (At p. 60). Johnson: Well, she simply wanted to be there to... to just rest and relax. She had not originated that she wanted to do anything more. ...Than just have a place to just be away from the pressures of life. Det. Sudler: Okay. So she didn't go there to take a course or she wasn't part of any program or anything like that to try to help her out of the situation she was in? Johnson: No. Det. Sudler: Just she needed a break from everything. Johnson: Yeah. That was the... That was the whole reason she was there. She wasn't doing anything else but just relaxing...people don't start on a course if it's not their idea to do it. (At page 62). Johnson: Nobody's pushed to stay if they don't want to stay. (At page 66). The very next day after the above Janice Johnson interview, Alain Kartuzinski, the Senior Case Supervisor, reiterated to the police that Lisa McPherson was a mere hotel guest and staying at the hotel for rest and relaxation. (See attached statement dated May 30,1996). Top official for Scientology, Michael Rinder, was also quoted in a 1997 St. Petersburg Times article by Tom Tobin, that Lisa was in the hotel for rest and relaxation and could have similarly died in any other hotel. (See Kent affidavit). Likewise, Defendant David Houghton, now a licensed dentist, stated in the attached interview under oath to the prosecutor that Lisa had trouble sleeping and staff members were merely watching her to make sure she had adequate sleep and nourishment. Houghton admits to forcibly injecting Lisa three times with aspirin and Benadryl at the rear of her mouth with an irrigation syringe without her consent while other staff held down her legs and arms. In light of the above letters from corporate counsel Robert Johnson and the letter from Mr. Weinberg, one wonders how FLAG in the instant action can in good faith come into this court and argue that Lisa McPherson was engaged in religious services and spiritual treatment at the Ft. Harrison Hotel and therefore, FLAG is entitled to protection under the First Amendment and Florida's RFRA. IF MR. WEINBERG AND ROBERT JOHNSON TOLD THE TRUTH IN THEIR LETTERS TO THE CLEARWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, (WHICH AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT WE ASSUME THEY DID), THEN THE ISSUE OF THE RELIGIOSITY OF SCIENTOLOGY IS MOOT. Mr. Kartuzinski later testified under oath to the Pinellas County State attorney, Douglas Crow, that he had lied many times to the Clearwater police during their criminal investigation including whether Lisa being merely a hotel guest inside the hotel for rest and relaxation. (See attached statement of Alain Kartuzinski of October 13, 1998 p. 70, 71,72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80,). He did say he lied to the police even though during the interview he had Flag counsel present. Mr. Kartuzinski, also admitted on p. 81 that after lying to the police during their criminal investigation of the death of Lisa McPherson, he had another interview with Flag counsel and confessed to Flag counsel that he had lied to the police. Although he was reprimanded by Flag counsel that he lied to the police, Flag counsel wrote two letters to the police indicating that Lisa was only in the hotel for rest and relaxation. Flag counsel never corrected the lies of Kartuzinski. Kartuzinski does admit in his sworn statement to the prosecutors on October 13th 1998 , that he, not Lisa, is the one that decided to take Lisa McPherson back to the Ft. Harrison Hotel,( p.62:24-63:2 and 66:14-16), and that there were absolutely no religious service being performed on Lisa McPherson during her last 18 day stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel: "Their directions from me precisely were to not do anything to her, make sure that she had enough to eat, that she--that there was no noise, no talking to--that could make or worsen and that she could sleep in peace and rest and that if she was doing anything to herself or other people, that, of course, they would have to generally prevent bad (sic?) from occurring. At 127:1-7. So if counsel for Flag conveyed the truth to the Clearwater Police and if Mike Rinder, one of the highest executives for the Church of Scientology worldwide, told the truth to the St. Petersburg Times, and if Kartuzinski, the highest technical person at Flag told the truth to the prosecutors that Lisa McPherson was not engaged in any "services" during the last 18 days of her life, because she was not physically and mentally able to do so, then the religiosity issue is moot. It is as false as the religious claim of Scientology. However, if everyone above is perpetrating perjury and fraud, then we will continue to address the following issues. III. SCIENTOLOGY'S IDEOLOGY IS IMBUED WITH OPPORTUNISM AND SCAPEGOATS THE "PSYCHOTIC" A. The Essential Dichotomy Of Theta And Entheta Scientology's ideology breaks reality down into an essential dichotomy based on "reason" and "insanity." On one side is "theta" which is "1. thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years. . . . 4. Reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which man ordinarily considers desirable." (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (1981) [hereinafter "Dictionary"] at 429) The other side of the dichotomy is comprised of "entheta" which "1. Means enturbulated theta (thought or life) [] ; especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy, or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. 2. Theta which has become confused and chaotically mixed with the material universe and which will lie in this confusion until death or some other process disenturbulates it. Theta, below 2.0 on the tone scale, we call entheta. 3. Anger, sarcasm, despair, slyly destructive suggestions." (Dictionary at 144) Subject to Hubbard's quantitative analysis, ". . . when we have more entheta than theta, the theta is likely to become entheta. This is the contagion factor of aberration. Theta itself could be called reason; entheta could be called unreason. Reason in sufficient quantity brought into the presence of a lesser quantity of unreason will cause reason to prevail. Unreason in sufficient quantity brought into the presence of a lesser quantity of reason will cause that reason to become unreason." (Hubbard, Science of Survival (1978) at 42-43; underline added) "Entheta will tend and act in the direction of death." (Ibid.) Thus, the "psychotic, for instance, will ruin any[thing] he contacts." (Ibid.) B. The Thetan And The Clearing Of The Reactive Mind - Auditing Thus, Scientology presupposes a "thetan," the equivalent of the soul, which is immortal and has assumed various bodies in past lives and distinguishes "between the 'reactive' or passive (unconscious) mind and the 'analytical' or active mind. The reactive mind records what adherents call 'engrams,' which are spiritual traces of pain, injury or impact that impeded the attainment of enlightenment. The reactive mind is believed to retain engrams that go back to the fetal state and reach further back even into past lives. . . . unless one is freed from these engrams, one's survival ability . . . will be severely impaired." (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology, A Reference Work at 151.) The purpose of Scientology is to address "the human problem" by a "process of actualizing a lost or hidden human spiritual power or dimension of life" (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology A Reference Work at 187) which is accomplished "through the many levels of auditing and training, which constitute the central religious practices of Scientology. . . . A neophyte or beginner in the auditing/training process is called a preclear and one who has removed all engrams is called a Clear."Such "Clearing" has a "beneficial effect of the person's family, group, environment and sphere of influence." (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology A Reference Work at 151.) Auditing results in "case gain," the "improvements and resurgences a person experiences from auditing." (Dictionary at 61) One of a Scientologist's ultimate goals is obtain the state of "Clear" which is a person who "has no vicious reactive mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book [Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental health] said." (Dictionary at 75, def. 5) The necessary result is to turn "the tide of civilization . . . to the better, " achieving the central aim of Scientology, "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights." (Ex. I to Motion, Scientology A Reference Work at 152, 153.) C. All People Are Either "Social" Or "Anti-Social" - Well Disposed To Scientology Or "Suppressive Persons" Who Are Subject to Destruction As "Fair Game." In 1951, before there was any Scientology "religion," L. Ron Hubbard explained that "The goal of Dianetics is sanity. It would be stopped only by the insane." (Science of Survival at., viii) Thus, as he breaks down the universe into a life and death dichotomy, so too he breaks down all the people in the world into two categories that he calls Good and Evil. Good, bluntly, is survival. Evil is non-survival. Construction is good when it promotes survival. Destruction is bad when it inhibits survival. Destruction is good when it enhances survival. An act or conclusion is as right as it promotes the survival of the individual, future, group, mankind or life making the conclusion. To be entirely right would be to survival to infinity. (Id., at 34) Hubbard teaches that in human life there are good people and bad people, as well as those who cycle through periods of good and evil. "The basic travail of man is that he is divided into those who build and those who demolish, and in this conflict of intentions his fight, whichever side he is on, is always lost. Or was lost until Scientology came along" (Ex C to Motion, Scientology Ethics, at 170, 172) According to Scientology, there "are two dominant behavior patterns" for human beings. "There are people then who are trying to build things up and others who are trying to tear things down. And there are no other types." (Id., at 170) Indeed, 20% of humanity "oppose violently any betterment activity or group" because they have "antisocial tendencies." Characterized by an "antisocial personality" shared by Hitler and Napoleon, (Id., at 173), such persons don't "respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy." Their state is such as "It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the antisocial connection." (Id., at 175) Thus, a person who commits "suppressive acts" and "high crimes" which are those which "suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists"(Id., at 294), is called a "suppressive person." (Id., at 183) The suppressive person is to be guarded against, is to be feared. Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by Acts Suppressive of Scientology or Scientologists. The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics requires that actions destructive of the advance of the many, by Scientology means, overtly or covertly undertaken with the direct target of destroying Scientology as a whole, or a Scientologist in particular, be summarily handled due to the character of the reactive mind and the consequent impulses of the insane or nearly insane to ruin every chance of Mankind via Scientology. (HCO Policy Letter 23 December 1965 Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law at 554, Exhibit B to Declaration of Jesse Prince) Thus, by means of this institutionalized dichotomy, Scientology scripture commands that Scientologists are treated according to one standard, and SPs by another. Such suppressive persons are the "enemies" of Scientology. As such they are to be treated differently from the way Scientologists are treated. "That person may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." (Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 797, 800, fn. 1) Scientologists deserve protection from psychotics and criminals, from suppressive persons and overt and covert acts. Scientology protection is getting more and more real and within a year or two will be quite adequate for anyone. Now if we carry forward the deadly disease of stupidly refusing to recognize when somebody wants to do us in, that we must at least refuse to help him do it, someday Scientology Orgs will start reducing various rights of Scientologists to decent treatment and fair play. (HCO Policy Letter 17 March 1965 Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source Of The Fair Game Law, Exhibit C to Declaration of Jesse Prince) D. The "Potential Trouble Source" Is Trouble To Scientology Because It Impedes Scientology's Advancement By A Connection To A "Suppressive Person" A "potential trouble source" is a person "who makes the trouble." (Exhibit C., Scientology Ethics, to Motion at 183) Because a suppressive person "approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities," (Id., at 176), Scientology's ideology posits that the antisocial personality impedes its advancement. Connection with a suppressive person has a frighteningly corrosive effect on other Scientologists. Thus, the source of trouble is a connection with a "suppressive person" whom a Potential Trouble Source must either "handle" or from whom he must "disconnect." (Id., at 184) "When treated or educated, the near associate of the antisocial personality has no stability of gain, but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other." (Id., at 175) A Scientologist who is "connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of suppressive acts is known as a potential trouble source or trouble source." (Ex C to Motion, Scientology Ethics, at 312) "A roller coaster is always connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gains until the suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person earlier. Because the case doesn't get well he or she is a potential trouble source to us, to others and to himself." (Dictionary at 358) E. The "Psychotic," A "Potential Trouble Source - Type III," Is Connected To "Suppression" And "Evil" And Presents The Threat Of "Contagion Of Aberration" Considered in a specialized category of dangerousness is the "psychotic . . . that one which threatens the survival of the individual himself or of those around him." (Science of Survival, at 25) She "is a person who is physically or mentally harmful to those around [her] out of proportion to the amount of use [she] is to them." (Science of Survival, at 26) She is the worst of the three types of potential trouble sources, the PTS - Type III. Type IIIs are "types [that] are mostly in institutions or would be. In this case the Type II's apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are - for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well. All institutional cases are PTSes. The whole of insanity is wrapped up in this one fact. The insane is not just a bad-off being. The insane is a being who has been overwhelmed by an actual SP until too many persons are apparent SPs. This makes the person roller-coaster continually in life. " (Ex C. Ethics at 185-186; Ex.D to Motion at 3) Although Hubbard claimed - in the instances where they did not die - to have been able to cure "psychosis," he never retracted his essential point of view that such people were extremely dangerous because a psychotic could violently attack those trying to "help" him or his psychosis could contaminate his care givers. Psychotic is not really a noun but an adjective. However, psychiatry uses it as a noun to mean an individual afflicted with a psychosis. A psychosis is any major form of mental affiliation or disease. In other words, a psychotic so far as we are concerned, is an individual who cannot handle himself or his environment well enough to survive and who must be cared for to protect others from him and to protect him from himself. [] The psychotic state which receives the most interest is that one which threatens the survival of the individual himself or of those around him. (Science of Survival at 25) "A psychotic is a threat of death for somebody or something, if not for himself. . . . The psychotic is a definite liability to the auditor, not so much because of what processing or what unskilled processing may do, but because some factor may come suddenly into the environment of the psychotic which causes him to commit murder or suicide." (Science of Survival at 28) "Psychotics deal with doing people in. Their whole mission in life is destruction." (Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 247) Hubbard and Scientology evaluate people by means of the E-meter's "control lever" or "tone arm" "which registers state of case at any given time in processing." (Dictionary at 441) A person whose tone scale reading is "below the 2.0 level, no matter their avowed intention, will bring death or injury to persons, things and organizations around them, if in the anger bracket, or death to themselves, if in the apathy bracket." (Science of Survival at 28) F. Introspection Watch And Rundown - Treatment For Psychosis Type IIIs are poisoned by the SPs in their overall environment. Thus, in order to bring them back to a "Type II" level where they can be reached by Scientology, "you must disconnect the person from the environment." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) The process of disconnecting a psychotic person from her environment "is not treatment as such. It is to provide a relatively safe environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all. . . . Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary, as intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quieting drugs) may be necessary. . . . removed from apparent SPs, kept in quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type II and a Search and Discovery should end the matter." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) No search for and discovery of the hidden SP, however, can take place so long as the pc is in a psychotic state because "Standard auditing on such a person is subject to the roller-coaster phenomena." Thus, before a Scientologist who is PTS III can be assisted by auditing, he has got to return to the Type II state. Scientology scripture recognizes that some never do, remaining psychotic unto death instead. But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can't be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught ever to become quiet. The extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as 'catatonia' (withdrawn totally) and 'manic' (too hectic). Classification is interesting but nonproductive since they all are PTS, all with roller-coaster and none can be trained or processed with any idea of lasting result no matter the temporary miracle. . . . The modern mental hospital with its brutality and suppressive treatments is not the way to give a psychotic quiet and rest. Before anything effective can be done in this field, a proper institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous feedings and sleeping drafts where necessary but not as 'treatment' and where no treatment is attempted until the person looks recovered and only then a Search and Recovery as above under Type Two." (Ex. D to Motion at 4; bold emphasis added) Hubbard claims that Scientology can sometimes cure psychosis. "Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break . . . human beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in desperation turn to psychiatry to handle. Psychiatry, desperate in its turn, without effective tech, resorts to barbarities such as heavy drugs, ice picks, electric and insulin shock which half-kill the person and only suppress him. The fact remains there has never been a cure for the psychotic until now. The key is WHAT CAUSED THE PERSON TO INTROSPECT BEFORE THE PSYCHOTIC BREAK. The breakthrough was made on a person who, after a series of wrong indications, went into a full-blown psychotic break - violence, destruction and all." (Ex. E to Motion at 1; original underline and bold emphasis) Thus, Hubbard, solved the mystery of treating the "psychotic break, the last of the 'unsolvable' conditions that can trap a person." (Ex. E to Motion at 2) He directed that the initial treatment "On a person in a psychotic break" was to "isolate the person wholly with all attendants completely muzzled (no speech)" and give him vitamins and minerals. (Ex. E to Motion at 3) G. The Mental Health Profession Is "The Cause Of Crime" According to L. Ron Hubbard, the mental health professions are the "cause of crime." "They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education there would be less crime. They say if one improved the lot of the underpriveleged one would have solved crime. All of these "remedies" have proven blatantly false. . . . So who is "they"? The psychologist and psychiatrist, of course. These were their crackpot remedies for crime. And it's wrecked a civilization. So what IS the cause of crime? The treatment, of course. Electric shocks, behavior modification, abuse of the soul. These are the causes of crime. There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society. There's only one remedy for crime - get rid of the psychs! They are causing it! Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned. . . . The psychs should not be allowed to get away with "treatment" which amounts to criminal acts, mayhem and murder. They are not above the law. In fact, there are no laws at all which protect them, for what sane society would sanction crime against its citizens even as science? They should be handled like any other criminals. They are at best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to society at large that the psychotics they keep in their offices and loony bins because they lie and are treacherous. (HCO Bulletin of 6 May 1982 "The Cause of Crime" Exhibit D to Declaration of Jesse Prince) So let us look at psychs again - what they call "treatment" is a suppression (by shocks, drugs, etc.) Of the ability to think. They are not honest enough, these psychs, being just dramatizing psychotics themselves for the most part, to publish the fact that all their "treatments" (mayhem, really, when it is not murder) make people more stupid. These actions of shock and crazy evaluative counseling, etc., lower IQ like an express elevator going down to the basement. They do not tell legislators this or put it in their books. This is why they say "no one can change IQ." They are hiding the fact that they ruin it. . . . The answer to crime is raising IQ. But only the Scientologist can do that." (HCO Bulletin of 26 April 1982 "The Criminal Mind And The Psychs" Exhibit E to Declaration of Jesse Prince) H. The Claim To Religious Status Is Opportunistic Rather Than Principled In 1966, Hubbard wrote about difficulties moving assets between the United States and the United Kingdom. He said: Well at last we are able to consolidate our corporate status in the UK and Commonwealth and S.A. The big stumbling block has been Inland Revenue's refusal to grant non-profit status to limited companies. Without that we could not transfer the various organizations and US assets in the UK and Commonwealth to a UK or Commonwealth company. (HCO Executive Letter of 12 March 1966 "Corporate Status" at 1, Exhibit F to Declaration of Jesse Prince) Hubbard wrote that the solution to his problem was in achieving religious status. Of course anything is a religion that treats the human spirit. And also parliaments don't attack religions. But that isn't our real reason - it's been a long hard task to make a good corporate structure in the UK and Commonwealth so the assets could be transferred. Apparently we've done it. (Id., at 2) In 1972 Hubbard wrote that the governing policy of Scientology was to "MAKE MONEY . . .MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY. . . .Money is a tech. IT FLOWS. Although one dollar looks like another dollar, they may be from completely different places and mean completely different things." (HCO Policy Letter of 9 March 1972 "Income Flows and Pools" Exhibit G to Declaration of Jesse Prince) In 1973, Scientology issued policy letters regarding the presentation of Scientology as a religion as being essential to "public relations." The purpose of promotion is to make one's product known and well thought of. Basic to making Scientology known and well thought of is informing the public of the religious nature of Scientology (an applied religious philosophy which seeks and delivers Spiritual Freedom). (HCO Policy Letter of 24 September 1973 "Religion Religious Org Image" Exhibit H to Declaration of Jesse Prince) In the "Public Image" policy letter published the same date Scientology elevated public relations blunders to the level of a Suppressive Act. Any repeated acts which in any way destroy or reduce the religious status of any Scientology Organization or Minister or the bona fides of Scientology as a religion shall be considered Suppressive Acts - worsening public relations. (HCO Policy Letter of 24 September 1973 "Religion Public Image" Exhibit I to Declaration of Jesse Prince) In 1981 Scientology evaluated its failure to set up a Tokyo Centre. Part of the reason for the failure was "In spite of the fact that data did indicate religion to be an incorrect approach, the Mission went ahead incorporating Scientology as a Church in Tokyo." (SO Aides Order 549-1 29 January 1981 at 4, Exhibit J to Declaration of Jesse Prince) Thus the first part of the "broad strategy of operation is then formulated for Japan covering: 1. Do we go religious or Dianetics?" (Id. At 7) IV. FACTS AS TO LISA MCPHERSON The statements and testimony obtained by authorities from various Scientologists involved in Lisa McPherson's death has been characterized by pervasive failures of recollection as well as by outright material falsehood and lying, particularly by those most responsible for her care. An exception, to an extent, is Scientologist Judy-Goldsberry-Weber. A. Credible Testimony Regarding The Killing Of Lisa McPherson Was Obtained From Scientologist Assistant Medical Liaison Officer Judy Goldsberry-Weber And Bonita Portolano, The Para-Medic Who Brought Lisa To The Hospital 1. Lisa McPherson Had Attained The State of Clear Yet Was Having Problems Being Type III Or Psychotic Weber first saw Lisa in the summer of 1995. Lisa's Auditor sent Lisa to Weber to "have a talk and see what is happening" (Goldsberry-Weber 8/19/97 Sworn Statement [hereinafter " Goldsberry-Weber"] at 15:1-7) because she was not eating or sleeping much. (Goldsberry-Weber 17:5-10) In July or August 1995, Judy Goldsberry-Weber first met Lisa when she stayed at the Ft. Harrison for an isolation watch because she was having PTS problems. (Goldsberry-Weber at 130:8-16) A short period of time before the auto accident that occurred on November 18, 1995, Lisa had obtained the state of Clear, one of the major goals for all Scientologists which is a very big occasion involving public acknowledgment before hundreds, if not thousands, of people. (Goldsberry-Weber at 13:19-14:15; 20:12-21:13) 2. The Medical Liaison Office Judy Goldsberry-Weber testified under oath in the criminal investigation that as a Sea Org member she was assigned to the Medical Liaison Office at the Flag Service Organization over which Emma Schamehorn was in charge. (Goldsberry-Weber at 6:1-16; 7:1-4) As of the summer of 1995, Suzanne Green was in charge, with Janice Johnson next in authority. (Goldsberry-Weber at 7:25-9:12 The staff of the Medical Liaison Office "handled whomever came in" whether the person was a public Scientologist or on staff. (Goldsberry-Weber at 8:2-8) Before coming to Flag, Goldsberry-Weber had received extensive training as a nurse and had worked in the medical field for 35 years, although when she was posted to the MLO her license to practice had lapsed. (Goldsberry-Weber at 9:16-10:14) In 1995, there was not a single person in the MLO "who had any sort of license" to practice nursing or medicine. (Goldsberry-Weber at 13:4-7) Whatever actions she took were under the direction of Dr. David Minkoff. (Goldsberry-Weber at 13:8-12) According to a letter in the MLO Office, it was Dr. Minkoff's responsibility to be "the doctor of record on all Type IIIs." (Goldsberry-Weber at 97:20-98:11) This was known to all the people in the MLO as well as to Flag Service Organization's Captain, Debra Cook, and the Legal Officer, Judy Fontana, because they all had copies of the letter. (Goldsberry-Weber at 98:25-99:18) When there were Type III situations, Security in the persons of Mr. Kellerhaus and Mr. Baxter would be in charge in conjunction both with Dr. Minkoff as the doctor of record and the Case Supervisor handling the auditing or spiritual side. The Medical Liaison Officer would not check in on the person on a daily basis. (Goldsberry-Weber at 99:20-100:14; 136:6-25) The locations of the people being subjected to the watch were kept secret and some lasted as long as three and one-half weeks. (Goldsberry-Weber at 99:20-101:1) The "Introspection Rundown" is a "standard procedure" that could take place at any Scientology organization in any country in the world. (Goldsberry-Weber at 89:11-13; 101:6-17) The purpose of the isolation watch is to rid the person being watched of Type III personality demons. The people on the watch do not talk to the person being watched. (Goldsberry-Weber at 104:24-105:25) Control of the person's physical surroundings is dependent on what the Case Supervisor and Security determine is appropriate. In general the person being watched is isolated and kept away from others. (Goldsberry-Weber at 106:3-107:4) 3. The Accident And Cry For Help On The Public Streets Of Clearwater: Lisa Consents To A Psychiatric Evaluation Prior to the occurrence to the McPherson motor vehicle accident of November 18, 1995, Lisa was already incarcerated at the Ft. Harrison Hotel on an Isolation Watch according to the hotel records. That first day hotel record ended shortly before 3:00 p.m., approximately three hours before her 6:00 p.m. car accident. Bonita Portolano, a paramedic, observed a "little crash" while returning with her partner in their ambulance from another call. Thirty-six year old Lisa McPherson was involved in the little crash. (Portolano Deposition at 9:10-10:10; 27:16-28:5) Portolano approached McPherson to obtain a refusal of treatment because McPherson, although "a little shaken," was uninjured. (Portolano Deposition at 16:17-18:23) Lisa's demeanor was "odd" inasmuch as she employed a"programmed type of speech pattern" and with her "big brown eyes" would "look straight at you - she wouldn't blink." (Portolano Deposition at 19:5-19:25) When Portolano told Lisa that she had to move her car for the police and then she needed to speak with her further, Lisa agreed, even though she appeared to be a "nervous wreck"who was going to cause another accident just parking. (Portolano Deposition at 20:2-21:2) Shortly thereafter, Lisa took off her clothes and "comes walking down the driver's side of the ambulance in the middle of the road, no shoes, no socks, nothing on. And she didn't stop at the ambulance. She just continued walking." (Portolano Deposition at 43:12-21) Portolano immediately was "out the door because, number one, I don't want another accident because there's this beautiful girl walking down the street with no clothes on." (Portolano Deposition at 46:20-47:1) While getting her inside the ambulance, Portolano asked "Lisa, what are you doing? What are you doing with no clothes on?" Lisa responded that she wanted people to think she was crazy because she wanted people to help her. When Portolano observed "Lisa, you don't have any clothes on" she responded, "I don't need a body. I'm an O.T." (Portolano Deposition at 47:9-19) Two or three times Lisa explained that she took her clothes off because "I wanted help. I wanted help." (Portolano Deposition at 48:1-44) She was a "very healthy person, just voluptuous," "well-formed" and "full-figured girl" who weighed about 155 pounds. (Portolano Deposition at 31:5-16; 48:24-49:1; 98:19-22) She was a "very fair complected" and "very attractive woman" who had no markings on her body whatsoever. (Portolano Deposition at 84:3-6; 131:12-13) Lisa was very athletic, "well proportioned" and at 150 pounds, "firm and fully packaged." (Goldsberry-Weber at 120:1-122:7) Portolano wanted to take Lisa to Morton plant for a psychiatric evaluation because "somebody that would take off their clothes and asks for help deserves at least to be evaluated." (Portolano Deposition at 53:6-9) Speaking to Lisa for over half an hour, Portolano observed more oddities in her demeanor. (Portolano Deposition at 52:7) While lying on the stretcher with her eyes closed in the ambulance Lisa would not respond to simple questions. Then when Portolano would direct her to open her eyes and say I need to ask you a question, Lisa would say in a "very programmed" way "I'll answer anything I can" or "I don't know the answer to that. Ask me in a minute. Can you ask me later." (Portolano Deposition at 53:20-51:16) When Portolano inquired whether Lisa was a Scientologist, she gave her "a little programmed look and says 'Yes, I am'" in a "real monotone" way. (Portolano Deposition at 58:4-13) She had a "fixed stare," sounded "robotic" and was "something like you would see on a sci-fi movie." (Portolano Deposition at 80:2-4; 114:3-10) Aside from what her demeanor conveyed when she spoke of the Church of Scientology - which had a "certain limit" that Bonia Portolano "couldn't get past" - Lisa had a "very sweet demeanor about her." (Portolano Deposition at 102:5-8; 117:17-23; 132:17-18) During the conversation, Portolano kept trying to ascertain from Lisa what was wrong to which Lisa gave partial responses: "'I'm a bad person. I'm a bad person.' And so I would ask questions to get into why she felt she was a bad person, and she said it was because she had been doing bad things that she didn't know were bad. She found out that people at her church told her that evidently what she was doing was bad. And she said, 'But I didn't know. I didn't know it was wrong.' And she would get a little upset - really upset about guilt. And she had a lot of guilt, I guess, and she had a lot of remorse like she let either people down or herself down. I couldn't - it was more of an internal kind of thing . . . I tried to get specifics, and the only specific thing I could really draw out of her is one of the bad things she did was she took her 'eyes off the object.' Again I have no idea what that means. But that was very, very important to her that she didn't know that she wasn't supposed to take her 'eyes off the object' and that she had taken her 'eyes off the object.' She felt really, really bad and she had done something really wrong and it made her a bad person." (Portolano Deposition at 59:2-15) Lisa said that the help that she needed was "I just need someone to talk to. . . . I want to talk to someone. I need help. I want to talk." (Portolano Deposition at 60:19-61:4) Lisa wanted to continue talking to Bonita Portolano and never asked to be taken to the Church of Scientology. Lisa finally agreed to go to Morton Plant Hospital after being explicitly advised that the purpose was for a psychiatric evaluation. (Portolano Deposition at 61:8-64:11; 107:13-108:7) Lisa never expressed any unwillingness to be psychiatrically examined or any reservation about psychiatrists. (Portolano Deposition at 108:7-12) 4. Lisa Is Removed From The Morton Plant Emergency Room By High-Ranking Scientologists Who Used Goldsberery-Weber's Relationship Of Trust With Lisa, As Well As With The Hospital, To Gain Dominion And Control Over Lisa McPherson's Person Lisa always came to Judy Goldsberry-Weber "because she could count on me doing what I said I would do for her" and because if Lisa wanted to know about a medical situation, "I would get out my Taber's Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary out [and] we would look it up. . . We just had a rapport. . . . I had established with Lisa that if she had any problem, any time of the day or night,. . . she could always beep me and I could answer." (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:8-10; 67:10-68:1) Goldsberry-Weber had taken hundreds, if not thousands, of Scientologists to Morton Plant Hospital as an MLO. (Goldsberry-Weber at 133:4-6) On the day of Lisa's accident, Goldsberry-Weber was paged by Security and told that they were under orders to transport her to Morton Plant Hospital because somebody had been in an accident. (Goldsberry-Weber at 27:7-28:19) Upon her arrival at Morton Plant, Goldsberry-Weber was met by Humberto Fontana of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs, who was senior to her in authority, Annie Mora from the Office of Special Affairs, Alain Kartuzinski the Senior Case Supervisor for auditing at Flag, and Emma Schamehorn. (Goldsberry-Weber at 28:24-29:24; 48:1-7; 135:5-14) There were a number of other Scientologists there. (Goldsberry-Weber at 133:8-11) Despite all the times that Judy had brought people to the hospital in the past, she never had had a "welcoming committee" such as this before. (Goldsberry-Weber at 135:16-23) Fontana advised Goldsberry-Weber that a Scientologist had been involved in an auto accident and directed her to get Lisa out of the hospital because he had been unable to do so because he was too overbearing and forceful. (Goldsberry-Weber at 30:4-7; 38:15-38:22; 133:21-134:21) He had already spoken to Dr. Lovett with no results. (Goldsberry-Weber at 133:21-23) They did not want Lisa to be "put in the psych" because "the Church doesn't like psyche problems" and they "follow the Church rulings." (Goldsberry-Weber at 39:11-25) When Goldsberry-Weber saw Lisa, she said that she had run down the street without her clothes, but did not say why and neither Goldsberry-Weber nor anyone else ever asked her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 33:8-34:8) Lisa begged Goldsberry-Weber to be there to help her and she promised Lisa that she would. (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:21-22) Lisa did not exhibit any "Type III behavior." (Goldsberry-Weber at 65:24-25) Acting as the "point person" for Scientology, (Goldsberry-Weber at 38:7-13), Goldsberry-Weber first spoke to Dr. Lovett, the attending physician, who, not wanting to release Lisa, wanted to place her in a psychiatric observation unit. (Goldsberry-Weber at 34:16-23) Lovett told her that if the police, rather than the paramedics, had picked Lisa up, she would have been Baker Acted. (Goldsberry-Weber at 128:17-129:6) She then talked to the "psych," Joe Price, who said that pursuant to the Baker Act he could not hold Lisa in a psychiatric unit, despite the fact that Dr. Lovett wanted her committed. (Goldsberry-Weber at 35:7-37:14; 40:2-6) Under these circumstances, the only way that Scientology could get Lisa out of the hospital was for her to sign a waiver that acknowledged "that she was leaving the hospital against medical advice." (Goldsberry-Weber at 41:13-16) Upon Lisa's release Dr. Lovett said he "had never done this before" and would hold Goldsberry-Weber "personally responsible" for whatever happened to her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 43:9-14) Goldsberry-Weber reported to Fontana and Kartuzinski that Lisa was going to be released into Goldsberry-Weber's care. They instructed her to get that done at which point they would talk to her further. (Goldsberry-Weber at 43:20-44:1) 5. Lisa Was Isolated Inside Of Scientology's Fort Harrison Hotel Where She Was Guarded And Watched 24-Hours Per Day By Scientologists For 17 Days At The End Of Which Time She Was Dead. When Lisa left the hospital, she got into Kartuzinski's car. Goldsberry-Weber went with Fontana. (Goldsberry-Weber at 44:25-45:10) Even though Lisa had asked Goldsberry-Weber to stay with her, and Dr. Lovett put responsibility for Lisa's care directly on Goldsberry-Weber, OSA's Fontana told her she was not going to stay with Lisa that night. She did not know what was going to happen to Lisa. (Goldsberry-Weber at 47:5-48:3) Fontana did tell Goldsberry-Weber that since she had been made responsible, she needed to stay on top of what was happening with Lisa. He then proceeded to leave and have a long discussion with Suzanne Green who returned very angry. (Goldsberry-Weber at 48:3-10; 49:7-12; 54:1-6) Fontana assigned Green to replace Goldsberry-Weber to be responsible for Lisa. (Goldsberry-Weber at 51:5-52:20) Goldsberry-Weber was angry because she took her integrity seriously, had given Lisa her word and her "promise was being trashed." (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:57:21-58:3) Two days later Goldsberry-Weber spoke with Medical Liaison Officer Janice Johnson to inquire as to how Lisa was doing and if Johnson needed her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 50:22-24; 53:23-25) Johnson, whom Goldsberry-Weber understood to be in charge of the watch, told "me in no uncertain terms, she was my Senior, she was in charge of it, and to get the hell out of it." (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:10-12; 76:18-20) Johnson told her "that I was not to ask any questions about Lisa, that it was being taken care of and to just forget it, everything concerned. . . . You're off of it." (Goldsberry-Weber at 55:9-20; 56:17-22) Although Goldsberry-Weber knew that the MLO was having trouble finding enough people to do the watch, she had no idea why she was taken off of it. (Goldsberry-Weber at 50:24-51:2; 56:24-57:8) Johnson specifically directed Goldberry-Weber "don't discuss this with anybody." (Goldsberry-Weber at 57:9-10) Johnson would not even let Goldsberry-Weber write a note to Lisa to explain to her why she was unable to keep her promise to stay with her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:3-12) Judy Goldsberry-Weber did not even know where Lisa had been placed until within three days of Lisa's accident she was directed to go to "an Eckerd's drugstore, which was not the normal Eckerd's drugstore that we used, and pick up some" Valium for Lisa clear down in Largo, a 30 minute drive away. (Goldsberry-Weber at 58:18-60:9; 109:13-112:7) She was told to bring it to the Security Office and leave it. (Goldsberry-Weber at 61:6-7) At this point Judy Weber realized that Lisa was on a Type III isolation watch. (Goldsberry-Weber at 65:7-23) She still was not told what was going on with Lisa, instead being told by Janice Johnson to "Butt out." The two women ended up screaming at each other because Judy Goldsberry-Weber wanted information about Lisa and Janice Johnson wouldn't give it to her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 62:1-22) Judy never found out what was happening to Lisa and never got to see her. (Goldsberry-Weber at 63:3-9) The hierarchy pulled everybody into the cycle that was taking place in reference to Lisa, except Judy Goldsberry-Weber, despite Lisa's express request that she wanted people around her that she liked. (Goldsberry-Weber at 63:25-64:21) She told Janice that the "whole idea to make it calm, make it less stimulative in the environment" and that if Judy was in Lisa's place "I would throw fits if I had people I didn't want around me." Lisa didn't like Janice at all and before she was locked up would not come to the MLO office when Janice was there. Nonetheless, after the commencement of the isolation watch, Janice was "going over there every day." (Goldsberry-Weber at 66:1-13) The Type III cycle was not beyond Judy's "spiritual education or experience" because she had gone through these cycles before in Clearwater which were always run by the Security Chief. (Goldsberry-Weber at 68:2-12; 96:19-97:16) When Judy Goldberry-Weber heard Janice Johnson, Laura Arrunda and Dr. David Houghton talk about holding Lisa down and forcing aspirin down her throat, she said "You can't do this, you can't physically hold somebody down. There are other ways - you know, what doctor's order did you have to do this?" In response, "They shut the door. I said wait a minute, I'd like to talk to you guys. And they shut the door and locked it. They were in David's office." (Goldsberry-Weber at 70:9-20; 83:18-22) When Janice Johnson came out, Goldsberry-Weber confronted her and said: "I says, you can't do that. What doctor - you've got Minkoff's order to do this? 'Cause I knew he was the doctor of record, if he ordered the - are you talking to Minkoff? Is he knowing what's going on here? At which time she told me to butt out. I said, 'People are getting injured, you know, I've got to answer to the doctors here, how are they getting injured? What are we doing? Something's wrong here. And what - this is not a normal situation. I've never had any of the others - before you came on this post I've never had this problem. I've never heard of this violence. What's happening? I don't know. It's none of your concern. We're - you're not involved. And I said, I've never seen Lisa this violent. She says, Well, you know psychotic breaks. I said excuse me. I wanted to, you know . . . So I had written to Judy Fontana, who was our Legal Officer, that they better check into it. (Goldsberry-Weber at 71:2-18) About ten days after the watch started, Alice, the Librarian, called Judy to ask her if a person is dehydrated, do they become disoriented. (Goldsberry-Weber at 138:17-140:5) At the same time, when Judy saw that Joann Stevens had a black eye from watching Lisa and in response to asking Emma Schamehorn what was happening with Lisa, Judy was told that Emma that she couldn't talk about it. Judy wanted to know what the situation was being allowed to perpetuate and said they needed to contact a doctor. (Goldsberry-Weber at 74:3-19) If Judy had been involved "I would have been screaming at Dr. Minkoff to give me some heavier sedation and some IV solutions when I'm hearing that she's not eating or something." (Goldsberry-Weber at 74:23-25) Normally, what I had observed in my training and what I worked with, you would have sedated them heavily, totally, where they were sound asleep, put an IV in, hydrated them. . . The sedation part keeps them from pulling out the IV, keeps them from being dangerous to themselves, keeps them from harming anybody else. Do this for several days, the body starts to function. Get them the food they need to repair, they come out of it. Why this wasn't done, I don't know. (Goldsberry-Weber at 75:8-4-21) Case Supervisor Alain Kartuzinski and Paul Kellerhaus from Security, from Goldsberry-Weber's perspective, had the authority to call the whole thing off. (Goldsberry-Weber at 137:3-17) Case Supervisor Alain Kartuzinski was the one to have made the decision to not allow Judy Goldsberry-Weber participate in taking care of Lisa, even though she had done so before. (Goldsberry-Weber at 132:9-12) The way that Judy found out that Lisa died was not from any one at Scientology, or from newspapers, which she did not read. Weeks later, she heard from the doctor who had released Lisa to her care, Dr. Lovett at Morton Plant Hospital. (Goldsberry-Weber at 77:1-5; 80:8-12; 80:23-81:23) She felt that Scientology had blind-sided her and hung her out to dry because they did not tell Judy that Lisa had died even though they knew that she went frequently to Morton Plant and inevitably would run into Dr. Lovett. As soon as she found out that Lisa had died, she telephoned Judy Fontana who was the Legal Officer for the Office of Special Affairs and explained what had happened on November 18, 1995 and then about finding out that Lisa had died from Dr. Lovett. (Goldsberry-Weber at 82:1-24; 138:11-16) After Lisa died, Scientology made a huge effort to keep "a lid on" the gossip within the organization. Not only had many people been involved, "but a huge amount of people went into isolation. . . . We had like 40 people" who were quarantined. (Goldsberry-Weber at 77:15-79:18; 104:3-4) After Lisa died, the Office of Special Affairs coordinated the inquiry into the circumstances of her death. (Goldsberry-Weber at 85:11-87:12) The Office of Special Affairs directed Judy Goldberry-Weber, Suzanne Green and Laura Arrunda "not to discuss it amongst ourselves." Laura Arrunda went to Mexico and Suzanne Green is in Germany. (Goldsberry-Weber at 92:92:10-93:11; 103:3-23) "We were talked to to get the whole scenario before we talked to . . . the police." (Goldsberry-Weber at 94:21-23) For eight hours over two sessions, OSA subjected Judy (as well as others) to a special form of auditing interrogation called a "Security Check" to ascertain whether she had done anything wrong in connection with the "cycle" involving Lisa. The results went into her PC folder. (Goldsberry-Weber at 113:8-117:23) When Scientologists would go to the hospital, it was normal for the MLO to take them to Morton Plant or Suncoast because they were closer and the fastest medical attention was available. It was unusual to go to Port Richey. (Goldsberry-Weber at 123:15-124:6) B. The "Written Reports" Of Lisa's Isolation Watch Produced In Discovery On the first day of the watch timed hours before Lisa's car accident of November 18, 1995, the Medical Off. Manager's report to the Case Supervisor included: "Lisa is talking since about 30 minutes: - "I created time 3 billion years ago and now I am dramatizing it since then." -"I am LRH and I didn't confront that power." -"I can't confront force. I am dramatizing it." -"I have an MU on THE Student Hat." -"I was 1.1. What my chronical tone level is." -"I dessimiated my mother, but she didn't get handled. As I didn't confront force." -"I want to dance." -"I need my auditor, Mr. Vatusinski." -"I need to confront my mom." She is still talking non stop. She tried to go out of the door. . . . On the second day, November 19, 1995, Medical Off. Manager's report to the Case Supervisor included: "This afternoon Lisa walked like a robot. What is new: if she starts talking she talks and talks, than stares at a spot. She says I am her and she is controlling my body. She kissed me on my mouth. Once I let her sit outside for 5 minutes. Than she kissed me twice on my face and starred at me. Later she said how wonderful my skin is. In the evening she started staring in the light. I got her to eat a tuna sandwich, she also drank two cups of cal mag and took all vitamins. While I was writing this outside, she came outside. When I brought her in, she took my arm and put it on here tummy and went with her tongue all over my face. I brought her back to bed. She jumped up again and while I am writing this she is standing next to me talking in non sequiter things. She wanted to call her Minister. He has No. 10. -She called me Mom when she awoke this afternoon. - She wants to go to a party. - She has a date with her mother at the pool. - She told me about the titts of her mother and picking in my breast while she was doing it. - She told me again that her mother made her to take a napp with her every day after lunch and than she sneaked away. Out of controll. On the third day, November 21, 1995, Medical Off. Manager's report to the Case Supervisor included: Lisa did not really sleep last night, but jumping out of her bed. Susann Reich had to get here to lay down again and again. Today she sleep ½ hour. She is still trying to look in the lightbulbs. "You have to follow the light because light is live." She does not talk that much as we do not talk with her. She is counting with her fingers, pointing somewhere. When I gave her a cup of water she through it on the floor. "Did this frighten you?" "No, I don't think so," she said. 3 times when Emma or me gave her a piece of banana she put it in a way in her mouth that she vomitt is out. Last night I made here drink 1 cup of calmag and to took 1 B1, the 2nd cup and snd B1, she vomitted out. She has difficulties even to swallow a bit of water. She got 2 sip of protein drink down. Right now she is again jumping out of the bed over and over. (Flag Service Organization Document Production [hereinafter "FSO Doc"] at 160) By the third day, November 21, 1995, Staff Chaplain Valerie Demange reported to Kartuzinski that Lisa: "was then pretty agitated for about an hour during which time she was talking a lot and crying. What she was saying was usually non sequiture, like saying that she was going to go somewhere and then laying down on her bed. She told me as well that she had bad manners and this resulted in bad consequences. She also at some point asked me if someone was behind the door." (FSO Doc at 139) On the fourth day, November 22, 1995, Flag Service Organization's Librarian wrote a "Knowledge Report." Alice Van Gondelle said: At 1:30 am last nite HASFO walked me out of bed. . . . She told me that I needed to go on watch for some public that flapped. She said . . . the Type III was too much for her & I was a vet & could handle it. . . . I went on this watch as I had no senior to consult with at 2 am. I went into the room & she was total Type III. Blabbering, incoherent nonstop. Shaking, no warm clothes on. . . . she was like an ice cub. She talked incoherently hour after hour. She refused to eat and spit out everything she took. Her breathe was foul. She looked ill like measles or chicken pox on her face. Had a fever to my touch.. After 1 pm she went violent & hit me a few times telling me she was to kill me #s of times. I called in the "guard" outside -- the fellow is an HCO staff member -new one a Mexican gentleman. He stayed with me during the rage - but she still smacked me around. (I did cover myself but she was out of control.) (FSO Doc 745) Alphonso's fourth day report for November 22,1995 included that Lisa's "Bed was broken & room was messy. . . . has not eaten. . . . Around 1AM punched out a person who was being assigned to do the watch." (FSO Doc at 141) Staff Chaplain Valerie Demange reported on the eighth day, November 26, 1995, that: . . . she was very nervous and violent. During that time she did not sleep. . . She has not been eating just drinking a little bit of orange juice, then threw the rest away. . . . The rest of the time she is just talking, asking questions and answers, like if you would be asking her questions and she would then answer." (FSO Doc at 143) Rita Boykin reported on the eighth day, November 26, 1995, that: She was lying down when I fed her. She tends just to hold thing in her mouth or spit them out. I was making swallowing motions and rubbed my finger on here throat & she finally swallowed the first and next couple of bites I gave here. (FSO Doc at 145) Chaplain Demange reported on the eleventh day, November 29, 1995, that: . . .The rest of the time she talks and move on her bed or on the floor. She was violent for about 2 hours yesterday night, the rest of the time she was calmer and looks very tired." (FSO Doc at 147) Rita Boykin reported on the eleventh day, November 29, 1995, that she "Spoke with Dr. Johnson re no real sleep." (FSO Doc at 148) Another person wrote "The 'watch' said she was quieter, but suspects its because she's weak, in spite of protein drink, etc of yesterday." (FSO Doc at 216) On the twelfth day, November 30, 1995, Rita reported: "On floor scooting around, moving arms and legs and speaking and groaning. . . . Dr. Johnson just visited. . . .She will appear to be very cooperative - hold here mouth open, make eye contact, at as if she is there, then close the back of here throat and not swallow. Her voice becomes nasal & she mutters rather than pronounce her words properly. My idea of closing her nose so she has to swallow so she can breath through her mouth is only marginally successful. She either swallows and breathes or she lets everything in her mouth come out.. . . She sits up frequently for long periods of time. Whereas yesterday I only saw her sit up once - she was lying on the floor scooting around. She is using her legs to kick again. Yesterday it wasn't much of a threat. . . This AM she is deliberate & nasty - even evil. (FSO Doc at 149) . . . Dr. Johnson was here. . . . I am giving her Cal Mag and OJ at every opportunity. She is wide awake on the floor, bouncing, humming and talking. (FSO Doc at 151) On the thirteenth day, December 1, 1995, "Medical Officer" Janice Johnson reported: ". . . Chloral Hydrate (capsule pierced and as much as possible squirted into her mouth). She swallowed and fell asleep in the middle of a sentence. . . Plan: (1) Valerie or watch personnel w/medical training for next 8 hours. . . . Call if any ?'s prob's." (FSO Doc 214) The report of the fourteenth day, December 2, 1995, stated: She has scratches and abrasions all over here body & on elbows & knees has pressure sores. None of them are open & none of them look infected. . . . will be in comm with Janice later about other measures to insure she gets some serious sleep today. . . . She originated that she knows we are trying to help her although she doesn't know our names and we don't talk to her. The rest of her comm is the usual confused stuff. . . . Tried to feed her again but wouldn't take anything. She thought we were psyches or other enemies who wanted to kill her. (FSO Doc at 152-153) The reports from Lisa last three days of captive life have "disappeared." C. Preliminary Interviews Of Janis Johnson And Alain Kartuzinski By The Police 1. Janis Johnson's First Story To The Police: Lies In All Pertinent Particulars The police first interviewed Janis Johnson, with counsel, on May 29, 1996 at which time she stated she had been a licensed physician in Arizona but had "quit medicine in early 93." (Janice Johnson 5/29/96 Statement [hereinafter "Johnson I"] at 2:57-4:104) She came to Florida to be "on staff" with Scientology and was initially assigned to the Medical Liaison Office in March 1995. (Johnson I at 5:128-138) She had authority over two people, including Judy Goldsberry-Weber, and lots of people had authority over her. (Johnson I at 6:187-192; 8:259-9:260) For emergencies, the MLO would usually use Morton Plant Hospital. (Johnson I at 10:322-11:331) The first time Johnson had any contact with Lisa McPherson was in the end of November 1995. Suzanne Green, the MLO manager "knew her from somewhere." (Johnson I at 8:237-249;12:379-391) Lisa was a "public" Scientologist, not "on staff." Johnson generally did not deal with public Scientologists. (Johnson I at 13:397-409) From Suzanne Green the week before Thanksgiving, Johnson had heard that Lisa sometimes would "go days without sleeping. And . . . get pretty wound up . . . not want to eat. So it was . . . a vicious cycle. So . . . if she can just calm down and sleep for a night, then this all . . . straightens out, get back to normal." (Johnson I at 14:427-443) To try to sleep, Lisa would take "some kind of herbal thing" but it was not recommended by the medical office. (Johnson I at 14:446-456) Suzanne Green told Johnson that Lisa would "get pretty weird when she hadn't slept for a while" and "things "kind of went from bad to worse" so "she just needed to take a break and just chill out and rest and get away from everything for a little bit." (Johnson I at 15:561-481) At the time Lisa arrived at the MLO, "she was real thin . . . didn't have any extra insulation." (Johnson I at 16:498-504) When Johnson first saw Lisa, she "was more than thin"and "looked really dehydrated." (Johnson I at 16:511-117:524) She said, "Now, what I heard was that, . . . that last 24 hours . . . that she had developed some very severe diarrhea and that's how I imagine she became dehydrated so fast." (Johnson I at 17:524-527) Johnson said that she had heard that Lisa had been in an accident and "was shaken up about it" and was at the hotel "to rest and chill out. . . . she had been checked out psychologically to make sure that she . . . wasn't any real danger to herself or someone else . . . that she was just upset and . . . she was with it." (Johnson I at 17:538-548) Thus, After Lisa was released from Morton Plant Hospital, she went to Scientology to relax. (Johnson I at 17:550-556) Johnson stated that she did not first meet, or even see, Lisa until five days after the accident when she first visited at her room at the Fort Harrison. (Johnson I at 18:572-577; 19:620-621; 20:649-651) At that time Lisa "was real wound up . . .real agitated. . . . just seemed to be like real nervous." (Johnson I at 18:578-586) Lisa was "just non-stop motion" and Johnson did not talk to her because "Lisa was a little hostile toward anybody that anything to do with the medical profession. . . verbally abusive to medical people" (Johnson I at 19:591-616; 24:771-773) Johnson said that the plan of action as to Lisa "was to just have the people in the hotel give her some extra attention . . . check and make sure if there was anything special she wanted to eat . . .that they went out of their way and got it for her.. . . she was into tuna fish sandwiches, so they would bring her tuna fish sandwiches at odd hours of the day and night when she felt like 'Okay. . . yeah. . . I want to eat.'" (Johnson I at 24:774-786) Johnson claimed that Lisa would order food from room service. (Johnson I at 25:800-803) Johnson said that no one in particular was looking after Lisa, or that any particular person was in charge. (Johnson I at 26:821-824) Aside from "a little bit of extra service" Lisa was on her own as "a hotel guest." (Johnson I at 26:833-837) Johnson just "popped in about every other day." (Johnson I at 31:987-988; 34:1104-1106) The second time Johnson said she saw Lisa was a couple of days later when she checked up on her. Johnson said she did not talk to Lisa at first, but then said Lisa asked her to get her some powdered vitamins called Vita Mix. (Johnson I at 27:866-28:898) She said that Lisa did not look as agitated and wound up as she had two days before. (Johnson I at 29:923-932) When Johnson was asked what Lisa would do for "relaxation" or if she went out of here room, Johnson said, "I don't think so, but I . . . again . . . you know . . . I was only there for five minutes. I can't say for sure what she did in the meantime. . . in between." (Johnson I at 29:933-945) Johnson said that she didn't know if Lisa left the room at any time and didn't know where Lisa was during most of the day. (Johnson I at 29:946-30:955) The door to Lisa's room was usually locked so Johnson would knock and if nobody answered she would get the security guard to open the door. (Johnson I at 36:1181-37:1188) Johnson said that it was reported to her that Lisa didn't want to talk to anyone about what was going on. (Johnson I at 30:962-976) Around Thanksgiving, Johnson noticed that Lisa had bruises and Suzanne Green told her that Lisa "had had about a ten minute episode of being like really wild and that she was like . . . you know . . . pounding on tables and she was kicking . . . you know . . . kicking furniture." (Johnson I at 31:1010-1018) Suzanne "said she had to . . . had to physically just . . . you know . . . give her a good strong hug and get her settled down." (Johnson I at 32:1022-1025) That was only occasion that Lisa acted in such a manner. (Johnson I at 33:1067-1070) The Friday after Thanksgiving Johnson noticed that Lisa was looking thinner, but acting more calm and was sleeping. She told Laura that Lisa was "not drinking enough." (Johnson I at 34:1112-35:1125) On Monday, Laura told Janice Johnson that it was tough to get Lisa to drink. (Johnson I at 36:1165-1171) On Tuesday at about 7:00 p.m., Laura advised Johnson that Lisa "had developed some fairly severe diarrhea" but even though Lisa didn't want "to go to the doctor, we had to do something." (Johnson I at 37:1213-38:1228) When Johnson arrived at Lisa's room Lisa "was actually happy" to see her which made Johnson think that Lisa was "at last willing to accept some help." To Johnson, Lisa "looked septic . . . an infection in the blood . . . you know. It's gotten into the blood system." (Johnson I at 39:1262-1278) At that point Lisa looked "very dehydrated. . . extra thin.. . .majorly dehydrated . . . sunken dehydrated look" (Johnson I at 40:1288-1312) Laura told Johnson that Lisa did not want to go to the doctor in response to which Johnson said: "Well, there comes a point where that's tough. . .I'm sorry. . .you know. . .in my opinion. . ..I mean. . .she really needs to go and get some medical help and we're going to have to somehow sell her on it. . .I mean. . .that's that's just the. . .the fact of the matter. . .and so how can we present this so that she'll accept it. So what we decided was okay, how about someone who. . .you know. . .who she knows will. . .will treat her with respect who is a member of the church who she can trust. And that's how we told her so that she'd come with us. . . .Dr. Minkoff" (Johnson I at 41:1339-42:1350) Johnson said that Lisa had never been a patient of Dr. Minkoff's before, but because "he's an emergency room physician . . .[and] his specially training is in infectious diseases," he was "perfect" as "someone that she would trust that had the training to handle whatever infection she had." (Johnson I at 42:1353-1360) Johnson further explained to the police that she did not mention Dr. Minkoff by name to Lisa, but said: ". . .how would you feel about. . .you know. . .would it be okay with you to go to a doctor. . .you know. . .that was just in an emergency room. . .you know. . .. .that. . .that is a member of the church and that we know and that we know is. . .you know. . .is. . .is kind and gentle and there'd be no. . .you know. . .whatever. . .I don't know. . .whatever bad experience she had before. . .you know. . .somebody didn't treat her right." (Johnson I at 42:1361-1370) According to Johnson, Lisa "stayed as far away from doctors as she possibly could." (Johnson I at 57:1860-1863) Nonetheless, Johnson said that Lisa "wasn't happy about but she was okay with it" and agreed to get dressed and go to the hospital to see Dr. Minkoff. Otherwise there "would've been a kicking screaming battle" which Johnson was not willing to cause. (Johnson I at 42:1372-1378) According to Johnson, Lisa's speech was "kinda slow" but "she wasn't like babbling" or "not making sense." (Johnson I at 43:1399-1402) Lisa agreed to see Dr. Minkoff. (Johnson I at 46:1487-1495) Johnson then called Dr. Minkoff and advised him that "she's septic. . .she does not want anything to do with doctors" and arranged to have a back room. (Johnson I at 47:1515-48:1553) "He said, "I'm on duty. . .get her here." (Johnson I at 49:1586-1607) Johnson said that she and Laura walked Lisa to the van which Paul Greenwood had pulled up by the door. (Johnson I at 543:1403-44:1419) Greenwood had been paged either by security or housekeeping. (Johnson I at 44:1420-1430) Paul and Laura carried Lisa down some steps to the van and got in back with Lisa. (Johnson I at 45:1460-1473) They left for the Port Richey hospital at about 8:00 p.m. (Johnson I at 50:1613-1614) During the 40 to 60 minute ride, Johnson was not sure whether Lisa was still conscious. (Johnson I at 50:1639-1642; 53:1721-1725) At first Lisa's breathing was "regular" and then for fifteen to twenty seconds it changed before it "settled back down." (Johnson I at 51:1661-1677) At no point during the ride did Johnson recognize that Lisa had stopped breathing. (Johnson I at 52:1681-1686) She explained the absence of any conversation on the way to the hospital by saying not as a religious practice, but based on "research" "we don't talk around people who are sick or injured" because "things will act as a. . .a hypnotic suggestion." (Johnson I at 52:1687-53:1713) When they arrived at the Port Richey Hospital, Paul Greenwood said "It doesn't look good" to which Johnson responded "well, we better move fast." (Johnson I at 53:1729-1741) When they put Lisa in a wheelchair, Lisa was not breathing. (Johnson I at 54:1745-1753) 2. Alain Kartuzinski's First Story To The Police: Failure Of Recollection And Corresponding Lies In All Pertinent Particulars On May 30, 1996 Alain Kartuzinski was interviewed, in the presence of counsel, by the police. As to his position in Scientology, he presented himself as "a senior case provider" which he explained as "supervising case supervisors . . . which we call auditors. And these ministers perform special counseling with parishioners. . .and my job consists of making sure that the case supervisors do what is standard procedures in directing the spiritual counseling." (Kartuzinski Statement taken 5/30/96 [hereinafter "Kartuzinski I"] at 1:1-2:33) Kartuzinski said that "someone from the security office advised him that Lisa McPherson had had some sort of accident and was at the hospital." (Kartuzinski I at 2:48-55) He said that he knew Lisa "as much as many hundreds of people." (Kartuzinski I at 1:11-17) Since he was unable to "send some minister there," he decided to go to the hospital himself. (Kartuzinski I at 3:72-77) When he arrived at Morton Plant Hospital, he was met by David Slaughter, Lisa's employer. (Kartuzinski I at 3:90-4:94) Kartuzinski advised the hospital receptionist that he was "a minister from the church and I asked to be able to see Lisa McPherson." A few minutes later, he did. (Kartuzinski I at 4:96-102) When he first saw Lisa, she smiled and said "hi" as she was talking to a male nurse named "Joe" who was asking her questions. As Joe continued to question Lisa, she grabbed Kartuzinski's hand and told Joe that she wanted to leave. (Kartuzinski I at 4:107-5:132) Lisa said to Joe that she wanted to go to the church with Kartuzinski. When Joe said "That's fine . . .but how to you explain what you did today when you took your clothes off in the street" Lisa said "this was not a rational action and I'm sorry." She further said, "But you know, I don't want to stay here. . .I want to go to the hotel on Ft. Harrison with him. . .I don't want to stay here." (Kartuzinski I at 5:134-145) Lisa made it clear to Kartuzinski "that she really wanted to leave there and she mentioned. . .you know. . .wanting to rest and relax." (Kartuzinski I at 6:165-170) Kartuzinski complied when Joe asked him to leave so that Joe could continue to question Lisa alone. Three or four minutes later, Joe came out of the room and told Kartuzinski there was no need to keep her. (Kartuzinski I at 5:146-152) At that point Kartuzinski went back to reception and was unaware of what occurred between that point and later, when Lisa walked out. (Kartuzinski I at 8:233-243) When Lisa came into the reception area, Kartuzinski asked her if she needed a ride to which she said "yes," that she would appreciate a ride to the Fort Harrison Hotel. Kartuzinski said he would give her a ride to the hotel where he "dropped her off . . And she got a room." During the three minute ride, other than Lisa saying "I want to go there and rest," there was no conversation. (Kartuzinski I at 8:246-9:276) When Kartuzinski dropped Lisa off, he asked hotel staff to "take her to get a room." (Kartuzinski I at 9:286-290) Ten minutes later, he saw Lisa in one of the cabanas which bordered the pool. He couldn't recall if anyone was with her. (Kartuzinski I at 10:293-310) Returning to his office, he called the Medical Liaison Office and asked someone there "to check on Lisa to see if she needed anything." He did not see her again while she stayed at the cabanas. (Kartuzinski I at 10:318-323; 12:374-378) Three or four days later, Kartuzinski met Janis Johnson or Laura Arrunda for information regarding Lisa and was told that "she had a bit of trouble eating and sleeping . . .the first two or three days but that it was better now." (Kartuzinski I at 11:332-343) Aside from this conversation, Kartuzinski did not notify his superiors or anyone else about Lisa's condition. (Kartuzinski I at 11:349-356) Kartuzinski said that once Lisa was at the hotel, nobody was assigned to her as "she made it very clear that all she wanted to do was just be there and rest." Thus, nobody came in and provided auditing or processing. (Kartuzinski I at 12:364-373) On the afternoon or evening before Lisa died, Janis Johnson came to Kartuzinski's office and told him that "this Lisa had some infection that she was worried about. And she asked to use the phone and she called. . .she called the doctor." (Kartuzinski I at 13:393-419) She left his office "in a hurry" and "then four or five hours later she reported to me that Lisa had died upon arriving at the hospital." (Kartuzinski I at 14:444-446) The next day Johnson mentioned to Kartuzinski that Lisa probably died from meningitis. (Kartuzinski I at 14:449-450) Kartuzinski said that he did not know whether Lisa had any problems in her life. (Kartuzinski I at 7:205-212) He denied that Lisa had participated in an Introspection Rundown in connection with her disrobing or her breakdown by saying "No. Lisa. . .she wanted to rest." (Kartuzinski I at 15:471-16:499) Kartuzinski denied that Lisa had been involved in anything "that would have been strenuous to here physically." (Kartuzinski I at 16:503-506) 3. Alain Kartuzinski's Second Story To The Police On October 13, 1998, pursuant to subpoena and a grant of immunity, Alain Kartuzinski was interviewed by the police again, again represented by counsel, but this time under oath. He testified that he had been on Scientology staff since 1979. (Kartuzinski II at 7:13-19) Having achieved the highest rank, "Class 12" as an auditor, he has progressed Up The Bridge through the high level called "OTVII." a. Kartuzinski Admits Lying And Obstructing Justice During the time of Lisa's dying and death, he was her "senior case supervisor." (Kartuzinski II at 14:4-24) During his May 30, 1996 tape-recorded interview with the police, accompanied by counsel, Kartuzinski was lying to the police on purpose to protect himself and Scientology. (Kartuzinski II at 71:24-72:8; 73:5-14; 82:13-21) Before going into the interview Kartuzinski had made the decision to lie. (Kartuzinski II at 75:12-25) He lied about Lisa "was a parishioner just like any other parishioner" and about how "he had divorced himself from the scene completely." (Kartuzinski II at 80:7-11; 81:16-20) He lied about being Lisa's case supervisor. (Kartuzinski II at 82:10-12) He lied about assigning an auditor to Lisa, as well as the "people who watched over her 24-hours a day." (Kartuzinski II at 48:48:6-10; 86:24:2-7) Everyone who watched Lisa for 24-hours each day over the 17-day period, including Janice Johnson, knew that Kartuzinski was responsible for her. (Kartuzinski II at 84:84:13-21; 85:4-7) He lied about saying that Lisa had neither requested nor consented to any Scientology services. (Kartuzinski II at 71:21-72:3) He lied to the police about Lisa not doing an Introspection Rundown. (Kartuzinski II at 79:18-25) He lied that no one had been assigned to Lisa as her minister or to watch over her. (Kartuzinski II at 85:23-86:9) He lied to the police that he had seen Lisa only once after he transported her from Morton Plant to Ft. Harrison. (Kartuzinski II at 166:6-22) Kartuzinski claimed to have no explanation for the fact that Janice Johnson told the same lies as he had. (Kartuzinski II at 76:1-14) He further claimed that even though he had a lawyer present at the time of the interview, he did not know he had a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and he did not know that it was a crime to lie to police officers in a criminal investigation. (Kartuzinski II at 73:4-75:6) b. Kartuzinski Had A History Of Treating Lisa As PTS III In the summer of 1995, he was Lisa's auditor when she was in "a similar, although less grave state" in that it was not a "full-blown psychotic break." (Kartuzinski II at 23:20-24; 64:5-6) According to Kartuzinski, Lisa said she "was going to go crazy." (Kartuzinski II at 113:15-22) Lisa stayed at the Fort Harrison over the summer for an Introspection Rundown that involved a 24-hour daily watch which was one of four that he had conducted in the past. (Kartuzinski II at 63:15-64:1; 79:18-20; 95:20-24; 109:15-111:17) In October 1995, because he "wanted to make sure she was all right because of what had happened before," Kartuzinski called Lisa at work twice to see how she was doing. (Kartuzinski II at 26:23-27:16) c. Kartuzinski "Saves" Lisa From The "Psychs" At Morton Plant Hospital Security officer Arthur Baxter, who had been alerted that Lisa was at Morton Plant Hospital, called Kartuzinski and "said she was found walking down the street naked and brought to Morton Plant, and she's probably going to be put into the psychiatric facility there." (Kartuzinski II at 27:22-28:9) Kartuzinski concluded that Lisa had undergone a "psychotic break." (Kartuzinski II at 77:16-78:19) Denying that any Scientology senior directed him to go to the hospital, he decided to go himself in order to keep Lisa out of the psychiatric ward. (Kartuzinski II at 29:19-30:6) On the way out of the garage, Kartuzinski notified Baxter at the security booth, but didn't talk to anyone else. (Kartuzinski II at 30:7-16) While at the hospital, Kartuzinski met with other Scientologists including Humberto Fontana of the Office of Special Affairs. (Kartuzinski II at 30:17-31:19; 196:15-24) The reason all the Scientologists were at the hospital "was to prevent an involuntary hospitalization because she was deemed to be mentally ill and incapable of handling herself." (Kartuzinski II at 197:2-6) Before seeing Lisa, he made the decision to take her back to Fort Harrison. He called Baxter at security and told him to have a room ready. (Kartuzinski II at 62:24-63:9) He assumed responsibility for Lisa's welfare because he "was in charge of her getting better" which included the deployment of personnel. (Kartuzinski II at 127:22-128:12) When Kartuzinski first saw Lisa at Morton Plant, she did not recognize him. (Kartuzinski II at 31:25-2; 92:92:2-3) In response, he "took her hand" and then Lisa said, "I'm glad you're here." (Kartuzinski II at 33:33:1-6) He believed that "she was afraid of going crazy." (Kartuzinski II at 91:11-12) He knew that she was "worse off than she had been by a long way." (Kartuzinski II at 92:10-13) Lisa told Joe Price, the psychiatric evaluator, "He's my minister and I want to go with him." (Kartuzinski II at 34:4-9; 62:12-14) When Joe confronted Lisa and said "You cannot tell me what you did was normal, walking down the street naked," Lisa said "No. You're right, it was not normal. I wanted to cause an effect." (Kartuzinski II at 34:11-13; 58:13-25) Price asked Kartuzinski to leave the room which he did, but stayed within earshot. (Kartuzinski II at 59:9-20) Then Joe came out and said he had no reason to keep her. (Kartuzinski II at 60:22-25) Lisa came out in a hospital gown with Judy Goldsberry and agreed to go to the Fort Harrison in Kartuzinski's car. (Kartuzinski II at 65:18-25) She appeared "very healthy . . .very strong . . . physically." (Kartuzinski II at 133:10-12) Due to his consideration of her state of mind, nothing more was said during the trip back to the Fort Harrison when Lisa was in the back seat between Judy Goldsberry and Emma Schamehorn. (Kartuzinski II at 66:2-13; 67:15-68:21) Going in the back way via security at the Fort Harrison, he dropped her off. (Kartuzinski II at 69:13-70:18) Parking his car, he ascertained Lisa's location from security. (Kartuzinski II at 70:21-71:8) d. The Introspection Rundown Was Approved By The Office Of Special Affairs: Lisa Was Locked Up And Watched Around The Clock - Attendants Were Completely Muzzled: No Speech Since Kartuzinski had determined that Lisa was "partially psychotic," he knew "she needed processing" and "what she had done meant that somewhere - somewhere she - there was something not right here." (Kartuzinski II at 88:12-21; 90:7-21) Lisa was to do an Introspection Rundown which meant she would be watched around the clock with nobody talking and Kartuzinski was to receive on-going written reports of her status. All the watchers were aware of this and that Kartuzinski was in charge. (Kartuzinski II at 84:13-85:7; 124:8-19) When he saw Lisa in her room, he told her they would be "doing some auditing" because "a parishioner does not say I want this or that. That's not how it works." (Kartuzinski II at 71:15-16; 77:1-6) Even though Lisa "agreed" to do the Introspection Rundown which included taking vitamins and nutrition, Kartuzinski did not tell her that she would be billed over $10,000 for it, even though he could have. (Kartuzinski II at 87:12-22; 99:8-100:21 ) Through security, he directed Suzanne Green to begin the on-going 24-hour daily watch. (Kartuzinski II at 108:21-111:17) She was isolated and not free to leave. (Kartuzinski II at 122:24-126:11) He ordered all Lisa's PC files and advised Debra Cook, the "captain of the organization," of the situation. (Kartuzinski II at 89:19-90:2; 100:22-24) Captain Cook, the "head person" at Flag, knew Lisa was staying at Ft. Harrison. (Kartuzinski II at 195:18-23; 200:2) Cook was aware that Scientology's treatment of Lisa was not "per policy" and did nothing to stop it. Instead, she facilitated it. (Kartuzinski II at 198:2-12; 201:5-15; 203:1-13) Kartuzinski kept her informed as to Lisa's status and asked for her assistance in gathering more people to conduct their watch over Lisa as part of the handling of her situation as PTS Type III. After November 25, 1995 Cook was explicitly aware that an Introspection Rundown and watch was being conducted. (Kartuzinski II at 197:19-200:2; 201:16-23) Cook was aware that a "psychotic person" was "being kept" under watch. (Kartuzinski II at 201:5-7) Because of the nature of the situation, Brian Anderson, Umberto Fontana and Annie Mora in the Office of Special Affairs were aware that Lisa was isolated and being watched. (Kartuzinski II at 202:13-21) e. Knowing That Lisa Had No Capacity For Consent, The Scientologists Practice Unlicenced Medicine On Her Because "She Is A Potential Problem For The Church" After the first day, it was clear to Kartuzinski that Lisa was "unable to function by herself" and that she had "serious mental problems" such that she was "unable to make decisions about her own welfare." (Kartuzinski II at 170:11-20) Lisa became "more psychotic as the time went by." (Kartuzinski II at 112:19-23) He organized "people being there 24 hours, no speaking." (Kartuzinski II at 114:18-25) She was "PTS Type III." This meant that Lisa was "connected to someone who is called a suppressive person, which is someone who wants other people to do badly. . . Like a criminal. Hitler would be a suppressive person." (Kartuzinski II at 115:3-23) "Someone who is PTS is connected to such a person." (Kartuzinski II at 116:22-23) A person who is PTS is a "trouble source not only for themselves but a trouble source for the church as well." (Kartuzinski II at 118:1-12) Lisa was viewed "as a type three PTS as someone who represented a threat to herself and a potential problem for the church." (Kartuzinski II at 119:19-24) During the 17 days Lisa was at Ft. Harrison, Kartuzinski was the person who was "going to take care of Lisa" and be her Case Supervisor. As such he was not supposed to talk to her. (Kartuzinski II at 24:10-23; 25:14-17) Thus, he appointed Ruthie Humphrey to be Lisa's auditor. (Kartuzinski II at 25:1-6) He directed Janice Johnson to call Dr. Minkoff with whom she was "in good communication,"speaking to him frequently . (Kartuzinski II at 131:24-137:10) Kartuzinski had no medical training. (Kartuzinski II at 164:18) He claimed that he did not want Lisa "to go to a psychiatric hospital - because she's psychotic." (Kartuzinski II at 160:4-5) He overruled the use of Valium that Dr. Minkoff had prescribed for Lisa because he "thought that [he] was acting for the best of that person" because "Valium is a psychiatric drug." (Kartuzinski II at 163:7-164:12) Without her request or consent, he ordered Lisa to be treated with herbal remedies. (Kartuzinski II at 169:14-170:9) He wanted Janice to physically check on Lisa at least twice per day. (Kartuzinski II at 138:16-21) He spoke with Janice or received reports from her every day. (Kartuzinski II at 139:9-17) He was aware that Janice administered intramuscular injections to Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 146:17-21) He was aware that Lisa could not consent to medication. Kartuzinski gave the authority that Lisa be medicated anyway and directed David Houghton, an unlicensed dentist, to do so. He was aware that Lisa was held down so that medication could be forced down her throat. (Kartuzinski II at 162:19-163:1) He knew that David Houghton was not a physician, but insisted that aspirin be included in the material Houghton forced down Lisa's throat because there are "spiritual writings on this." (Kartuzinski II at 163:21-24; 165:10-14) According to Kartuzinski, because he had "studied for many years on the subject, and . . . used that technology for many years," and therefore knew "what happens to psychotic people," the aspirin "served to destimulate the pictures that she had so she could sleep." (Kartuzinski II at 165:17-166:1) Kartuzinski acknowledged that according to the "Search and Discovery technical bulletin . . . type threes should never be handled in any place that doesn't have hospital facilities" "because then if you are in a position where if anything occurs, it can be handled right away by people who know what they're doing medically." (Kartuzinski II at 185:12-24) Although the bulletin indicates a necessity for medical treatment and intravenous feedings as part of the Introspection Rundown, and Kartuzinski was aware of those requirements at the time Lisa was at Ft. Harrison, Ft. Harrison was not equipped with a hospital. (Kartuzinski II at 186:24-189:16) There is no such facility anywhere in the United States. (Kartuzinski II at 186:1-4) The first step of the Introspection Rundown states, "On a person in a psychotic break isolate the person wholly with all attendant completely muzzled, no speech." The second step says, "Give vitamins, B complex, including niacin and minerals, calcium and magnesium to build the person up." (Kartuzinski II at 190:12-18) The Introspection Rundown clearly recognized the need for medical treatment including intravenous feeding. (Kartuzinski II at 191:6-9) Even though Kartuzinski was aware of this, he never monitored Lisa's situation to see if she was in need of intravenous feeding or intravenous hydration and never asked anyone else to do so. (Kartuzinski II at 191:13-19) None of the watchers stayed with Lisa more than a few days in a row at most and so would not be aware of Lisa's change in status. (Kartuzinski II at 192:7-20) f. Scientology Watched While Lisa Deteriorated And Died When he received reports that Lisa "was much more violent than she had been," he went to see for himself. (Kartuzinski II at 166:19-176:22) In consequence of Lisa's "violence," he ordered more people to be in her room 24-hour daily watch. (Kartuzinski II at 168:3-18) He could not recall the content of his conversations with Janice that took place the day before Lisa died. (Kartuzinski II at 142:8-20; 144:16-18) Janice did not tell him that Lisa had lost significant amounts of weight until the day of her death. (Kartuzinski II at 143:17-21) On the day of Lisa's death, Janice said Lisa was "septic" and "emaciated." (Kartuzinski II at 144:24-145:1; 150:13) Despite the deterioration in Lisa's condition, he did not call Janice Johnson whom he knew was working with Dr. Megan Shields, a licensed physician, doing physicals, even though he admitted that taking care of Lisa deserved more attention than the physicals and said there was no reason why he could not have done so. (Kartuzinski II at 152:11-153:22) Neither Dr. Minkoff nor Dr. Megan Shields were ever asked to visit Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 148:12-20) Janice Johnson was seeing Lisa on a daily basis and making daily reports to him. (Kartuzinski II at 213:20-25) Kartuzinski was receiving and reviewing other reports about Lisa every day as well. He reviewed reports that she was too weak to walk which although caused him concern did not cause him to do anything on her behalf. (Kartuzinski II at 150:19-24) He did not consider the fact that Lisa was too weak to walk as showing that she was physically ill because as she was in a "psychotic break." (Kartuzinski II at 158:5-10) At no point did Kartuzinski talk to Janice Johnson about the report that Lisa was too weak to walk. He recalls receiving reports the last three days of Lisa's life that she was unable to walk and was not eating or sleeping enough. (Kartuzinski II at 155:2-23) Kartuzinski gave no explanation for why he never tried to call Lisa's relatives. (Kartuzinski II at 171:18-172:1) On the last day of Lisa's life at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. Kartuzinski directed Janice to visit Lisa. (Kartuzinski II at 172:9-174:17) Without any explanation for the delay, an hour later Janice reported to him in person. (Kartuzinski II at 174:19-175:4) Purportedly "out of breath" because "she ran to the office," Janice Johnson reported that Lisa had "lost a lot of weight" and was "septic" with a "big infection and it needs to be handled fast." (Kartuzinski II at 175:6-17) They both called Dr. Minkoff from Kartuzinski's office. (Kartuzinski II at 175:20-24) Janice asked Minkoff to prescribe antibiotics over the phone. (Kartuzinski II at 178:14-179:4) He did not recall Dr. Minkoff asking Janice how she determined that Lisa was "septic." (Kartuzinski II at 180:3-6) Kartuzinski directed that Lisa be brought to Port Richey instead of taking the three-minute trip to Morton Plant so that she would be treated by David Minkoff and not go into a psychiatric ward. (Kartuzinski II at 16124-162:16) He denied that there was any conversation whether Lisa is too sick to go to Port Richey. (Kartuzinski II at 175:25-176:8; 177:10-17) Janice said nothing about Lisa being too sick to be able to wait until they went to Port Richey instead of Morton Plant. (Kartuzinski II at 178:1-13) When asked why he did not immediately go see Lisa himself, Kartuzinski could give no explanation. (Kartuzinski II at 182:9-13) He acknowledged that since Lisa was "psychotic," she would not have known who Kartuzinski was so he didn't have to keep his "Case Supervisor" status sacrosanct. (Kartuzinski II at 183:2-5) Kartuzinski was notified by Security head Arthur Baxter that Lisa died. Kartuzinski went straight to the Office of Special Affairs. (Kartuzinski II at 215:4-6) When he was asked: What'd you do about it? I mean, Lisa is still in your control, you're not gonna let her walk out, there's no phone in there, she's psychotic, she can't call anybody for help. You're the only lifeline. She get's so weak she's unable to walk, which seems to me a pretty serious thing. What do you do about it or direct other people to do about it? Do you go find out? Do you go look at her? Do you have someone else look at her? You tell me what you did? (Kartuzinski II at 150:24-151:8) After a pause in excess of two minutes, Kartuzinski said, "I don't recall." (Kartuzinski II at 151:22) Then, he volunteered, "I wasn't - I wasn't trying to let her die. That wasn't what I was trying to do." (Kartuzinski II at 159:2-6) g. To Kartuzinski Scientology Is Infallible So He Does Not Know What Went Wrong, Except Lisa Was To Blame "The proper answer is that nothing in auditing makes people crazy, and that's the truth of the matter. Auditing helps people. The reason why she went the way she did, I don't know. I don't know that anyone knows. It would have to be in her past and auditing is not what created that." (Kartuzinski II at 204:22-205:4) "I'm saying that a person is not in a psychotic break because of whatever was done in Scientology. This is not what occurs, this is not why it's being done, and it cannot do that. It never did, never will. A person's condition is based on what happened to them earlier, what they did, what was done to them and so on, and that is the truth of the matter. Now, a person not recovering may be done - may be due to some error having been done, something that wasn't applied, some bulletin that was not followed exactly, like in this case. Obviously, I just told you that I was the one who took that wrong decision, but I did not make her crazy. The technology - the spiritual counseling did not make her crazy." (Kartuzinski II at 205:22-206:11) I just want to tell you. I can tell you in general terms, and I hope this will help you understand, because it did for me, and the - in some way, not all the suppressive persons in her past were found and handled, and that is the exact technical data, because if it had been, then she would not have relapsed." (Kartuzinski II at 208:17-22) Kartuzinski described that Introspection Rundown as follows: This is the introspection run-down. What was done was an auditor went into the room, sat the person down and corrected the last severe point of wrong indication, so I should take some example.. . .A person gets into a state where they are completely introverted because they have been told things, sometimes repeatedly, sometimes even in violent ways such a father beating you or raping you or whatever, such things which then enter into their reactive mind, and when there is too much of that occurring in a person's life, then the person will go into such a state where it's just too much. The being just disconnects, so to speak, and the mental image pictures take over to the point where they feels they have demons around them and such things, and when you actually tell someone on the 5th of June of last year you were told blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for some reason it destimulates those mental image pictures. It slowly but surely gets the person back in control, back in the environment. (Kartuzinski II at 216:16-217:11) D. David Minkoff, M.D. Accompanied by counsel, David Minkoff was first interviewed under oath on April 20, 1997. A physician, he moved to Clearwater in 1981 to participate more fully in Scientology. (Sworn Statement of David Minkoff, 4/20/97 [hereinafter "Minkoff I"] at 4:4-5:19) Minkoff has completed all Scientology administrative courses, is an auditor and received has counseling through OT8. (Minkoff I at 7:3-6) Out of a total of 12 levels, Minkoff is a Scientology "auditor" of the Class 5 Graduate Level. He audits others. (Sworn Statement of David Minkoff, 5/19/98 [hereinafter "Minkoff II"] at 17:10-23) Minkoff achieved Scientology's state of "Clear" in 1989. It was uncommon for a Clear to go psychotic. (Minkoff Depo at 126:1-15) In fact, prior to Lisa's case, in all his years in Scientology, Minkoff had never heard of such a thing taking place. (Minkoff Depo at 134:7-14) 1. Minkoff's Relationship With The Medical Liaison Officer As a physician and Scientologist, he received frequent calls from Medical Liaison Officers. (Minkoff I at 14:9-13) 2. Relying Entirely On Unlicensed Personnel, Dr. Minkoff "Treated" Lisa McPherson Without Seeing Or Talking To Her, Writing Prescriptions For Her In Someone Else's Name Prior to her illness, David Minkoff never met or heard of Lisa McPherson. (Minkoff I at 15:11-19) Dr. Minkoff knew Alain Karduzinski who was a Case Supervisor. (Minkoff I at 16:2-5) Two weeks before Lisa died, even though Minkoff had lunch with Janice Johnson, they did not discuss Lisa.(Minkoff I at 114:18-23) Within a couple of days after November 18, 1995, Minkoff received a call from Janice Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski or Dave Houghton regarding Lisa that she was Type III and "so wound up that she just wasn't sleeping" (Minkoff I at 17:16-18:7; Minkoff Depo at 35:3-15) Minkoff therefore "assumed that she was psychotic." (Minkoff II at 50:3-17) To be advised that Lisa was "Type 3, which means the person's psychotic. And Hubbard's prescriptions for the psychotic person are to put them in a destimulating environment. So keep it quiet, and let them rest, and give them adequate nutrition and just let them cool off. So my understanding was that's what was going on. Now, as an outsider, you know, as a nonstaff member, the details of what, actually -- the process that -- what was going on -- they don't tell me and I don't ask." (Minkoff I at 24:6-20) He acknowledged that the remedy for Type 3 situations "is Hubbard's teachings or their own procedures, as opposed to going for outside psychiatric problem-solving." (Minkoff I at 25:10-14) Based on those policies, a person with a mental disease needs to go through a thorough physical examination to rule out any possible medical cause for her mental problem. (Minkoff I at 103:19-104:10) He is familiar with Watches and part of the rundown being conducted in Scientology. (Minkoff I at 115:8-14) Minkoff is familiar with the Hubbard bulletins that recommend use of a mild sedative to help people sleep who are too wound up to calm down. (Minkoff Depo at 43:3-18) Minkoff previously participated in Scientology isolation watches at its request by conducting a physical examination on a person which included a house-call-follow-up-visit one month later. (Minkoff Depo at 38:5-39:10; Minkoff II at 28:10-19) MLO David Houghton and Case Supervisor Kartuzinski called Minkoff at home at 11:00 at night and told him that had a woman who was a Type 3 at Fort Harrison "and they wanted to do processing with her, but she just wasn't sleeping." (Minkoff II at 40:6-41:16:24) Houghton and Kartuzinski related no medical history and did not say anything about her condition, whether she was eating, drinking or dehydrated, coherent or incoherent in the sense of being able to give consent. (Minkoff II at 43:8-44:22) They did say she "was in isolation." (Minkoff II at 55:7-10) When Minkoff received the MLO request on November 20, 1995, he responded by giving "medical advice" when he called in a prescription for injectable liquid Valium to Eckard's drugstore in the name of David Houghton which was neither his normal practice nor permitted by law. (Minkoff Depo at 48:13-50:5; Minkoff II at 37:6-25; 45:19-21) Neither Houghton nor Lisa was his patient. (Minkoff Depo at 52:8-17) He wrote the prescription for Lisa McPherson, about whom he knew nothing and had never seen, as a favor to Janice Johnson because she was not licensed and couldn't get prescriptions in Florida. (Minkoff I at 88:15-89:11) He neither gave nor did they ask for authority to force-medicate Lisa or to medicate her against her will or without her consent. (Minkoff II at 56:6-20) He never asked to speak to Lisa. (Minkoff Depo at 73:8-9) He never did speak to Lisa until she showed up at the emergency room dead. (Minkoff II at 63:3-7) Believing "they were attempting to treat her psychosis" (Minkoff II at 66:9-14), on November 29, 1995, Dr. Minkoff called in a second prescription for Lisa McPherson, this time for chloral hydrate. (Minkoff Depo at 74:3-7) She was not his patient. (Minkoff Depo at 81:15-19) In order to get fluids and food into Lisa, Minkoff would not recommend the use of a medical device similar to a turkey baster to do so. (Minkoff I at 97:24-98:21) Minkoff didn't give them any advice or what to symptoms to rule in or rule out, how to treat Lisa's psychosis, on diagnosing what was wrong with her, did not authorize them to restrain her against her will and did not authorize them to hold Lisa down and use a syringe to medicate her with Benadryl and aspirin. He denied knowledge of any forcible medication. (Minkoff II at 58:1-59:1) He never visited Lisa at Fort Harrison and was never asked to. (Minkoff I at 114:13-17) Minkoff had trouble recalling any details of the context of his actions because "I can't explain why I did it in the first place. So after that, everything else is pretty much out the window." (Minkoff II at 59:17-20; 53:5-17) 3. Minkoff Pronounces Lisa Dead On Arrival At The Port Richey Emergency Room On December 5, 1995 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. Minkoff received a call from Janice Johnson asking for authorization to inject Lisa with penicillin (not obtain the same by prescription) because "she thought she had a strep throat" based on seeing Lisa at 6:30 p.m. Johnson further advised Minkoff that even though Lisa had "a lot of diarrhea" and "lost a lot of weight," Lisa was not so sick as to require immediate emergency attention and asked him to see her, even though to do so would require a 45-minute drive. Minkoff refused to give the requested authorization, and said he was leaving the emergency room before 10:00 p.m. (Minkoff Depo at 81:20-83:20) Johnson did not tell Minkoff that Lisa was comatose, and unable to walk or communicate. (Minkoff Depo at 86:5-17) Johnson had not accurately represented Lisa's physical condition when she called Minkoff that night. (Minkoff Depo at 89:25-90:9) It was "out of the ordinary" to bring Scientology members to Port Richey. (Minkoff I at 113:5-8) Johnson said Lisa was still breathing half-way to Port Richey. (Minkoff I at 73:18-20) Janice Johnson brought Lisa McPherson to the Port Richey emergency room at 9:30 p.m. - dead. (Minkoff Depo at 88:14-25) Minkoff declared Lisa dead. (Minkoff Depo at 92:20-24) When Dr. Minkoff first observed Lisa, he was "appalled, . . . very upset. It was horrible. It was terrible. It was - you know, it's shocking." (Minkoff Depo at 89:19-20; 100:17-20) When he first saw Lisa "she was definitely dehydrated." (Minkoff I at 78:20; 95:23-24) After two days without fluids a person becomes severely dehydrated. (Minkoff I at 118:12-21) The appearance of her wrists were consistent with skin abrasions consistent with having been restrained. (Minkoff Depo at 101:8-19\04:19) Minkoff gave privileged information regarding Lisa to Scientology. (Minkoff I at 101:9-102:9) Minkoff denied having any conversation with Janice Johnson since all this occurred. (Minkoff I at 68:24-69:1) 4. Minkoff's Explanation Of Scientology "Ethics" And Lying And Its Abhorrence Of The Mental Health Profession Minkoff explained his operating knowledge of Scientology lexicon and "ethics" in relation to telling the truth and not lying. He started by explaining that the saying "greatest good for the greatest number" means "the action a person takes should take into consideration themselves, others and the environment so that the wisest decision can be made that will benefit all for the best." (Minkoff Depo at 133:21-134:1) The phrase "clearing the planet" means "that it's the hope that if all the collective reactive minds that were on this planet were handled so that the people were clear, it would be a healthy and safe place to be." (Minkoff Depo at 134:2-6) An "Overt" means "transgression against another, either something you did that you shouldn't have done or something you didn't do that you should have done. Involves good for both people." (Minkoff Depo at 134:19-24) Then counsel inquired about the relationship between "lying" and committing an "overt." Q. When is lying an overt? A. Probably when it does the most harm to the most number of dynamics. Q. And when is lying not an overt? A. The opposite; when it's the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Q. So then lying is permissible? A. Well it's - if you look at ethics in the context of society - I mean, I don't think lying is right. Lying isn't good. It's almost like saying it's a sin to kill. Did people sin in World War II when they killed people who were trying to harm them? And I would say no. So if you ask me is lying a sin or an overt, I would basically say yes. If I had to lie because you were threatening me physically to hurt me and it was the only way I could do it to save myself, would that be an overt? No. So it's - ethics is a relative philosophy. It's not - I don't believe that it's a carved-in-stone always this, always that. (Minkoff Depo at 135:9-136:4) Dr. Minkoff further explained his Scientological point of view regarding the truth in response to being asked what is an "acceptable truth" to which he responded "one that works. . . . When it works. When its ethical. When it does the best good for the most number of people." (Minkoff Depo at 136:14-21) Dr. Minkoff agrees with the Hubbardian claim that "pain and sex were . . . invented by psychiatrists millions of years ago" and the "cause of all crime in the world is psychiatry." (Minkoff Depo at 143:21-144:8) He sees no conflict between "being a medical doctor and the techs or bulletins of Scientology." (Minkoff I at 133:8-10) Minkoff described Scientology not as "a belonging sort of thing" but "as a pay-as-you-go service where I learn or audit or take courses. Membership is not the - it's not a membership thing." (Minkoff I at 154:1-1554 LEGAL ARGUMENT V. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT MERIT PROTECTION AS A RELIGION PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT A. Is Scientology a Religion? It All Depends.... "...Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors... HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 OCTOBER 1962, RELIGION (Furnish a copy of this to all attorneys dealing with our interests for us)". (emphasis added). "In spite of the fact that data did indicate religion to be an incorrect approach, the Mission went ahead incorporating Scientology as a Church in Tokyo... Do we go religious or Dianetics (into Japan)..."SEA ORGANIZATION AIDES ORDER 549-1, 29 January 1981. "Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field of mental healing on this planet in all forms. This was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear Earth..." To the Guardian W W 2 Dec 69, CONFIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS COVERT INTELLIGENCE DATA COLLECTION Is this a religion? It depends on how Scientology wants to be perceived. The correct approach in determining the status of Scientology and Flag is contained in the learned decision of United States v. Article or Device "Hubbard Electrometer", 333 F. Supp. 357, 361 (USDC., 1971). There the court describes the history of Scientology where it sold courses and even its claimed religious E-meters to members of the general public. The court ruled that Scientology had a secular and religious auditing processes. At 359. It noted that a few of Hubbard's writings are primarily religious in nature but most of his writings contain medical or scientific claims written in a "partially religious context." At 361. Unfortunately, the trial court, in following the Court of Appeals, stated that there must be an item by item analysis of the writings. "The court notes that the task of determining whether a claim or representation is religious or non-religious, or whether a religious claim is genuine or merely "tacked on" to basically pseudo- scientific claims, is hardly less troublesome than the task of determining whether a religious claim is true or false. The court has attempted to resolve the difficulty thus presented by the Court of Appeals by refusing to consider the truth or falsity of any claim which, in the understanding of the average reader, could be construed as resting on religious faith. All doubts on this issue have been resolved in favor of the claimants. But the overall effect of the many separate writings and the writings as a whole cannot be seriously questioned. Whether the documents are viewed singly or as a whole, the proof showed that many false scientific claims permeate the writings and that these are not even inferentially held out as religious, either in their sponsorship or context. At 361. (emphasis added). The court noted that the Hubbard Guidance Center offers nonreligious processing in auditing to the public for a fee. The court concluded that "[V]iewed as a whole the thrust of the writings is secular, not religious." At 362. (emphasis added). The First Amendment does not define "religion." Reynolds v. United St ates, 98 U.S. 145, 162 (1878). In order to merit First Amendment protection, religious beliefs must be "based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate and upon which all else is ultimately dependent." United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965). "The battle for religious liberty has been fought and won with respect to religious beliefs and practices, which are not in conflict with good order, upon the supremecy of conscience within its proper field." Id. (Emphasis added). So therefore, if a religion mandates deprivation of food and water in order to cleanse or free the body or spirit, and this cleansing continues to the point of death, with or without the consent of the parishioner, it conflicts with good order. The constitution will not only not protect that type of religious practice, the law will mandate legal redress "The First Amendment, although it protects religious belief, does not itself define "religion." Therefore, the court must turn to case law for guidance. Early Supreme Court precedent defined religion in traditional theistic terms. Over the years, case law broadened to protect unorthodox and nontheistic beliefs. See, e.g., Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, 81 Sup. Ct. 1680, 1683 n. 11, 6 L. Ed.2d 92 (1961), (identifying religions in this country which do not teach belief in the existence of God); ... religion may be regarded "as a response of the individual to an inward mentor")... The court defined "religion" by comparing less traditional belief systems to faiths clearly within the scope of the First Amendment. Thus: while the applicant's words may differ, the test is simple of application. It is essentially an objective one, namely, does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption? (United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185, 85 S.Ct. 850,863,13 L. Ed.2d 733 (1965))... " Carpenter v. Wilkinson, at 525-526. (emphasis added). If "beliefs are more aptly characterized as medical, therapeutic, and social...they are secular, not religious." United States v.Meyers, 906 F.Supp. 1494 (D. Wy., 1995). In order to assist this court through the maze of Scientology claims of being a religion, a philosophy, or secular management tool, the case The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington D.C. v. United States, 409 F. 2nd 1146 (D.C.Cir., 1968), is most helpful. In order to understand Scientology, one must first begin with Dianetics. "The basic theory of Dianetics is that man possesses both a reactive mind and an analytic mind. The analytic mind is a superior computer, incapable of error, to which can be attributed none of the human misjudgments which create social problems and much individual suffering. These are traceable rather to the reactive mind, which is made up ' engrams', or patterns imprinted on the nervous system in moments of pain, stress or unconsciousness. These imprinted patterns may be triggered by stimuli associated with the original imprinting, and may then produce unconscious or condition behavior which is harmful or irrational. Dianetics is not presented as a simple description of the mind, but as a practical science which can cure many of the ills of man... The goal of Dianetics is to make persons ' clear', thus freeing the rational and infallible analytical mind." At 1151. The above definition quoted by the court is found in the original Hubbard book of Dianetics. There is absolutely nothing in this theory which even hints at spirituality or spiritual treatment. It is pure science according to Hubbard. "Appellants (Founding Church of Scientology Washington D.C.), have contended that their theories concerning auditing or part of their religious doctrine. We have delineated in detail the evidence on which is claims based. Again the government has not contested this claim; it has not tried to argue or prove, for instance, that even if Scientology's practice here is a religion, auditing services had been settled to the general public on the basis of wholly non-religious pseudo- scientific representations. At 1161. "On the basis of the record before us, the Founding Church of Scientology has made out a prima facie case that it is a bona fide religion and, since no rebuttal has been offered, it must be regarded as a religion for purposes of this case. At 1162. (emphasis added). Even though the government in Founding Church of Scientology of Washington D.C. did not contest that Scientology's theories concerning auditing are part of their religious doctrine, the court stated: "we do not hold that the Founding Church is for all legal purposes a religion. Any prima facie case made out for religious status is subject to contradiction by a showing that the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organization were erected for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protections of religion. We do not hold that, even if Scientology is a religion, all literature published by it is religious doctrine immune from the Act. At 1162.(emphasis added). "The Constitution protects the right to have and to express beliefs. It does not blindly afford the same absolute protection to acts done in the name of or under the impetus of religion." Leary v. United States, 383 F. 2nd 851, 859 (5th Cir., 1967), reh. denied, 392 F. 2nd 220 (1968), cert granted, 392 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 205 A., 20 L. Ed.2d 1362 (1968).United States v. Kuch, At 444. Scientology, over the years, has seized the status of a religion by default, not by merit. There is not a single case where the question whether or not Scientology is a bona fide religion has been litigated in an open, public, adversary proceeding. Indeed, even though it was regrettably constrained by the consequences of such a default, a United States District Court went so far to say that Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard's "religious cult" was nothing but "quackery [which had] flourished throughout the United States and in various parts of the world" after "Hubbard, writing in a science fiction magazine in the 1940's, first advanced the extravagant false claims that various physical and mental illnesses could be cured by auditing." (United States v. Article or Device. Etc. (D.D.C. 1971) 333 F.Supp. 357, 359.) Now, almost 30 years later, despite Scientology's shrill exactions to constitutional status as a bona fide religious institution, the issue currently "remains a very live and interesting question." (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 880) This judicial pronouncement illustrates that despite Scientology's efforts to achieve by litigation what it has been unable to earn by merit, nothing has changed in the last 30 years. B. Scientology Is Not A Bona Fide Religion 6. Scientology's Beliefs Which Gave Rise To The Behavior That Killed Lisa Are So Bizarre And Incredible As To Be Clearly Non-Religious The polestar of constitutional jurisprudence is a flexibility of determination and application so as to respond to the changing needs and circumstances of our democracy. Thus, the phrase "religion" as used in the Constitution may be construed "in light of evolving needs and circumstances." (Welsh v. United States (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 346) The Constitution cannot be applied in disregard of the external circumstances in which men live and move and have their being. Therefore, neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment is to be treated by judges as though it were a mathematical abstraction, an absolute having no relation to the lives of men. (Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 318 U.S. 141, 152) Thus, "for the adjudication of a constitutional claim, the Constitution, rather than an individual's religion, must supply the frame of reference." (Bowen v. Roy (1986) 476 U.S. 693, 701) Due to the extraordinary protections that flow from the attainment of bona fide religious status, a court must not grant the same without a searching inquiry. A critical reason for the need of such an inquiry was recognized by the court in McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, fn 7, where it said: The absolute protection afforded belief by the First Amendment suggests that a court should be cautious in expanding the scope of the protection since to do so might leave government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests. Scientology's position herein profoundly presents great need for the exercise of such caution. Indeed, in the face of the facts of this case, Scientology boldly asserts that the least amount of scrutiny of its beliefs and practices gives the best respect to the constitutional protection to which it lays claim. As always, such claim is entirely one-sided. Scientology says that its institutionalized hatred of psychiatry and psychology deserves First Amendment protection whereby it would seek to overcome Lisa McPherson's basic right not to be subjected to captivity, torture, death and cover up at the hands of anyone. Scientology's position admonishes this Court that it is constitutionally restrained from "intrusive judicial evaluation" of its beliefs, practices and conduct and therefore must grant on summary judgment constitutional protection to it as a religion and the Introspection Rundown as a religious practice. (Moving Memo., at 21-22, 47) Scientology says that in making the desired constitutional determination, this Court must necessarily "defer to Reverend Reiss's description of beliefs and practices of Scientology religion" (Moving Memo., at 48) and "without further inquiry is bound to accept Church teaching that the Introspection Rundown is a religious practice intended to address the spiritual problems of the thetan that is suffering the condition known in Scientology as PTS Type III." (Moving Memo., at 49) The Plaintiff's position is that defendants engaged in premeditated and barbaric criminal and civil misconduct without justification or excuse. Plaintiff's position is that Scientology is a business whose primary aspiration in the accumulation of dollars. To that end it employs substantial public relations activities which place great value on (1) presenting itself as a bona fide religion (2) whose adherents achieve great value when they attain the state of Clear. Plaintiff's position is that for Lisa McPherson to have attained the state of Clear and then gone "psychotic" by walking naked on a public street in Clearwater, the "Mecca of Scientology religion," (Exhibit A to Motion at 1040, 395), in a desperate attempt to get "help" presented the potential for a public relations catastrophe. This catastrophe would be compounded if competent mental health professionals assisted Lisa and found that Scientology auditing contributed to her mental illness and public acting out. Moreover, Lisa's committed a "high crime" against Scientology by publicly departing it and bringing it into disrepute because her behavior could hold Scientology up to public exposure and ridicule. This caused Scientology to condemn her as a "suppressive person," "psychotic" and "trouble source." Therefore, in the total absence of her capacity to consent, Scientology arrogated to itself dominion and control over the body and person of Lisa McPherson as an exercise of business imperative. They locked her up, dehydrated her and killed her in an effort to eliminate a public relations "flap." Scientology was constrained to kill Lisa McPherson in the name of "helping" her adhere to the dictates of her religion. The belief system of Scientology supported both retribution against Lisa for being a suppressive person, and its barbaric abuse in the name of treatment for psychosis. Scientology provided justification for her death because "there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can't be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught ever to become quiet." Thus, without medical license or her consent, they intramuscularly injected her with fluids obtainable only by prescription from a Scientologist doctor who only saw Lisa after she was dead. Without medical license or her consent they physically restrained Lisa so as to force feed her by means of a device akin to a turkey baster. Surrounding her 24 days per day, 7 days per week, her watchers would not talk to Lisa. They would not give her sufficient fluids. As she became dehydrated and exhausted by violent yet futile objections to her captivity, she deteriorated. They did not help. They watched her wind down and die. They took her dead body to a Scientologist doctor. The Office of Special Affairs tried to cover up the death by directing witnesses to lie to the police. In the face of such behavior "States are clearly entitled to assure themselves that there is an ample predicate for invoking the Free Exercise Clause" (Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security (1989) 489 U.S. 829, 833, even to the extent "that an asserted belief might be 'so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause.'" (Id., at 834, fn. 2, quoting Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security (1981) 450 U.S. 707, 715) Close scrutiny of Scientology's beliefs show that they are, indeed, "bizarre or incredible" in the face of the physical result of death they have produced. (Ibid.) 7. Scientology Does Not Hold Its Beliefs Sincerely In United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, the Supreme Court defined religious beliefs meriting First Amendment protection as those "based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate and upon which all else is ultimately dependent." (Id. 380 U.S. at 176) The Seeger court required that these beliefs be "sincere" (Ibid,) and stated that "the threshold question of sincerity must be resolved in every case." (Id. 380 U.S. at 185) Pursuant to this "sincerity" standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are "religious." (See, e.g., Yoder, 406 U.S. at 235 ["Aided by a history of three centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history as a successful and self-sufficient segment of American society, the Amish in this case have convincingly demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of life, and the vital role that belief and daily conduct play in the continued survival of . . . their religious organization. . .."]; International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (1981) 650 F.2d 430, 439-41; United States v. Rasheed (9th Cir. 1981) 663 F.2d 843, 847-49 [alleged religious belief in "Dare To Be Rich" program not sincerely held because palpably deceitful]; Jones v. Bradley (9th Cir. 1979) 590 F.2d 294, 295; United States v Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass. 1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125; Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 212, cert. denied 396 U.S. 963 (1969) Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d at 1146 noted that "[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not be unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred." (Id. 409 F.2d at 1160) The court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that ". . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion." (Id. at 1162) In Theriault v. Carlson (5th Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 390, 394 the court indicated that a claim of entitlement to religious status raised "the necessity of employing sharp and careful scrutiny of his activities, including his claim of religious sincerity." a. Scientology Is An Obvious Sham The affidavits and deposition excerpts attached hereto by current and former members of Scientology demonstrate that members and staff do not hold Scientology as a religious organization. In the attached affidavit of Peter Alexander, he describes the lack of any semblance to religious practices and complete denial by staff that Scientology is a religion. In fact, the staff informed him that religion was just an "angle" for the IRS, reflecting Hubbard's reason to call Scientology a religion. Mr. Alexander, a celebrity in Scientology, reached the high level of OT7 and only recently left Scientology. In 20 years, no one in Scientology viewed it seriously as a religion. He calls it pseudo-psycho-therapy. Even Paul Greenwood, SEA ORG and a staff member at FLAG since 1993, does not view Scientology as a religion. He describes it as "a way of freeing myself as a being...(from) my reactive mind." Deposition. 37-2-4 ). Karsten Lorenzen, who recently left Scientology after being ordered to watch a Danish woman on an Isolation watch, who, like Lisa McPherson was in Isolation at FALG five months after Lisa died and barely made it out alive from FLAG, testified that Scientology is not a religion but a philosophy. (Lorenzen deposition at 92:11-17). He goes on to say that Denmark does not recognize Scientology as a religion. (52:16-18). Gerald Armstrong, who handled the personal communications for Hubbard himself, and Scientology's archivist, testified that Scientology was never presented as a religion. (Armstrong deposition at 69:12-13). Marjory Wakefield, a former Scientologist, testified that in 1977-78 an order came out for everyone to take the Minister's course which qualified the person to perform ceremonies in Scientology. For example, baptism in Scientology is merely introducing the infant to the parents and say that you hope that he/she will make a good scientologist. However, she does not know if any baptisms were ever done. (Deposition of Wakefield at 92-93). In fact, she recalls that when reporters were coming to the scientology headquarters, they were all ordered "to dress up the next day and that we were going to have a mock church service." (At 96:17-18). If someone wanted to create a religion that mocked all other established religions of the world, it would be Scientology. Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard. After flunking out of college and being sent to a mental ward at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Washington, D.C. at the end of his short naval career, Hubbard developed a strong hatred for psychiatry, while continuing to write science fiction. He later wrote a book entitled Dianetics which was later incorporated into Scientology. When he had an epiphany on how to make more money, Hubbard decided to form a religion from Dianetics. In his claim to be a religion in 1953, Hubbard appropriated ideas from his "very good friend", Aleister Crowley, the infamous practitioner of "Black Magick," who called himself "The Beast" with "666" tattooed on his forehead. Hubbard was cleaver enough to include ideas and practices not only from Crowley, but also religious trappings from other well established religions. In order to escape prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, to avoid the payment of income taxes, and to make more money, Hubbard proclaimed that Scientology was a religion in 1953. "Make money. Spend it truly. So it gives a tax problem. So what?" HCO Policy Letter of 28 January, 1965. After reviewing the multitude of evidence before him, Judge Sterrett of the U.S. Tax Court wrote a 145 page opinion which culminated in the revocation of Scientology's tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,, 83 T.C. 381, 442, aff'd, 823 F. 2nd 1310 (9th Cir. 1987). The court found that Scientology is a profit-driven enterprise. Judge Sterrett stated as follows: "Practically everywhere we turn, we find evidence of [Scientology's] commercial purpose. Certainly, its language reflects reality, [Scientology] had a substantial commercial purpose since it described its activities in highly commercial terms, calling parishioners 'customers'; missions, 'franchises'; and churches, 'organizations' -just to mention a few of the more glaring examples of [Scientology's] commercial vocabulary. [Scientology] was eager to make money. This was expressed in [a Scientology policy directive dated] March 9, 1972... It sets out the governing policy of [Scientology's] financial offices by exhorting these offices to 'MAKE MONEY... MAKE MONEY... MAKE MONEY... MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.' This is not an isolated policy letter coming back to haunt [Scientology]. The goal of making money permeated virtually all of [Scientology's] activities-its services, its pricing policies, its dissemination practices and its management decisions." Id., 83 T.C. at 475-76. Judge Sterrett commented extensively on the systematic and methodical violations of criminal and civil law by Scientology. He wrote that such policies and procedures included: "[1] Conspiracy to impede an abstract of the Internal Revenue Service...; [2] the infliction of psychic harm including the loss of moral judgment through brainwashing accomplished by auditing and other practices and procedures; [3] the use of blackmail and intimidation to implement [Scientology's] 'fair game' policy; [4] involuntary dissolution of marriage of family ties to the enforcement of [Scientology's] 'disconnect' policies; [5] involuntary detention and false imprisonment; [6] the making a false statement to immigration authorities...; [7] the removal of large amounts of currency from United States without disclosure; [8] the false registration of [Scientology's] fleet as private yachts used for pleasure when in fact they were used for paramilitary training in commercial activity; and [9] the drastic punishment of staff and members." Id., 83 T.C. at 4 11-12. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a 23 F. 2nd 1310 (9th Cir. 1987), upheld the revocation of Scientology's tax-exempt status. Likewise, in Hernandez v. Commissioner, 4900 U.S. 680 (1989), the United States Supreme Court affirmed that "fixed donations", i.e., the payments for counseling and training, are not tax deductible. The First Amendment does not immunize a self-proclaimed religion from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy. When an organization's religious status is of legal significance, courts may make an objective inquiry into whether the organization's beliefs are entitled to First Amendment religious liberty protections. (See, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 209-213; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296) In Mason v. General Brown Central School District (1988) 851 F.2d 47, 54 the court noted that it was "not enough" that an organization exists to "give 'religious' legitimacy to the chiropractic ethics of its members" while providing a "tax dodge for its leaders." It said, While it has sometimes been difficult for us to establish precise standards by which the bona fides of a religion may be judged, these difficulties have not hindered us in denying protected status to organizations which are "obviously shams and absurdities" and whose leaders "are patently devoid of religious sincerity." Theriault v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 390, 395 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 323, 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974); see Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir.1985); Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679, 683 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Carroll, 567 F.2d 955, 957 (10th Cir.1977); United States v. Kuch, 288 F.Supp. 439, 443-44 (D.D.C.1968). The court in Theriault v. Carlson, supra 495 F.2d at 395, stated, "While it is difficult for the courts to establish precise standards by which the bona fides of a religion may be judged, such difficulties have proved to be no hindrance to denials of First Amendment protection to so-called religions which tend to mock established institutions." That Scientology claims "psychiatry is the cause of crime," that psychotics are evil and should be locked up, and that it was therefore "protecting" Lisa McPherson by asserting dominion over her despite her psychological incapacity to give consent so as to inflict torture in the form of practicing barbaric forms of medicine without a license and watch her deteriorate to death certainly tends "to mock established institutions." Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller (2nd Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 12 It simply is not the type of belief and conduct that merits any legal recognition of constitutional protection. b. Scientology's Invidious Treatment Of Lisa McPherson Was Based On Hate And Exploited Her Defenselessness And Vulnerability When a party and his "religion are committed to violence or profess hatred toward, religious, ethnic or racial groups" it is subject to an attack that said beliefs are not "sincere and legitimate." Thus, an "initial inquiry into the legitimacy of [a party's] religious convictions is an extremely important component" required to "sort out the insincere and illegitimate . . . Free Exercise claims from illegitimate ones . . ." and provides "an efficient means for disposing of bogus claims undeserving of First Amendment protections." (Luckette v. Lewis (1995) 883 F.Supp. 471, 478) Thus, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation of the First Amendment when a tax exemption was denied a religious organization on the basis that its tenets required racial discrimination in its private schools. (Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) 461 U.S. 574) In the instant case, the reason that Lisa was removed from the hospital was because of Scientology's hatred toward the mental health profession. She had committed the "high crime" of bringing "Scientology into disrepute" by seeking "help" in being able to "publicly depart" Scientology through the extreme act of disrobing and walking naked in public, and agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation. She went "psychotic" or "PTS Type III" after attaining the state of "Clear." Lisa McPherson, having thus committed a "suppressive act" was a "suppressive person" for having impeded the advancement of Scientology, became "fair game," a person without rights. She became subject to the Introspection Rundown which was imposed on her in the absence of her capacity to exercise an informed and intelligent consent. c. An Atmosphere of Coercion Strips Religious Conduct Of Any Claim To Constitutional Protection Simply because an activity is a "core practice" of a so-called religion does not mean that it is entitled to protection. When such an activity takes place in an atmosphere permeated by coercion, no First Amendment protection attaches. As we have seen, not every religious expression is worthy of constitutional protection. To illustrate, centuries ago the inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe. This religious practice involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. (See generally Peters, Inquisition (1988); Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1961).) Yet should any church seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries-- physical or psychological--they sustained? We do not mean to suggest Scientology's retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day "inquisition." Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. "Fair game" like the "inquisition" targeted "heretics" who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once "proven" to be a "heretic," an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death. (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp. 57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134; Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) As described in the evidence at this trial the "fair game" policy neutralized the "heretic" by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. (See, e.g., Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 [former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part of "fair game" policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].) (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., 212 Cal.App.3d at 888-889) Thus, in Wollersheim, even though Scientology obtained religious status by default, and obtained summary adjudication that auditing was a core religious practice, the court did not give First Amendment protection to such auditing because it transpired, not voluntarily, but in consequence of coercion. There was substantial evidence here from which the jury could have concluded Wollersheim was subjecting himself to auditing because of the coercive environment with which Scientology had surrounded him. To leave the Church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he would become a 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. (Id., 212 Cal.App.3d at 895) The coercive circumstances which provided the context for the Isolation Watch are patent. d. When Religionists Deliberately Lie About Their Religious Beliefs In Order To Cover Up Wrongdoing Based On Those Beliefs, And To Protect Their "Church"They Cannot Be Found To Hold Their Religious Beliefs Sincerely In Hansel v. Purnell (1924) 1 F.2d 266, cert denied 266 U.S. 617 (1924), the court drew a distinction of critical applicability to the instant litigation. The court held that simply because a religion presented the trappings of sectarian functioning was insufficient reason to grant constitutional protection when those trappings were presented for an ulterior and corrupt purpose. It stated: . . . in so far as it proclaims a definite religious doctrine, and purports to teach publicly a moral code, it is for the fraudulent and corrupt purpose of borrowing the cloak of religion to disguise its true purposes and corrupt motives, and particularly for Benjamin's private gain, to afford him opportunities for the gratification of his lust, and to shield and protect him in criminal and licentious practices with the young girls and young women members of this organization. This action is not and does not purport to be an attack upon a religious faith, but, on the contrary, an attack upon an attempt to prostitute that faith to irreligious and base purposes through the instrumentality of a so-called religious society, ostensibly organized for the furtherance of the faith, but in fact organized under guise of religion for wicked, lewd, licentious, and unlawful purposes. This, of course, does not mean that any individual may be deprived of his constitutional right to worship God in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, nor that a court will assume to determine the truth or error of any religious creed or dogma; but it does mean that no individual, or group of individuals, will be permitted to deceive and defraud others through and by false and fraudulent representations made under color of religion, no matter what that religion may be or under color of any other lawful purpose. (Id., at 270) The deceptions engaged in on behalf of Scientology in the instant case are legion. Scientology was created to MAKE MONEY. It uses its claim to religious status as a public relations tool. The Office of Special Affairs manipulated the relationship of Judy Goldsberry-Weber to the medical staff at Morton Plant and to Lisa McPherson so to sequester her under its dominion and control, safely away from mental health care providers, her family and the media. Once under their control, Lisa was subjected to the unlicenced practice of medicine in a manner that constituted torture. Having broken down her person and any ability to resist, they failed to care for her, depriving her of adequate food and water. They watched her deteriorate and die. Her Case Supervisor, Alain Kartuzinski, and Medical Liaison Officer Janice Johnson tried to cover up what they had done by intentionally lying by denying that Lisa was subjected to any sort of Scientology program for the 17 days that she was locked up at the Fort Harrison. Scientology's Legal and Public Relations Department, the Office of Special Affairs, was aware of what the plan was for Lisa not only from the outset but also throughout the duration of her captivity when Goldsberry-Weber submitted reports to Judy Fontana about Lisa's mistreatment. It did nothing. Debra Cook, the "head person" at Flag, not only was advised as to what was in the process of occurring, she rounded up more Scientologists to help conduct the watch. The term "sincere" distinguishes between persons "who genuinely believe in something, and those who lie about their beliefs." (Roby v. United States (1995) 76 F.3d 1052, 1057) A person in power in a religion may not hide his own rottenness under a cloak of righteousness. It would seem unnecessary to say that an association organized, dominated, and prostituted to the unholy purposes of such a man is not a religious society, no matter what its pretensions may be, and is not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, or considerations of a society which in truth and in fact has been organized for religious purposes and teaches privately, as well as publicly, a code of morals consistent with law and public policy. (Hansel v. Purnell, supra., 1 F.2d at 272) Not only did Alain Kartuzinski and Janice Johnson, the two persons with local authority over the conditions of Lisa McPherson's captivity, lie about their relationship to and control over her, they lied about her being subjected to the doctrines and practices of Scientology some of which authorized her mistreatment because of her designated status as "psychotic." After their lies were exposed, Kartuzinski admitted that Lisa indeed had been subjected to an Isolation Watch, the first step to the Introspection Rundown. In addition, Kartuzinski admitted that the manner in which Lisa was treated failed to comply with the "scripture" which required that a "proper institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous feedings." (Exhibit D to Motion at 4) Despite this, Scientology asserts relies on a First Amendment defense. Specifically, it asserts because "this belief and practice might seem incredible or unbelievable to this Court is precisely the reason why this Court must defer to Church doctrine." (Moving Memo at 49-50) When religious belief and practice is predicated on manipulation, hatred, discrimination, captivity of an individual unable to consent, abuse, torture, preventable death, and lying in an effort to cover it all up, the Court does not have to defer to anything. Indeed, were this Court to adopt Scientology's position it "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances." (Reynolds v. United States (1879) 98 U.S. 244, 250) 8. Scientology Does Not Satisfy The Yoder Test In Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra., the Supreme Court conducted a searching examination of the relationship between a state requirement that children attend public school and the Amish practice of informal vocational education. The court looked at the interests that the state sought to serve and compared those interests to those that the Amish practice served. The court accepted the legitimacy of two propositions presented by the State. The first was that some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence. The second was that education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society. (Id., 406 U.S. at 221) The court then examined the overall relationship between the Amish practices and the values that the State asserted it wanted to further. It rejected the State's argument that the position asserted by the Amish fostered "ignorance." It found that the Amish community had been a highly successful social unit within American society, even if not mainstream. Its members were productive and very law-abiding. (Ibid.) Thus, the Court concluded: The independence and successful social functioning of the Amish community for a period approaching almost three centuries and more than 200 years in this country are strong evidence that there is at best a speculative gain in terms of meeting the duties of citizenship, from an additional one or two years of compulsory formal education. Against this background it would require a more particularized showing from the State on this point to justify the severe interference with religious freedom such additional compulsory attendance would entail. (Id., at 226-227) The Yoder Court, however, noted that if the facts of Amish life were other than were presented - for example, if there were violations of the legitimate concern of the child labor laws - its decision would not be the same. Thus, the Court left open for consideration whether a granting of a First Amendment religious exception for the situation where there is a risk of "harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred." (Id., at 229) Scientology's record in the factual microcosm of this case, or in the macrocosm of American jurisprudence, is not the same as the Amish. As so graphically evidenced by the facts in this case, Scientology poses a threat to psychotic persons and the "public safety, peace, order, or welfare" in general. Scientology's legal history in this country is characterized by a continuum of one-sided, self-serving and anti-social acts that directly flow from its anti-social policies that are highly destructive to others and to the proper functioning of the judiciary. a. Scientology's Litigation History In Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn 1, Scientology caused the 21-day jailing without cause of Allard because he was a "suppressive person" or "enemy" who as "fair game" could "be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." The appellate court specifically upheld the introduction of Scientology policy statements on the issue of credibility of "those witnesses who were Scientologists or had been Scientologists . . . following the policy of the church and lying to, suing, and attempting to destroy" Allard. (Id., at 447) In Church of Scientology v. Siegelman (1979) 475 F.Supp. 950 Scientology sued the author of a book entitled Snapping: America's Epidemic Of Sudden Personality Change for defamation in connection with comments he made on a television interview show. The statements dealt with the "alleged debilitating physical and psychological effect certain actions by the Church of Scientology have on its members." (Id., at 953) The case was dismissed. In United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F2d 1238 the court reviewed indictments and guilty pleas of high ranking Scientologists who were convicted by means of a Stipulation of Evidence which detailed their substantive offenses. The indictments were "for completed conspiracies and substantive offenses involving their plan to identify, locate and obtain by various illegal means certain documents in the possession of the United States which were related to Scientology, and their efforts thereafter to obstruct justice by thwarting the government's investigation of such criminal activities, by harboring and concealing a fugitive from arrest, and by causing the making of false declarations under oath before a grand jury." (Id., at 1241) The court noted that "those who formulate conspiracies to obstruct justice, steal government property, burglarize, bug, harbor fugitives from justice, and commit and suborn perjury before the grand jury have no constitutional right under the first amendment to conceal documentary evidence thereof." The court asserted "freedom of religion is not endangered but encouraged when criminal conspiracies are suppressed that attempt to hide behind religion." (Id., at 1258) In Church of Scientology v. Cazares (1981) 638 F.2d 1272, Scientology sued the former mayor of Clearwater for defamation in connection with comments by the mayor regarding Charles Manson's alleged history in Scientology, his opposition to bringing a "helter-skelter world and philosophy" to Clearwater, his dislike for "paramilitary religious organizations" and that Scientology "was not a religious organization as 'religion' was understood in the Clearwater area, but a 'rip-off, money motivated operation.'" Summary judgement dismissal was affirmed. (Id., at 1287-1288) In Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381 in an extremely lengthy opinion, the court found "When we consider all the facts spread across the voluminous record in this case, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that one of petitioner's overriding purposes was to make money. We also conclude that criminal manipulation of the IRS to maintain its tax exemption (and the exemption of affiliated churches) was a crucial and purposeful element of petitioner's financial planning. (Id., at 504-505) In New Era Publications International v. Henry Holt and Co. (1989) 873 F.2d 576 Scientology unsuccessful sought to enjoin the publication of a book entitled Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story Of L. Ron Hubbard. In Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 the underlying facts commenced in 1981 when Scientology, fearing a raid by law enforcement agencies ordered the shredding of documents showing Hubbard's control of the organization. Over two million documents were destroyed over a two week period. Thereafter, Scientologist Gerald Armstrong, privy to highly confidential and unfavorable information about Hubbard, left the group. He took documents with him to protect himself from Scientology. Shortly thereafter Scientology sued him for "conversion" of the documents and lost in a court trial. Following the commencement of the lawsuit, one of Scientology's private investigators assaulted Armstrong with a car. Scientology had issued "suppressive person declares" which labeled Armstrong an "enemy of the church" because he had taken an "unauthorized leave" and other Scientology-crimes. Being a suppressive person subjected Armstrong to Scientology's "Fair Game Doctrine" which "permits a suppressive person to be "tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed." (Id., at 1065-1067, 1073) As related in United States v. Kattar (1988) 840 F.2d 118 Scientology investigator Eugene Ingram suborned false statements so as to implicate opposing counsel Michael J. Flynn in a scheme to steal a $2,000,000 check from L. Ron Hubbard. The statements against Flynn were given substantial play in Scientology's newspaper, Freedom, and publicized in a number of press conferences. (Id., at 119-120) Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., affirmed a punitive damage verdict against Scientology. Evidence was introduced that, at least during the time relevant to Wollersheim's case, "fair game" was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on "suppressives," which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a "suppressive," all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to "neutralize" that individual-- economically, politically, and psychologically. During trial, Wollersheim's experts testified Scientology's "auditing" and "disconnect" practices constituted "brain-washing" and "thought reform" akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. They also testified this "brain-washing" aggravated Wollersheim's bipolar manic-depressive personality and caused his mental illness. Other testimony established Scientology is a hierarchical organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes toward certain institutions and individuals--in particular, the government, mental health professions, disaffected members and others who criticize the organization or its leadership. Evidence also was introduced detailing Scientology's retribution policy, sometimes called fair game. (Id., 212 Cal.App.3d at 879-880) In United States v. Zolin (1989) 109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 the Court addressed whether the attorney-client privilege between Scientology and some of its attorneys should be abrogated on the basis "that the legal service was sought or obtained in order to enable or aid the client to commit or plan to commit a crime or tort." (Id. at 2630, 105 L.Ed.2d at 489) The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ã_ÃUnited States v. ZolinÄ_Ä Á______United States v. Zolin (9th Cir. 1987) 809 F.2d 1411 that the Government had not made a sufficient showing that there had been "illegal advice ... given by [Scientology] attorneys to [Scientology] officials" to invoke the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Upon reversing and remanding, the Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to review partial transcripts of the tape recording sought by the IRS in a criminal investigation of Scientology to determine whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applied. On remand, this the Ninth Circuit held: The partial transcripts demonstrate that the purpose of the [Mission Corporate Category Sort Out] project was to cover up past criminal wrongdoing. The MCCS project involved the discussion and planning for future frauds against the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 371. [citation.] The figures involved in MCCS admit on the tapes that they are attempting to confuse and defraud the U.S. Government. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to exclude such transactions from the protection of the attorney-client privilege. (United States v. Zolin (9th Cir. 1990) 905 F.2d 1344, 1345. cert. denied, Church of Scientology v. United States (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1309) In Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States (1992) 26 Cl.Ct. 713 the court reviewed the manner in which Scientology is operated. CSI became the new mother church of Scientology. It sits at the top of a complex corporate hierarchy. RTC is the entity charged with maintaining doctrinal purity in the church. CSI along with RTC form the top-level ecclesiastical management of Scientology, although there are numerous other churches and other entities that have a role in management, finance or spiritual affairs . . . Ecclesiastical oversight is accomplished by CSI through the Watchdog Committee ("WDC"). This committee is responsible for oversight of the international management structure of Scientology organizations. . . . The multiple layers of hierarchy thus create two different operational levels. The first is the management churches, which make all organizational decisions. . . . After carefully examining the record and attempting to understand the nominal corporate structure of Scientology it is apparent to the court that it is something of a deceptis visus. Real control is exercised less formally, but more tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the Sea Organization, more commonly referred to as the Sea Org. This group, in the nature of a fraternity or clan, began with Scientologists who pledged themselves eternally to Scientology and who accompanied LRH in his sea-going spiritual research in the Mediterranean. . . . Sea Org members are initiates into the highest levels of Scientology, and bear concomitant responsibilities. [] CST staff and officers are required to be members of the Sea Org, which gives CST the distinction of being a Sea Org Church. CSI [and] RTC . . . all high ranking organizations are Sea Org Churches. Being a "Sea Org Church" means that the church's function is important enough to Scientology to warrant the attention of a significant number of Sea Org members. Sea Org rank nominally carries with it no ecclesiastical authority in the sense that Sea Org members still take orders from the ecclesiastical leaders of whichever Scientology organization they join. Upon closer analysis, however, this appears to be a distinction without a difference because in a Sea Org church the ecclesiastical authority necessarily resides in a Sea Org member." (Id., at 717-718; emphasis in bold added) In Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777 the underlying facts pertained to Scientology's ultimately successful effort to destroy the Cult Awareness Network whose purpose was to "educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as practiced by destructive cults and about the unethical or illegal practices they employ." As a harassment measure pursuant having been identified by Scientology as a "suppressive group" a CAN representative received almost 500 letters from Scientologists to join CAN. Upon CAN's refusal, lawsuits followed. In Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628 Scientology was found to use the litigation system as a tool to destroy its enemies. Declarations of former members and officials of the Church, Gerald Armstrong and Vicki Aznaran, revealed the practices and policies of the Church, including its "fair game" doctrine and employment of litigation practices designed "to bludgeon the opposition into submission," as well as attacks against judges who rule against it. The declaration of an attorney who had represented the Church (Joseph A. Yanny), submitted in an action brought by the Church against him and others, related aspects of the Church's "fair game" doctrine, including copies of exhibits to demonstrate "the Cult, according to written policy, will use any means legal or illegal to subvert and frustrate judicial process against them, and will willingly and knowingly abuse judicial process in order to attack perceived 'enemies.'" (Id., at 641-642) b. Scientology Does Not Engage In Successful Social Functioning: Instead It Preys On And Feeds Off Of The Dominant Culture It is clear that Scientology cannot be compared to the Amish in Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra. The primary difference is the manner in which Scientology interferes with the rights and interests of others. It does not live and let live. Scientology does not comply with law; it breaks laws with what appears to be a calculus directed to the "cost of doing business" which is making money. It sues critics. It attacks anybody that impedes its advancement. It cheats. It lies. It destroys. In short, it maintains fidelity not to any religious principles in any ethical way, but to its policy of opportunistic hatred called "Fair Game." When the only principle to which it appears to bear allegiance over time holds that people whom it perceives to be its enemies do not enjoy the same rights as do Scientologists because, impeding the advancement of Scientology, they are deemed "suppressive persons," Scientology does not hold sincere religious beliefs. It is not a bona fide religion. C. To Conduct An Evidentiary Hearing So As To Examine The Relationship Between Scientology's Ideology, Practices, Conduct And Structures Does Not Violate The First Amendment Relying on United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86, Scientology contends that this Court must seek the least intrusive and least entangling means to determine its bona fides. It condemns a public bench trial as "a forbidden heresy trial, a court-sanctioned attack on the nature of Scientology's religious beliefs, or a Crucible-like public witch hunt." The only thing that Ballard prohibits, however, is a judicial determination of the truth, falsity or validity of religious belief. Plaintiff does not seek to prove that healing by means of the e-meter is false. What plaintiff challenges is the sincerity of Scientology's beliefs. Plaintiff does not seek to judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. (Id., 322 U.S. at 86-88) Since Scientology lies about its beliefs, it is not sincere in holding them. Scientology contends that the court must accept its own self-characterization as to the nature of its beliefs and practices. "Constitutional principles of religious freedom mandate that current Church leadership - not the courts, dissenters, or non-believers - determine what are the beliefs and practices of that Church. In a very real constitutional sense, then, the Introspection Rundown is a Scientology religious practice because official Church doctrine says it is. As the Supreme Court has reiterated, the 'civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976) see Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church 393 U.S. 440, 450 (1968) ("The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from . . . determining matters at the core of a religion - the interpretation of particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion." (Moving Memo at 48) This misstates the law. The Supreme Court has recognized two primary first amendment interests that favor judicial noninvolvement in an ecclesiastical dispute. The first of these first amendment concerns is the extent to which judicial resolution of the particular controversy would involve deciding issues of religious doctrine or beliefs. The second major first amendment interest is that where religious organizations establish rules for internal discipline and governance, and tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters, "the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them." (Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696, 725.) The rule of deference to decisions of ecclesiastical bodies on matters of internal church governance was first articulated in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1929) 280 U.S. 1 where for the Court Justice Brandeis wrote that "because the appointment [to the chaplaincy] is a canonical act, it is the function of the church authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them." (Id., at 16.) He concluded that "[i]n the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before civil courts as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or otherwise." (Ibid.) Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952) 344 U.S. 94 and Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696 makes clear that the principle of deference to church authorities applies to disputes concerning matters of internal church governance. In Kedroff the Court held that a state may not dictate which of two factions within the Russian Orthodox Church has the power to appoint the ruling hierarchy for the Russian Orthodox churches in America. The Court found that state legislation regulating matters of "church administration, the operation of the churches, [and] the appointment of clergy, by requiring conformity to church statutes adopted at a general [church] convention," was contrary to the first amendment because, in the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, matters of church governance are for the church to decide free from state interference. Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1960) 363 U.S. 190 (Id., 344 U.S. at 107-108, 116) In Milivojevich, the Court further limited the "marginal court review" endorsed in Gonzalez by overruling Gonzalez to the extent that it allowed civil courts to decide whether the question of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with church laws and regulations and was therefore not "arbitrary." (Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713.) The Court found that such "arbitrariness" review inconsistent with the "general rule" that "religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry," and that "civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." Thus, the Court concluded that civil courts may not decide, consistent with the first amendment, whether the church complied with the procedural rules contained in the church constitution and penal code in defrocking one of its bishops. Balanced against these two first amendment considerations favoring civil court noninvolvement are state interests in resolving disputes concerning civil rights and the individual interests in adjudicating before a civil forum. Even where church property is involved, the state has a strong interest in rapid resolution of disputes concerning ownership rights to property. (See, e.g., Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595, 602 ["The state has an obvious and legitimate interest in the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil forum where the ownership of church property can be determined conclusively."]; Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440, 445 ["It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution.']; Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952) 344 U.S. 94, 120 ["There are occasions when civil courts must draw lines between the responsibilities of the church and state for the disposition and use of property."] Thus, the Jones court, over dissent, refused to adopt a rule of compulsory deference to authoritative decisions of church bodies. (Jones v. Wolf, supra., 443 U.S. at 605.) Instead, the "State is constitutionally entitled to adopt neutral principles of law as a means of adjudicating a church property dispute." (Id., at 604) As noted above, decisions born of fraud and collusion when church tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes are excluded from the scope of the defense of ecclesiastical abstention, notwithstanding that they are ecclesiastical by nature. (Gonzalez, 280 U.S. at 16; Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713.) As Kedroff teaches, "Legislative power to punish subversive action cannot be doubted. If such action should actually be attempted by a cleric, neither his robe nor his pulpit would be a defense." (Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 109.) Thus, when conduct claimed to be ecclesiastical and beyond the ken of this court's scrutiny, is, in fact, fraudulent and collusive, the jurisdiction of civil courts is not constitutionally compelled to defer to religion's altar. (Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116, fn. 23; Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. at 447, 451.) Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232 What plaintiff seeks here is to vindicate her heinously violated civil rights. VI. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION, THAT STATUS DOES NOT CONFER AN IMMUNITY UPON IT WHEREBY IT IS NOT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS CONDUCT "(The First Amendment) embraces two concepts,--freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940). The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. (Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra., 406 U.S. at 215) The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. (Cantwell v. Connecticut, (1940) 310 U.S. 296 at pp. 303-304.) While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person's beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. (United States v. Ballard, supra., 322 U.S. 78, 86-88.) The government may neither compel affirmation of a religious belief (Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495), nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs (Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70), nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views (Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 116 ). However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. (Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718) Such conduct "remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at p. 304, 60 S.Ct. at p. 903.) Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state's interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. (Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at p. 214, 92 S.Ct. at p. 1532.) The greater the burden imposed on religion, the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. (Compare Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at pp. 221-235 [government's strong interest in educating citizens insufficient to justify educational requirement that threatened continued survival of Old Order Amish communities], with Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) 475 U.S. 503, 508 [government's reasonable interest in uniform military attire sufficient to justify mild burden on religious expression created by ban against Jewish officer wearing a yarmulke].) A government action that passes the balancing test must also meet the further requirements that (1) no action imposing a lesser burden on religion would satisfy the government's interest and (2) the action does not discriminate between religions, or between religion and nonreligion. (Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) 366 U.S. 599, 607) Applying these criteria, the Supreme Court has allowed some religious conduct to be banned entirely (see, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 166 [upholding law against polygamy]; Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170-171 [permitting state to prohibit parents from allowing their children to distribute religious literature when necessary to protect children's health and safety] ), and some conduct to be compelled in the face of religious objections (see, e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 38, [upholding compulsory vaccinations for communicable diseases]; United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252, 261 [upholding mandatory participation of Amish in Social Security system] ). Religious activities, such as auditing or introspection rundown, which are conducted under coercion are not protected under the first amendment. (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra., 212 Cal.App.3d 891-895; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1118 ["The state clearly has a compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process" as brainwashing]) VII. FLAG IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION If it is held that Scientology is not a religion, then of course FLAG is not a religious organization. But if some aspect of Scientology is religious, FLAG is not automatically a religious organization. Flag urges this court to hold that Scientology is a religion. It then requests the court to take a leap of faith and hold that Flag is a religious organization, i.e., a church. Although Florida statutes fail to define the word "church", this word has been defined by the courts. A "church" is "a body or community of questions, united under one form of government by profession of same faith, in observance of same ritual and ceremonies and organization for religious purposes, for public worship of God." First Independent Missionary Baptist Church of Chosen v. McMillan, 153 So. 2nd 337 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1963). "Church" has been defined as "a body or community of Christians united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith, in the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies." McNeilly v. First Presbyterian Church in Brookline, 243 Mass. 331, 137 N.E. 691, 694). "An organization for religious purposes, for the public worship of God." Bennett v. City of Lagrange, 153 Ga. 428, 112 S.E.42, 45, 22 A. L. R. 1312). "The term may denote either a society of persons who, professing Christianity, hold certain doctrines or observances which differentiate them from other like groups, and who use a common discipline, or the building in which such persons habitually assemble for public worship." (Baker v. Fales, 16 Mass.488, 498; Tate v. Lawrence, 11Heisk. (Tenn.). Campus Crusade for Christ v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 702 So. 2nd 572 (Fla 5th DCA, 1997). Per the attached affidavit of noted religious studies professor, Stephen Kent, Ph.D., FLAG is not a religious organization. As noted above, Flag does not fit within the definition of "church". Therefore, it is not a religious organization. Campus Crusade for Christ was held not to be a religious organization primarily because its members belonged to other denominations. In Scientology, members are told that they need not relinquish membership in their current religion. Therefore, just as in Campus Crusade for Christ, Flag is not a religious organization. Secondly, Flag does more than teach courses and counseling, where only some are under a religious setting. It is a vacation spot, with a restaurant and bookstore. Scientology is a chameleon. In some countries it never calls itself a religion, but rather refers to itself as a philosophy. See Steven Kent Affidavit. It does not hold itself out as a religion in Japan, Greece, or Mexico. In the United Kingdom, it has recently lost its status as a charity/church organization because it does not benefit society. Even in the United States it tells newcomers that they may maintain membership in their religion and yet still be a Scientologist. Recently it attempted to introduce Hubbard educational methods in the California public school system. It denied that it was religious. It teaches the same technology, its scripture, that it urges this court to adopt as religious to businesses throughout the world under its Sterling Management Company and through WISE, World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Any company controlled by public members of Scientology must have their company be a dues paying and Scientology tech controlled WISE business. Allstate Insurance Company has had Scientology courses taught to its employees! Scientology turns from philosophy to business system technology to religion at its whim, at its sole convenience. Is this a religion? Mr. Hubbard wrote in the "Manual of Justice" staff member instructions as follows: "When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we resort to investigation. When we need somebody haunted we investigate. Investigation is the careful discovery and sorting of facts. Without good investigation we don't have Justice, we have random vengeance. When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts. Remember that- by investigation alone we can curb pushes and crush wildcat people and unethical "Dianetics and Scientology" organizations. It's almost funny. We sometimes learn nothing useful and yet because people heard we were investigating their consciences set them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. There's power in the question alone!... Use the data you got from the detective at long last to write a very tantalizing letter. Don't give him your data on him. Just tell him we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in to talk about it. (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion and slander-people at that level often will, just to commit suicide-and publish it in a paid ad in a paper if you get it.) Chances are he won't arrive. But he'll sure shutter into silence." Is this a religious writing or is it secular? Is this part of the holy Scripture of Scientology? When faced with a claim of practicing a religion, the courts do inquire into the following factors to see if the organization qualifies as a religion: ultimate ideas; metaphysical beliefs; moral or ethical system; comprehensiveness of beliefs; accouterments of religion; holidays; diet or fasting; appearance and clothing; propagation. Although not one of these factors is dispositive, the factors should be seen as criteria that, if minimally satisfied, counsel the inclusion of the beliefs within the term "religion". United States v. Meyers, 95 F. 3rd 1475, 1482-1483 (10th Cir., 1996). To have the protection of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the claims must be rooted in religious belief rather than purely secular considerations. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533 (1972). There the analysis of the religious beliefs of the Amish parents' free exercise claim was" tied heavily to the Amish's long history, respectable character, and unblemished pattern of social conduct. Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 655 F.Supp. 939 (S.D.Al., 1987). (emphasis added). Scientology lacks in all three. Therefore, just because Scientology called something spiritual treatment does not automatically render it religious. If it is a science or pseudo- psychiatry based upon scientifically proven evidence as Hubbard claims, then it is not depended upon belief or faith, and is therefore not religious. Scientology's "Scripture" that addresses multiple lives, i.e., reincarnation, and the immortal spirit are trappings appropriated from other established religions and therefore fits within the definition of a religion. However, this does not extend to those writings which Hubbard claims to be strictly scientific, such as "isolation" and the "Introspection Rundown". The critical question is whether the religiosity claims of Scientology are true religious beliefs which are sincerely held. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S 163 (1965). "Purely personal, political, ideological, or secular beliefs probably would not satisfy enough criteria for inclusion" of the beliefs within the term "religion." See Yoder at 216, where personal beliefs and philosophical beliefs are secular beliefs. Even when secular and religious beliefs overlap only in the sense that the person holds secular beliefs which apply so deeply that he has transformed them into a "religion", it does not change the fact that his beliefs do not constitute a "religion" as that term is uneasily defined by law. Meyers at 1483. If the beliefs are accurately defined as a philosophy and/or way of life, it is not a religion. Meyers at 1484. "A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief. Although a determination of what is a ' religious' belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Waldon Pond, their claims would not rest on religious basis. Thoreau's choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses." Yoder at 216. So what do the courts have to say about Scientology? "After carefully examining the record in attempting to understand the nominal corporate structure of Scientology it is apparent to the court that it is something of a deceptis visus. Real control is exercised less formally, but more tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the Sea Organization, more commonly referred to as the Sea Org." Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 713, 717 (US Cl.Ct., 1992). There CST was appealing the Commissioner's denial of their tax-exempt religious organization status. The court recognized that all of the Scientology organizations, such as Flag, a management church, was staffed solely by Sea Org members who manage the money through SO Management Services, Ltd., a for-profit corporation in the United Kingdom, which acts as an agent for U.S. churches and trusts which hold Central Reserve Accounts. CST at footnote 23, p. 724. The court also noted that Flag had given a one time grant of $18 million to CST as a startup fund. More importantly, the court noted in CST that L. Ron Hubbard controlled all of Scientology, including Scientology's finances and policies through his senior position in the Sea Org. In the instant case, Defendant, David Miscavige, assumed Mr. Hubbard's position in the Sea Org following the death of Mr. Hubbard in 1986. "The mere fact that an organization has a tax-exempt purpose or activity does not mean that it does not also have a purpose or activity that is non-exempt. One substantial non-exempt purpose will make an organization ineligible for tax-exempt status, even if all of its other purposes are exempt. CST at 729. The court noted that Scientology has a preoccupation with money which is more fully revealed in Scientology's Doctrine of Exchange, which is the Scientology doctrine that requires all Scientologists to pay for their courses and counseling. (Emphasis added). Because of the Doctrine of Exchange, the United States Supreme Court held that auditing and counseling are not tax deductible items. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136. While the court noted that Scientology is a religion, it held that CST is not a religious organization, even though its sole purpose is to archive all of the scripture of Scientology. Likewise, Flag should not be considered a church, i.e., a religious organization, even though it may teach some arguably religious courses and conduct "auditing", since not all courses and auditing are arguably religious. Founding Church of Scientology and United States v. Article or Device "Hubbard Electrometer". The final question is whether the religious aspects of Scientology, and thus Flag, are sincerely held. Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, and Robert Young discuss how Scientology staff were ordered to put on the minister garb when Scientology knew the press or government officials were coming. Even Paul Greenwood, a staff member of Flag who carried Lisa McPherson's dead body out of the Ft. Harrison Hotel stated in his deposition that Scientology is not a religion. Other former Scientologists have so testified. VIII. IS THE INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE? Lisa McPherson wanted out of Scientology and was continuously suffering a psychotic break days before being taken into the Ft. Harrison Hotel. She was therefore incapable of giving informed consent. Even if she could, nothing would indicate to her that she was being treated for a life-threatening problem. Thus, there is no evidence that there was any consent to spiritual or secular treatment. If a recognized religious practice is done coercively, the practice loses all constitutional protection. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, 212 Cal.App. 3rd 872, 66 Cal. Rpt.2nd 1 (Cal.App.2nd, 1989). Per the attached affidavit by Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D., the Introspection Rundown is not a religious practice. There is nothing in the Hubbard written Introspection Rundown which states that it is a religious practice. Hubbard claimed it was a scientific breakthrough to replace psychiatry in his attempt to take over the mental healing profession. Flag denies vehemently that Lisa was involved in this rundown. See attached Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Flag's Response; and Flag's answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories which state that Lisa was there only for rest and may have been being readied for the treatment per Bulletin entitled "How to Treat a Psychotic," a bulletin written in 1950 before Hubbard claimed any religiosity. This bulletin states as follows: "...4. Do not use hypnotics or depressants or attempt to work with the person under their influence. Dianetics wakes people up. It does not put them to sleep. Engrams may be contacted when a person is under the influence of a depressant, but they will not reduce or erase without the greatest difficulty. If an auditor can secure the cooperation of a medical doctor it may be found useful to use stimulants. Follow the doctor's advice about what stimulants to try and about dosages. In the absence of the physician, strong black coffee is sometimes of assistance in waking up the analyzer enough to establish communication. When a psychotic has reached the point where he does not talk at all, or does not hear when a spoken to, other measures may have to be taken to attract attention. A strong, steady light, a flashing light, a steady monotonous noise have been found useful. Again, these are matters which require individual initiative on the part of an auditor, and, whenever possible, should be left for a Hubbard Dianetics Auditor who has had experience with other, milder types of psychosis. Type IIIs are poisoned by the SPs in their overall environment. Thus, in order to bring them back to a "Type II" level where they can be reached by Scientology, "you must disconnect the person from the environment." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) The process of disconnecting a psychotic person from her environment "is not treatment as such. It is to provide a relatively safe environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all. . . . Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary, as intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quieting drugs) may be necessary. . . . removed from apparent SPs, kept in quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type II and a Search and Discovery should end the matter." (Ex.D to Motion at 4) . The above shows that there is no secular or spiritual treatment at all! The idea is to get the person physically well so that the person comes up to Type II. Only when the person is Type II does Hubbard write that the Introspection Rundown and other auditing can begin. Lisa never made it to TYPE II. The recorded interviews of those immediately in charge of Lisa McPherson to law enforcement also deny that any tech was being administered and state several times that Lisa was a mere hotel guest there for rest and relaxation. Will Flag take the position that resting at the hotel as a guest is also "spiritual treatment"? IX. CONCLUSION This court should not succumb to the dictates of Scientology. Advisory opinions are not permissible. Religiosity is not an issue, since Lisa McPherson was not involved in any claimed religious treatment. In fact, she was not involved in any treatment at all. She was merely a hotel guest! The court can assume the religiosity of Scientology as it has done in the past in considering the unsuccessful motions to dismiss of the defendants, since the defendants cannot escape liability under the Religion Clauses nor RFRA for murder, false imprisonment, or outrageous conduct. Summary adjudication on the claimed religiosity is not proper since there are many factual issues. Per the previously discussed voluminous case law on Scientology, it is not a claimed religion worthy of constitutional protection. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ. DANDAR & DANDAR, P.A. 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Post Office Box 24597 Tampa, Florida 33623-4597 813-289-3858/FAX: 813-287-0895 Florida Bar No. 289698 Attorney for Plaintiff FORD GREENE, ESQ. The Hub Law Offices 711 Sir Francis Drake San Anselmo, California 94960 415-258-0360 Of counsel for Plaintiff I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 18th day of January, 2000, to the attached service list. ________________________________ KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ.

Life and Death of Lisa McPherson