Civil Action No. 95-K-2143

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation and
BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation,



F.A.C.T.NET, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation; LAWRENCE
WOLLERSHEIM, an individual; and ROBERT PENNY, an individual,




I, Lawrence Dominic Wollersheim, declare as follows:

1. I am an individual defendant herein and I am also executive director, and a member of the Board of Directors, of F.A.C.T.Net, a non-profit global computer information service that specializes in informing the public about human rights abuses caused by organizations using coercive psychological systems, much the same way that Amnesty International informs the public about human rights abuses caused by governments or organizations using physical coercion. To this end, the other defendants and I operate a library and archive which contains information about controversial indoctrination and mind control organizations, including Scientology. Defendants actively participate in the public debate regarding the public controversy about Scientology.

2. I have been retained as an expert witness in different cases involving Scientology. My qualifications to work as an expert witness in the particular areas of Scientology and coercive psychological systems are:

(a.) For 11 years (from approximately 1969-1980), I was a member of Scientology and held numerous in staff administrative positions in the Sea Organization ("Sea Org"), a group which, in effect, runs Scientology. I worked as a public lecturer, recruiter, sales registrar and held and mid-level executive positions such as Public Executive Secretary and Director of Promotion for Sea Org. I was "audited" to Scientology's highest secret levels and was one of the world's first "NED for OT's" (a level of Scientology auditing) completions. As a result of difficulties I had with the organization I was forced through the Sea Org's Rehabilitation Project Force ("RFP") which is their "concentration camp" for dissidents. Many of my experiences with my mistreatment at the hands of Scientology are detailed in Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, 212 Cal.App.3d 877 (1989).

(b.) Over the past 16 years, I have worked as a paralegal and legal investigator in cases related to Scientology. From my 27 years experience with Scientology, both as a member and as an adversary, I have become familiar with and am knowledgeable about a broad range of Scientology's ongoing tactics questionable activities, and policies.

(c.) I have extensively researched the litigation and government records relating to Scientology and have written numerous documents that have been used in litigation involving Scientology in a number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

(d.) Over the past 16 years, I have helped to compile one of the world's largest computerized databases of information about Scientology, with more than 100 megabytes of currently searchable text files and more than 5 gigabytes of image files. I also have one of the largest noncomputerized collections of professional studies, litigation histories, and other related documents and evidences from cases involving Scientology.

(e.) I have been directly involved as a litigant in winning two cases against Scientology -- victories that have established national U.S. precedents, including the above-cited Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ No. B023193, LASC No. C 322827 and Religious Technology Center v. Lawrence Wollersheim CV85-7197.

(f.) I maintain a global contact network of over 1,100 former Scientology members from whom I periodically receive information, updates and assistance on current Scientology-related matters.

(g.) For the past 14 years, I have been studying undue influence and coercive psychological systems under the personal mentorship of Dr. Margaret Singer who is an adjunct professor of psychology at The University of California at Berkeley.

3. I have involuntarily been engaged in continuous litigation against entities that comprise the Scientology organization since late 1979 or 1980. In June, 1980, I successfully sued the Church of Scientology of California (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, Civ. No. BO23193, LAS No. C322827). Scientology has retaliated with four successive lawsuits against me, the previous three of which were unsuccessful. Thus, the instant litigation can be considered as Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology.

4. Plaintiffs claim that I have signed certain confidentiality and other agreements while I was a Scientologist. Any such purported agreements were signed under circumstances of duress, fraud, undue influence and are otherwise void or voidable as being contrary to public policy. In any event, in May of 1980, after I had left the Scientology organization, it issued a "Writ of Expulsion" of me in which it expressly canceled all agreements purportedly existing between us.

5. Virtually all of the "hardcopy" documents for which BPI claims copyright infringement were obtained to assist in my personal defense in litigation against Scientology, or in connection with my work as an expert consultant in other litigation involving Scientology. Most of the documents which are included in Plaintiff BPI's pending motion for summary judgment were actually either introduced into the court record in Wollersheim I and II as exhibits or were copied and contained in binders for the benefit and use of counsel. Indeed, most were identified on the relevant Exhibit lists, and Plaintiffs herein were fully aware of this fact through their agents. Attorneys such as BPI's current co-counsel Earle Cooley and Scientology executives such as Warren McShane have been continuously involved in the various litigations between myself and the Scientology organization since 1980, and thus were personally aware of this. In the course of those various litigations, most of the documents referred to in Plaintiffs' operative complaint herein were acquired by me either through discovery of Plaintiffs or from third party sources. Those documents became part of an ongoing litigation database, ultimately computerized, which was utilized in the course of the various continuously ongoing cases between myself and various of the Scientology entities, and in connection with cases in which I was retained as an expert consultant or expert witness.

6. In the summer of 1993, I was retained as an expert consultant, and later designated as an expert witness, in the case of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Dr. Uwe Geertz, USDC CDC Case No. CV91-6426. I was retained by defendant Geertz's counsel, Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard. In that case, the Church of Scientology International was suing Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, Ph.D. for defamation and seeking one million dollar in damages in connection with allegations published in a Time Magazine article published on May 6, 1991 entitled, "Scientology: Thriving Cult of Greed and Power."

7. The Lewis, D'Amato law firm retained both myself individually, and F.A.C.T.Net as an entity, to provide Scientology-related expert consulting services in connection with their ultimately successful defense of Dr. Geertz. Both Robert Penny and Jeff Jacobsen provided assistance in this regard. Furthermore, the Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois, & Bisgaard law firm provided F.A.C.T.Net and myself with, among other things, two CD's containing over 8,000 copies of news articles that were critical of the Scientology organization (called Entheta Press in Scientology) and other documents that they had scanned onto those disks from documents produced in discovery and obtained from the extensive Scientology library belonging to Dr. Geertz's co-defendant, Steven Fishman. These CD's were loaded onto the F.A.C.T.Net hard drives immediately upon receipt in late 1993 or early 1994. From Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, I also received at least four to five bankers boxes of documents or, in other words, some 40,000 to 60,000 pages of documents.

8. The contents of these two CD's were transferred to F.A.C.T.Net's computerized database so that they could be included in the archive of Scientology-related documents that would be used in connection with the Fishman/Geertz litigation, my own litigation involving Scientology and in other litigation in which F.A.C.T.Net's assistance was sought. When Scientology raided F.A.C.T.Net's premises in this case, without advising this Court of the ongoing litigation between us, they also failed to inform the judge that the various documents at issue were obtained and used legally in the various Wollersheim cases, including but not limited to the RICO case (Wollersheim II), and in the Church of Scientology, Int'l. v. Fishman and Geertz case. Many of the documents had been continuously in my possession since the 1970's. During the ensuing 15 years, Scientology knew I had these documents, knew I had these documents legitimately, and knew that I used them in the defense of the various Wollersheim and other cases involving Scientology. Moreover, during these Scientology raids, RTC and it's agents seized documents and other items far beyond the scope of the Writ of Seizure, including many privileged items including items and communications subject to the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges in on-going litigation involving other Scientology-related entities including on-going litigation between myself and Scientology. There was a notice to this effect on the door of F.A.C.T.Net's office which Scientology ignored when seizing my documents.

9. Information stored in magnetic media such as computer disks can degrade, be damaged, or lost, and thus to preserve the integrity of data stored on computer databases it is routine in the data collection and processing world to make periodic "back-up" copies of the information stored in a computer Such "back-up" copies would allow, for example, the restoration of data lost due to a computer's hard disk crash. I also had special concerns about possible damage to F.A.C.T.Net's data base because of Scientology's history of so-called "fair game" tactics (i.e., attacks on dissidents and critics, including myself), long history of antagonism towards me, and practice of eliminating documents embarrassing or inconvenient to Scientology. I was concerned that Scientology would make some effort to degrade, corrupt, destroy, or otherwise damage the database so that it could eliminate this information and impair my and other's ability to evaluate Scientology or defend themselves in litigation against Scientology. Further, a source who had previously reliably advised me of Scientology intelligence operations told me of possible action against the database and/or me personally, we found one. I knew from personal experience the credibility of such a threat. I personally had been given directions to go in and remove documents, and to plant compromising ones, as part of covert Scientology operations, when I was active in the organization. In my long Scientology-related litigation experience, I have become aware of many examples of documents disappearing from government files, court files, library shelves, litigants' premises, litigants' counsels' offices, etc. My own apartment previously had been broken into, and I had been the target of activities described in the Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology decision. Finally, I knew from my own Scientology experience that Scientology operatives might find a way to hack into our computer system. I decided to make a few duplicate, back-up copies and to distribute those to a handful of persons for off-site safekeeping in these circumstances.

10. The backed-up computer data was recorded on CD's so that no more than a handful of people could securely store those CD's. Included with the CD's were the search engines and other software necessary to enable the CD's to be copied into new computers and for the information to be immediately searchable in exactly the same manner as it could be on the F.A.C.T.Net computers in the event that the F.A.C.T.Net computers or premises were damaged or the information in the database lost. None of these few back-up CD's, prepared for "plug and play" operation, were sold. A few persons did make voluntary donations to F.A.C.T.Net to defray the expense of creating these emergency back-up CD'S containing the entirety of F.A.C.T.Net's files. Plaintiffs' cited deposition extracts in this connection have been quoted out of context. All of Penny's and my loading of materials onto the computer database and making of back-up copies was done as in the course and scope of our employment by F.A.C.T.Net.

11. In my experience Scientology has often changed or revised its' own documents without acknowledging that they were changed, to enhance its public relations image or litigation positions as changing circumstances required. Accordingly, I was aware of the need to scan into the searchable database all versions of the various Scientology publications so that successive versions of a document could be compared for changes from the original. Only by doing this could we guard against Scientology introducing altered documents in litigation. It was never F.A.C.T.Net's purpose, or my purpose, to sell or improperly disseminate these back-up CD's. Furthermore, neither F.A.C.T.Net or myself ever published any of these materials on the Internet. Indeed, F.A.C.T.Net had an organization policy expressly prohibiting such activity.

12. In connection with the services of myself and F.A.C.T.Net as an expert consultant and expert witness of the Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard law firm in the Church of Scientology v. Fishman and Geertz litigation, I was sent checks from time to time. The checks were made out in my name, but appropriately transferred for the benefit of F.A.C.T.Net and used for F.A.C.T.Net's activities. The Lewis, D'Amato law firm treated me as an agent, independent contractor, and contract employee for tax purposes and I performed my duties, and F.A.C.T.Net performed its duties, in accordance with the directions of various Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard attorneys and paralegals. In that regard, I would have considered it to be an implied term of the expert consultant/witness relationship, that the Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard law firm would not do anything to increase any liability I may have to the Scientology organization in connection with the provision of expert witness and expert consultant services in the Fishman Geertz litigation, and that if any settlement agreements containing release provisions were entered into concerning the Fishman and Geertz litigation, and the claims that might arise therefrom, that F.A.C.T.Net and its directors, officers and employees would be included in any such release provisions that extended to the Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard law firm. I am informed and believe that a settlement agreement was entered into which, among other things, releases the Lewis D'Amato from and its "agents" from liability in connection with their actions in the Geertz case. I was outraged and extremely distressed when I learned this. The circumstances that preceded, surrounded and followed execution of the settlement agreement(s) are summarized in letters to Robert F. Lewis, Esq. and John J. Quinn, Esq. copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. The written Second Settlement Agreement itself has already been filed herein under seal. For the Court's convenience, a further copy is repeatedly filed herein and under seal.

13. Except for the creation of back-up copies, virtually all of the activities the Scientology organization is suing for herein occurred before the Scientology-Lewis, D'Amato secret settlement agreement and release. Furthermore, the searches that the Lewis, D'Amato law firm had requested, of all archives, hard copy, interior and off-line archives, in connection with certain key words, were the most extensive searches ever conducted by F.A.C.T.Net. All in all, we were involved in the Church of Scientology Int'l. v. Fishman Geertz litigation for approximately six months. The payments were made by Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard to myself, and not to F.A.C.T.Net, because F.A.C.T.Net had no insurance at the commencement of the relationship when we were employed by the Lewis, D'Amato law firm.

14. It is possible that some of the documents that were seized during Scientology's raid on the F.A.C.T.Net premises were documents that had been uploaded by others (perhaps even Scientology), into the F.A.C.T.Net files that had either not been opened and read, had not been deleted, or had been deleted but which retrievable from the system. Furthermore, because of the manner in which the raid and seizures occurred, and the subsequent events including the manner in which the seized materials were stored and searched, it is possible that some of the documents that were allegedly found in our files, and that defendants we are being sued for, were actually planted. Such a normally incredible possibility is, unfortunately, consistent with Scientology's policies, practices and history.

15. As far as the so-called "red volumes" which are involved in this motion are concerned, no one has any idea how they got into F.A.C.T.Net's computerized database. I did not scan those materials into the database, and Bob Penny, who is gravely ill, swears that he did not scan the "red" volumes when he did certain other scanning.

16. As a result of the David Mayo v. Scientology litigation, and other litigation involving the Scientology organization, I have been aware for many years of claims that L. Ron Hubbard did not personally write all of the copyrighted works that Scientology claims he did.

17. As explained in the voluminous declaration that I prepared for filing in the Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz litigation, a copy of which is being filed herewith under seal, (Exhibit "A" hereto) I received troubling information regarding Scientology. The nature and extent of this information is so disturbing that I believe it is in the public interest that the public be aware of the inherent danger of many of the materials that Scientology wishes to keep secret. Such information is vital so that persons may make an informed decision before becoming involved in what I have come to believe is, in essence, a "bait and switch" fraud in which people are introduced to Scientology through a "personality test", progressed to "engrams", switched to "thetans", and then to "body thetans" which require constant and expensive exorcism from the body. In addition, it has long been obvious to me that Scientology was abusing their alleged copyrights and other documents to exert some kind of monopoly power over the access and use of Scientology-related principles.

18. Many of the documents which are at issue here were originally owned by the Church of Scientology of California and therefore constitute assets which should have been transferred to me, in satisfaction of my judgment, instead of to Bridge Publications.

19. The written materials at issue here are characterized by Scientology as "technology," "formula," "processes," and historical fact, which must be followed precisely. Thus, BPI admits that the documents at issue here involve, in many instances, facts, processes and discoveries which I understand may not be properly copyrightable or otherwise protestable. Furthermore, the purpose and character of the limited "copying" of the documents at issue herein as described above, was non-commercial. Moreover, because of the improper curative health claims by Scientology, and total concealment of discussions of human casualties resulting from the running of Scientology processes, I believe it is in the public interest that the public be educated about these dangerous, but allegedly secret, materials.

20. F.A.C.T.Net and myself also received documents, processes and "technology" listed anonymously from persons who uploaded them onto my computer and F.A.C.T.Net's computers on the Internet, and floppy disks, tape back-ups, and hard copies of documents from various anonymous mailings. There were days when I had six inches of anonymous mailings containing Scientology documents in the mail. We loaded some of those materials into our computer, but only so we could see what there contents were.

21. Only 5 to 10 back-up sets of CD's were made. Of those sets, at least four of them never left the close range of F.A.C.T.Net. Bob Penny had a set off-site, Jeff Jacobsen had a set off-site, and one other person had a set off-site. In addition, Ann Weber had a set off-site. No one was charged any money for these back-up sets. People made donations because they heard that we thought we were going to get raided and we said that we needed to raise money to cover backing up and securing the F.A.C.T.Net library from Scientology sabotage which eventually occurred under the guise of the search and seizure orders entered herein. Bob Penny worked almost around the clock for a week in order to do the back-up CD's, because of our fear of being raided by Scientology as part of its well-publicized war against the Internet and anyone who opposed the organization. In that connection, some people made donations and got CD's and some people did not make donations and still got CD's. Some people donated a little and got CD's and some people donated more and got CD's. In all instances, however, people got CD's because we felt they could be trusted with our back-ups. In other words, it was not F.A.C.T.Net's purpose to sell the back-up CD's or engage in any commercial use of those back-up CD's. The CD's represented our complete library.

22. F.A.C.T.Net has a policy that copyright materials should not be distributed to the public via the bulletin board without the copyright owner's permission, and therefore takes reasonable steps to ensure that copyrighted information is not maintained on the public sections of F.A.C.T.Net's web pages or FTP sites. Indeed, none of the documents at issue herein appeared in the public areas of F.A.C.T.Net's then Bulletin Board Service. F.A.C.T.Net's non- public areas were only available for scholarly research and research by attorneys, sociologists and psychotherapists.

23. My experience with Scientology, and my experience with litigation against Scientology, also provided me with the knowledge that Scientology attempts to control information about it by, among other things, buying the copyrights of critical books, forcing the authors of critical books into bankruptcy so that Scientology could obtain the works out of the bankruptcy estate, taking copies of books from libraries and documents from court files, and removing information from earlier editions of books and publications both within and outside of the public domain.

24. The so-called "reds and greens," which are the OEC or technical bulletins of Scientology, were only scanned and searched by us, if at all, as a result of F.A.C.T.Net's and my services for Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and for historic archival preservation. Our biggest concern was always to preserve original documents from subsequent revision.

25. RTC's contention that F.A.C.T.Net published computer addresses, etc. so that others may access and download unauthorized and allegedly infringing material was/is completely false. F.A.C.T.Net, like the vast majority of Internet sites, does provide "links" to other Internet sites. This enables F.A.C.T.Net to carry out one of its main objectives, which is to encourage free discussion of the dangers posed by groups which utilize coercive indoctrination techniques. These groups number approximately 300 and include Scientology. However, F.A.C.T.Net did not publish Internet locator codes in order to enable infringement of any copyright laws nor would F.A.C.T.Net ever intentionally facilitate such activity.

26. RTC has claimed in its Motion that defendants made a statement calling for a"hundred thousand times more" infringements to occur. This is a blatant twisting of the words of a statement which was issued after Arnaldo P. Lerma was raided by Scientology operatives. In that statement, F.A.C.T.Net encouraged the posting of public records. Specifically, the statement and relevant parts were as follows:

"I estimate that F.A.C.T.Net and a corps of emergency volunteers need to immediately begin putting up one hundred thousand times more Fishman Affidavit-type public records on Scientology into worldwide distribution on the Internet."

27. Thus, while F.A.C.T.Net is encouraging public discussion of non-infringing public records, Plaintiffs have resorted to twisting the words of F.A.C.T.Net in order to conceal such records from public disclosure, dissemination and discussion.

28. I have read the twenty-one page Declaration of Warren McShane. It attempts to create an illusion that an elaborate system of security precautions has always been in place to protect sensitive Scientology documents from being removed from a small number of Scientology compounds. This is untrue. During the period of time in question, I routinely carried the documents to which McShane refers out of Scientology facilities in a locked briefcase in order to provide "auditing" to myself with the blessing of the Scientology organization.

29. McShane posits in his Declaration that I am a "close ally" of Dennis Ehrlich and that I work in concert with him to "destroy" the Scientology religion and its intellectual properties. These statements are completely inaccurate. Neither Robert Penny, F.A.C.T.Net, or I myself have had any dealings of any substance at all with Mr. Ehrlich. In fact, I estimate that I have had two or fewer conversations with Mr. Ehrlich during the two of three years preceding the issuance of the seizure order, the period in question in McShane's Declaration.

30. Contrary to McShane's declaration, neither Robert Penny nor I have spent time "attacking" or "harassing" Scientology, unless one considers the discussion of Scientology's mind-control tactics to be "harassment." F.A.C.T.Net is an electronic library and historic preservational archive dedicated to the preservation of documents concerning, and encouraging discussion of, various cults (including but not limited to Scientology) which practice dangerous mind control tactics.

31. It is patently false that the "only purpose" that I had in founding F.A.C.T.Net was to attack Scientology, publish anti-Scientology "propaganda," and attack Scientology properties. To the converse, F.A.C.T.Net tracks information on approximately 300 worldwide groups which utilize coercive psychological tactics.

32. McShane suggests that Arnaldo P. Lerma engaged in a "pattern of deliberate harassment" of the Church of Scientology. Again, such statements are entirely false. Like Robert Penny and myself, Mr. Lerma's involvement with F.A.C.T.Net was with the objective of promoting public discussion of mind control tactics and preserving documentation of these tactics.

33. Plaintiffs have attempted to portray their raid of Robert Penny's home and my home as innocent actions taken to protect against the imminent posting of secretive Scientology documents on the Internet. Plaintiffs have failed to inform the court that, by engaging in the raids, Scientology was able to obtain complete and unfettered access to documentation relevant to both (a) my consultation as an expert witness on various litigated matters involving Scientology, (b) documents protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges in my own involvement in litigation with Scientology, (c) information relevant to on-going government investigations into Scientology and (d) other personal, private and privileged matters concerning me. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to reveal until after the raids that the Norton Utilities' "WipeInfo" capabilities would be used to so erase Mr. Penny's hard drives so that data reconstruction would be impossible. Additionally, plaintiff failed to reveal that I have been in possession of almost all of the very same sensitive Scientology documents for sixteen years, yet have never published them.

34. When my residence was raided by RTC's agents, the RTC agents truly ransacked my home. My girlfriend and I were gotten from bed in a bedraggled state of semi-dress and ordered against the wall like criminal suspects as the RTC agents conducted their seizures. In addition to breaking the lock on the door to the room in which F.A.C.T.Net and Scientology-related materials were stored, the RTC agents ransacked and trashed my closets, my bedroom, my bathroom, and my kitchen, leaving no stone unturned. Moreover, RTC has failed to comply with the Court's order as to the return of the seized materials.

35. F.A.C.T.Net's mission purpose is to maintain a library and archive to promote the assembly, organization, and dissemination of information about a variety of coercive psychological systems, including Scientology. F.A.C.T.Net believes that its approach can be successful in the late 20th and 21st Centuries in light of recent and expected advances in electronic communications, including the especially powerful information tool known as the Internet, and in methods of storing, organizing and retrieving electronically stored communications. F.A.C.T.Net is a non-profit organization and subsists on a shoestring budget pulled together from contributions by supporters of free information. In carrying out its mission purpose, F.A.C.T.Net has made voluminous non-proprietary information available concerning a wide variety of coercive indoctrination systems such as Scientology, widely available to members of the public, first through a bulletin board and an Internet site, and now only through an Internet site. However, where information is really confidential in nature, or protected by copyright, F.A.C.T.Net shields certain portions of its library and archive from all but a few persons. Those portions include confidential information concerning cult victims, information protected by copyright and some information uploaded via the Internet or sent via copied disk. F.A.C.T.Net takes reasonable steps to ensure that such material is not placed on the public section of the Internet site. Indeed, the few persons who have access to the confidential copyrighted information must have a specific need and a valid purpose. For example, other victims seeking support and counseling or attorneys seeking information for use in litigation with cults as such Scientology and researchers seeking an accurate historical record of materials that cults such as Scientology have altered or purged have been given access. We did not into, and to the best of my knowledge did not, infringe anyone's copyrights.

36. Because of Scientology's revisionist approach to its own history and documents, the information contained in its earliest, but subsequently revised "red and green"volumes can be invaluable to lawyers and other professionals engaged in litigation, historical research or in protecting past, present and future victims of Scientology's coercive indoctrination and other forms of intimidation, intelligence and harassment.

[apparently some paragraphs are missing here]

40. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Exhibit "B", letter from Geertz to Lewis dated December 23, 1996, with attachments.

41. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Exhibit "C", letter from Graham E. Berry to John Quinn dated January 14, 1997, with attachments.


I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the State of California and State of Colorado that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Denver, Colorado this   day of February, 1997.



Subscribed and sworn to before me this   day of February, 1997,
Lawrence Domnic Wollersheim.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:

Notary Public

more affidavits