------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== _________________________________________________________________ 1. CURRENT FILE NAME: APP0A.TXT 2. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:OK 3. SECURITY CODE:GP 4. DISTRIBUTION CODE:PDMCF 5. DESCRIPTIVE NAME FOR BBS: Introduction to the appendices 1,2,3,4, AND 5. All of appendices 1,2,3,4, and 5 were submitted in sum and substance to the California Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court as appendices to existing briefs in the Wollersheim case. Their purpose was to inform the court as to the actual history, nature, activities, and goals of Scientology as opposed to what Scientology's propaganda machine would like the court to believe. 6. SORT TO: ONE COPY TO IN SCIENTOLOGY LEGAL\WOLLERSHEIM, ONE COPY TO GENERAL 7. CONTRIBUTOR: IMHO-LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM 8. LOC. OF ORIG. OR IMAGE FILE: LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM & F.A.C.T. 9. NOTES: 10. FINAL PROOFING DONE ON (DATE): 11. FINAL PROOFING DONE BY: 12. FINAL INDEXING DONE ON (DATE): 13. FINAL INDEXING DONE BY: _________________________________________________________________ \App 0 - Intro to appendices\Page.00001 INTRODUCTTION TO THE APPENDICES In the creation of these documents I am esercising my constitutional rights of petition, free speech. participation in govemment. and freedom of religion in evaluating and discussing any religious matt~. including Scientoio~y's claims to be ~ beneuolent chruitable and bonafied religion. The information to be presented reiates to areas that noralyy fall within le~al inspection and regulation, name~y, people acting within the seculrtr operdion of commerce or in politics. The alleged religious~y protected doctrines and actions disclosed herein rtre aiso NOT exclusive~y protected "religious" expressions affecting ONLY the holder of the said expressions. Some of the materials included in these materials are submitted under the legal disc~osure and inspection e?iemptions covering insincerity and fraud. "Insincerity may sometimes be discovered through examination of extrinsic evidence, including pattems of inconsistent actions or statements."' "Where extrinsic evidence e;uists to establish that "religion" is being used as a complete~y fraudulent cloali such euidence MUST be considered."' In the creation of this document I am aLro exercising my constitutional responsibility of preuenting hamz to unaware third parties, in that I might have confidential or undisclosed information which not bein~ public~y disclosed would potentially harm or continue to serious~y harm those unknowing third pr~ties. SCIENTOLOGE~S HISTORY OF SUPPRESSION OF CRITICAL INFORMATION When it concerns "freedom of information" or free press rights exposing Scientolo@y, Scientology is at war with the outside world. This war has consisted of: 1). Repeated usage of Erivolous and expensive lawsuits to deter individuals or the media from staGng anything hostile to Scientology, whether factual or not.3 2). Attempting to use federal tsade secret laws designed for business usage to ~y to silence anyone ~ving to expose information critical to Scientoiogy. 4 -------------------------------------------- 1 "Toward a Constitutional Definition of Religio~" Harvard Law Raiew Vol. 91 p. 1081. "Rights of Reli~ious Autonomy," Tribe, p.861, (emphasis added). Atso see United States v. Kuch, 288 F. Supp 439, 445 D.D.C. (1968) where extrinsic evidence showed a tactical pretense of religion was invo~ved. 3 5. In a document seized bu the F.B.I. in its authorized search of Scientolo~y's headquarters, there is a blunt discussion of how firi;olous lawsuits can be used to drive publisheIs into submission. Jane Kember, at the time, the second highest ranking member of Scientology's intelligence section, states that since in the U.S. a person who tooses a lawsuit is not required to pay the opponents' costs, frivolous suits are an e~ective means of imposing unbearable financial burdens on publishers. 4 See Religious Technology Center v. Robin Scott. (The appeals Court has since ruled there is no such thing as trade secrets for religion.) \App 0 - Intro to appendices\Page.00002 3). A~tmpting to eytablish new interpretations of copyri~ht laws to silence factual inforrrmtion hostile to Scientologv, the recent "Hubbard biography" copyright precedent. ' These interpretationc, origin~ hinnered the publishing industry's free press rights to present important biographical facts on Hubbard that the public has: a right lo know, or needs for its protection. After considerable expense this precedent has now been reversed. j). i~ttempfing to, or successfully sealing court cases and records during or after Litigation. 5). Attempting to use copyright laws AND then unreasonable search and seizure to inhibit its adversaries andior suppress archit'al material on Scientolo@y.' 6.) Restrictin~ evidence access, Scientology lawyers have been temporari~ successful in restriction freedom of inf-brmation requests for access to the thousands of documents seized fkom church headquarters in an authorized search by the FBI. Because of Scientology's use of a special langu~e, Scientologese, and special security encoding much of this seized FBI information may still need translation, coordination or distribution to the ~jictims for possible legal actions. At the least, these reshiicted documents are still useful and ~-ital to educators and the media for understanding the REAL Scientology. Access has been restricted to these hig~y damaging documents in part by Scientolo~v's hauing to be infotmed in the approval process of the identity of anyone making such requests. The potential danger of such prior notice to Scientology wiU become appruent in the followit~ chapters which include copies or transcriptions of some of those seized FBI documents. 7.) Scientology keeps much of the information in these materials among those highest inner few who have passed e?itensive security and loyalty tests. Because sensitive or critical information is withheld or given on a strict "need to know" basis, the vast majority oflower level Scientologists that are neith~ intensively invohred nor have risen to high posiEions on staff are generaly aware of the contents of these materials. Celebrities such as Tom Crui~e, John Travolta, and Kirste AUey or others, who have endorsed and are public~y promoting Scientology unfortunately, are consistent~y the most isolated and least intbrmed regarding the crucial evaluative information on Scientology presented in these materials. ~4BOUT THIS DOCUMENT'S PREPARATION AND REFERENCES -------------------------------------------- New Era Publica~ons, an at~iate of the Church of Scientology, sued publisher Henry Holt & Co. to prevent publication of "Bare Faced Messiah, " a biography of L. Ron Hubbard the Scientology founder. The book's author, Russell M. MiUer, had quoted 132 p~es fiom unpublished letters and dacuments, many obtaine~ fjrom govenunent agencies under the Freedom oflnforatiion Act. On OcOober 3, 1990 0cientology allegedly arranged an entrapment operation on an uninuo~ved former member (Bostrom) who had a collection of archival materials on Scientology. Two marshals and approximate~y 15-20 Scientolo~ists showed up with a search warrant. They~ then began the unreasonable search and seizure oflegitimate~y acquired Scientology materials fiom Mr. Bostrom's home. The search wanant was issued because several days before P~r. Bostrom allegedly had sold one ofhis old copgrighted Scientology Craining packs to a Scientology "sting" operative for approximate~I 100 dollars. \App 0 - Intro to appendices\Page.00003 To minimize interpretation biasl skepticism, or denial conceming Scientologv's natue. intentiona and actions these materials have focused on the referenced statements and quotes from Scientology's own doctrinal documents.' In the quotes. policies, irnd documented criminal actions pervasive pretest is sho~n in Scientology through the presentation of doctrinal literatore that was not presented by the other side.' U~erever possible, review of the entire referenced documents is recommended. This will help in the verification that proper conte~it was used. HOCV SCIENTOLOGY nifAk' KEACT TO TEfESE DOCT~VZENTS In anticipation of Scientol~y's standard policy reactions to any critical information, the reader should be keen~y aware of the following: A). Directly or indirect~y Scientology may try, in all or in part, to seal or otherwise make this document inaccessible within or outside of the court system. B). It may use its signature "intelligence community" black public relations techniques to try to discredit the author and document.g C). It may attempt to refute this document with "reasonable sounding" half truths." D). Scientology's public relations people may app~y (TR-L), the ~ying training drill seized by the FBI to the situation.'' -------------------------------------------- Literature, much of which has been de~iberate~y withheld or suppressed by Scientology from review by the courts or outside exp~ts. 8 "Other People's Faiths": The Scientology litigation and the Justicability of Religious Fraud, Hasti~s Constitutional Law Quarterfy, Vol. 9 p. 196(1981). 9 "Entire~y by bringing about pub]ic conviction that the sanity of a person is in question it is possible to discount and eradicate all the ~oals and activities of that person." From "The Brainwashing Manual" ascribed to L. Ron Hubhard the founder of Scientology. See coerciue persuasion appendix section 3 for specifics on the manual. lo For example, Scientology might say that the declaration by the High Court of Appeals in Austra~ia declaring Scientology not to be a religion was overturned. What is left unsaid, is that the court latm. overturned the case on an unrelated issue or technic~ity, and the High Court specifically refrained from denying or affirnzin~ the lower court ruling that Scientology is a sham. 11 See a copy of TR L seized by the F.B.I. in an authorized search of Scientology's headquarters in the following appendices. ================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARD CATALOG ENTRY DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\GENERAL\APP0A.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: NOTES: For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: =================================================================