------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------- atty # 18751 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, No. 941 00804 BOWLES & MOXEN, Call_____ CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ILLINOIS, Trial By Jury Demanded ANDREW BAGLEY, MOTION CALL C GLEN BARTON, GREGORY BASHAW, JURY DEMAND CHARLES BENEDETTI, VALON MITCHELL CROSS, SAMUEL DEMETER, JOE LEWIS, MARION MELBERG, LARRY MILLER, DAVID SCHRAM, and LYNN WARD, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT AT LAW Now comes the Plaintiff, Cult Awareness Network, by and through its attorneys, John M. Beal and George N. Vurdelja, Jr., and for its complaint against the defendants Church of Scientology International, Bowles & Moxen, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward alleges as follow: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Cult Awareness Network (hereinafter "CAN") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Barrington, Cook County, Illinois. CAN has nineteen affiliate organizations around the United States. 2. Defendant Church of Scientology International (hereinafter "Church of Scientology") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 3. Defendant Bowles & Moxen is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a law firm with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 4. Defendant Church of Scientologyof Illinois, on information and belief, is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a not-for-profit organization under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 5. Defendant Andrew Bagley is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of Kansas and a member of the Church of Scientology. 6. Defendant Glen Barton is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of California and a member of the Church of Scientology. 7. Defendant Gregory Bashaw is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 8. Defendant Charles Benedetti is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 9. Defendant Valon Mitchell Cross is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of San Francisco, California and a member of the Church of Scientology. 10. Defendant Church of Scientology International (hereinafter "Church of Scientology") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 11. Defendant Joe Lewis is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Lake County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 12. Defendant Marion Melberg is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 13. Defendant Larry Miller is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 14. Defendant David Schram is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. 15. Defendant Lynn Ward is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois and a member of the Church of Scientology. NATURE OF THE CASE 16. Defendants have brought a series of unfounded lawsuits against CAN for the purpose of interfering with CAN's regular activities, particularly that of educating its members and the public as to religious rights, freedoms and responsibilities, by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, and employees: 1) to devote a large portion of their time to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits and 2) to expend CAN's resources on the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities. Defendants have further sought to bankrupt CAN and thereby cause CAN to be unable to function at all, by means of the aforesaid lawsuits. Defendants have further sought to disrupt and interfere with the ability and right of CAN, its members, and the members of its affiliate organizations to freely and voluntarily assemble together and associate with each other. UNDERLYING FACTS NORDQUIST LAWSUIT 17. On or about February 5, 1992, Jonathan Nordquist filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that CAN had fraudulently induced Nordquist to do volunteer work for it by concealing its true nature, and that when Nordquist discovered CAN's true nature he suffered severe mental distress. 18. Nordquist's complaint was filed by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran and the defendant Los Angeles law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 19. On or about May 21, 1993, Nordquist, then proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss his action with prejudice, stating in the motion, "The lawsuit is without foundation in fact and was instigated by the Church of Scientology." 20. On or about May 21, 1993, Judge Odas Nicholson granted Nordquist's aforesaid motion to dismiss his action with prejudice. BAGLEY LAWSUIT 21. On or about March 9, 1992, Andrew Bagley filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that CAN had discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to join CAN because he is a member of the Church of Scientology. 22. Bagley was represented in this case by the Law offices of John Thomas Moran and the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 23. On or about October 22, 1992, United States District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber granted summary judgment against Bagley and in favor of CAN, ruling that CAN had, in fact, allowed Bagley to join CAN when he applied and that the case was moot. WARD et al. LAWSUITS 24. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology of Illinois (Lynn Ward, Marion Melberg, Charles Benedetti, and David Schram) filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Cult Awareness Network, Illinois, CAN's Illinois affiliate organization, alleging that CAN Illinois had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq. 25. The four Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran. 26. On or about March 29, 1993, United States District Court Judge John A. Nordberg granted summary judgement in favor of CAN Illinois nd against the four Scientologists in the aforesaid lawsuit, on the grounds that the Cult Awareness Network is not a "place of public accommodation" under Title 42, U.S.C.  2000a. DEMETER and CROSS COUNTERCLAIMS 27. On or about November 23, 1992, Samuel Demeter and Valon Mitchell Cross, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed counterclaims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the plaintiff Cult Awareness Network, alleging that CAN had refused to recognize them and certain of their associates as CAN affiliate organizations, in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 28. The two Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran. 29. On or about September 14, 1993, United States District Court Chief Judge James B. Moran granted CAN's motion to dismiss Cross's counterclaim on the grounds that the California courts had determined that the Unruh Act does not apply to CAN. Demeter had previously voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim. BASHAW et al. PETITION 30. On or about July 27, 1992, three members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Gregory S. Bashaw, Larry Miller, and Joe Lewis) filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against the Cult Awareness Network, asking the Court to enter a temporary restraining order requiring CAN to admit the three Scientologists into CAN's administrative offices in Barrington, Illinois, "to allow (the three Scientologists) to volunteer their services to CAN". 31. The three Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran. 32. October 13, 1992, Judge Lester Foreman entered an order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. NEILSON et al. PETITION 33. In February, 1993, eight members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Bob Neilson, Sandra Woodard, Bob Shuch, Charles A. Van Breeman, Gary Gum, Vicki J. Dries, Patricia Ross, and Jennifer Beaubien) filed against CAN in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a Petition to Register a Foreign Judgment. The judgment was for $6009, and had been obtained in the Superior Court of the state of California for the County of Los Angeles. 34. The eight Scientologists in the aforesaid case were represented by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran. 35. On or about May 11, 1993, Judge Glynn Elliott dismissed the petition because the judgment had been paid in full in California as soon as it was due to be paid. BARTON LAWSUIT 36. On or about March 29, 1993, Glen Barton filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that he had been denied admittance to CAN's annual meeting held in November, 1992, in Los Angeles, California, because he is a member of the Church of Scientology. 37. Barton has been represented in the aforesaid case by the Law Offices of John Thomas Moran. 38. Barton's complaint alleges that because he was not admitted to CAN's annual meeting, he "suffered severe and profound mental distress, anguish, humiliation, grief and suffering. The conduct of defendants and each of them was intentional, outrageous, despicable, malicious, in excess of the bounds of decent society and committed with a willful and wanton disregard for the health, well-being and rights of" Barton. 39. The aforesaid action remains pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County. CALIFORNIA CASES CLEGG FEDERAL LAWSUIT 40. On or about May 19, 1992, Frizell Clegg, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  2000a et seq. 41. Clegg was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 42. On or about July 20, 1993, United States District Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of CAN and the other defendants in that case and against Clegg, on the grounds that the Cult Awareness Network is not a "place of public accommodation" under Title 42, U.S.C.  2000a, et seq. SLESAR and WESSLING LAWSUITS 43. On or about March 4, 1993, Michael Slesar and John Wessling, members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to form CAN affiliate chapters because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52, and common law fraud, both based upon diversity jurisdiction. 44. On or about November 8, 1993, United States District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of CAN and against Slesar and Wessling, on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not state a claim alleging, in good faith, damages exceeding $50,000, and the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. WISEL LAWSUIT 45. On or about February 28, 1992, Jack Wisel, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Northern California had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq., and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 and 52. 46. Wisel was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 47. On or about October 14, 1993, United States District Court Judge Stanley A. Weisel granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of CAN and the other defendants in that case as to all claims asserted by Wisel. CASSELMAN FEDERAL LAWSUIT 48. On or about October 5, 1992, Donna Casselman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN had refused to allow her to attend CAN's 1992 annual meeting in Los Angeles because she was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  2000a et seq., and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 and 52. 49. On or about January 4, 1993, United States District Court Judge Dickran M. Tevrizian dismissed this case on the grounds that defendants were not a public accommodation under 42 U.S.C.  2000a. CASSELMAN STATE LAWSUIT 50. On or about December 10, 1992, Donna Casselman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN had refused to allow her to attend the 1992 CAN annual meeting, held in Los Angeles, because she was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 51. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. WOODARD et al. LAWSUIT 52. On or about November 1, 1993, Sandra Woodard, Gary Gum, Bob L. Neilson, Cheryl Schwalbe, and Glen Barton, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN was refusing to allow them to attend the 1993 CAN annual meeting, to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 53. After Judge S. James Otero denied plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order the complaint was voluntarily dismissed. HARNESS LAWSUIT 54. On or about July 21, 1992, Kevin Harness, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 55. On or about October 9, 1992, the action filed by Harness in the County of San Diego was dismissed. 56. In or about September, 1992, Kevin harness filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles an action identical in all material respects to the one described in paragraph 49. This action was voluntarily dismissed on or about September 24, 1993. TRAMMELL CASE 57. On or about March 2, 1992, Corey Trammell, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara against the Cult Awareness Network and other defendants alleging that CAN's Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 58. Harness was represented in the aforesaid case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 59. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. HAWKINS CASE 60. On or about September 25, 1992, Craig Hawkins, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda against the Cult Awareness Network's Northern California chapter alleging the Northern California chapter had refused to allow him to join because he was a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 61. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. CAN AFFILIATE OF SAN FRANCISCO 62. On or about November 19, 1992, seven unincorporated associations and their representative members, all members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento against the Cult Awareness Network and its board of directors alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiff associations as affiliate organizations of CAN in violation of the California Nonprofit Corporations Law provisions pertaining to public benefit corporations, including California Corporations Code  5233 and 5520, et seq. and for violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 63. In December, 1993, this case was dismissed by Judge Ronald B. Robie. BEARDMORE, O'MEALY and SHAW LAWSUITS 64. On or about March 5, 1993, Charlotte Beardmore, Abby O'Mealy, and W. Russell Shaw, all members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiffs and other persons associated with plaintiffs as affiliate organizations of CAN in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 65. The Beardmore and Shaw cases were voluntarily dismissed on or about September 24, 1993, and the O'Mealy case was voluntarily dismissed on or about October 21, 1993, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ORANGE COUNTY, et al. LAWSUIT 66. On or about September 23, 1993, the Church of Scientology of Orange County, Church of Scientology Western United States, and Church of Scientology of Stevens Creek, all affiliated with the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had engaged in fraudulent business practices in violation of California Civil Code  17200, et seq., interference with contractual relations, and abuse of process. 67. Plaintiffs were represented in this case by the defendant law firm, Bowles & Moxen. 68. A motion to dismiss this lawsuit was granted in favor of CAN and against defendants on December 21, 1993, with leave to amend. LIPPMAN LAWSUIT 69. On or about January 13, 1993, Robert Lippman, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN was liable for assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress for events occurring during the CAN 1993 annual meeting, which was held in Los Angeles. 70. Plaintiff is represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 71. This lawsuit remains pending in the Superior Court, although a non-binding arbitration award was entered on December 10, 1993, in favor of CAN and against plaintiff. CHURCHEL, HARTE and MCCALLEY LAWSUITS 72. On or about December 3, 1992, Beverly Churchel, Brian Harte, and Diane McCalley, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, each filed actions in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow them to join because they are members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 73. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 74. These cases remains pending in the Superior Court. CLEGG STATE LAWSUIT 75. On or about July 22, 1992, Frizell Clegg, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and CAN's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 76. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. HART LAWSUIT 77. On or about January 24, 1992, Philip Hart, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and CAN's Los Angeles chapter alleging that CAN and the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 78. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction from the Superior Court asking the court to order CAN's Los Angeles chapter to make him a member. The injunction was denied, and plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal. On January 28, 1993, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court ruling that "application of the Unruh Act in this case would place a heavy burden on . . . CAN-LA's constitutionally protected freedom of association under the federal and California constitutions." Plaintiff petitioned to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. 79. Plaintiffs is represented in this case by the defendant law firm of Bowles & Moxen. 80. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. GONZALEZ LAWSUIT 81. On or about September 22, 1992, Ray Gonzalez, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network's Los Angeles chapter alleging the Los Angeles chapter had refused to allow him to join because he is a member of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code  51 and 52. 82. This case remains pending in the Superior Court. STERLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LAWSUIT 83. On or about November 25, 1991, The Emery Wilson Corporation, d/b/a Sterling Management Systems, a corporation owned and operated by members of the defendant Church of Scientology, and with many employees who are members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Cult Awareness Network and others alleging that CAN was liable for interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage under California law. 84. This lawsuit remains pending in the Superior Court. MASSACHUSETTS LAWSUITS 85. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Robert Castagna, Liza Cowenhoven, Chris Garrison, and Kelly Ledoux) filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Cult Awareness Network, and the Cult Awareness Network Boston ("CAN Boston"), the CAN affiliate in Boston, alleging that CAN and/or CAN Boston had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq. 86. The four Scientologists were represented in the aforesaid case by the law firm of Bowles & Moxen and local counsel. 87. After defendants filed case dispositive motions for summary judgment, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed these cases. MICHIGAN LAWSUIT 88. On or about July 31, 1991, Dorothy Jean Dickerson, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland against the Cult Awareness Network and others, including Sally Jesse Rafael and Multimedia, Inc., the company producing the Sally Jesse Rafael Show, alleging that defendants had invaded plaintiff's privacy and inflicted emotional distress upon her by portraying plaintiff and her "religion" in a false light. 89. CAN was dismissed from this action on July 23, 1992. 90. On December 2, 1993, a jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants remaining in the suit at that time. MINNESOTA LAWSUITS 91. On or about July 1, 1993, Holly Haggerty, a member of the Church of Scientology, filed a lawsuit against Free Minds, Inc., the CAN affiliate in Minnesota in the District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that CAN had discriminated against her under Minnesota law by refusing to allow her to join Free Minds, Inc. because she is a member of the Church of Scientology. 92. In August, 1993, the district court denied Haggerty's request for an injunction ordering Free Minds, Inc. to allow her to join, on the grounds that Free Minds, Inc. is not a public accommodation under the Minnesota human rights law. 93. Free Minds, Inc. has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, which is pending. 94. On November 5, 1993, Brian O'Malley, Bertid Haglund, and Jean Hornness, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed a lawsuit against the Cult Awareness Network in the District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that CAN had discriminated against them under Minnesota law by refusing to allow them to attend CAN's 1993 annual meeting, held in Minneapolis, because they were members of the Church of Scientology. 95. After a motion for an injunction was denied, the aforesaid action was voluntarily dismissed on or about November 12, 1993. NEW YORK LAWSUITS 96. On or about October 29, 1992, three members of the Church of Scientology, Thomas Waters, Marlerie Hammerling, and Diane Workman, each initiated a lawsuit against the New York and New Jersey affiliate of the Cult Awareness Network in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging that CAN New York/New Jersey had discriminated against them under New York law by refusing to allow them to join CAN New York/New Jersey because they are members of the Church of Scientology. 97. The suit by Waters was dismissed on the grounds that Waters had not actually applied to join CAN New York/New Jersey. The other two suits remain pending. OREGON LAWSUIT 98. In November, 1993, an unincorporated association calling itself Cult Awareness Network Portland, and constituted of members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed an action in the Oregon Circuit Court for the County of Multnomah against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN refused to recognize the plaintiff association as an affiliate organization of CAN in violation of the California Nonprofit Corporations Law provisions pertaining to public benefit corporations, including California Corporations Code  5233 and 5520, et seq. 99. This case was voluntarily dismissed on December 22, 1993. WASHINGTON, D.C. LAWSUITS 100. On or about October 5, 1992, four members of the defendant Church of Scientology (Brenda Hilderberger, Pat Jones, Betty Kerner, and Tim Mantis) each filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Cult Awareness Network, Washington, D.C. ("CAN DC"), the CAN affiliate in Washington, D.C., and Rudy Arkin, a member of the board of directors of CAN DC, alleging that CAN DC had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq. 101. The four Scientologists were represented in the aforesaid cases by local counsel. However, on information and belief, defendant Bowles & Moxen was actually in control of the litigation. 102. On or about February 26, 1993, United States District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted defendant's Motion to Dismiss the aforesaid four lawsuits. 103. On or about April 22, 1992, Church of Scientology member Jerry Newman filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against CAN and CAN DC alleging that CAN and CAN DC had discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to join CAN and CAN DC because he is a member of the Church of Scientology. 104. On or about October 9, 1992, United States District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, which was filed after the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the case involuntarily. 105. The plaintiff was represented in the aforesaid case by the law firm of Bowles & Moxen and local counsel. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINTS PENNSYLVANIA COMPLAINTS 106. On or about April 22, 1992, Church of Scientology members Sharon Battershall and Francis Dimartino each filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission against Cult Awareness Network of Pittsburgh ("CAN Pittsburgh"). CAN Pittsburgh is the CAN affiliate Western Pennsylvania. Battershall and Dimartino allege in their complaints that CAN Pittsburgh had discriminated against them by refusing to allow them to join because they are members of the Church of Scientology. 107. In April, 1993, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission dismissed the Dimartino complaint at the request of the complainant. The Battershall complaint remains pending. ILLINOIS COMPLAINTS 108. On or about June 10, 1992, John Meizes and George Seidler, members of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS  5/1-101 et seq. 109. These complaints remain pending before the Department of Human Rights. 110. On or about December 23, 1993, Gregory Bashaw, a member of the defendant Church of Scientology, filed a complaint with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow him to attend CAN's 1993 annual meeting held in November in Minneapolis in violation of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance. 111. This complaint remain pending before the Commission. MARYLAND COMPLAINTS 112. In 1992, 18 members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed complaints with the Maryland Human Relations Commission against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of the Maryland human rights laws. 113. In June, 1992, the Commission closed the cases for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that CAN is not a public accommodation,as defined by Maryland law, and CAN's activities, including membership selection, are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. CALIFORNIA COMPLAINTS 114. In 1992, over 30 members of the defendant Church of Scientology filed complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing against the Cult Awareness Network alleging that CAN had refused to allow them to join because they were members of the Church of Scientology, in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. 115. The Commission declined to accept the complaints on the basis that CAN is not a public accommodation, as defined by California law. COUNT ONE CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 116. Paragraphs 1 through 115, above, are hereby incorporated in Count One by reference. 117. Defendants Church of Scientology International, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, Lynn Ward, and others did and continue to conspire, confederate, and agree: (a) with each other, (b) with the other individual plaintiffs and with the attorneys of record in the lawsuits and complaints set forth in the underlying facts, above; (c) with the lawyers and paralegals of the defendant law firm Bowles and Moxen; and (d) with others known and unknown to CAN, to commence lawsuits against CAN in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and to file complaints against CAN before the human rights commissions in the States of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California. 118. The filing of each lawsuit and complaint in Illinois, California, Massachusttes, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above, constitutes a separate overt act in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy. 119. The lawsuits set forth in the Underlying Facts, above, were filed with malicious and improper purposes, namely to impede and prevent CAN from performing its public education functions, as set forth in paragraph 16, above; and to bankrupt CAN and cause it to cease functioning. 120. The aforesaid lawsuits were not meritorious; the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them; and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Demeter and Cross Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al. petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Horness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C. suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California. 121. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court: a. find that the defendants have conspired to engage in malicious prosecution, b. find that the aforesaid conspiracy was entered into wilfully and wantonly, c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants, d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 plus plaintiff's costs herein, e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT TWO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 122. Defendants Bowles & Moxen, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward did commence lawsuits against the Cult Awareness Network in Illinois and/or complaints before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, as set forth in paragrphs 19 through 39 and 108 through 111, above. Defendant Bowles & Moxen was involved in the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Nordquist. 123. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were filed with malicious and improper purposes, namely to impede and prevent CAN from performing its public education functions, as set forth in paragraph 16, above; and to bankrupt CAN and cause it to cease functioning. 124. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious; the plaintiffs in those suits have not prevailed in any of them; and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Ragley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Demeter and Cross Counterclaims, the Sashaw et al. petition, and the Neilson et al. petition. 125. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action by defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court: a. find that the defendants have engaged in malicious prosecution, b. find that the defendants acted wilfully and wantonly, c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants, d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein, e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT THREE CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH RI6HT OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION 126. Paragraphs 1 through 115, above, are hereby incorporated in Count Three by reference. 127. Defendants Church of Scientology International, Bowles & Moxen, Church of Scientology of Illinois, Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward did conspire, confederate, and agree: (a) with each other, (b) with the other individual plaintiffs and with the attorneys of record in the lawsuits and complaints set forth in the underlying facts, above; (c) with the lawyers and paralegals of the defendant law firm Bowles and Moxen; and (d) with others known and unknown to CAN, to commence lawsuits against CAN in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and to file complaints against CAN before the human rights commissions in the States of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California. 128. The filing of each lawsuit and complaint in Illinois, California, Massachusttes, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above, constitutes a separate overt act in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy. 129. The Cult Awareness Network and members of CAN and its affiliate organizations have a right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to associate together, and to consult with each other, as guaranteed by Article I,  5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. 130. The lawsuits and complaints set forth in the Underlying Facts, above, were filed with malicious and unlawful purposes, to wit, to interfere with the right of CAN and the members of CAN to exercise their aforesaid right of association and assembly by bankrupting CAN and causing it to cease functioning, and by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, directors, and employees to devote a large portion of their time and other resources to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities. 131. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious; the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them; and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Cross and Demeter Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al. petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Harness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C. suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California. 132. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid action of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, by having chilled the right of assembly and association of CAN and its members and the members of its affiliate organizations, and otherwise. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court: a. find that the defendants have conspired to infringe upon defendant's right of assembly and association, b. find that the aforesaid conspiracy was entered into wilfully and wantonly, c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants, d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein, e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT FOUR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY 133. Defendants Andrew Bagley, Glen Barton, Gregory Bashaw, Charles Benedetti, Valon Mitchell Cross, Samuel Demeter, Joe Lewis, Marion Melberg, Larry Miller, David Schram, and Lynn Ward have brought the lawsuits and complaints set forth above in paragraphs 21 through 39 and 108 through 111. 134. On information and belief, the Church of Scientology International, Bowles & Moxen, and Church of Scientology, Illinois have suggested, instigated, encouraged, and assisted the named plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints, and all of the other lawsuits and complaints set forth in paragraph 17 through 115, above. 135. On information and belief, defendants Church of Scientology International and Bowlee & Moxen have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits pleadings that have been commissions. and complaints with draft and final filed in court and with the human rights commissions. 136. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International and Bowles & Moxen have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with financial assistance in the prosecution of the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints. 137. The members of the Cult Awareness Network and its affiliate organizations have a right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to associate together, and to consult with each other, as guaranteed by Article I,  5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. 138. The lawsuits and complaints referred to in paragraphs 133 and 134, above, were filed with malicious and unlawful purposes, to wit, to interfere with the right of CAN and the members of CAN to exercise their right of association and assembly under Article I,  5 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, by bankrupting CAN and causing it to cease functioning and by making it necessary for CAN's members, officers, directors, and employees to devote a large portion of their time and other resources to defending against the aforesaid lawsuits, instead of on associational and educational activities. 139. The aforesaid lawsuits and complaints were not meritorious; the plaintiffs in those actions have not prevailed in any of them; and CAN has prevailed in the Nordquist suit, the Bagley suit, the Ward et al. suits, the Cross and Demeter Counterclaims, the Bashaw et al. petition, the Neilson et al. petition, the Massachusetts suits, the Michigan suit, the Hagland, Horness and O'Malley suit in Minnesota, the Waters suit in New York, the Oregon suit, the Washington, D.C. suits, the following California suits: Clegg (federal case), Slesar and Wessling, Wisel, Casselman (federal case), Woodard, et al., Harness, Hart injunction petition, and Beardmore, O'Mealy and Shaw, and in the human rights commission complaints in Maryland, Pennsylvania and California. 140. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid actions of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court: a. find that the defendants have unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's right of association, b. find that the aforesaid infringement was engaged in wilfully and wantonly, c. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants, d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein, e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT FIVE MAINTENANCE 141. Defendant Church of Scientology International has officiously intermeddled in all of the lawsuits and complaints set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above. 142. On information and belief, the Church of Scientology International has suggested, instigated, encouraged, and assisted the named plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints. 143. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International, by its own means and through defendant Bowles & Moxen, has provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with draft and final pleadings that have been filed in court and with the human rights commissions, and with other legal assistance. 144. On information and belief, defendant Church of Scientology International and Bowles & Moxen, a law firm working for and at the direction of the Church of Scientology International, have provided the plaintiffs in the aforesaid lawsuits and complaints with financial assistance in the prosecution of the aforesaid lawsuits 145. The Church of Scientology International is not a party in any of the lawsuits or complaints set forth in paragraphs 17 through 115, above. 146. CAN has been damaged by the aforesaid actions of defendants, by incurring legal fees and costs, by paying staff to engage in litigation related activities, by being impeded in and prevented from engaging in CAN's corporate cause and purpose of public education, and otherwise. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court: a. find that the defendant Church of Scientology International, aided and abetted by defendants Bowles and Moxen and Church of Scientology of Illinois, is guilty of maintenance, b. find that defendant Church of Scientology International, aided and abetted by defendant Bowles and Moxen and Church of Scientology of Illinois, engaged in the aforesaid maintenance wilfully and wantonly, b. enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants, d. award plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, plus plaintiff's costs herein, e. award plaintiff punitive damages for defendants' willful and wanton conduct in the amount of $3,000,000, and f. award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. (John Beal) Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATION Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this affidavit are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true. William R. Rehling Dated: January 17, 1994 John M. Beal Attorney at Law 321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 (312)408-2766 atty #18751 George N. Vurdelja, Jr. George N. Vurdelja & Associates 14 East Jackson blvd., Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 427-3777 atty #50499 ================================================================= 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: HT.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: HT.TIF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: Affidavit of Complaint, Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology et al., Cook County Illinois, January 17, 1994. SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: FACT NOTES: CAN sues Scientology et al. for damages of $1,000,000 compensatory and $3,000,000 punitive alleging Malicious Prosecution, Interfering with Right of Assembly, Infringement, and Maintenance. Many alleged malicious suits are given with names, dates, places. For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: 3/16/94 UPDATED BY: FrJMc =================================================================