------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 BARRY VAN SICKLE CUMMINS & WHITE 2 1600 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 300 3 Los Angeles, California 90017~i695 (213) 413-3600 JOSEPH A. YANNY 5 HERZIG & YANNY 1900 Avenue of the Stars 6 Suite 1520 Los Angeles, California 90067 ? (213) 551-2966 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs !0 1! UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 / 14 JOSEPH A YANNY, an individual, ) CASE NO. JOSEPH A- YANNY; a professional ) ~,, .... 15 law corporation, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiffs, ) ) (1) RACKETEERING 17 v. ) [18 U.S.C. 1962(a)] ) (2) RACKETEERING 18 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) [18 U.S.C. 1962(b)] INTERNATIONAL, a California ) (3) RACKETEERING 19 Corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY ) [!8 U.S.C. 1962(c)] CENTER, a California Corporation; ) (4) RAC~(ETEERING 20 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ) [18 U.S.C. 1962(d)] CALIFORNIA, a California ) (5) INVASION OF PRIVACY 21 Corporation; AUTHOR SERVICES INCORPORATED, a California ) 22 Corporation; BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL INC., a California Corporation; ) 23 CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, ) a California Corporation; AUTHOR ) 24 FAMILY TRUST, a California ) Entity; THE ESTATE OF L. RON ) 25 HUBBARD, by and through NORMAN ) STARKEY, Executor; and DOES 1 ) 28 through 500, inclus{ve, ) ) 2~/ Defendants. ) 28 ) BVS 1832/50 ~1- ~'tr~l lr ' ~'~ i,' ú iEI NI_I~: LHL.~J ~L)k~ I[_iL.'_-~ F'.'Z..."'2E, i Plaintiffs Joseph A. Yanny and Joseph A. Yanny, a ~ professional law corporation, for their complaint against these 5 defendants, allege as follows: 5 JURISDICTION 6 ~ 1. This case arises under and is brought pursuant to the 8 Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws (RICO), 9 18 U.S.C. 1961, e__t. seq. Federal jurisdiction is expressly l0 conferred by iS U.S.C. 1964(c). Venue in this district is tl authorized under 18 U.S.C. 1965 in that the defendants herein 12 reside, are found, have agents or transact affairs within this 15 district. This court has ancillary or pendant jurisdiction over 14 the state law claims stated herein. The torts herein alleged 15 involve a substantial identity of persons, wrongful conduct on the 16 part of defendants, and resulting damage to plaintiff herein. 17 18 THE PARTIES 19 20 2. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff Joseph A. Yanny ( its- ff - ~anny ) was and now is an attorney duly licensed to practice law 22 in the State of California and elsewhere. 23 3- Plaintiff Joseph A. Yanny, a professioilal law 24 corporation ("Y~nny, P.C."), doing business under the firm name 25 Herzig & Yanny, is a corporation duly licensed to transact 26 business in the State of California, with its principal place of 27 business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 28 4. Plaintiffs further allege that: SVS 1832/50 -2- ~',~, ," ' ~ i ,": 11 HUB LAI...J OFFI{_':E'_-'; F*. 3.."2~:, 1 A. Defendant Church of Scientology g International ("CSI") is, and a~ all relevant times Was, a California corporation 'with its principal 4 office in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los 5 Angeles, State of California. 6 B. Defendant Religious Technology Center V ("RTC") is, and at all relevant times was, a 8 California corporation with its principal office in 9 the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, 10 State of California. 11 C. Defendant Church of Scientoloqy of 12 California ("CSC") is, and at all relevant times 13 was, a California corporation with its principal 14 office in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los 15 Angeles, State of California. 16 D. Defendant Author Services, Inc. ("ASI") 17 is, and at all relevant times was, a California 18 corporation with its principal office in the City 19 of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of 20 California. 21 E. Defendant Bridge Publications, Inc. 2~ ("BPI") is, and at all relevant times was, a ~3 California corporation with its principal office in ~4 the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, 25 State of California. 28 F. Defendant Church of Spiritual Technology 2V ("COST") is, and at all relevant time~ was, a 28 California corporation with its principal office in BVS 1832/50 -3- I"I'~"~" 17 "',E~9 17:/.3 HUB L'lql,4 CIFF']'CE'.z; P.4.-."",.r"'6 1 the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, ~ State of California. 3 O. Defendant Author Family Trust (~'AFT") is, 4 and at all relevant times was, an entity doing 5 business in the State of California. 6 H. Defendant' Estate of L. Ron Hubbard ~sLaEe of Hubbard`f) by and through its executor, 8 Norman Starkey, is, and at all relevant times was, 9 an entity doing business in the State 10 California. 11 5. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities t2 of Defendants Does 1 through 500, and therefore sue said !5 defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to 14 amend this complaint when the true names of said defendants have t5 been ascertained. 16 6. Defendants are part of an ongoing enterprise, an 17 association in fact, referred to herein as "Scientology." The 18 persons in control of this enterprise are members of controlling 19 groups known as the f'Sea Org," and the "Office for Special 210 .... " 21 7. Defendants CSI, RTC, CSC, ASI, DPI, CST, AFT and Estate 22 of Hubbard are co-conspirators subject to a unity of control. The 25 separate alleged corporate structures were created as part of a 24 scheme to avoid liability for the acts of the enterprise, 25 including the avoidance Qf taxes and civil judgments, 26 8. The defendants are the aqents, employees or ~? co-conspiratorsof each other. At relevant times, each defendant 28 BVS ~832/50 -4- M'~"'r" 17 ~'E-:'9 17:12 HIJF: L'~t-.J C:,FFICEcj F' 1 was acting within the course and scope of that agency, employment 2 or conspiracy. 4 THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING 5 6 9. The so-called religion of Scientology was rounded by L 7 Ron Hubbard (hereinafter " ..... " tlLlDDarc/), Who set forth certain: 8 purported "scientific" theories in a number of writings publishec~; 9 in the early-1950s, including: Dianetics: The Modern Science of 10 Mental Health and Science of Survival: Prediction of Human BehaV-1! ~or. Subsequently, in or about the mid-1950s, Hubbard bega~ 12 representing that his published theories were both "scientific~ 13 and "religious." Hubbard formally established various Scientology' 14 entities at this time. 15 10. The fallacious designation of Scientology entities, 16 including Defendants CSI, CSC and CST, as "churches," is a sham 17 contrived to exploit protections of the First Amendment of the 18 United States Constitution- The principal directive of 19 Scientology is to make money. In places such as Israel, where 20 there is a state religion, and in parts of Latin America, where 21 there are prohibitions against ownership of property by religious 22 organizations, Scientology claims to be a philosophical rather 23 than a religious organization. 24 11. Scientology organizations, including but not limited to 25 Defendants CSC, RTC and CST, have utilized the United States mails 26 and wires to market goods and services through fraudulent 27 representations, including but not limited to the following: 28 BVS 1832/50 Hl::-:l'r" 17 '8'9 17:1:_'-: HI_IE; LI:::I~.,J ii)FFICE'._-'; F'.6..."';.-"'E, i A. Scientology is a peaceful, religious and 2 spiritual philosophy and organization. 3 B. L. Ron Hubbard was an engineer and 4 nuclear physicist with degrees from certain 5 universities. 6 C. Scientology was revealed to mankind by L. 7 Ron Hubbard as a service to humanity with no intent 8 to profit therefrom. 9 D. Scientology will scientifically provide 10 an array of benefits, including a higher I.Q., a 1! cure for neuroses, criminality, poor eyesight, 12 insanity, psychosomatic ills, homosexuality and 13 drug dependence. 14 E. Scientology's goods and services are 1'5 offered on a satisfaction or money-back basis. 16 F. Scientotogy is scientifically guaranteed 1V to cure asthma, arthritis, rheumatism, ulcers, 18 toothaches, pneumonia, colds and color blindness. 19 G. Courses offered by Scientology can be 20 applied by an accredited college toward a college 21 degree. ~02 12. Revenue generated by these false representations is 25 utilized to pay for the advertising of products, including books, 24 which are published and distributed by Defendants ASI and BPI, 25 conceded for-profit corporations. These for-profit corporations ~6 are controlled by Defendant COST, an alleged non-profit 27 corporation. 28 BVS 1832/50 1 13. Purchasers of Scientoloqy goods and services are falsely 2 assured that Scientology is a non-profit enterprise from which 3 Hubbard, and subsequently others in control of the enterprise, 4 received little financial benefit. However, Plaintiffs further 5 allege that the profits generated by Scientology's commerciai. 6 activities were directed largely to Hubbard, his family 7 certain business associates, and continue to be largely enjoyed b~.~ 8 those in control of the enterprise. 9 14. At various times herein, the defendants, as part of 10 conspiracy to obstruct justice or otherwise control and silence+ 1! dissenters and opponents, practiced what came to be known as the~ !2 "Fair Game" policy. Pursuant to this practice, an enemy 13 Scientotogy "may be deprived of property or injured by any means, 14 by any Scientologist, without any discipline of a Scientologist. 15 He may'be tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed.'! Despite public 16 disavowal of the term "Fair Game" (for conceded public relations 17 purposes), the policy itself remains in force and practice among 18 Scientologists. Defendants, in concert with others, continue to 19 engage in illegal, outrageous, oppressive, tortious and harassing 30 activities against those whom they deem to be "enemies" 21 Scientology. One result of the ruthless and sometimes illegal 22 acts engaged in by Scientology is that the enterprise is able 23 carry out its pattern of illegal, racksteering activity with the ~4 knowledge that only rarely will witnesses dare to come forward and 2~ testify against Scientology. 15. Between in or about 1969 and in or about 1977, ~ Scientology was engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the ~ United States Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). In pursuit of the BVS 1832/50 -7- f'IAY 17 '09 17:1~ HUF: LAI...~ ~:::~FFIi:_"E'.-'~ R.8...~26 1 conspiracy, Scientology burglarized !RS offices, stole government ~ documents and obstructed IRS agents who attempted to audit 5 Scientology's records. In or about 1981, at least nine 4 high~ranking Scientologists were charged and convicted in criminal 5 proceedings in connection with this conduct. 6 16. In or about 1962, Scientology initiated "Operation 7 Freakout," which was designed to result in th~ criminal 8 prosecution or death of Ms. Paulotto Cooper, author of a book 9 entitled The Scandal of Scientology. Scientology agents obtained 10 Ms. Cooper's fingerprints and Transferred them to a Scientology- 11 prepared bomb threat letter which was then dispatched by mail to 12 several individuals. As a result, Ms. Cooper was subjected to 15 interrogation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and 14 was not cleared of wrongdoing until a 1977 FBI raid on 15 $cientology'$ Los Angeles, California business location, resulting 16 in the seizure of documents that exposed the operation. 17 17. Since in or about the early 1970s, Defendant Sciento!ogy 18 has operated forced labor facilities in the California desert 19 known alternately as the "Rehabilitation Pro~ect Force" or "Happy ~0 Valley." Members of Scientology may be ordered incarcerated in ~1 "Happy Valley" for any perceived failure to demonstrate a SS "correct" attitude toward Scientology and its leaders. Persons 23 confined in this camp are required to perform long hours of 24 rigorous~ physical labor; are forced to subsist on a substandard 25 diet; are deprived of sufficient sleep and are forced to undergo 26 long hours of interrogation and "re-education." Defendant 27 Scientology members who are suspected of serving as parties, ~8 witnesses or informants in litigation or anticipated litigation BVS!832/50 -8- MAY 17 '89 17:15 HLIB LAW OFFICES; P.9/26 'V 1 against Scientology are subject to incarceration in "Happy ~.Valley." This activity plays its role in obstructing justice and 3 generating revenues for the racketeering enterprise. This is one 4 method of coercion used to silence potential witnesses and obtain 5 unquestioned obedience to orders, even though orders may involve-.. 6 such things as destroying subpoenaed documents or conunitting.". 7 per3ury. 8 18. Scientology corporate entitles, including Defendant~ 9 RTC, CSI, CSC, ASI, and CSI, have perpetuated the conspirac]{' 10 against the IRS referenced above by, among other things, filing 11 tax returns that in~entional].y misrepresented Scientology's~ lZ financial affairs and operating procedures for the purpose ofTM 15 improperly claiming tax-exempt status. This activity has 14 generated considerable revenue for the enterprise. 15 19. Plaintiffs allege that in or about late 1979 and early 16 1980, Scientology initiated a document destruction program 17 designed to eliminate all written documentary evidence concerning 18 Hubbard's control over Scientology business affairs, finances and 19 criminal activities. This operation was conducted, among other 20 places, at Scientology's business locations in Gilman Hot Springs, 21 California and Clearwater, Florida. A primary reason for this 22 activity was to thwart any IRS investigations or prosecutions. 20. In or about 1981, Scientology initiated a plan to 24 blackmail Judge Krentzman, a Florida federal judge then hearing a 25 Sciento!ogy-related action. Thereafter, Dick Bast, a private 26 investigator employed by Scientology, secured a yacht and 27 attempted to lure the targeted judge on board in order to film him 28 BVS 1832/50 -9- ~'~AY 17 "89 17:16 HUB LAI,,J OFFICES P.10/26 1 under compromising circumstances. The judge declined Bast's Z invitation and the operation was unsuccessful. 21. In or about late 1981, Hubbard ordered that the 4 corporate structure of Scientology be reorganized in an attempt to 5 fraudu!ently conceal assets and avoid the payment of taxes and 6 civil judgments. Pursuant to this reorganization, much of the ~ profits generated by Scientology have been'and are directed to 8 bank accounts located in foreign countries. '- 9 22. In or about 1984, Scientology and Mr. Gerald Armstrong 10 were involved in litigation before Judge Breckinridge of the 11 California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. During the 12 course of this litigation, the court ordered Scientology to 15 produce certain documents maintained by Scientotogy concerning 14 M~. Armstrong. Scientology ordered that any documents which would 15 tend to support Mr. Armstrong's claims against Scientology were to 16 be altered, mutilated and/or destroyed. Such documents were t~ altered, mutilated and/or destroyed and were, therefore, never 18 produced in compliance with the court's order. The threat of 19 physical retaliation by Scientology through such tools as "Fair 20 Game" and "Happy Valley" made such blatantly improper conduct 21 possible through an intimidated and fearful s~aff. 23. In or about 1984 and 1985, certain staff members of 2~ Defendant ASI were ordered to locate and destroy written 24 communications between Hubbard and ASI. The information was 25 sought by the IRS as a part of its continuing investigation of 26 Scientology's financial affairs and operating procedures. 27 24. In or about 1985, Scientology received information that 28 the IRS planned to execute search warrants for ScientolQgy's Los BVS 1832/50 -!0- M~Y17 "~9 l?:iG HIJB L~l,,,10FFICE'--L 1 Angeles, California headquarters complex. In response, 2 Scientology ordered the immediate destruction of computer-stored 5 information relating to Hubbard's control over Scientology 4 business affairs and finances. S 25. In or about 1985, Scientology ordered qroups of 6 Scientology-organized vigilantes to physically attack certain..~ ? perceived Scientology "enemies," including individuals who wer. e~= 8 cooperating with the U.S. government as prospective wltnesse~.. 9 One such vigilante was dispatched to physically attack former~ 10 Scientologist Dent Corydon, author of a book entitled: 11 L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? .!~ 26. Between 1977 and 1985, litigation known as Christ--.' 13 ~offerson v. Church of Scientology was proceeding in Portland, 14 Oregon. Scientology ordered ttlat a Scientology witness, 15 Mr. Martin Samuels, was to be coached and drilled for many hours 16' on how to convincingly conunit perjury. Mr. Samuels' subsequently 17 gave knowingly false testimony in the Christofferson action based 18 on these drills. 19 27. In or about 1986, Scientology and Mr. Larry Wollersheim ~0 were engaged in litigation before Judge Ronald Swearinger of the 21 California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. During the ~2 course of this litigation, the court ordered Scientology to 23 produce certain documents including files maintained by Z4 Scientology concerning Mr. Wollersheim. In response, Scientotogy 28 ordered that any documents which would tend to support 26 Mr. Wollersheim's claims against Scientology were to be altered, P~? mutilated and/or destroyed. Such documents were altered, 28 BVS 1832/50 -11- 1 mutilated and/or destroyed and were, therefore, never produced in o~ compliance with the court's order. 3 28. In or about 1986, Scientology engaged in a conspiracy to ~ obstruct the administration of justice with regard to proceedings 5 pending before a certain judge. Scientology compiled dossiers 6 regarding the judge ~nd his family, ultimately securing intimate 7 detail regarding the personal. life of the judge's 8 Scientology then proceeded to notice the deposition of the son and 9 his friends. The cover story was that Scientology sought 10 information pertaininq ~o litiqation~ the true purpose was, in 1! fact, to indirectly threaten exposure of intimate information. 12 29, In or about late 1986, attorney Michael Flynn and his !3 clients agreed to settle the litigation then pending between ~hem 14 and Scientology. The terms of the settlement required Flynn and 15 his co-counsel to never again accept litigation involving 16 Scientology and to refuse to publicly speak about their litigation experiences with Scientology. Additionally, at least one adverse 18 witness in the Flynn litigation, Bill Franks, received financial 19 compensation from Scientology in order to gain his general 20 unavailability in any future Scientology related litigation. 21 30~ The defendants herein have conspired to and entered into 22 a scheme to fraudulently procure copyrighted registrations, 23 trademarks and service marks. In some instances, abandoned and 24 unenforceable trademarks or service marks were given the color of 25 right by fraudulent or false submissions made by Scientology to 26 the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Scientology has 27 procured copyrights fraudulently by use of the mails by submitting 28 false statements to the United States Copyright Office. BVS 1832/50 -12- MAY 17"'09 17:10 HUB LAW OFFICES 1 31. Beginning in or about 1983, and continuing through the 2 present, Scientology has used the fraudulently procured trademark ~ registrations and copyrights to extort large sums of money. 32. Defendants have used and continue to use the 5 fraudulently-obtained copyrights to consolidate their position power and to eliminate competition in interstate commerce.. 7 Defendants used threats of violence to extort money under the 8 color of right conferred by alleged ownership of the copyrights, 9 which they claimed should be tax-free. 10 33. In or about February 1988, former Scientologists 11 Vicki j. Aznaran and Richard N- Aznaran and their attorne3[' 12 Ms~ Karen McRae, were contacted by use of interstate wires 13 Scientology attorney Earle C. Cooley. Cooley threatened Vicki 14 Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran by intimating that legal action or 15 other trouble would befall the Aznarans if they provided testimony 16 or other assistance to plaintiff Yanny in a retainer and fee 17 dispute with Scientology. Vicki J. Aznaran had formerly served as 18 President of RTC in or about mid-1983 through mid-1987. Said 19 phone calls were made in furtherance of a scheme to defraud the 20] firm of Herzig and Yanny of monies owed it by Defendants RTC, Zl and CSC. 34. Since mid-June 1988, Scientology has openly and 23 harassingly engaged in the ongoing surveillance of plaintiff, as 24 well as certain of his friends and business associates. For 25 example, on or about June 26, 1988, during the course of ongoing Z6 surveillance by Scientology, someone fraudulently and maliciously 27 used the interstate wires to telephone a false "tip" to law 28 enforcement agents, claiming that Yanny was in possession of BVS 1832/50 -13- MAY 17 '89 i?:i8 HUB LAW OFFICES P.14/26 I illegal substances or contraband, which caused plaintiff to be 2 detained and searched. The circumstances of this incident, 5 including the presence of surveillance and absence of other 4' hostile persons aware of Yanny's whereabouts, together with 5 Scientology's tendency towards such condtlct, evidence 8 Scientology's responsibility for this incident. 7 35. In or about May of 1987, Yanny at%ended a meeting at ú 8 Scientology's headquarters in Los Angeles, California. Many 9 high-ranking officers of the Scientotogy enterprise were present, 10 including Mark "'~ '" ~vxarEy Rathbun and Linda Hamel. Three private 11 investigators employed by Scien~ology were also present. At this lZ meeting, Rathbun explained that attorney Charles O'Reil!y, who had 13 recently obtained a $30 million jury verdict against Scientology, 1~ was to be blackmailed on the orders of Scientology's leader, David 15 Miscavige. Under Miscavige's plan, medical records Were to be. 16 stolen from the "Betty Ford Center" in Palm Springs, California 17 and then used to discredit Mr. O'Reilly. Miscavige and other 18 Scientology leaders expressed hope that 0'Reilly would agree to 19 " ease off" on his $30 million verdict then on appeal in exchange 20 for the return and non-disclosure of the medical records. In 21 response to Yanny's objections, Rathbun indicated that an 22 alternative "plan" for obtaining O'Reilly's medical records would 23 be adopted. 24 36. In or about mid-July 1987, Scientology proposed to 28 acquire O'Reilly's medical records by means of subpoenas issued in Z6 a particular action. This proposal exceeded the scope of ~? permissible discovery in that action and was an otherwise 28 unethical attack on opposing counsel. Plaintiff objected to this BVS 1832/50 -14- 1 proposal and informed Scientology of his intention to substitute 2 out of pending Scientology litigation. Scientology requested ~ plaintiff to reconsider. 37. Various Scientology organizations 'have sued plaintiff 5 Yanny, his professional corporation and the core of associates 6 work for the professional corporation. Said suit was brought' 7 primarily for the purpose of silencing Mr. Yanny, including 8 scheme to silence Mr. Yanny in pending or potential investigatioI~~ 9 by the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigatior~'. 10 and Department of Justice and in the hopes that plaintiff wouId. 11 turn his back on certain other individuals who were suing, 12 Scientology' 13 38. Prior to suing Plaintiff Yanny, or shortly thereafter, 14 certain attorneys and representatives acting on behalf of 15 Scientology approached Mr. Yanny and indicated to him that he 16 could avoid long, costly litigation with Scientology if he could 1~ make certain litigation brought by former Scientologists "go away" 18 and if he would agree to be silent. 19 39. Prior to the commencement of litigation between Yanny 20 and Scientology, various representatives and attorneys fo~ 21 Scientology approached an associate of Mr, Yanny and threatened to 22 deprive her of her reputation and ability to practice law in the Z$ State of California unless she would provide a declaration or ~zl other testimony that the Scientologists deemed sufficiently Z5 damaging to Mr. Yanny. 40. Defendants have participated in a conspiracy or scheme 27 to plant illegal drugs, including cocaine, on opposing counsel or 28 other adversaries. BVS 1832/50 -15- I$4AY 17 '89 17:20 HUB LAW i)FFICES P.16/26 1 41. Defendants have attempted, or succeeded, in intimidating 2 witnesses or adverse parties by the use of various threats, 5 threats of violence and actual use of violence, including the use 4 Of illegal explosive devices transported across state lines or in 5 instrumentalities of or affecting interstate commerce. 6 42. In '1985, Plaintiff Yanny was present at a meeting where 7 it was decided that certain Scientologists and a lawyer 8 purportedly representing Scientology would attempt to make contact 9 with Judge Mariana Pfaelzer of United States District Court for 10 the Central District of California- Earlier that day, Judge 11 Pfaelzer had ruled against Scientology on a request for a 12 preliminary injunction. The Scientologists left the meeting with 13 a dossier prepared by Scientology on Judge Pfaelzer, and for the 14 stated purpose of contacting Judge Pfaelzer and "making her 15 unde ' "' rstan~ certain things. 16 43. The above-described acts demonstrate a pattern of 17 illegal racketeering activity on the part of an enterprise 18 referred to herein as Scientology. Plaintiffs do not represent 19 that the above-described acts are exhaustive. Plaintiffs have 20 reason to believe that defendants have committed other 21 racketeering acts within the relevant time period. Plaintiffs 22 will seek leave of court to plead and prove such other additional acts as may be discovered in discovery and further investigation. 25 26 27 28 BVS 1832/50 -16- f'~A"~ 17 '89 17:20 HUB LAW 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Against Defendants and Does 1 through 500, 3 Inclusive, for Racketeering, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(a)) 4 5 44. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the above allegations. 6 in support of this cause of action. 45. This cause of action against all defendants arises under,.-' 8 the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 9 (18 U.S.C. Section 1961, e__t. _seq-) ("RICO"), and more particularly' 10 under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(a) and 1964. 11 46. Defendants are persons within the meaning of 18 12 Sections 196!(3) and 1962(a). 15 47. The defendants, and each of them, have conspired 14 and/or engaged in a pattern of racketeering as described 1e 18 U.S'.C. Section 1961(5), which requires the commission of two' 15 acts of racketeering activity (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 19 Section 1961(1)) within ten years last past, with at least one 18 such act having occurred after October 10, 1970. Defendants have !9 participated in the following acts of racketeering activity: 20 A. Acts or threats involving kidnapping or 21 extortion, chargeable under state law and ~Z punishable i'or more ~han one year (18 25 Section 1961(1)(A)); 24 B. Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 1341); 25 C. Wire Fraud (18 U.$.C. Section !3~3); 26 D. Obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 29 Section 1503); BVS 1832/50 1 E. Obstruction of c~iminal investigations ~ (18 U.S.C. Section 1510); 3 F. Tampering with a witness, victim or ~ info=mant (18 U.S.C. Section 1512)~ 5 G, Retaliation against a witness, victim or 8 informant (18 U.S.C, Section 1513); ? ~. InterferenCe with commerce by threats or 8 violence (18 U.S~C. Section !951)~ 9 I. Interstate ~nd foreign travel or 10 transportation in aid of rackerecting enterprises 11' (18 U.S.C. Section 1952); and 1~ø J- Interstate transportation of stolen 13 property (18 U.S.C. Sections 2314, 2314). The above acts were committed in furtherance of a common purpose, 15 scheme and iDlan. 16 48. Defendants have acted in concert, as an association in 17 fact, to form an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 18 Section 1961(4) and to unlawfully acquire income derived from a 19 pattern of rackerecting. 20 49. Defendants, and each of them, have received income 21 derived directly and indirectly from the pattern of rackerecting 22 set forth herein, and have used or invested, directly or ~3 indirectly, the proceeds of such income to acquire interests in 24 and to establish the operation of enterprises in the United States Z5 and abroad, whose activities affect both foreign and interstate Z6 commerce. 27 50. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' pattern 28 of racketeering activity conducted in violation of 18 U.S.C. BVS 1832/50 -18- MAY 17 '89 17:21 HUB LAW OFFICES P.19,,"26 1 Section 1962(a), plaintiffs have been injured in their business 2 and property in an amount not presently tabulated or ascertained, $ but estimated to be in excess of one million dollars. 4 Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble the damages 5' sustained as a result of defendants' racketeating activities anc~:.. 6 costs of this suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, 7 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c). 8 9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-500, 11 Inclusive, for Racketeating, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(b)) 12 13 51. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the above allegations t4 in support of this cause of action. 15 52. This cause of action against all defendants arises under 16 the Racke~eering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act 17 (18 U.S.C. Section 1981 e__t. seq.) ("RICO") and more particularly 18 under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(b) and 1964. 19 53. Defendants or persons within the meaning of 18 20 Sections 1961(3) and 1962(b). 21 54. Defendarms, and each of them, acting in concert, and in 22 furtherance of the common purpose, scheme and plan, have, through ~3 an unlawful pattern of racketeating, directly and indirectly, 2~[ acquired and maintained interests in and control of numerous 2~ business and property interests in the United States ~nd abroad, ~6 (enterprises within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section ~? which are engaged in, and/or which have activities which affect 28 BVS 1832/50 -19- M~Y' ? ~8~ I~:22 HUE:LAI..J,sSs, FFI,s_'.'ES p.20~'26 1 interstate and foreign commerce, all in violation of 18 O.S.C. 2 Section 1962(b). 55. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' pattern 4 of racketeering activity conducted in violation of 18 U.S.C. 5 Section I962(b), Plaintiffs have been injured in ~heir business 6 and property in an amount not presently tabulated or ascertained ~ but estimated to be in excess of one million dollars. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble the damages 9 sustained as a result of defendants' racketeering activity 10 conducted in violation of 18 UoS.C. Section 1962(b) and their 11 costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to 12 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c). 13 t4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 1D (Against all Defendants and Does 1 through 500, 16 Inclusive, for Racketeering, 18 U-S.C- Section 1962(c)) 17 18 56. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the above allegations 19 in support of this cause of action. 20 57. This cause of action arises under the racketeering laws 21 of the United States, the Racketteering Influenced and Corrupt 2~ Organizations Act (18 U.$.C. Section 1961 et seq.) ('sRICO"), and 23 more particularly under 18 U.S+C. Sections 1962(c) and 1964. ~4 58. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert and in 25 furtherance of a common purpose, scheme and plan, have been 26 associated with and/or employed by enterprises engaged in, and/or 27 whose activities affect, interstate and/or foreign commerce and 28 have conducted and/or participated in, directly and indirectly, BVS 1832/50 -20- I'lM f I r ' D~ I r . ~.:i MUD LH~q Uff ~ lbLb r. ~1,' 1 the conduct of said enterprises' affairs through a pattern of 2 racketcoring activity, 59, As a direct and proximate result of defendants' pattern ~ oœ ~acketeering activity conducted i,~ violation of 18 U.S.C. 5 Section 1962(c), Plaintiffs have been injured in their business:: 6 and their property in an amount not presently ascertained, but t~' ? be determined at trial. Accordingly, cross-complainants 8 entitled to recover treble the damages sustained as a result 9 defendants' racketeering activity conducted in violation 10 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), and plaintiffs' costs oœ suit~ 11 including a reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to 18 l~ Section 1964(c). 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Against all Defendants and Does ~ through 500, 1~ Inclusive, for Racketeering 18 U.S.C. Section !962(d)) t7 18 60. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the above allegations 19 in support of this cause of action. 61. This cause of action against all defendants arises under ~1 the racketcoring laws of the United States, the Racketcoring 2~ Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.) ~3 (R~CO), and more particularly under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(d) and 24 1964. 25 62. Defendants, and each of them, have violated 18 U.S.C. 26 Section 1962(d) by conspiring to invest the proceeds and income 27 derived from a pattern of racketcoring activity in the acquisition 28 of interests in and the establishment and operation of BVS 1832/50 -21- MAY 17 '89 17:23 HUB LAi.,.~ OFFICES P.22/26 1 enterprises, as set œorth above, in violation oœ 18 U.S.C. Section o~ ie62(b). 63. Defendants, and each of them, have violated 18 U.S.C. 4 Section 1962(d) by conspiring to acquire interests in and maintain 5 and control numerous enterprises in the United States and abroad 6 through a pattern of racketeering, as set forth above, in 7 violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(b). 8 6~. Defendants, and each of them, have violated 18 9 Section 1962(d) by conspiring to participate in and conduct the 10 affairs of various enterprises through a pattern of racketeering 11 activity, as set forth above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1Z 1962(c). 15 65. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' !4 conspiracy to conduct racketeering activity in violation of 18 15 U.S.C. Sections !962(a)-(c). Plaintiffs have been injured in 16 their business and property in an amount not presently 17 ascertained, but to be determined at trial. Accordingly, 18 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble the damages sustained as 19 a result of defendants' conspiracy to engage in a pattern. of 20 racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 21 1962(a)-(d), and Plaintiffs' costs of suit, including a reasonable 2~o attorney's fee, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 196~(c). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against RTC, CSI, AFT, COST and DOES t THROUGH 500, Inclusive, for Invasion of Privacy) 66. Plaintiff Joseph Ao Yanny repeats, realteges and BVS1832/50 -22- 1 incorporates by this reference each and every allegation contained 2 in the above paragraphs. 3 67. Plaintiff Yanny has heretofore availed himself of 4 certain purported "counseling" services offered by Scientology_ D In the course of said counseling services, Scientology representea~ 6 that Scientology was a benevolent, law-abiding organization andL 7 that confidences given by plaintiff would be maintained inviolate. 8 68. Plaintiff Yanny, in reasonable reliance upon suc~. 9 representations, including the representation of confidentialit]{, 10 made disclosures to persons holding themselves out as religious 11. counselors under the aegis and authority of Scientology. 12 69. These defendants hold themselves out to be "religious~ 13 organizations and endeavor to gain the trust and confidence 14 'those who come to them seeking guidance. As a consequence of 15 these 'representations, these defendants owed a fiduciary duty to !6 plaintiff, including a duty to keep matters confided to them in 17 the strictest confidence. 18 70. Plaintiff is aware that during the course of counseling 19 sessions provided by these defendants, the "counselo~" took 20 written notes of the confidential informationimparted during the 21 alleged counseling sessions. The confidential information was 22 collated in documents known as "Pre-Clear Files" ("PC Files") and 23 "Ethics Files." 24 71. In violation of their fiduciary duty to maintain the 25 confidentiality of material gained during the counseling sessions, 26 these defendants, through their agents, servants, counselors and 2V employees, have attempted to disclose the confidential material to 28 third parties, and are likely to continue to engage in such BVS 1832/50 -23- MAY 17~9 17:25 HUB LA~ OFFICES P.Z4/26 1 unethical conduct. 72. These defendants~ in furtherance of ~ common scheme and S plan, have also attempted to acquire information and to unlawfully 4 intrude upon the private affairs of Plaintiff Yanily ill an 5 unreasonable and malicious manner, including but not limited to 6 the use of obtrusive as well as surreptitious surveillance, 7 private investigators, and spies. By reason of said acts, and 8 others, these defendants have tortiously invaded plaintiff's right 9 of privacy. !0 73. As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged 11 herein and other acts constituting tortious invasion of privacy, 13 Plaintiff Yanny has incurred, and continues to incur, damages, 15 including damages for emotional distress. These damages are not 14 presently calculable, and Plaintiff Yanny will seek leave to amend 15 this complaint to conform to proof presented at trial. 16 74. Plaintiff Yanny seeks the return of the PC Files and 17 Ethics Files so that these defendants, and the Scientology 18 enterprise, will be unable to compromise further the confidences 19 entrusted to them by Plaintiff Yanny. 75. These defendants, and each of them, engaged in said ~1 invasion of privacy with the specific intent to injure Plaintiff ~2 Yanny. This conduct is despicable, oppressive, malicious and done ~ in conscious disregard of plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, 24 Plaintiff Yanny requests exemplary and punitive damages in an 25 amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). ~6 ~7 BVS !832/50 -2~- 1 WHEREFORE on the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of 2Action, Plaintiffs Joseph A~ Yanny and Joseph A. Yanny, P.C., 3 request: 4 1. Damages according to proof; 5 2. For treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C 6 Section 196~(c); ~ 3. Reasonable attorneys' fees; 8 4. Costs of suit incurred herein; 9 5. Such other and further relief as may 10 be proper and just. tl And, on the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiff Joseph A. Yann][' 12 requests: 13 t. General damages; 14 2. Special damages according to proof; 15. 3. Punitive damages in an appropriate 16 amount; 17 4. An order requiring defendants to 18 return Plaintiffs "PC Files" and 19 "Ethics Files;" 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BVS 1832/50 -25- I'IHI' 1 '~ 1K:db HUJd LHN L)hFICE5 ! 5. Costs of suit incurred herein; ~ 6. Such other and fur%her relief as may 3 be proper and just. 4 5 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of these claims. 6 7 Dated: May 1, 1989 BARRY VAN SICKLE 8 CUMMINS & WHITE 9 10 By: BARRY VAN SICKLE 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSEPH A. YANNY and JOSEPH A. lS YANNY, P.C. 13 !5 16 17 18 19 20 25 26 BVS 1832/50 -26- ================================================================= 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: YANNY1.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: Yanny v. Scientology, May 1, 1989. SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: FACT NOTES: Joseph & Herzig Yanny versus Scientology, alleging dirty trick and illegalities. The text is poor in spots and is uncorrected, but despite this defect much of the suit is clear. Central District Court, Los Angeles. For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: 4/12/94 UPDATED BY: FrJMc =================================================================