Twenty Things Judges Have Said About Scientology

Twenty Things Judges Have Said About Scientology

Source: Lermanet.com

“[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” —Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court

“The facsimiles saying that scientologists are swindlers do not constitute insults since the church of scientology has already been convicted in our country for swindle (JT 1994 IV 140)” — July 8, 2005 Schedule – Office of the Examining magistrates of Porrentruy, Switzerland – Canton of the Jura

” Each [of the former Scientologists] has broken with the movement for a variety of reasons, but at the same: time, each is still bound by the knowledge that the church has in in possession his or her most inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded [in PC folders] or other security files of the organization, and that the church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation and other physical and psychological abuse if it suits their ends,”…”The record is repleat with evidence of such abuse … The practice of culling supposedly confidential PC folders or files to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous” — California Superior Court judge Paul Breckenridge

When the RTC first approached the Court with its ex parte request for the seizure warrant and Temporary Restraining Order, the dispute was presented as a straight-forward one under copyright and trade secret law. However, the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and the Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. As the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric of its briefs and oral argument now demonstrates, the RTC appears far more concerned about criticism of Scientology than vindication of its secrets.

— U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby, 29 November 1995

“Scientology’s purpose is making money by means legitimate and illegitimate” — (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92 Civ. 3024 (PKL)

“An individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach the intended goal of “clear” and was led to believe there was reliable scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would automatically be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All this was and is false — in short, a fraud.” — Federal District Judge Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357; 1971 U.S. Dist

“However, I am persuaded … Scientology is not, subject to one reservation, a religious institution because it is, in relation to its religious pretensions, no more than a sham…Its bogus claims to believe in prayer and other aspects of a creed based on a divine being, were ” no more than a mockery of religion. Scientology as practiced is in reality the antithesis of a religion” Supreme Court Justice Crockett – Australia 1980

“That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them and having them arrested and indicted speaks legions for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law, meting out their personal brand of punishment to those ‘guilty’ of opposing their selfish aims. — Judge Richey in the sentencing of Mary Sue Hubbard and ten other Scientologists in October 1978 — US District Court, Washington DC.

“The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes.” -Federal prosecutor’s memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges

“Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious…It is corrupt sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard… It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionably and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others.” — Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London

“In addition to violating and abusing its own members’ civil rights, the organization over the years with its ‘fair game’ doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as enemies. ” –-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge, June 1984, in the Gerry Armstrong case

“In January 1980, fearing a raid by law enforcement agencies, Hubbard’s representatives ordered the shredding of all documents showing that Hubbard controlled Scientology organizations, finances, personnel, or the property at Gilman Hot Springs. In a two week period, approximately one million pages were shredded pursuant to this order.” –California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153

“Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by “clusters” to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts.”– US District Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC vs Lerma

“It is an organization with medical, social and ethical practices that are dangerous and harmful,” Judge Constandia Angelaki wrote in her [December 1996] ruling. “It claims to act freely so as to draw members who subsequently undergo … brainwashing by dictated ways of thinking that limit reaction capabilities. “

“An IRS Closing agreement cannot overule Congress and the Supreme Court”….” If the IRS does in fact give preferential treatment to members of “…”Scientology” — “allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else — then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy. –Judge Reinhart – United States 9th Circuit court of Appeals 29 January 2002

“When a person is subjected to coercive persuasion [as in Scientology] without his knowledge or consent …[he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide. —California Supreme Court, United States v. Lee [455 U.S. 252,257,258 (1982)

“Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill…(Scientology is) the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” –Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia

“Plaintiffs have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes ‘extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct.’ As such, this case qualifies as an ‘exceptional case’ and fees should be awarded pursuant to the Lanham Act… It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this.” —RTC v. Robin Scott, U. S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 85-711-JMI (Bx) 85-7197-JMI (Bx), January 20, 1993, Memorandum of Decision

“The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them…There is no power under existing law to prohibit the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth. ” –Kenneth Robinson, British Minister of Health

“The court concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that CSI (Church of Scientology International) and its agents are primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services.” — Judge Dib Waldrip in Rathbun v. Miscavige et. al. March 14, 2014. See: Michael Bennitt’s video:

7 comments

  1. Not certain, but I believe these factual statements could be read into record as an opening statement for basis of fact against any law suit.

    1. I agree, Ron – and I will use these in my lawsuit against Scientology/Narconon in a Montreal Courthouse soon. Thanks for publishing this, Jeffrey – good stuff. – David Love

      1. David, glad you can use it. You should really be thanking Arnie Lerma as this is information he compiled and I reposted here. Arnie Lerma is a stand up guy who was fighting the Cult way back when it was really dangerous to do so. The Cult even got a search warrant from the US Gov’t and raided his house for OT materials. Arnie fought them in court at the cost of $1,000,000.

Leave a Reply