Former Scientologist Jim Logan did an outstanding write up on the Scientology-Cult website in 2009. The write up is on Fair Game. We repost a portion of Logan’s write up here as it contains very useful information for use in lawsuits against the Church of Scientology International (CSI) and its related churches in the Scientology hierarchy of churches. These related churches include, but are not limited to, the Religious Technology Center, Celebrity Centre International, Flag Land Base (FSO), and the Freewinds (FSSO).
The Churches of Scientology deny they practice Fair Game but the evidence clearly shows otherwise.
The CSI-authorized hate campaigns on Twitter against Leah Remini and other prominent activists prove otherwise and, we allege, speak to organized criminal activity designed to silence Scientology’s opposition.
Begin Excerpt from Jim Logan:
Court Decisions on Fair Game
Various Scientology related entities have been involved with the courts over the years. Much of what has been decided in these cases is applicable as res judicata in my complaint. As matter of law cited in the United States Claim Court case involving a Scientology corporate entity immediately quoted below, the cases I cite following the introductory case introduce valid evidence related to the complaint. The context of the introductory case is a reference to the prior criminal convictions of members of the Guardian’s Office a former branch of the church. The Guardian’s Office is covered as well in other aspects of this complaint.
From CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES Defendant. No. 581-88T UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT 26 Cl. Ct. 713; 70 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5233; 1992 U.S. Cl. Ct. LEXIS 282, June 29, 1992. It begins at page 517.
“Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) authorizes the use of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence or mistake or accident.’ Pursuant to this rule a trial court has broad discretion to admit evidence of SUBSEQUENT similar acts and crimes provided it is probative of one of these purposes and is not used merely to show criminal disposition. United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137, 1149 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 913 (1978); United States v. Cavallaro, 553 F.2d 300, 305 (2d Cir. 1977). See also United States v. King, 587 F.2d 956, 962 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1978).
“The court will, nevertheless, consider non-conflicting evidence introduced into the record from other litigation, and will take judicial notice of reported opinions dealing with Scientology organizations. n26 The court finds below that CST is inextricably linked to Scientology as a whole. It would have been naïve for the Commissioner, and it would be equally naïve for the court, to ignore the implications of the genesis of CST and its links to other Scientology organizations.
“ n26 See United States v. Estep, 760 F.2d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir. 1985); see also E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Cullen, 791 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (court took notice of complaint filed in state court proceeding which dealt specifically with matters at issue in federal proceeding and where neither party disputed document’s authenticity.); St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979) (federal court may take notice of proceedings in other courts which have a direct relationship to matters at issue). See generally, IX Wigmore on Evidence @@ 2578-2579 (Chadbourn rev. 1981).”
Allard 1976 – Allard, L. Gene, v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. 45562, “http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/mgarde/allard.76” 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2., May 18, 1976). 58 Cal. App. 3d 453 Gene ALLARD, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant and Respondent, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA , Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. Civ. 45562. Court of Appeal, Second District, division 2. May 18, 1976 Hearing Denied July 15, 1976
Under the Facts it is noted:
“Lawrence Krieger, the highest ranking justice official of the Church in California, told respondent (Allard) that if he left without permission, he would be fair game and “You know we’ll come and find you and we’ll bring you back, and we’ll deal with you in whatever way is necessary.”
Under “Contentions on Appeal” it is noted:
“2. The verdict below was reached as a result of (a) counsel’s ascription to appellant of a religious belief and practices it did not have and (b) the distortion and disparagement of its religious character, and was not based upon the merits of this case. To allow a judgment thereby achieved to stand would constitute a violation of appellant’s free exercise of religion. Fn 1.
“Footnote 1: One such policy, to be enforced against “enemies” or “suppressive persons” was that formerly titled “fair game.” That person “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” (Exhibit 1)”.
Under “Discussion” point 2 it is noted:
“2. The procedure and verdict below does not constitute a violation of appellant’s First Amendment free exercise of religion.
“Appellant contends that various references to practices of the Church of Scientology were not supported by the evidence, were not legally relevant, and were unduly prejudicial. The claim is made that the trial became one of determining the validity of a religion rather than the commission of a tort.
“The references to which appellant now objects were to such practices (as)…the creation of religious doctrine purportedly to “get” dissidents, …
“The principal issue in this trial was one of credibility. …Appellant repeatedly argues that the introduction of the policy statements of the Church was prejudicial error. However, those policy statements went directly to the issue of credibility. Scientologists were allowed to trick, sue, lie to, or destroy “enemies.” (Exhibit 1.) If, as he claims, respondent was considered to be an enemy, that policy was indeed relevant to the issues of this case. That evidence well supports the jury’s implied conclusion …that those witnesses who were Scientologists or had been Scientologists were following the policy of the Church and lying to, suing and attempting to destroy respondent. Evidence of such policy statements were damaging to appellant, but they were entirely relevant, they were not prejudicial. A party whose reprehensible acts are the cause of harm to another and the reason for the lawsuit by the other cannot be heard to complain that its conduct is so bad that it should not be disclosed. The relevance of appellant’s conduct far outweighs any claimed prejudice. Fn4.
“Footnote 4: The trial court gave appellant almost the entire trial within which to
produce evidence that the fair game policy had been repealed. Appellant failed to do so, and the trial court thereafter permitted the admission of Exhibit 1 into evidence.”
Under point 3 of the “Discussion” it is noted:
“Inferences can be drawn that- the Church, through its agents, was carrying out its own policy of fair game in its actions against respondent. Given that view of the evidence, which as a reviewing court we must accept, there is substantial evidence proving that appellant maliciously prosecuted respondent.”
Under point 8 it is noted:
“8. Respondent is entitled to punitive damages.
“Appellant cites the general rule that although an employer may be held liable for an employee’s tort under the doctrine of respondeat superior, ordinarily he cannot be made to pay punitive damages where he neither authorized nor ratified the act. (4 Witkin, Summary of Calif. Law, 8th Ed., 855, p. 3147.)6 Appellant claims that the Church of Scientology, which is the corporate defendant herein, never either authorized or ratified the malicious prosecution.
“The finding of authorization may be based on many grounds in the instant case. For example, the fair game policy itself was initiated by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder and chief official in the Church. (Exhibit 1.) It was an official authorization to treat “enemies” in the manner in which respondent herein was treated by the Church of Scientology.
“Furthermore, all the officials of the Church to whom respondent relayed his desire to leave were important managerial employees of the corporation. (See 4 Witkin, Summary of Calif.Law, 8th Ed., supra, sec. 855, p.3148.) 6. The trier of fact certainly could have found authorization by the corporation of the act involved herein.”
(Jim Logan’s Note: There are several legal precedents established in the above decision as regards my complaint. They include points of corporate officer responsibility (respondeat superior), adoptive assumptions as well as the findings adverse to the policy of fair game.)
Under point 9 it is noted:
“Any party whose tenets include lying and cheating in order to attack its “enemies” deserves the results of the risk which such conduct entails.”
Wollersheim begun in 1980 – Wollersheim’s case included suit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and cited four separate aspects of church actions that constituted that tort. One of these aspects was the policy of “fair game”. It is the points related to fair game that are relevant to my criminal complaint at this juncture and will be the ones I will cite here. I will include some of the contextual information surrounding the fair game references. The case cited is one of the appeals.
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant No. B023193
Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331
July 18, 1989
Under the Opinion it is noted:
“This appeal arises after a jury awarded $30 million in compensatory and punitive damages to a former member of the Church of Scientology of California (the Church or Scientology). The complaint alleged appellant intentionally and negligently inflicted severe emotional injury on respondent through certain practices, including …”fair game.” Since the trial court granted summary adjudication that Scientology is a religion … the trial proceeded under the assumption it was. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support a factual finding (that)… practices in this case, were conducted in a coercive environment. Thus, none of them qualified as “voluntary religious practices” entitled to constitutional protection under the First Amendment religious freedom guaranties.”
Further in the opinion it is noted:
“Evidence was introduced that, …”fair game” was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on “suppressives,” which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a “suppressive,” all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to “neutralize” that individual — economically, politically, and psychologically.”
Under the “Discussion” it is noted:
“Appellant raises a broad spectrum of issues all the way from a technical statute of limitations defense to a fundamental constitutional challenge to this entire species of claims against Scientology. If the narrower grounds of appeal had merit and disposed of the case we could avoid confronting the difficult constitutional questions. But since they do not we must consider Scientology’s religious freedom claims.
“I. There Is Substantial Evidence to Support Wollersheim’s Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
“The cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional injury formed the centerpiece of the case which went to the jury. This claim actually cumulates four courses of conduct which together allegedly inflicted severe emotional damage… These courses of conduct are:… (4) conducting a retributive campaign “fair game” against Wollersheim…
“The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was created to punish conduct “‘exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by a decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress.'” (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946 [160 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58)…
“”Behavior may be considered outrageous if a defendant (1)abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or (3) acts intentionally or
unreasonably with the recognition that the acts are likely to result in illness through mental distress.” (Agarwal v. Johnson, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 946.)
“There is substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding on this theory. First, the Church’s conduct was manifestly outrageous.
“ … the Church’s actions, if not wholly calculated to cause emotional distress, unquestionably constituted reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress. The policy of fair game, by its nature, was intended to punish the person who dared to leave the Church.
“In sum, there is ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Wollersheim’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This, however, does not conclude our
inquiry. As we discuss below, Wollersheim’s action may nonetheless be barred if we conclude the Church’s conduct was protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
“II. Constitutional Religious Freedom Guaranties Do Not Immunize Scientology From Liability for Any of the Actions on Which Wollersheim’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Injury Cause of Action Is Based.
“Scientology asserts all four courses of conduct comprising the intentional infliction claim are forms of religious expression protected by the freedom of religion clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. We conclude some would not be protected religious activity even if Wollersheim freely participated.”
The court then discussed some of the theory behind the First Amendment and its meaning in the case and stated regarding the words “free exercise of religion”:
“The subsequent cases interpreting these four words make it clear that while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person’s religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based on those beliefs. (Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304 [84 L.Ed. 1213, 1217-1218, 60 S.Ct. 900, 128 A.L.R. 1352].) Freedom of belief is absolutely guaranteed; freedom of action is not. Thus government cannot constitutionally burden any belief no matter how outlandish or dangerous. But in certain circumstances it can burden an expression of belief which adversely affects significant societal interests.”
The court then gives an extensive review of case law relevant to the Wollersheim issues. It concludes in relationship to the practice of fair game:
“Even Assuming the Retributive Conduct Sometimes Called “Fair Game” Is a Core Practice of Scientology It Does Not Qualify for Constitutional Protection.”
The court also states:
“We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day “inquisition.” Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. “Fair game” like the “inquisition” targeted “heretics” who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once “proven” to be a “heretic,” an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death. (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp. 57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134; Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) As described in the evidence at this trial the “fair game” policy neutralized the “heretic” by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. (See, e.g., Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444 [129 Cal.Rptr. 797] [former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part of “fair game” policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].)”
(Jim Logan Note: this fact found by the court is referred to in the responses to IRS questions as part of a Form 1023 Application regarding tax exempt status discussed below. It is dismissed by the church ironically, in defense of church tactics in getting the man falsely arrested.)
Further in its decision the court, in relation to the First Amendment protections to be afforded fair game practices of lying, cheating and dishonesty, states:
“If the Biblical commandment to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to render unto God what is God’s has any meaning in the modern day it is here. Nothing in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York or any other case we have been able to locate even implies a religion is entitled to constitutional protection for a campaign deliberately designed to financially ruin anyone — whether a member or nonmember of that religion. Nor have we found any cases suggesting the free exercise clause can justify a refusal to honor financial obligations the state considers binding and legally enforceable. One can only imagine the utter chaos that could overtake our economy if people who owed money to others were entitled to assert a freedom of religion defense to repayment of those debts. It is not unlikely the courts would soon be flooded with debtors who claimed their religion prohibited them from paying money they owed to others.
“We are not certain a deliberate campaign to financially ruin a former member or the dishonoring of debts owed that member qualify as “religious practices” of Scientology. But if they do, we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices. Accordingly, we hold the freedom of religion guaranties of the United States and California Constitutions do not immunize these practices…”
“…despite the Church’s public rejection of the fair game practice, it continued to use fair game against targeted ex-Scientologists throughout the 1970’s.”
“Wollersheim”, as a case, went on in various appeals and was finally settled by the church with a payment to Lawrence Wollersheim of over $8,000,000 in May 2002.
The Guardian’s Office
In the late 1970’s the Attorney General of the United States prosecuted and convicted senior staff of a former branch of the church, the Guardian’s Office, for various offenses against the United States. This is the case reference by the court in the above introduction to this section on previous court decisions regarding “fair game” citing the Church of Spiritual Technology v. Commissioner. A significant aspect of the crimes committed by this branch included the practice of fair game. The following is from a Sentencing Memorandum of December 16, 1980 in re the actions of the Guardian’s Office.
“[The Scientology conspirators] challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States….
“Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system….
“These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials.…
“[T]hese documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment.
“To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, [58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977)]. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id. This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
“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 legion 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. The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard.” (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. JANE KEMBER : MORRIS BUDLONG a/k/a MO BUDLONG: Criminal No. 78-401(2)&;(3):SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).
The above clearly establishes the illegality of fair game. In the early 1980s as a result of the conviction of the senior members of the Guardian’s Office for crimes committed pursuant to fair game the office was disbanded by Scientology officials. The following declaration by the head of RTC describes this disbanding. It is evidence of the knowledge of the crimes of the G.O. by David Miscavige and the need to avoid similar crimes by any Scientology related entity.
In a sworn statement by David Miscavige, COB/CEO of RTC made on 17 February 1994 for a case entitled: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Non-Profit Religious Organization, vs. Plaintiff, STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ, Defendants. CASE NO. CV 91-6426 HLH(Tx), he, Mr. Miscavige addresses the issue of the Guardian’s Office and his role in disbanding it as a church entity. Excerpts are below.
“I, DAVID MISCAVIGE, declare and say:
“26. To understand the magnitude of this upheaval, a description of the history, power and authority of the GO is vital. The GO was established in March of 1966 because legal and other external facing matters were consuming the time and resources of Churches of Scientology. In particular, Church leaders were being distracted from their primary functions of ministering to the spiritual needs of their expanding religious communities and building their organizations. During the 1970s the GO operated as an entirely autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. The power of the GO was absolute. Unless a member of the GO, one could not even enter their locked offices. They held all corporate directorships. They and they alone dealt with legal affairs of the Church. The GO operated in complete secrecy, and conducted its affairs independently of the Church and its management and personnel. Any attempt to find out their affairs, by Church ecclesiastical staff or any Scientologist, was met with the same “treatment” they handed out to others. For instance, GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy, not to mention the law.
“31…I gathered a couple of dozen of the most proven Church executives from around the world and briefed them on the criminal and other unethical conduct of the GO…
“41. As a direct result of the GO corruption and its ultimate overthrow, the Church embarked on a complete corporate reorganization, in part to prevent such criminality from ever occurring again and to make sure a “new GO” could never come about. This is where CSI and RTC came into existence and the reasons for their place in the Church hierarchy are clearly stated in the Church of Scientology International reference book What is Scientology?
“43…One should call their actions by the precise term that describes them: illegal… We became aware of the acts of the Guardian’s Office and were more horrified by the GO and its crimes than law enforcement officials and others outside the Church…
“65… there will be no “Fair Game” retaliation, thanks to my kicking out the GO and putting a permanent end to their abuses.
“I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
“Executed this 17th day of February 1994, at Riverside County, California
The salient facts to be gleaned from the above declaration of Mr. Miscavige are the knowledge of fair game as an illegal activity, the clear disavowal of it as an activity that is part of church policy or Scripture and the personal responsibility for its “purge”. (See below under Bollard for a recent court decision relative to this fact.) This sworn affidavit, made one year after I was found guilty of Suppressive Acts and an SP Order and expulsion from Scientology upheld by a Committee of Evidence chaired by a co-board member of RTC with Mr. Miscavige, one Warren McShane, is unequivocal in its denunciation of the practice of fair game and the actions of lying to, tricking, deceiving and even destroying “enemies” of the church who are declared SPs.
The declaration provides evidence of prior knowledge of the practice and the personal, ecclesiastic and corporate responsibility of Mr. Miscavige to ensure it did not happen again. In my case in particular as I was the subject of a Committee of Evidence done in his own organization, RTC, which upheld the designation of SP and for which this illegal practice of fair game was initiated in the first place, to wit, treatment of persons declared SPs, it is incumbent on Mr. Miscavige, in light of his declaration and in light of the sworn statements made by church officials of RTC, to the IRS in the Form 1023 Application referred to above, and in light of his responsibility personally and corporately as a citizen of a civilized society to see that any slightest trace of the practice be removed from the handling of persons declared SP and that the taint of the illegal fair game be avoided forever, as Mr. Miscavige has duly sworn is the case.
Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus
In a case involving Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act and the ministerial exception and allegations of sexual harassment by Bollard the plaintiff and appellant, the District Appeals court decided several pertinent questions that are precedent relative to the practice of fair game as well as the specific decisions cited above on this point. Cited as U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, John Bollard, plaintiff-appellant v. The California Province of the Society of Jesus, No. 98-16194, Opinion, For Publication (December 1999), I include several salient quotes from that opinion here and fully discuss its ramifications in the attachments.
“… Title VII applies without a constitutionally compelled exception where, as here, the defendant church is…[not] embracing the behaviour at issue as a constitutionally protected religious practice…” Ibid at 14063.
This is applicable in so far as; a) the court decision cited above in Allard is that the practice of fair game is not constitutionally protected and b) if either RTC or CSI claim it is they are contradicting the above sworn statement of the Chairman of the Board of RTC, David Miscavige, that this practice is an “unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy, not to mention the law.”
Again from Bollard at 14069 it states:
“In this case, as in the case of lay employees, the Free Exercise rationales supporting an exception to Title VII are missing. The Jesuits do not offer a religious justification for the harassment Bollard alleges; indeed, they condemn it as inconsistent with their values and beliefs. Thus there is no danger that…we will thrust the secular courts into the constitutionally untenable position of passing judgment on questions of religious faith or doctrine.”
In relation to RTC’s failure to rectify the situation after I duly reported it to them according to their own policy on Knowledge Reports and the website of RTC, “http://www.rtc.org” http://www.rtc.org, requesting such reports publicly:
“The only relevant decision that we can reasonably attribute to the Jesuits on the facts alleged here is the decision not to intervene to stop or curtail the sexual harassment Bollard reported. But in our view, it strays too far from the rationale of the Free Exercise Clause to extend constitutional protection to this sort of disciplinary inaction simply because a minister is the target as well as the agent of the harassing activity.” Ibid at 14070
I never agreed by any former membership in Scientology nor at any time during the steps of A-E, to any practice called “fair game” that included lying and trickery and fraud on the steps. The church has stated this is not its policy any more. There is no constitutional protection for the disciplinary inaction and the decision not to intervene on RTC’s part in stopping or curtailing the fraud of fair game perpetrated by the IJC, just because this case involves a church and a former member.
“The Free Exercise Clause rationale for protecting a church’s personnel decisions is the necessity of allowing the church to choose its representatives using whatever criteria it deems relevant. That rationale does not apply here, for the Jesuits most certainly do not claim that allowing harassment to continue unrectified is a method of choosing their clergy. Because there is no protected-choice rationale at issue, we intrude no further on allowing church autonomy in allowing this case to proceed than we do, for example, in allowing a parishioner’s civil suits against a church for the negligent supervision of ministers who have subjected them to inappropriate sexual behavior.” Ibid at 14070
The church and in particular, David Miscavige as the now “ecclesiastical head” of Scientology, have disavowed the practice of lying to and tricking persons declared as SPs and enemies of Scientology, the practice of “fair game”. They in fact condemn it as inconsistent with their values. Having duly reported it to RTC, the only decision that can be reasonably attributed to RTC officers is that they chose not to intervene. “Fair game” is not a method of handling suppressive persons or used in selection of clergy or membership, supposedly condoned by church policy any longer (and involves by definition, lying, trickery, intentional destruction, fraud etc.) and thus does not implicate the Free Exercise Clause. The church’s decision is it is illegal. The church further states in the policy on A-E, ““Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.” HCO PL 23 December 65 Suppressive Acts.
The court of appeals states:
“ While we recognize that applying any laws to religious institutions necessarily interferes with the unfettered autonomy churches would otherwise enjoy, this sort of generalized and diffuse concern for church autonomy, without more, does not exempt them from the operation of secular laws. Otherwise, churches would be free from all of the secular legal obligations that currently and routinely apply to them.” Ibid at 14071.
The secular laws of trust, trademark and the requirement of acts in good faith and honesty that are those of any sane society currently and routinely apply to the Church of Scientology International and the Religious Technology Center. The church’s own decision is that the steps of A-E, unaltered or added to, are the requirements to have an SP order and expulsion cancelled and the practice of lying about that and tricks and subterfuge and fraud in relation to that are inconsistent with the policy and codes of Scientology. For “officers of the church” to act against the policy of the church means they must be misrepresenting themselves as officers of Scientology and are in fact “not the church”. The decision, that the court can accept without deciding for the church, is that “fair game” is unscrupulous and illegal and criminal. The church has stated precisely that and they are estopped from denying it or claiming it is protected activity. That means that someone practicing such is a “rogue element” and masquerading as an official of the church.
The following quote from an official Scientology website, “http://www.scientologyethics.org”, gives further context:
“Scientology justice is administered in accordance with a precise set of easily understandable ecclesiastical codes clearly delineated, broadly published and well known by Scientologists. Justice actions are conducted entirely in accordance with these codes, and whether they have been violated or not; suspicion, opinion or caprice play no part. The codes protect the rights of any Scientologist in good standing with the Church.”
Since I have been declared a Suppressive Person and an enemy of Scientology, I am not a member of the church and am not in good standing with the church. (“A Suppressive Person or Group becomes “fair game”. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist”, HCO PL 23 Dec 65, the initial version of this policy). Therefore, according to church policy I have no rights as a Scientologist. However, this statement by the church cannot be taken to mean I am “fair game” and may be subject to any other actions than those prescribed by church policy in A-E (this is the latest version of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 denoted as “RB” or the third revision, issued in 1991, which does not include the designation as “fair game” as this was cancelled as a designation).
The policy related to A-E “is administered in accordance with a precise set of easily understandable ecclesiastical codes clearly delineated, broadly published and well known” according to the church. If the church is to administer their justice procedures as they have stated and the church acknowledged “illegal” practice of fair game is not their policy any longer, then presumably I have the church granted right to the administration of A-E exactly according to the steps. If not, then it would seem “fair game” is not cancelled as the church claims and I have no rights to actions in good faith. The conclusion to be reached is either it is cancelled in which case I have a right according to the church to bona fides in their administration of A-E or it is not cancelled and I have no rights according to the church to their justice procedures conducted “in accordance with a precise set of easily understandable ecclesiastical codes clearly delineated, broadly published and well known”.
If the latter is the case then they are still practicing “fair game” by definition and can lie and alter the procedures and do what they capriciously decide with no regard to guarantees of trademark or written statements or church policy. That puts them above the law which the court refuses to allow (“Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the Constitution” from Wollersheim case above) and in fact the final paragraph of the policy on treatment of Suppressive Persons from HCO PL of 23 Dec 65RB disallows as follows: “Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violations of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.”
Therefore the only meaning of the above statement on the church’s website that can reasonably be taken is that Scientology justice procedures are administered according to the policy of the church which is easily understandable, clearly delineated and broadly published. They are conducted in exact accordance with the codes laid out in policy and caprice play no part in the administration. I have a right to the integrity of the trademarks in my dealings with the church and all church related entities practicing under these marks.
(Note: One other point, raised in Bollard, a civil action, was the subject of relief the court could grant and whether there was any other than reinstatement which it would not be able to adjudicate within its purview. Bollard did not seek reinstatement as a minister or employee of the church. Neither do I as part of this criminal complaint and I do not seek reinstatement to membership. The documented crimes of this complaint perpetrated by the officers I’ve stated need to be dealt with using the grades of deterrent that criminal prosecution provides. Personally, I simply want the SP Order cancelled and to be free of the harassment associated with it. It is church policy, which I am not challenging at this point, that if I am declared an SP then no Scientologist may associate with me or even communicate with me. Though I do not seek the courts order of reinstatement, and I am not pursuing these actions in a civil suit and therefore subject to the Civil Procedure requisite of relief the court is empowered to grant, I do seek the prosecution of crime and its deterrent effect. My complaint sounds in the criminal actions related to it.)
What is included at this point is evidence that the criminal practice of “fair game” has persisted at least into the 1990s and with my complaint up to 2006. The following are judgments against church entities for fair game among other things.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RTC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBIN SCOTT, et al., Defendants.
No. 85-711-JMI (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 1993)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
Defendants have requested attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Lanham Act, which authorizes the court to award such fees in an “exceptional case”. See 15 U.S.C. 1117.
Courts have found an “extraordinary case” where the “opposing party is guilty of ‘extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct’”. Academy of Motion Picture Arts v. Creative House, 944 F.2d 1446, 1457 (9th Cir. 1991), citing Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1026 (9th Cir. 1985).
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.
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER THE COPYRIGHT STATUTE
Defendants have requested attorneys’ fees pursuant to the copyright stature, 17 U.S.C. 505. The statute reads as follows:
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise prohibited by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. See 17 U.S.C. 505.
Despite this broad language, the Ninth Circuit has consistently held that a prevailing defendant must show that the plaintiffs’ action was frivolous or brought in bad faith in order to recover attorneys’ fees…Plaintiffs’ complaints were not frivolous, but they were brought in bad faith. It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive overlitigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this. Therefore, it is appropriate to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to the copyright statute.
IT US FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED and plaintiffs are to pay defendants 2.9 million dollars for attorneys’ fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 20, 1993
JAMES G. KOLTS
U.S. Special Master
And another (consolidated) case:
FILED APRIL 11, 1996
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OFCALIFORNIA; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
ROBIN SCOTT, et al.,Defendants.
CHURCH OF THE NEW CIVILIZATION; DAVID MAYO,
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY,
DC No. CV-85-0711-AWT(Bx)
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM, et al., Defendants,
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY,
Counter – defendant,
CHURCH OF THE NEW CIVILIZATION DAVID MAYO,
DC No. CV-85-7197 -AWT (Bx)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Wallace Tashima, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 1995
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R 36-3. NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
3. The past 8 years have consisted mainly of a prolonged, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to persuade or compel the plaintiff to comply with lawful discovery. These efforts have been fiercely resisted by plaintiffs. They have utilized every device that we on the District Court have ever heard of to avoid such compliance, and some that are new to us.
4. This noncompliance has consisted of evasions, misrepresentations, broken promises and lies, but ultimately with refusal. As part of this scheme to not comply, the plaintiffs have undertaken a massive campaign of filing every conceivable motion (and some inconceivable) to disguise the true issue in these pretrial proceedings. Apparently viewing litigation as war, plaintiffs by this tactic have had the effect of massively increasing the costs to the other parties, and, for a while, to the Court. The appointment of the Special Master 4 years ago has considerably relieved the burden to this Court. The scope of plaintiff’s efforts have to be seen. to be believed. (See Exhibit “A”, photo of clerk with filings, and Exhibit “B”, copy of clerk’s docket with 81 pages and 1,737 filings.)
…there is little doubt that RTC is playing “fast and loose” with the judicial system…To first assert that its unfair competition and false designation of origin claims are justiciable and at the same time assert that Mayo’s identical claims are not is at best questionable; in light of RTC’s documented history of vexatious behavior, RTC’s actions are indefensible.”
Another case with the designation “Not to be Published” and not to be used as precedent except as to the law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel as above, is from 1994 and includes the following on “fair game”:
“This appeal court and the trial court below was used as a means in Scientology’s pursuit of the “fair game,” policy of punishing those who leave Scientology without Scientology’s approval. This appears to be a continuation of the fair games procedure of Scientology to discredit and to destroy and ruin an adversary by whatever means available.
Conclusion of Fair Game Context
To conclude this contextual information as to “Fair Game” I will first add a comment. It is my opinion, as a trained expert in Scientology that the practice of “Fair Game”, as described in its evolution in church policy over many years, was initially an attempt at dealing with the subject of “evil” as perpetrated by individuals in the society and in particular towards Scientology. Every major religion has dealt with the subject of “evil” in one way or another.
Scientology as a subject and movement was dealing with it in 1965 in its policy on Suppressive Acts and the Fair Game Law. This policy evolved as methods of dealing with evil evolved in the philosophy and religion of Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard. The final statements on the subject of fair game by Mr. Hubbard are contained in the final versions of policies as described in the book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, to wit, no matter how evil or suppressive a being may have become, he is basically good, and no matter how stiff the discipline may be to curb this evil, the door must always remain open to reform, and the steps of A-E provide such a door. Standards of decency and the law must be upheld at all times as per the churches own policy and sworn affidavits. The practice of “Fair Game” is NOT part of the valid doctrine or policy of the church and if it is demonstrably practiced currently by officials of the church they are in obvious violation of the trusts and trademarks that protect the subject and its genuine movement. If fair game is being practiced by officials of the church it is a crime of fraud. If the mails are used it is mail fraud. All that need be established is that I was either lied to, tricked or deceived in correspondence from the IJC on the steps of A-E. I was and that is “fair game”.
(Note: The practice of “fair game” also violates U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter 1, Section 1985, (2)).
— Written by Jim Logan
Categories: Fair Game