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.

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:A2

SECURITY CODE:GP

DISTRIBUTION CODE:PD

NAME FOR BBS: BRIEF FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND MARY SUE HUBBARD,
INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. GERALD ARMSTRONG
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT (CIV.#'s B025920, B038975)

SORT TO: LEGAL

CONTRIBUTOR: IMHO-Lawrence Wollersheim

LOC. OF ORIG: Contact Lawrence Wollersheim

NOTES: This version has lost or mistranslated footnotes.

UPDATED ON:

UPDATED BY:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE (CIV.#'s B025920, B038975)
----------------------------------

THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
AND MARY SUE HUBBARD, INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. GERALD
ARMSTRONG
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT---------------------------------------------
------------------- JOINDER OPPOSITION OF LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM
TO MOTION TO SEAL RECORD ON APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
---------------------------------------------------------------AP
PEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, JUDGE BRUCE R. GEERNAERT (SUPERIOR COURT # C 420
153) ---------------------------------------------------------

LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM IN PROPRIA PERSONA PO BOX 10910 Aspen, Co.
81612 February 10, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................2
THE ARGUMENTS................................................2
INDIVIDUAL SECURITY..........................................3
THE LITIGATION OF CURRENT OR FUTURE FRAUD....................3
THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY..........................4
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT......................................6
OTHER REASONS................................................7
CONCLUSION...................................................9

APPENDIX 1 SCIENTOLOGY'S HISTORY OF CRIMINALITY..............1
APPENDIX 2 SCIENTOLOGY'S POLICIES TOWARD ITS ADVERSARIES....13
APPENDIX 3 FINANCIAL FRAUD AND SCIENTOLOGY..................20
APPENDIX 4 COERCIVE PERSUASION AND SCIENTOLOGY..............31
APPENDIX 5 PERVASIVE PRETEXT, RELIGION AND SCIENTOLOGY......44

INTRODUCTION

I am filing this Opposition brief because I believe this
Appellate Court misunderstood an important issue in my original
February 10, 1990 Amecus Curae brief. This issue has critical
bearing in the opposition to Scientology's new request of
September 11, 1991 to seal the Armstrong record on appeal. On
page 15 in footnote 5 in this court's previous decision filed on
July 29, 1991, the court interprets my Amecus brief to be
focused "primarily to the documentary exhibits," which had been
previously returned to Scientology. In my Amecus brief, it was
not primarily or exclusively those particular documentary
exhibits that I sought to keep open to the public but more
particularly the information read into the record from those
documents. The Armstrong court record is the distillation and
concentration of the most important information from those
documents and other reliable sources. As such, I submit this
brief as additional argument and opposition.

THE ARGUMENTS

The documentation I will present will conclusively prove
specific and compelling state interests which counter and far
outweigh sealing the Armstrong court record on appeal. These
interests involve the protection of, or irreparable harm to:
1.) Mr. Armstrong's individual security, 2.) The litigation of
ongoing or future lawsuits involving criminal fraud and
financial fraud against Scientology, 3.) The protection of
public safety, personal liberty, and private property, and 4.)
Our most fundamental constitutional principle.

INDIVIDUAL SECURITY

In Gerald Armstrong's "Opposition to Motion to Seal Record on
Appeal" of October 14, 1991, Mr. Armstrong shows how his
individual security has been effected, (see footnote 8, page 10
of Armstrong opposition.) 1.) The court should understand that
Gerald Armstrong is near the top of Scientology's enemies list.
If the Armstrong court record is sealed its deterrent publicity
value to inhibit revenge against Armstrong will be greatly
reduced if not completely eliminated. To assist this court in
evaluating just how serious this potential threat is, please
see the provided Appendices 1 and 2. 2.) In Armstrong's October
14, 1991 Opposition he states and fears that if the record is
sealed, he will again become the victim of a greater effort at
character assignation, fair game harassment, and the
misstatement and confusion of what actually is in the Armstrong
court record. The documentation in Appendix 2 details the
actual depth of danger he and others face.

THE LITIGATION OF ONGOING AND FUTURE FRAUD AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY

It becomes readily apparent why Scientology is desperately
trying to paint Mr. Armstrong as a thief, an agent
provocateur, and to seal the Armstrong record. The information
in the Armstrong record helps prove in other ongoing or future
litigation, several simultaneous types and levels of criminal
fraud. (See appendix 3.) Appendix 3 details the crucial role of
the Armstrong record to further expose and help punish
Scientology's financial fraud. The Armstrong record establishes
foundation and motivation for this fraud and its connection to
other fraud. The information contained in the Armstrong case
clearly and authoritatively shows the actual intentions,
motivations, state of mind, history, and nature of L Ron Hubbard
the founder of Scientology. These authoritative documents also
evidence the actual origins, nature, and reason for the creation
of his alter ego, Scientology and Dianetics. They also help to
show the fraud surrounding Scientology's claimed religious
activities. These documents detail a massive, critical, and
fundamental contradiction and insincerity in what Scientology
and L Ron Hubbard publicly claim themselves to be, namely a
bonafide, charitable, and humanitarian religious organization.
There has already been significant effort to deny and
disestablish Scientology's claimed religious status. There are
going to be more such efforts and the information of an
unsealed Armstrong record will be critical to those ongoing
efforts. (See appendix 5.)

THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY

Above and beyond the 5 appendices included with this brief it is
impossible not to recognize the clear, convincing, and grave
danger to public safety, liberty, and property when one reads
various quotes from the Armstrong record itself, such as: 1
"[Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to
extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of)
pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of
blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with
their sect." 2 The kind of blackmail mentioned in the
Armstrong record has an aspect which additionally multiplies
the level of danger to the public's safety, freedom, and assets.
That aspect is Scientology's use of the Coercive Persuasion
technology under the guise and the immunities of a religious
practice. The Armstrong record shows the motivation and intent
behind Scientology's use of this dangerous technology.
Contained in the Armstrong record are the telling statements
showing Hubbard's desires to mercilessly enslave his fellow
man, to use membership confessions for blackmail, and other
evidences which supports future liability for Scientology or
liability in other cases currently being litigated. The public
safety implications of individuals exposed unknowingly to this
technology is shown in United States v. Lee 455 U.S.
252,257,258 (1982). The California Supreme court found that:
"when a person is subjected to coercive persuasion 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." To
hide this information from those who have to evaluate their
participation in, their support for, or liability for
Scientology is unthinkable. (See appendix 4.) CONSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENT Besides the freedom of the press arguments discuses in
earlier opposition briefs the most fundamental of
constitutional principles is involved in this case. It is the
very assumption upon which our democratic society and system was
founded. This principle is contained in the Jeffersonian
concepts that man is a rational animal and that if he\she is
allowed to be rational our system will work. John Dewey
distilled this underlying essential principle even further when
he said, "The human power to respond to reason and truth
protects democracy." Democracy and our constitution cannot
work without this underlying assumption of rationality. And
since rationality depends in significant part on the
availability and quality of information, it follows naturally
that if we do not protect the very processes for establishing
rationality we could eventually elect, empower, or be the
effect of those who would destroy us, our democratic system, or
put us in grave danger. "If a nation expects to be ignorant
and free it expects what never was and never will be," (Thomas
Jefferson.) To protect this fundamental constitutional
assumption of rationality we have established checks and
balances like free press, open court records, outlawing
subliminal advertising, and other procedures or laws to allow
our population to become as fully and openly informed as
possible. In the case at hand to seal the Armstrong record
would be an archetypical worse case example of the violation of
our constitutional checks and balances to protect this rational,
informed consent process.

OTHER REASONS TO REFUSE SCIENTOLOGY'S REQUEST TO SEAL

While on one hand Scientology is one of the greatest users and
proponents of the public's right to know and "Freedom of
Information" requests, on the other hand it is seeking to
suppress vital information concerning itself. It is not doing
this on inherent merit but as part of its ongoing policy to
subvert the public's informed consent process. When it
concerns "freedom of information" or free press rights exposing
Scientology, Scientology is at war with the outside world. In
addition to what is mentioned in appendix 2, this war has
consisted in part of: A.) Repeated usage of frivolous and
expensive lawsuits to deter individuals or the media from
stating anything hostile to Scientology, whether factual or
not. B.) Attempting to use federal trade secret laws designed
for business usage to try to silence anyone trying to expose
information similar to some of the contents of the Secret
Scientology section in appendix 5. C). Attempting to establish
new interpretations of copyright laws to silence or suppress
factual information hostile to Scientology or free press
rights. The recent "Hubbard biography" copyright precedent
contains some new restrictive copyright interpretations. D).
Attempting to, or successfully sealing court cases and records
during or after litigation, i.e. Church of Scientology v.
Armstrong. Scientology cannot be allowed to avoid social
censure and correction by hiding its crimes and abuses. If
Scientology is allowed to continue to effectively use these
various sealing tactics AND its other tactics towards its
adversaries no one will be informed enough to make rational
decisions about Scientology to be safe. "As long as the
organization's opponents and victims are successfully
squelched, Scientology's managers and lawyers will keep
pocketing millions of dollars by helping achieve its
ends."(From Time Magazine May 6, 1991.) 2

Keeping the Armstrong documents unsealed also serves the public
interest of justice in that the mere continued public
availability of these documents will help serve a correctional
influence upon Scientology itself. The body of its membership
will be continually confronted with authoritative information
that will eventually compel corrective change and increased
social responsibility from within. For justice to serve its
correctional and healing social "safety valve" purposes it must
have all relevant information placed before it. The Armstrong
information is information that is critically relevant and must
be open to society. CONCLUSION From the documentation of this
brief and its accompanying appendices the superior rights in
this case lie clearly in keeping the court record in Armstrong
open. Law, constitutional principle, and one's innate sense of
justice and compassion demand it. Millions of dollars in
taxpayer money has been spent globally to expose the dangers and
contradictions in Scientology's presentations of itself, L. Ron
Hubbard, its actions, its nature, and its intentions. The
Armstrong documents represent the single most unifying hub of
all this information. After the disclosures of the F.B.I.'s
authorized search of Scientology's headquarters the Armstrong
case is the most critical and focal single piece of the
Scientology puzzle that ever has become available. It is the
key missing piece. It is the completing piece of the mosaic from
which one can finally ascertain with certainty, just what one
is really looking at. The rights of the convicted felon, Mary
Sue Hubbard, and an organization with an extensive criminal
history, Scientology, desiring to keep their frauds and abuse
of the public secret for unfair financial gain or to inhibit
legitimate future liability do not supersede the rights of the
many for informed consent, peace, protection, and safety.
Thus, the Armstrong record must remain open.

11\9\91 Lawrence Wollersheim Pro Se PO Box 10910 Aspen, Co.
81612

nal investigation history of Scientology. preme Court.

case.

Jonestown, Guyana Tragedy," (1979).

ecclesiastical trust and policies they are claiming to be
protecting.

of information laws.

religion.)

under the Freedom of Information Act.

tion.

mafia-like manner." (Time magazine May 6, 1991.)

=================================================================
If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt
of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable
investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at
a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following
copyright warning.

WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of
the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the
making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted
material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries
and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the
photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose
other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user
makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction
for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable
for copyright infringement.

FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying
or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if,
in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation
of copyright law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARD CATALOG ENTRY

DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\WOLLER\PROSEOP4.TXT

DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES:

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:

SECURITY CODE:

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

NAME FOR BBS:

SORT TO:

CONTRIBUTOR:

LOC. OF ORIG:

NOTES:

For additional verification see image files contained in the file
with same name and .ZIP extension.

UPDATED ON:

UPDATED BY:

=================================================================