========
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Beating the cult like a gong
From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:37:20 GMT

[BTW, this file has a history of the LW litigation for those of you
(like me) who get lost in LW1-6 or whatever.  Keith Henson]



DECLARATION OF FORD GREENE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY
DEFENDANT LARRY WOLLERSHEIM
TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Date:
Time:
Dept:

     I, FORD GREENE, declare as follows:

     1.   I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law
in the State of California.  The matters set forth herein are
personally known to me and if called as a witness, I could and
would competently testify thereto.

     2.   I served as counsel to Gerald Armstrong in the case
entitled Church of Scientology International v. Armstrong (Marin
County Superior Court Case No. 157680), filed in February 1992.
The case centered on a dispute about the scope of the December
1986 settlement agreement executed between Mr. Armstrong and
Church of Scientology International ("CSI").  That agreement had
been achieved in settlement of Mr. Armstrong's cross-complaint
against Church of Scientology of California ("CSC") in the matter
of CSC v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C420153.

     3.   The complaint in CSC v. Armstrong charged Mr.
Armstrong, an ex-Scientologist, with conversion, alleging he
converted certain "confidential" Scientology documents to his own
use.  The court dismissed that portion of the action in August
1984, after determining Mr. Armstrong was justified in removing
the documents because he reasonably believed his life was in
danger and that possession of the documents was necessary for the
safety and protection of his wife and himself.  Attached to
Defendant Wollersheim's Separate Statement of Facts and Evidence
as Exhibit "N" is a true and correct copy of the memorandum
decision by Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge containing the
order of dismissal.

     4.   The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Judge
Breckenridge's judgment of dismissal in a published opinion, CSC
v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060.

     5.   After CSC's complaint against him was dismissed, Mr.
Armstrong continued to prosecute his cross-complaint against CSC.
Ultimately, by agreement between Mr. Armstrong and CSI, this
cross-complaint was settled in December 1986.  In exchange for
his signature on a Release of All Claims and Settlement
Agreement, Mr. Armstrong accepted a settlement in the amount of
$800,000.

     6.   Although representatives of CSI executed the Release of
All Claims and Settlement Agreement, CSI specifically named CSC
and Religious Technology Center, among others, as beneficiaries
of the agreement, along with "all Scientology and Scientology
affiliated organizations..."

     7.   Accompanying Defendant Wollersheim's Separate Statement
of Facts and Evidence herein as Exhibit "M" is a true and correct
copy of the Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement
executed between Mr. Armstrong and CSI.

     I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.

     Executed this ____ day of _______________, 1997 at San
Anselmo, California.

                                   _____________________________
                                   FORD GREENE


Daniel A. Leipold, Esq., State Bar No. 77159
Robert F. Donohue, Esq., State Bar No. 110505
Cathy L. Shipe, Esq., State Bar No. 156453
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY
Suite 8200
701 South Parker Street
Orange, CA 92668
Telephone: (714) 835-5406

Mark Goldowitz, Esq.
1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 835-0850

Attorneys for Defendant,
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM




            SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                      COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA,

          Plaintiff,

     v.

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM,

          Defendant.

______________________________ )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
_)No. BC074815

DEFENDANT LARRY
WOLLERSHEIM'S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER ADJUDICATING THAT
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO
ATTORNEYS' FEES (FILED
CONCURRENTLY WITH
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENTS) (C.C.P. 425.16
and 1025.5)
___________________________

Date:
Time:
Dept:
TO PLAINTIFF, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, AND ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:

          PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Larry Wollersheim
hereby gives notice of defendant's intent to obtain an order from
the above-noted Court at the time of the hearing of defendant's
motion to amend judgment that defendant is entitled to the
recovery of attorneys' fees for the preparation and attendance of
the hearing of defendant's motion to amend the two separate
judgments for attorneys' fees ordered by this Court against
plaintiff, Church of Scientology of California, on June 3, 1994
and on November 8, 1996.

     Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to C.C.P. Sections
425.16; 1021.5 and applicable California case law.
Dated: March 11, 1997
                            Respectfully submitted,
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY



By______________________________
   ROBERT F. DONOHUE
   Attorneys for Defendant,
   LARRY WOLLERSHEIM


INTRODUCTION:

     On February 1, 1996 the Court of Appeals affirmed this
Court's dismissal of the complaint and awarded fees pursuant to a
special motion to strike brought by defendant, Larry Wollersheim,
under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 and awarded
Wollersheim fees on appeal.  On June 3, 1994 and November 8,
1996, this Court ordered two judgments for those attorneys' fees
against plaintiff Church of Scientology of California.  By way of
this motion, defendant is requesting the award of additional
attorneys' fees for the preparation and the filing of defendant's
motion to amend the two separate judgments.

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FEES FOR THE MOTION
TO AMEND THE TWO JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY THIS COURT:

     The Court in Serrano v. Unruh ("Serrano IV") (1982) 32
Cal.3d 621, has stated that a party is entitled to compensation
for all hours reasonably expended on a fee application.  In that
regard, the Court held:

      "We conclude that, absent circumstances rendering an award
     unjust, the fees should ordinarily include compensation for
     all hours reasonably spent including those relating solely
     to the fee."
     32 Cal.3d at 634. (See also Downey Cares v. Downey Community
     Development Commission (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 983, 997.)

     The purpose of this motion is only to obtain an order from
this Court that defendant is entitled to reasonable attorneys'
fees for the preparation and attendance of defendant's motion to
amend the judgments.  With that order in hand, if the parties are
not able to informally resolve the amount of costs and fees due,
defendant will bring a subsequent noticed motion to establish the
amount.

     Defendant does not intend to restate or argue the merits of
the pending motion to amend in these papers.  Suffice it to say
that defendant's motion to amend is the only equitable avenue
available to satisfy the two outstanding judgments given the fact
that although plaintiff Church of Scientology of California filed
the lawsuit against Wollersheim, it was in effect, nothing more
than a straw corporation or "corporate shell" being run and
directed by its alter egos, Church of Scientology International
(CSI) and Religious Technology Center (RTC).  In fact, CSI and
RTC have been using CSC as a "judgment proof" battering ram to go
after many individuals under its "Fair Game" policy.  The facts
submitted in support of defendant's motion to amend
overwhelmingly support the proposition that all of the assets and
finances of Church of Scientology of California were transferred
out of that corporation and into other various Scientology
organizations, including but not limited to, CSI and RTC.  As
noted above, the California Supreme and Appellate Courts provide
abundant authority for an award of attorneys' fees to amend the
two outstanding judgments to include alter egos, CSI and RTC as
judgment debtors.
CONCLUSION:

     For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant hereby
respectfully requests from this Court an order adjudicating that
defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees for the preparation and
attendance of the hearing of defendant's motion to amend the
judgments obtained against plaintiff Church of Scientology of
California.  Defendant hereby only seeks an order from this Court
that defendant Wollersheim is entitled to reasonable attorneys'
fees with the understanding that if the parties are not able to
informally resolve the amount of costs and fees due, defendant
will bring a noticed motion to establish same.
Dated: March 11, 1997

                            Respectfully submitted,
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY



By______________________________
   ROBERT F. DONOHUE
   Attorneys for Defendant,
   LARRY WOLLERSHEIM

Daniel A. Leipold, Esq., State Bar No. 77159
Robert F. Donohue, Esq., State Bar No. 110505
Cathy L. Shipe, Esq., State Bar No. 156453
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY
Suite 8200
701 South Parker Street
Orange, CA 92668
Telephone: (714) 835-5406

Mark Goldowitz, Esq.
1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 835-0850


Attorneys for Defendant,
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM



            SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                      COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA,

          Plaintiff,

     v.

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM,

          Defendant.

______________________________ )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
 )
_)No. BC074815


DECLARATION OF ROBERT F.
DONOHUE IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT LARRY
WOLLERSHEIM'S MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENTS
___________________________

Date:
Time:
Dept:


     I, ROBERT F. DONOHUE, DECLARE:

     1.   I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice
before this Court and am a member of the law firm of Hagenbaugh &
Murphy, attorneys of record for defendant, LARRY WOLLERSHEIM.
The foregoing is of my own personal knowledge or based upon a
review of depositions, pleadings and various records submitted by
the Scientologists in this matter and other litigation and as to
those matters, I believe them to be true and correct.  If
required, declarant could and would competently testify thereto.

     2.   Attached hereto are a total of six pages prepared by
declarant reflecting the basic hierarchy chart of the Scientology
organizations, as well as a brief outline of the five
"Wollersheim" case histories.  The first page represents the
Scientology hierarchy as it relates to Church of Scientology
International (CSI).  Although not all encompassing, it entails
all the primary organizations connected to CSI as well as
numerous officers, directors and trustees, per the tax records
submitted by CSI in 1993 to the IRS in a bid for tax exempt
status.  For the Court's convenience, page one also contains a
definition list of many Scientology organization acronyms
obtained from the tax records and from the published decision
Church of Spiritual Technology vs. United States Claims Court
(1992) 26 Cl.Ct. 713.

     3.   The second page represents the basic hierarchy of the
Religious Technology Center (RTC) and its relationship to the
Inspector General Network (IGN).  Also on the second page is the
connection between Author's Services, Inc. (ASI) and the Author's
Family Trust.  These flow charts also identify numerous officers,
directors and trustees as provided by CSI to the IRS in 1993.

     4.   The third page represents the list submitted by CSI to
the IRS in 1993 reflecting the "highest ranking officers" of the
Sea Organization of Scientology.

     5.   Declarant also included wherever applicable in
parentheses, a six digit number which reflects the actual Bate
Stamp page number of the document submitted by CSI to the IRS in
1993.  The Bate Stamps are those of CSI when produced through
discovery by CSI in another Scientology lawsuit.  The foundation
for the tax records can be found in the accompanying Declaration
of Graham Berry to plaintiff's motion to amend judgments.

     6.   Pages four through six reflect a brief review of the
five Wollersheim cases, including pertinent dates, attorneys of
record and case disposition.

     7.   Attached as Exhibit "A" to defendant's evidence packet
is a true and correct copy of the deposition of CSC President
Neil Levin taken in Wollersheim v. CSC (Wollersheim I) on
5-31-95.

     I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.

     Executed this _____ day of April, 1997 at Orange,
California.


                              __________________________________
                              ROBERT F. DONOHUE, Declarant


                 WOLLERSHEIM LITIGATION HISTORY

A.   WOLLERSHEIM I:

     Wollersheim vs. CSC (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872:

     1.   Complaint filed 7-28-80.

     2.   Attorney Earle Cooley represented CSC.

     3.   Trial started 2-18-86.

     4.   On July 22, 1996, a jury awarded 30 million dollars in
favor of Wollersheim (later reduced to 2.5 million dollars).

     5.   CSC's Petition for Writ of Cert denied by U.S. Supreme
Court 3-7-94.

B.   WOLLERSHEIM II:
     RTC and CSI vs. Wollersheim
     (Ninth Circuit 1992) 971 Fed.2d. 364:

     1.   Complaint filed 11-4-85 against Wollersheim, his
attorneys and trial experts (in Wollersheim I) alleging RICO
action and copyright infringement claim.  Consolidated with the
District Court action RTC, et al. vs. Robin Scott, et al., Civil
Action 85-711 MRP.

     2.   Attorney Earle Cooley, Joseph Yanny and John Peterson
representing the plaintiffs.

     3.   RTC and CSI claimed as an element of damages in their
RICO statement the cost of defending the Wollersheim I action and
admit that CSI and RTC were real parties in interest to the
Wollersheim I action.  (See defendant's Exhibit "U", RICO
statement of RTC and CSI signed by attorney Kendrick Moxon.)

     4.   RTC filed petition to the Ninth Circuit to disqualify
entire Central District.  (The Ninth Circuit struck the petition.
See CSC vs. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 636.)

     5.   The District Court dismissed Wollersheim, his attorneys
and experts (stating the suit bordered on the frivolous and
malicious), the order of which was affirmed by Ninth Circuit.
(See RTC vs. Wollersheim 971 F.2d 364, 365 (9th Cir. 1992).)  The
case continued as to the other defendants.

     6.   On 4-11-96 the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum upholding the Honorable James M. Ideman's order of
judgment and imposition of 2.9 million dollars attorneys fees
against RTC affirming that RTC had filed its complaint in bad
faith to harass the defendants.  (See defendant's Exhibit "Y",
memorandum of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 94-55781, pages
5-7 and page 12.)

C.   WOLLERSHEIM III:

     CSC, et al. vs. Superior Court, et al., U.S.D.C. CV86-1362:

     1.   The complaint filed by CSC and six individually named
"reverends" of Scientology alleged violation of the plaintiffs'
civil rights to practice religion against the trial judge in
Wollersheim I, Ronald Swearinger, and the Honorable Alfred
Margolis (who had made previous pretrial rulings in the case), as
well as the entire Los Angeles Superior Court.

     2.   The action was dismissed by the Court in November,
1986.

     3.   Attorney Earle Cooley and John Petersen represented
CSC; attorney Timothy Bowles represented all but one of the
"reverends" of Scientology.

D.   WOLLERSHEIM IV:

     CSC vs. Larry Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628:

     1.   The complaint filed on February 16, 1993 was one to set
aside the Wollersheim I judgment and for other equitable relief.

     2.   The action was filed by Kendrick Moxon of the law firm
of Bowles of Moxon.

     3.   The complaint contained allegations that trial judge
Swearinger was prejudiced and acted with malice against CSC.

     4.   The complaint was dismissed pursuant to the defendant's
CCP Section 425.16 (SLAPP) Motion.

     5.   The trial court awarded defendant attorneys' fees and
costs in the amount of $132,676.57.

     6.   The Court of Appeal affirmed and also awarded defendant
attorneys' fees on the appeal.

     7.   The trial court awarded defendant $298,039.74 in
attorneys' fees and expenses on the appeal.

E.   WOLLERSHEIM V:

     RTC and BPI vs. F.A.C.T.NET, Inc., etc.,
     Larry Wollersheim, et al.

     1.   Complaint filed on or about 10-2-95 in the Colorado
District Court (95K2143) alleging copyright infringement, trade
secret misappropriation and injunctive relief.

     2.   One of the attorneys representing RTC and BPI is Earle
C. Cooley who also represented CSC and CSI in Wollersheim I, II
and III.  Another attorney who has appeared on behalf of RTC and
BPI is Kendrick Moxon.

     3.   District Court Judge Kane denied RTC's request for
preliminary injunction.

     4.   Case currently pending in the Colorado District Court.

Daniel A. Leipold, Esq., State Bar No. 77159
Robert F. Donohue, Esq., State Bar No. 110505
Cathy L. Shipe, Esq., State Bar No. 156453
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY
Suite 8200
701 South Parker Street
Orange, CA 92668
Telephone: (714) 835-5406

Mark Goldowitz, Esq.
1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 835-0850

Attorneys for Defendant,
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM