Colorado Daily (University of Colorado student newspaper)
Tuesday, September 19, 1995

U.S. court rules in favor of Scientology's critics

Church expected to appeal ruling to Supreme Court

by Chris Logan
Colorado Daily Staff Writer

The U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a
U.S. District Court judge's ruling that the Church
of Scientology return all computers and other materials
seized during Aug. 22 raids on the homes of two local
church critics.

Lawrence Wollersheim, one of the men whose home was
raided, said he doubts the church will comply with the
court order and expects church officials to appeal their
case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But he said he plans to turn the tables on those
officials by filing a lawsuit against the church in
federal court claiming the church deprived him of his
constitutional right to free speech and abused the
legal process in taking legal action against him.

"When someone tries to crush you like Scientology tried
to crush me, you have to countersue." the Boulder resident
said.  "We cannot allow the wealthy to silence their
critics by suing them into bankruptcy."

Church of Scientology representatives, accompanied by
U.S. marshals, seized Wollersheim's computers and
documents during the August raid in an effort to prove
he had disseminated copyrighted church "secrets" on the
Internet.  Church officials seized similar material from
Niwot resident Robert Penny, who, with Wollersheim, runs
FACTNet, a computer information clearing house on cults.

But U.S. District Judge John Kane last week ordered the
church to return all the materials seized in the two raids,
ruling that the church didn't show they were likely to prove
their claims of copyright violotions in a trial.  Kane said
Wollersheim and Penny appeared to be covered by "fair use"
provisions of the federal copyright law, which allows use of
copyrighted material for criticism, comment or research.

In addition, Kane ruled the church had not proved the materials
in question were trade secrets under Colorado law, and that
there was no proof of "irreparable injury" from Wollersheim
and Penny's use of the material because they were not using the
material for a commercial purpose.

The church appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals Sept. 13, asking
for an emergency writ allowing them to hold onto the seized
material.  The court denied that motion late Monday afternoon.

Although the appellate court upheld the district judge's decision,
Wollersheim said he does not expect the church to abandon its
case against him.

"Their idea is not to win but to bankrupt their critics into
silence," Wollersheim said Monday.  "They'll just keep appealing
in an effort to hang us out.  If they are allowed to get away
with this, it could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech."

"What they did was nuts," he said, adding that the church has not
relaxed the pressure it is putting on him.  "Church members were
picketing outside my home yesterday."

The lawsuit Wollersheim plans to file is generically known as
an anti-SLAPP suit, legal experts said.

A SLAPP suit, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,
is any suit files in an effort to harass as opposed to argue a
legitimate legal claim.  The suits generally are used by corporations,
individuals or entities in an effort to silence critics by tying them
up in costly litigation.  Two states, New York and California, have
anti-SLAPP laws on their books, allowing lawyers for defendants to
enter motions early on in the legal process to have cases dismissed
based on their frivolous nature.  Successful anti-SLAPP suits bring
with them awards of legal fees.

While no federal anti-SLAPP suit exists, any countersuit alleging
abuse of the legal process or frivolity is considered an anti-SLAPP
suit, experts said.

Wollersheim already has one one anti-SLAPP suit against the Church
of Scientology in California.  He was sued by the church in 1986
and went on to win a $30 million decision against the church.  That
aware was later reduced to $2.5 million, but Wollersheim has yet
to collect a penny because the church continues to appeal the case.