From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Apr 26 13:33:56 BST 1995
In 1979, nine of Scientology's top executives pleaded guilty to extensive burglaries, forgeries, infiltration, obstruction of justice, and other crimes against more than 100 Federal agencies including the Dept. of Justice, The Dept. of Defense and the I.R.S.
In U.S. v. Heldt et. al., the facts showed that church personnel had secreted a documentary evidence of crime, (688 F.2d at 1243 n.8), had committed illegal break-ins and theft (id. at 1244,1247,1248), had electronically bugged government offices (ibid), had lied to federal investigators and a grand jury (id. at 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1253), had suborned perjury (id. at 1247, 1253), had forcibly restrained, kidnapped, handcuffed and gagged a potential adverse witness (id. at 1244, 1273), and had formulated conspiracies to obstruct justice, steal government property, burglarize, bug, harbor fugitives from justice, and commit and suborn perjury before the grand jury (id. at n. 27 at 1258). In a memorandum urging stiff sentences for the Scientologists, federal prosecutors wrote: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.
In England, the Inquiry Into the Practice and Effects of Scientology prepared for the House of Commons in 1971 (The Foster Report), produced a ban on Scientology that lasted several years. In 1977, in Denmark, known for its tolerance, Scientology lost its protection contained in the criminal code of justice concerning the protection of religion.
In 1982 the full Supreme Court of Victoria Australia ruled that Scientology was not a religion or religious institution but a sham. The court ruled Scientology was a body formed for an object that was illegal under criminal laws.See Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Payroll Tax, (decided May 5, 1982). Also see the Anderson Report of 1965, Victoria, Australia.
In the mid 1980's France convicted L. Ron Hubbard in absentia for fraud. In 1988, in Milan Italy, 76 Scientologists were committed for trial charged with offenses from fraud, medical malpractice and criminal con- spiracy to extort money, to unlawful detention.
In a massive raid in 1990, Spain arrested 71 of the top international leaders of Scientology on charges ranging from fraud to tax offenses. The charges alleged involvement in forgery of public documents, coercion, labor law violations, and illicit association.
On July 6, 1990, France arrested 6 of the top officials of Scientology in France for the illegal practice of medicine and fraud. If one was observing only renegade criminal activity of one or more adherents, Scientology's criminal history could be less relevant. Here, though, these activities are part of the secret written policies of the group.
As the FBI and IRS have repeatedly uncovered, Scientology's actions and policies were created, approved, and ordered by the highest levels of the organization. These are the day-to-day activities of Scientology, not renegade or ad hoc aberrational acts of individual employees in spite of Scientology's never ending spewing of subsequent damage control cover stories.
"This is a criminal organization day in and day out. It makes Jim and Tammy (Baker) look like kindergarten." So says Vicki Aznaran, one of the six top executives in Scientology until her defection in 1987.
PERVASIVE PRETEXT, RELIGION, AND SCIENTOLOGYA pervasive pretext standard is used to maintain balance between not passing judgment on the value or verity of a claimed religious belief, on the one hand, and preventing abuse of the liberality of the functional definition of religion, on the other. An effective way to show pervasive pretext is through d literature not offered by the other side.
SCIENTOLOGY'S PUBLIC ORIGINPervasive pretext is not found just in Scientology's secret materials. One can see it in Scientology's public origin, history, policy and doctrine. Scientology and its alter ego, Dianetics, did not and do not always claim to be a religion:
Scientology had its earliest origins in the article entitled Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science which L. Ron Hubbard published in the May, 1950 issue of ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION magazine. Dianetics was described in this article as `an organized science of thought' which offered a therapeutic technique for the treatment of `any and all inorganic mental and organic psychosomatic ills, with assurance of complete cure in unselected cases.' The science of Dianetics became further developed in subsequent writings by Hubbard and others. This development was solely scientific in nature, and religious aspects were not present. In 1952 Hubbard abandoned Dianetics as such and began to concentrate his energies on Scientology. Scientology was viewed by its followers as a science much broader than Dianetics and concerned with knowledge in general, while Dianetics dealt mainly with psychotherapy and the mind. Nevertheless, the two were quite similar in practice.
The Founding Church case involved an effort by the Federal Government to condemn Scientology's E-Meter under the Food and Drug laws. The issue was one of mislabeling and the government was required to show false secular representations regarding the use and benefits of the device. In that case, the government made no effort to attack the good faith of the religious representations involved. Thus the Court expressly refrained from making certain holdings:(1) We do not hold the Founding church is for all legal purposes a religion. Any prima facie case made out for religious status is subject to contradiction by a showing that the beliefs are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were erected for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protections of a religion.The case was then re-tried, and an opinion issued by the District Court entitled United Stags v. Article or Device, Etc., 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971). The Court stated:
The bulk of the material is replete with false medical and scientific claims devoid of any religious overlay or reference. (333 F.Supp. at 361) The Court's opinion directly and forcefully confronts the issue of claimed First Amendment protection by Scientology. The Court then held that the practice of Scientology was secular. (333 F.Supp. at 359) When the Commissioners of the City of Clearwater, Florida convened public hearings on Scientology on May 5-10, 1982, they received documentary and testimonial evidence with respect to the operation, activities and conduct of Scientology. Based on the sworn testimony of witnesses, affidavits, state and federal court decisions, and miscellaneous documents reviewed and considered, the Commission made the following factual recitation:Evidentiary fact: The Church of Scientology is currently engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to impede and obstruct municipal, state and federal taxing authorities, by adopting a religious and charitable guise to avoid payment of taxes.
Scientology's internal policy states: Churches are looked upon as reform groups. Therefore, we must act like a reform group. (Vol. 1 p.196) They (the public) want ministers. We will show them what ministers look like. (Vol. 1 p.41)
Scientology has nothing to do with religion. The Church did not adopt the religious guise until it was necessary to seek First amendment protection. (Vol.4 p.405)
Scientology uses a religious image checklist designed to falsely portray a religious image to mislead officials. (Vol. 2 p.238, 239)
The Church uses ministerial garb to convey the appearance of religion. (Vol. p. 43)
Church policy instructs members to lie to inquiring officials. (Vol.1 p.226,227)
Scientology's expediently developed. checklist religious overlay is not the result of a sincere religious evolution but of Scientology's reactions to court losses, increasing liability for anti-social activities, and other negative legal confrontations. At the commission hearings, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (the son of Scientology's founder), who had been a top ranking Scientologist, testified that the reason his father began claiming Scientology is a religion was to escape problems he was having with courts, the IRS, the American Medical Association and to make money. (Vol. 1 p. 276, 286)
From Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California No. C. 332827 Cal. Super. (1986), exhibit No. 269, HCO PL 29 Oct. 1962, Religion :Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors.
Wollersheim's evidence disclosed that Scientology's hierarchy concocted a religious front for financial, legal, and public relations advantages. The religious front was to be used as a safe point to obtain favorable tax status and to present a favorable PR image to the courts and to the media. The religious front was to be used as an immunizing legal and PR shield whenever Scientology was criticized or sued for its dangerous conduct.
Evidentiary exhibits consisting inter alia, of Scientology's own policy letters disclosed that Scientology fabricated religious trappings solely for appearances. Notions of religion and religious belief were non-existent in the actual conduct and operations of Scientology. These trappings were but a cloaking overlay.
No words better reflect the true place of "religion" in Scientology's scheme of things than those of its founder. On April 10, 1953, L. Ron Hubbard, in a letter to Helen O'Brian, a Dianetics and Scientology franchise holder, said:We don't want a clinic. We want one operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center... we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and one, knock psychotherapy into history and two, make enough money to shine up my operating scope and three, keep the H.A.S. (Hubbard Association of Scientologists) solvent....I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or less customers with what we have got to sell.Just seven months later, on Dec. 18, 1953, the Church of Scientology, the Church of Human Engineering, and the Church of American Science were secretly incorporated by L. Ron Hubbard, L. Ron Hubbard Jr., Ron Jr's wife and three others.
Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned.
PERVASIVE PRETEXT IN THE PRESENT DIANETICS TODAYSelling the Dianetics book is a basic method used to start new people into the secret Scientology. Bridge Publications, a Scientology affiliate, spends upwards of ten million dollars a year advertis- ing Dianetics on television and in the print media. For a single book promotion, this budget is unprecedented in the publishing industry. See Hubbard Hot Author Status Called Illusion, San Diego Onion April 15, 1990 by Mike McIntyre. If you have seen any of these ads, you may recall their complete lack of religious context. Nowhere do they say that the Church of Scientology is the source and benefactor of these ads. You might also recall the promotion of Dianetics as a science, a mental health product, an implied psychotherapy, and as a provider of social science-like secular benefits.
From the Clearwater Commission report:
The practices of Scientology undoubtedly constitute psychotherapy. Among the various psychotherapeutic claims of Scientology are increased I.Q., increased interpersonal communication skills, improved memory, freedom from neuroses and anxiety, marital and family harmony, and cures for drug addiction... All of these benefits are claimed to be achieved in a process of auditing identical to psychotherapy. An auditor, on a paid hourly basis, interviews a preclear (person receiving services) intensively about the details of his emotional life, while using a lie-detector (the E-Meter) to sharpen his questioning. The auditor keeps notes of everything that is said....The entire process is represented as having a scientific basis and stated to be the product of research.
The preclear is told that the process, if carried through, is guaranteed to achieve At the time of first contact and the formative first impression, Scientology deliberately conceals its claim to religious status. Through Dianetics, it advertises benefits and cures outside of a recognizable religious domain. The ad scripts do not read, the Church of Scientology proudly announces Dianetics, the religious science of mental health.
Review of current Dianetics ads show Scientology's ongoing pervasive pretext.
Though Dianetics is a fundamental come-on into Scientology, it fails to maintain a clear, obvious, and coherent front of religious context and religious when presenting its views to attract new members. Belief in Scientology and Dianetics is held out in such a way that it could be totally predicated on scientific standards, e.g. science, scientific research studies, and comparisons of its effectiveness with psychotherapy. Stated from their documents in the Hubbard Information Letter of 12 April 1961 revised 14 April, P.E. Handout, submitted as evidence in the Wollersheim case:Scientology [auditing] is today the only validated psychotherapy in the world....Scientology is a precision science....Scientology is the first precision science in the field of the humanities....The first science to put the cost of psychotherapy within the range of any person's pocketbook....The first science to contain the exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illness with predictable success.These are representations usually strongly associated with non-religious perspectives perspectives which one normally finds discussed in the particular contents of other disciplines. The content and context of Dianetics promotion is convincingly secular, suggesting competition with businesses providing psychiatric, psychological, or social services.
With Dianetics, Scientology drops its religious cloak to recruit young and naive new people into Scientology. When needed in the courts or elsewhere. Scientology pulls the religious cloak and shield back up again. Whenever false curative claims are not made in a religious context, the government has a responsibility to protect the public. Representations that are presented as verifiable from some non-religious perspective can be considered fraudulent, if most people in a common sense way, or in a way informed by the various disciplines, would find those representations to be false.
...it is a gross exaggeration to insist that the energetic, persistent solicitation of E-Meter audited cures for a fee has all occurred in a spiritual setting without use of a secular appeals and false scientific promises made in a wholly non-religious context. Besides failing to challenge the alleged fraud in Scientology's original establishment, the government has consistently failed to challenge how Scientology presently presents its representations to the public.
When public due diligence finally takes place, it should consider the misleading and contrary bait-and-switch practices of Dianetics-Scientology. It also should take into account coercive persuasion methods used by Scientology on its membership. Such investigation will produce the grounds upon which to legally challenge the good faith and sincerity of Scientology's representations... Verifying religious sincerity may be difficult, but ...subtle and difficult as the inquiry might be it should not be avoided because of convenience.
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. In 1980 and 1981 I was assigned to lead the `Mission Corporate Category Sort Out' project. The purpose of this project was to restructure all Church-related entities in a way that it would make it clear that L. Ron Hubbard was not the alter ego of Scientology and in control of all Scientology organizations... Numerous proposals for this restructuring were developed and discussed by high officials of the Church. Legal advice was also sought to ascertain whether the restructuring could be accomplished legally. The project dragged on for longer than necessary because of a disagreement I had with David Miscavige. I was unwilling to restructure the church in a fashion whereby L. Ron Hubbard could continue to assume control at any moment. I determined that for L. Ron Hubbard's own safety he should sever all controls.
Miscavige insisted that L. Ron Hubbard be able to maintain control. Therefore Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out was disbanded and Mary Sue Hubbard removed, and Terry Gamboa and Norman Starkey hired new lawyers on L. Ron Hubbard's instruction and they fashioned the structure in place today.
The IRS's Final Adverse Ruling of July 8, 1988 to Church of Spiritual Technology, (COST) states on page 4: Mr. Hubbard died on January 24, 1986. But his death did not alter the history of Scientology's prior operations. Moreover the same individuals who controlled Scientology operations prior to Hubbard's death, and who participated in arrangements which resulted in inurement and private benefit continue to control your operations and those of other top level Scientology organizations after Mr. Hubbard's death.
Hubbard in the end was true to his well known vow never to appear personally before any government agency. He allegedly died in January 1986, just days before he was to appear in court on the Founding Church FBI case. His remains were rushed to cremation after a small-town autopsy. This was just days before reached a final unanimous verdict favorable to Wollersheim after a 6-month trial.
MORE FROM THE MCCS TAPE TRANSCRIPTSFrom the February 11, 1985 affidavit of Gerry Armstrong:The whole purpose of the MCCS project was to defraud the federal government, litigants against the church [emphasis added], and the courts into believing Hubbard had no involvement with Scientology.
On June 20, 1990, the MCCS tapes were remanded from the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Appeals court, in the Zolan case,(CV 85-440-HLH). stated:The purpose of the MCCS project was to cover up past criminal wrongdoing....The MCCS project involved the discussion and planning for future frauds against the IRS in violation of 18C USC 371....The figures involved in the MCCS admit on tape they are attempting to confuse and defraud the U.S. government.
The IRS, in COST v. U.S. relied in significant part on the affidavit of Gerald Armstrong who was authorized by the church to possess and transcribe the MCCS tapes. The Defendants Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact of November 22, 1989 states:On or about September 28, 1980, a meeting took place in the Cedars Complex at Los Angeles, California, one of the corporate headquarters of the Church of Scientology of California, (CSC). The Meeting was attended By Charles Parcelle, (CP), Deputy Guardian for Legal, (DGL), at WW, who was in charge of all legal activities for Scientology throughout the world and Laurel Sullivan, (LS), the Personal representative of L. Ron Hubbard, a long term senior executive of Scientology and then In Charge, (IC), of a special legal mission, (MCCS), which mission was seeking to conceal Hubbard's control of Scientology and develop strategies to effectuate actual control by Mr. Hubbard without incurring legal responsibility. (p. 37).
In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the Wollersheim case back to the California Appeals court to review its previous reduction of Wollersheim's punitive award in light of its just-completed Pacific Mutual v. Haslip ruling that allowed for the due process constitutionality of punitive awards. On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled, as in the lower Appellate court, that the MCCS tapes were now admissible as evidence.U.S. 89-1361 the Church of Supreme Court at the time of its Zolen ruling, the simultaneous rulings on both issues on the same day hardly seem surprising or unconnected. The Zolen MCCS tape and the Scientology net worth and financial fraud issues were discussed in detail.
HOW THE FRAUD ALLEGEDLY WAS EFFECTED THROUGH SCIENTOLOGY'S CORPORATE STRUCTUREIn early 1980, Wollersheim filed suit against the Church of Scientology of California (CSC) which was the mother church of Scientology at that time. CSC contained the following assets, subsidiaries, and income producing divisions within its corporate structure:
By the time Wollersheim's suit came to trial, in 1985, all that remained was a gutted CSC with almost no income producing resources. The non-income producing USGO remained, after being stripped of its Mission Network income. But the stripped assets never left the absolute control, use, and benefit of those who had absolute control of the CSC at the time of the Wollersheim filing. The same individuals who created the new dummy corporate pockets, to which the CSC assets were later transferred, still control those corporate pockets. CSC gave away 90 to 95% of its assets through inflated, non-equitable, and bogus asset and liability adjustments and transfers. Scientology stripped out of CSC its most important income producing and valuable assets during the 5 year waiting period for a court date in the Wollersheim case. The new corporations derived out of CSC assets were formed with the specific purpose of removing those assets from CSC to defraud litigants, the courts, and the state and federal tax divisions. The new corporate purchasers of CSC assets had full knowledge of pending tax and civil lawsuits in which losing was near-certain and soon to be realized.
Scientology management knew about their own torts and illegal activities in the Wollersheim and other cases. They knew that defeat was likely and immanent. In this context, Scientology deliberately used the new dummy corporate structures and fraudulent conveyances to those structures to attempt, among other things, to shield, extinguish, or lower punitive and other liabilities in light of California's defendant's net worth criteria for the determination of fair and adequate punitive liability. Artifices were planned and implemented to escape investigation and to mislead or hinder organizations seeking accurate information. From the decision of the California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153:
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. Subsequent events help to prove Scientology's prior intent regarding its asset transfers. A revealing example is Scientology's inequitable non-market value transfer of an 85 million dollar credit to Hubbard and a debit to Scientology. Scientology called this a backdated inventor's royalty for an E-Meter that Hubbard NEVER INVENTED. This is reminiscent of a similar tactic that had been disclosed by the IRS in the Founding Church litigation: Probably the most covert form of compensation paid to L Ron Hubbard was tithes (or a percentage of the gross income) which petitioner and other Scientology Organizations routed to him in the guise of Founding Debt Payments.
This bold level of fraud may be found in any transfer-by-transfer analysis of the disposition of CSC assets. The newly created non-taxable and taxable post-1980 Scientology corporations were organized, operated, and controlled in significant part as mere instrumentalities or adjuncts of the original (now-stripped, taxable or soon to be taxable) CSC corporation. They became de facto subsidiaries new corporate pockets that took over the assets of the original CSC subsidiaries for the purpose of evading legal accountability.
There is no need at all for them to be the Board of Directors in order for them to run the Church, but the authority of the Church has to lie somewhere, and on some basis. And since the Church has always chosen a corporate entity, eventually the authority is going to have vest with the Board of Directors. The only reason it's worked so long without that occurring is because everyone has effectively been bound by the authority of LRH and have ignored corporate lines....
[Charles Parcelle] We could say that the RRF, [Religious Research Foundation], and CSC are part of the same church, even though they are corporately different. I mean if anything was a sham corporation, it's RRF.
[Allen Wertheimer attorney for L. Ron Hubbard answers.] As I understand it RRF receives monies that would otherwise be due to the California Church for services rendered by the California Church to people outside of the country who decide to pay the Church from outside the country.
[CP] That's right.
[AWl So that's basically right?
[CP] That's right. Foreign non-US Scientologists pay RRF, they go to Flag [the flag Ship Org, FSO] and take the services. RRF was originally supposed to hold the money until the service was rendered and then pay it to CSC. But in fact it has not really done that and so CSC has rendered much service to many foreign Scientologists and RRF has got the money. Fortunately for us RRF wasn't incorporated until 1973 and were litigating 1972. So I haven't really tried to sort this one out but it obviously is the classic case (loud laugh) of inurement, if not fraud (several laughs).
[Laurel Sullivan] Well put.
[Speaker unidentified] It's all privileged.
[Dick Sullivan] The tape recorder is going here Charles....
Now when you talk around a table like this and there is no internal revenue agent present, (whispered: I hope so), bugged or otherwise, one can work out solutions. But when you are a few weeks away from a trial and everything you say is going to be rammed down your throat, then you have to start looking at what actually happened. And its very difficult to assign significances to things other than what was actually being done at the time.
The thinking here follows the policies of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote a treasury policy which was quoted by the IRS in the Defendants Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact of November 22, 1989 in COST v. U.S.:
...The whole thing is to assign a significance to the figures before the government can. The whole thing is a mess only because arithmetic figures are symbols open to any significance. So I normally think of a better significance than the government can. I always put enough errors on a return to satisfy their bloodsucking appetite and still come out zero. The game of accounting is just a game of assigning significance to figures. The man with the most imagination wins...
From the affidavit of Gerry Armstrong:
It is common knowledge among senior executives of the organization and it is the policy of CSC that members of the Boards of Directors are mere figureheads, without authority or control, not for internal corporate reasons, but rather to vest control in Mr. Hubbard. I have personal knowledge that in order to carry out this corporate fraud, organizational executives have engaged in the various unethical practices including backdating phony Board minutes and forging signatures.
On pages 8-10 of the IRS's Final Adverse Ruling of July 8, 1988 to Church of Spiritual Technology, (COST), the IRS tracks out part of the corporate shells, the unified management, and the asset transfer game regarding Bridge Publications and the International Sea Organization Reserves Trust. These are two of the biggest assets and income producers. They were formed from the former Publications Organization (PUBS US) and the Sea Organization Reserves that had been CSC subsidiaries but were stripped out from the assets of the Church of Scientology of California (CSC) during the Wollersheim case.
In 1987 Scientology reported to the IRS that its new corporate entity and world headquarters organization in Clearwater (also created in significant part from CSC assets) had $206 million in a reserve pool.
In their May 6, 1991 cover story, Time magazine reported that COST (the new mother church) reported income of $503 million in 1987 and that high level defectors say Scientology has another $400 million in secret bank accounts. When examined closely, one will find COST using most of the assets of the stripped CSC and receiving income from CSC's previous leading income producers. That income is funneled through dummy and shell corporations which are controlled by the same individuals who controlled CSC's assets before they were stripped out in fraudulent conveyances.
These actions were committed with the foreknowledge and/or approval of the highest management levels of the Scientology organization. Nothing gets done in Scientology's robotic organizational structure without detailed orders and programs which, per policy, must strictly follow either Scientology's secret or public policies. Scientology's lawyers and accountants are necessarily aware of Scientology's criminal history. Many of the actions described here may have been committed with their complicity and knowledge or at the least with their assistance through negligence in performing proper due diligence.
Questions of individual embezzlement and breach of fiduciary trust must be raised concerning the key Scientology management principals and their legal and accounting representatives particularly as regards the creation of the Hubbard estate and the new Scientology corporations.
From the IRS's Final Adverse Ruling of July 8, 1988 to Church of Spiritual Technology, (COST), pages 8-10:
The past history of Scientology's operations suggests that the purpose of these organizations may be to disguise the fact that private interests are the ultimate beneficiaries of the reorganized operating structure....It seems that Scientology has temporarily figured out how to keep beating and making fools of the government, adverse litigants, and the tax people, and getting new nonprofit religious exemptions after it has lost its old ones.
They do this by changing the old mother church corporations into new mother church corporations and then transferring assets to the new entities. Their trick is to act faster than the justice system can complete litigation on its old corporations. Scientology stays one step ahead, BY STAYING ONE CORPORATION AHEAD of its victims and prosecutors.
Moving fast in a slow and overloaded justice system is also the trick to deny the use of key evidences in the trial at hand. By taking numerous separate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, Scientology creates delays which effectively bar evidence from being used in present cases. If they lose on the issue at a later date, at a higher court (as happened with the MCCS evidence in the Wollersheim case) the trial is over anyway. In the Wollersheim case, Scientology has been all the way up the courts 4 or 5 times.
Because of this asset and corporation fast shift game, government agencies and victims must demand receivership proceedings for Scientology now and demand that bonds be posted for their endless appeals. To do otherwise is to court disaster and the possibility of a religious version of the Robert Vesco flee the county with hundreds of millions in cash