May 26, 1999
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
RAUL LOPEZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, ALICIA LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF BUENAVENTURA, CELEBRITY CENTRE
INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG LAND BASE, WORLD INSTITUTE OF
SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, ROBERT
CEFAIL, TOLI CEFAIL, MICHAEL ZETNER, THE RC&A GROUP, INC., MICHAEL
HALEY, BRENT JONES, RAUL VALLE, TOM STEINER and DOES 2 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC200852
JUDGE REGINALD A. DUNN,
DEPT. 44
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2. NEGLIGENCE;
3. FIDUCIARY ABUSE;
4. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD;
5. FRAUD - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;
6. FRAUD - CONCEALMENT;
7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
8. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
9. PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE;
10. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
11. RESCISSION AND RESTITUTION; AND,
12. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND ORDER OF CONVEYANCE;
COMES NOW Plaintiff RAUL LOPEZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem,
ALICIA LOPEZ, and for his causes of action against the Church of
Scientology Mission of Buenaventura, Celebrity Centre International,
Church of Scientology Flag Land Base, World Institute of Scientology
Enterprises, Church of Scientology Religious Trust, Robert Cefail, Toli
Cefail, Michael Zetner, The RC&A Group, Inc., Michael Haley, Brent
Jones, Raul Valle Tom Steiner and Does 2 through 50, inclusive, and each
of them, alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Raul Lopez is a resident of Oxnard, California for whom a conservator
has been appointed.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the
Defendant, Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission (erroneously named
herein as Church of Scientology Mission of Buenaventura) is a
corporation doing business in Ventura, California.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the
Defendant, Celebrity Centre International, is a corporation doing
business in Los Angeles, California.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges Flag Land
Base also known as Flag Service Organization is a business of unknown
form located in and doing business in Clearwater, Florida.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendant World Institute
of Scientology Enterprises is a Religious Corporation located and doing
business in Los Angeles, California.
6. Upon filing the complaint herein, Plaintiff being ignorant of the
true name of a Defendant, and having designated said Defendant in the
Complaint by a fictitious name to wit: Doe 1, and having discovered the
true name of said Defendant to be Church of Scientology Religious Trust
names Defendant by its true name herein. The Church of Scientology
Religious Trust is an entity of unknown form that Plaintiff is informed
and believes is doing business in Clearwater, Florida.
7. Robert Cefail is a former principal with the Defendant, RC&A Group,
Inc.
8. Toli Cefail is a former principal with the Defendant, RC&A Group,
Inc.
9. Michael Zetner is a former principal with the Defendant, RC&A Group,
Inc.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that RC&A
Group, Inc. is a corporation having its principal place of business in
Clearwater, Florida.
11. Michael Haley is a former attorney at law licensed to practice in
the state of California.
12. Brent Jones is an attorney at law licensed to practice in the state
of California.
13. Raul Valle is a tax preparer and investment advisor practicing in
the state of California.
14. Tom Steiner is the proprietor of the Defendant, Church of
Scientology Buenaventura Mission.
15. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the
Defendants sued herein, as Does 2 through 50, inclusive. Plaintiff sues
such Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to section 474 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and on that basis alleges, that each said Defendant is responsible in
some manner for the events, transactions or arrangements described
herein as well as the resulting injuries and damages further described
herein. Plaintiff will amend or supplement this complaint to state their
true names and capacities when they are ascertained.
16. Defendants: Church of Scientology, Mission of Buenaventura; Church
of Scientology Celebrity Centre International; Church of Scientology
Flag Land Base also known as Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, Church of Scientology Religious Trust and the World
Institute of Scientology Enterprises constitute a portion of the overall
enterprise known as Scientology. The Enterprise of Scientology consists
of numerous corporate entities, but operates as a seamless structure
_ultra vires_ of the corporate lines of authority. The enterprise of
Scientology constitutes a _deceptis visus_ designed to make the
enterprise of Scientology and its individual corporate components
"impregnable" and immune from the collection of liability judgments. The
enterprise of Scientology is in fact controlled by and through an
unincorporated, paramilitary like association known as the "Sea
Organization" whose members are placed in key management positions
within key corporations such as Defendant World Institute of Scientology
Enterprises. The leadership of the "Sea Organization," through its
placement of members in corporations that it runs, is able to control
the whole of the enterprise of Scientology, channeling money, assets and
employees around the enterprise of Scientology at will regardless of
existing corporate structures.
17. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant, with the exception of
Defendant Haley, was the partner, agent and/or employee of each
co-Defendant herein and was at all times acting within the scope of such
partnership, agency and/or employment; further, with the exception of
Defendant Haley, each Defendant was authorized to speak on behalf of
each other Defendant, and each Defendant ratified the conduct of each
Co-Defendant herein.
18. Venue is proper, in that many of the acts herein alleged occurred on
the premises of Defendant Celebrity Centre International, Inc., which is
located and does business within the area of this Court's jurisdiction.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19. Plaintiff Raul Lopez was born on July 25, 1966. On August 27, 1985,
at the age of 19, he was gravely injured when the light pick-up truck he
was driving was demolished in a head-on collision by an 18-wheel truck.
Plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately seven months following the
incident. Among the many injuries he suffered was a closed head injury
resulting in irreversible trauma to his brain. This injury caused
cognitive dysfunction that rendered Plaintiff substantially impaired
mentally and emotionally, including a compulsion toward impulsive and
irrational behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff became permanently incapable
of caring for his property, protecting his rights, transacting business
or fully understanding the nature or effects of his actions.
20. Following his accident, Plaintiff, through his mother, Alicia Lopez,
hired Defendant Michael Haley to prosecute a Personal Injury action on
his behalf. During the course of that claim, Defendant Haley obtained
the opinions of various health care professionals for use in prosecution
of that claim. The evaluating neuropsychologist, Dr. Charles Fretheim,
concluded Plaintiff was incompetent to act responsibly on his own
behalf, and Dr. Fretheim strongly recommended that a conservator be
appointed. Despite this, Defendant Haley neither discussed Dr.
Fretheim's recommendation with Plaintiff or Plaintiff's mother, nor
moved for the appointment of a conservator. Thus, when Plaintiff's
personal injury claim was eventually settled for the sum of $2.5
million, there was no mechanism in place to prevent Plaintiff from
accessing the funds, even though he was known to be incompetent to
handle them responsibly.
21. Following Plaintiff's release from the hospital in or about March of
1986, Plaintiff embarked on a grueling outpatient rehabilitative
physical therapy program to enable him to walk again and perform other
activities of daily living. One day in the early summer of 1987, as part
of his recovery program, Plaintiff visited a swap meet. There, using the
cane he required in order to ambulate, Plaintiff slowly walked up and
down the rows, pausing for significant lengths of time at the end of
each one to rest before starting down a new row. At the end of one such
row, situated in the vicinity of the spot where Plaintiff had stopped to
rest, was a booth bearing a sign advertising "Dianetics" and offering
literature authored by L. Ron Hubbard, promulgator of what is known as
the Church of Scientology.
22. While Plaintiff was resting near the "Dianetics" booth in
preparation to begin his walk down the next row, a woman stationed at
the booth struck up a conversation with Plaintiff. That person was an
agent and authorized representative of Defendant Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission and the enterprise of Scientology who inquired
about Plaintiff's obviously impaired physical condition. Plaintiff told
her of the vehicular accident.
23. During the initial conversation between Plaintiff and the
Scientology representative, the woman encouraged Plaintiff to complete a
"free personality test," and Plaintiff did. The "free personality test"
is a standard and usual method by which members of the public are
recruited to join the Church of Scientology. Subsequently, consistent
with a second standard and usual step in Scientology's recruitment
process, Plaintiff was contacted by and participated in a formal
interview with a Scientology agent, who became known to Plaintiff as Jim
Hamre, a Church of Scientology "registrar" associated with the Church of
Scientology Buenaventura Mission and the overall enterprise of
Scientology. Jim Hamre's position as a Scientology "registrar" required
him to employ a "Hard Sell" sales technique on Plaintiff which
Scientology defines as "not being reasonable with stops and barriers
(objections) and getting him (Mr. Lopez) fully paid up and taking the
service." In accordance with Scientology protocol, Hamre advised
Plaintiff his test results indicated various areas of difficulty in his
life for which he could receive help by participating in Scientology
courses and an intermittent process of interrogation and counseling
known as "auditing."
24. From the very first days of his affiliation with Scientology,
Plaintiff's brain damage was known to Jim Hamre and Tom Steiner, as was
the fact that Mr. Lopez was in possession of significant assets.
Thereafter, Plaintiff's auditor, on behalf of the Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission and on behalf of the enterprise of Scientology,
sought to obtain, and did obtain, all of Plaintiff's medical and
psychiatric records as part of Plaintiff's indoctrination into the
Church of Scientology. Accordingly, Defendants and/or their agents have,
at all times, been aware of Plaintiff's permanent mental limitations
including the contents of those records, which revealed that Plaintiff
had received a traumatic head injury resulting in significant permanent
impairment of cognitive function. At all times, all Defendants, with the
exception of Defendants Haley, Jones and Valle have represented to
Plaintiff that his permanent physical impairments would be improved by
intensifying his study of Scientology.
25. At the time of Plaintiff's formal interview, as described herein
above, Plaintiff was afflicted with a loss of neuromuscular control in
both hands which manifested as a tremor, a consequence of his vehicular
accident. The tremor was quite visible and a source of distress and
anxiety to Plaintiff, who made this known to Jim Hamre, the conductor of
the interview. Thereafter, in addition to representing that Scientology
courses and auditing would cause improvement in Plaintiff's mental and
emotional status, Hamre assured Plaintiff that the tremor would be
cured, and that he be fully returned to he pre-accident condition by his
participation in those Scientology activities.
26. Also during the course of the interview described herein above, Jim
Hamre made repeated inquiries of Plaintiff about how much money he had
in his bank account, how much interest he had earned on it, and how he
could obtain access to it. Beginning that day, and approximately three
to five times per week thereafter, at the urging of Jim Hamre and other
Scientology agents, Plaintiff inquired of his mother, Alicia Lopez,
about how much money and interest he had in his accounts. At the time,
Plaintiff had multiple accounts. Ms. Lopez was a joint tenant on the
accounts, but her signature was not required in order for Plaintiff to
obtain funds. At the time Plaintiff began making these incessant
inquiries of his mother, Ms. Lopez was a hospital inpatient, recovering
from surgery. Owing to her weakened state, she acceded to Plaintiff's
initial Scientology-instigated requests for information about
Plaintiff's funds without scrutinizing them.
27. At the urging of Jim Hamre and the other Scientology agents with
whom Plaintiff became acquainted, Plaintiff continued to make almost
daily inquiries of his mother regarding the amount of funds in his bank
accounts.
Plaintiff reported the information he learned from his mother back to
the Scientology agents, who continually urged him to buy additional
expensive courses and L. Ron Hubbard-authored literature. The
relentlessness of these inquiries engendered much tension and discord
between Plaintiff and his mother. Eventually, during a time when Ms.
Lopez was herself in a weakened state of health, she became exasperated
and relinquished all control of the bank accounts to Plaintiff, vowing
to have no further involvement in the management of his money.
28. Although Plaintiff's mother, Ms. Lopez, was aware he had become
involved with an organization, she did not know in the first two weeks
anything about it or the extent to which Plaintiff was giving his money
to it. By the end of the second week following his initial interview
with the Scientology agent, Plaintiff had already spent or pledged
approximately $30,000 for Scientology courses, materials and/or auditing
services that Plaintiff had been told would bring him back to his
pre-accident condition, curing his permanent injuries. When Ms. Lopez
learned this, she accompanied the Plaintiff to the premises of the
Defendant Buenaventura Mission to confront the persons who had
influenced Plaintiff. Once there, Ms. Lopez, citing Plaintiff's impaired
and vulnerable mental state, demanded the return of his money. After
some discussion, the Scientology agent returned approximately $28,500 to
Plaintiff and told him never to return to the Church of Scientology.
29. Despite having admonished Plaintiff to leave Scientology and never
return, the representatives from the Defendant Buenaventura Mission
subsequently communicated with Plaintiff and once again began
encouraging him to spend his money on Scientology literature, courses
and auditing. They once again advised Plaintiff his only chance of
"handling" the difficulties in his life, and returning himself to his
pre-accident condition was by participating in Scientology activities.
However, this time, they advised him he could become involved with
Scientology only if he prevented his mother from interfering with the
affiliation. Plaintiff was advised that his mother and other members of
his family were "suppressive persons" who impeded Plaintiff advancement
in Scientology and sought to actively interfere with his receiving the
promised benefits of Scientology.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, while endeavoring to keep the information from
his mother, commenced paying for Scientology products and services at
the rate of thousands of dollars every month until, by the end of 1996,
Plaintiff had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Scientology
services and products.
30. Plaintiff participated in the Scientology process known as auditing
as often as five to six days a week at the Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission. In addition, he was passed on to other members of
the enterprise of Scientology, including Defendant Church of Scientology
Celebrity Centre and Defendant Scientology Flag Land Base (also known as
the Flag Service Organization) for further advanced auditing. Despite
the fact that Plaintiff never obtained any of the benefits promised to
him and Plaintiff repeatedly passed out (lost consciousness) during
auditing sessions, representatives of the enterprise of Scientology
continually insisted that the solution to any problems Plaintiff had was
additional expensive auditing. With knowledge that Plaintiff was having
a continuing and alarming physical reaction to the auditing processes,
Defendants Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission, Church of
Scientology Flag Land Base (also known as Church of Scientology Flag
Service Organization) and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre failed
to stop the processing or advise the Plaintiff that he should obtain
medical advice before obtaining further auditing.
31. Defendants Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission, Church of
Scientology Celebrity Centre and Church of Scientology Flag Land Base
proceeded to audit Plaintiff in direct contravention of the policies of
Scientology, stating that persons such as Plaintiff who had a history of
psychiatric care or treatment with psychiatric drugs are "illegal PCs"
and ineligible for auditing.
32. Plaintiff was induced to participate in Scientology and the business
transactions described herein primarily by statements frequently made to
him by Jim Hamre and other Scientology agents, to the effect that
Scientologists were "the most ethical people on the planet." This was of
great significance and importance to Plaintiff, since it caused him to
believe the Scientologists who were advising him were trustworthy and
concerned with his best interests. However, Plaintiff never learned
during his tenure with Scientology that the Church of Scientology, which
refers to its methods as "technology," adheres to its singular
definition of the word ethics, which is that:
Ethics is a first dynamic action. All ethics really does is hold the
lines firm so that you can route and audit. All ethics is for in actual
fact is simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to get
technology in. That's the whole purpose of ethics; to get technology in.
33. In late 1991, Plaintiff was approached by Jim Hamre, who, after
again inquiring about the amount of funds available to Plaintiff, told
Plaintiff of a business opportunity, which Hamre characterized as very
promising. Hamre introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Michael Zetner, also
a Scientologist, who described his company, RC&A Group, Inc.
(hereinafter, "RC&A"), and its purported plan to install telephones in
jails for use by inmates. Defendant RC&A is a Scientologist-owned and
run company licensed by Defendant WISE to use the "administrative
technology" of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, for a fee of 10%
of RC&A's gross receipts. Zetner boasted to Plaintiff of the great plans
he had for RC&A and its jailhouse telephone scheme, and he and Hamre
encouraged Plaintiff to act quickly to invest in the company. Although
they knew of Plaintiff's mental disability, Hamre and Zetner urged that
there was no need for Plaintiff to seek independent advice regarding the
soundness of investing in RC&A and urged Plaintiff to act without delay.
As had the other Scientologists with whom Plaintiff had communicated,
Zetner assured Plaintiff that he, Zetner was extremely ethical, and he
solicited and gained Plaintiff's trust and confidence.
34. Hamre's encouragement to Plaintiff to enter into the jailhouse
telephone investment scheme was made in his capacity as registrar, and
as an authorized agent for the Church of Scientology Buenaventura
Mission and the enterprise of Scientology. From its inception the
investment scheme was solely designed to provide RC&A, Zetner and the
Cefails a method by which they could obtain funds to channel into the
enterprise of Scientology or pay for its products and services.
35. Accordingly, on October 16, 1991, Plaintiff entered into the first
of three contracts with Cefail and RC&A. The October 16, 1991, contract
called for Plaintiff to invest $60,000 with RC&A in exchange for a
minimum monthly income stream after 14 months of $135 for each of 20
phones for 48 consecutive months, with a maximum monthly payment of up
to 50% of the phones' net revenue. The October 16, 1991, contract is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth herein.
36. A second contract, also between Plaintiff and RC&A on the same terms
as the October 16, 1991 agreement, was executed, also in October 1991.
Plaintiff and Defendant Cefail, as authorized agent of RC&A, signed it.
Defendant Zetner promised to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the
contract.
However, he never did so. The second contract is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
37. A third contract was executed on December 9, 1991. Although Zetner
led Plaintiff to believe he was contracting with RC&A again, this
contract was actually executed between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and
Defendants Robert and Toli Cefail and Michael Zetner, as individuals, on
the other. Nevertheless, the third contract contemplated the same
investment purpose as had the October 1991 contracts. This third
contract called for Plaintiff to invest a total of $180,000 for 70
additional phones, with the same provisions for minimum and maximum
monthly income streams as were associated with the first and second
contracts, as set forth in Paragraphs 34 and 35 above, except that:
under this third contract, Plaintiff was also to be paid 12 consecutive
payments of $3,500 each, beginning four months after the execution of
the agreement. Thus, under all three contracts, Plaintiff was to receive
a total minimum return of $754,800. The third contract is attached
hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
38. At all times when Plaintiff was being encouraged and pressured to
invest in the jailhouse telephone scheme by Hamre and Zetner, Plaintiff
was in need of independent professional legal and/or investment advice.
Plaintiff was actively discouraged by both Hamre and Zetner from having
the jailhouse telephone scheme and the contracts (appended hereto as
Exhibits "A", "B" and "C") examined by anyone who could give him
unbiased professional advice about the appropriateness of the scheme in
general and/or the wisdom of entering into the specific contracts set
forth as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C." Plaintiff was advised by Hamre and
Zetner that, rather than having the contracts reviewed by an attorney,
he should have the contracts reviewed by a non-attorney Scientologist
based on Scientology "Ethics and Justice" principles.
39. The actions of Hamre in inducing Plaintiff to invest in the
jailhouse telephone scheme were known to Defendant Thomas Steiner and
Defendant Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission and were ratified
by them.
40. Pursuant to the advice and pressure of Hamre and Zetner, Plaintiff
in fact paid a fee to have Exhibit "A" reviewed by a Scientology "ethics
officer," who advised the Plaintiff that the contract should specify
that Defendant WISE would be selected to resolve any disputes that arise
under the contract.
41. Plaintiff fully performed his obligations under each of the three
contracts described above, to wit: Plaintiff paid consideration in three
separate transactions of $60,000, $60,000 and $180,000, respectively, to
Robert Cefail, Toli Cefail, Michael Zetner and RC&A as investments in
the jailhouse telephone scheme as set forth herein.
42. Although Plaintiff received the first $3,500 payment in April, 1992,
as called for by the third contract, beginning in May of 1992, and at
all subsequent times, Defendants RC&A, Robert Cefail, Toli Cefail and
Michael Zetner have failed to pay in accordance with their obligations
under the above-described contracts.
43. On information and belief, neither the Cefails, Zetner nor RC&A ever
intended to use, nor did they use, the full amount of Plaintiff's
investments toward the furtherance of the jailhouse telephone scheme as
called for by the contracts with Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants used a
small portion of Plaintiff's investments for the purchase and
installation of some telephones and diverted the remaining funds for
their own use and benefit and for the use and benefit of the enterprise
of Scientology.
44. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that prior to entering
in to the contracts set forth herein as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C,"
Defendants Robert and Toli Cefail, Michael Zetner and the RC&A Group,
Inc. were themselves being pressured by representatives of the
enterprise of Scientology to channel funds into the "Church of
Scientology Religious Trust." Defendants Robert and Toli Cefail, Michael
Zetner and RC&A, Inc. advised representatives of the enterprise of
Scientology that they were in the process of obtaining a large amount of
funds from Plaintiff through Plaintiff's investment in the jailhouse
telephone scheme. Defendants Robert Cefail and Toli Cefail, Michael
Zetner and RC&A, Inc. sought permission from agents of the enterprise of
Scientology to enter into the contracts set forth herein as exhibits
"A", "B" and "C." Defendants Robert and Toli Cefail, Michael Zetner and
RC&A, Inc. were granted permission by agents of the enterprise of
Scientology to enter into the contracts so long as "a decent portion of
the money went to" the enterprise of Scientology.
45. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Robert
and Toli Cefail, Michael Zetner and RC&A Group, Inc. channeled a
significant portion of the $300,000 invested by Plaintiff into various
Scientology organizations and projects including the "Church of
Scientology Religious Trust."
46. Following the initial breach of contract by Defendants Robert
Cefail, Toli Cefail and Michael Zetner and RC&A in May of 1992,
Plaintiff approached one or more representatives of Defendant Church of
Scientology Buenaventura Mission and the enterprise of Scientology for
advice and help in prompting RC&A, the Cefails and Zetner to honor their
contractual obligations. Plaintiff was advised that the way to resolve
his conflict with the Cefails, Zetner and RC&A was to join the World
Institute of Scientology Enterprises (hereinafter, "WISE") and avail
himself of its provision for arbitration proceedings. In June of 1992,
Defendant Toli Cefail further encouraged Plaintiff to take the matter of
his complaint against her, Robert Cefail, Michael Zetner and RC&A to
WISE. She did so by sending information to Plaintiff regarding how to
begin WISE arbitration proceedings.
47. In mid-1992, in reliance on Defendants' repeated representations
about the "ethical" nature of Scientology and WISE, Plaintiff made
successive requests of WISE for assistance in resolving the matter of
Defendants' failure to pay him according to the terms of their
contracts. On August 27, 1992, in response to a fax from WISE, Plaintiff
applied and paid for membership in WISE in order to qualify for its
provision for arbitration.
48. WISE is a religious organization specifically and solely dedicated
to the furtherance of Scientology principles and practices, and it
operates according to the definition of "ethics" as set forth in
Paragraph 32 above.
WISE, In fact, constitutes an integral part of the enterprise of
Scientology. At all times referred to herein, Defendants and their
representatives with whom Plaintiff consulted knew the Scientology
definition of "ethics," knew that WISE operated upon that definition,
and knew that, in arbitrating Plaintiff's claim, WISE's only concern
would be to preserve and uphold all avenues for the flow of money into
Scientology organizations, including the ratification of the transfer by
RC&A and Defendants, Robert and Toli Cefail and Zetner of funds
fraudulently procured from Plaintiff to the enterprise of Scientology.
49. Plaintiff was repeatedly advised and unduly influenced by all the
Defendants, with the exception of Defendants Haley and Church of
Scientology Religious Trust that WISE constituted the only forum
available to an "ethical" Scientologist for the resolution of claims
against fellow Scientologists. Defendants further advised Plaintiff that
it was a violation of Scientology ethics for one Scientologist to pursue
a claim against another Scientologist outside the Scientology ethics and
justice system. Specifically, Defendants employed the auditing procedure
to gain Plaintiff's assent to the WISE arbitration on the basis that if
he did not agree to pursue his claims against his fellow Scientologists
in an ethical manner, he could not avail himself of the promised
opportunity to be returned to his pre-accident condition. Plaintiff
relied on these statements and the repeated assurances of WISE that WISE
would take care of Plaintiff and handle all of Plaintiff's claims
pursuant to Scientology ethics in joining WISE and consenting to its
arbitration processes.
50. Rather than providing a neutral quasi-judicial forum for the
resolution of the dispute between Plaintiff and RC&A, the WISE
arbitration was designed from the beginning to provide the trappings of
a fair forum while in reality having as its primary purpose protecting
the enterprise of Scientology. WISE knew at the time that it acted to
induce Plaintiff to make use of its sham arbitration services that it
had no intention of providing a quasi judicial forum and that in fact
that it was primarily acting to protect the flow of funds into
Scientology and protect the enterprise of Scientology from examination
by the "WOG", (Non-Scientology), judicial system.
51. The WISE arbitration proceedings are ongoing and have not concluded.
At all times up to and including the present, Plaintiff has received
repeated assurances from Defendants and their representatives that he
should trust the WISE program to satisfactorily resolve his claim.
However, the WISE arbitration proceedings have been and continue to be a
sham. In actual fact, Defendants have acted from the beginning to
conceal WISE's true mission from Plaintiff and, although knowing of his
incapacitated mental state, have encouraged him to forego any
alternative legal rights and remedies he may otherwise have, and to rely
on their assurances about the WISE proceedings. On each occasion when he
has complained about the lack of resolution, he was unduly influenced by
having been advised by Defendants and/or their authorized agents to both
trust in WISE and to undergo further Scientology auditing services.
52. In or about 1993, Jim Hamre introduced Plaintiff to an individual
named Don Sturges, also a Scientologist, who sought a mortgage to be
funded by Plaintiff. At the urging of Hamre, who knew of Sturges'
tenuous financial position, but nevertheless strongly recommended the
transaction, Plaintiff made the loan. He did so in reliance on the
assurances of Hamre to the effect that both Hamre and Sturges were
"ethical" Scientologists and could be trusted. However, Sturges
defaulted after one payment and never repaid the loan. Hamre's urging to
Plaintiff to enter into the transaction was made in his capacity as
registrar, and as an authorized agent for the Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission and as an authorized agent of the enterprise of
Scientology, and was solely designed to provide Sturges a method by
which he could obtain funds to donate to the enterprise of Scientology
or pay for its products and services.
53. On two occasions, Plaintiff submitted paperwork to Defendant, Church
of Scientology Mission of Buenaventura in an effort to have WISE
arbitrate his claim against Sturges; however, after each occasion,
Plaintiff was informed his paperwork had been lost. Upon complaining to
WISE, Plaintiff was advised to obtain additional Scientology auditing
services.
54. Jim Hamre engaged in a continuing practice on behalf of the Mission
of Buenaventura and the Enterprise of Scientology of using Plaintiff as
a bank so as to enhance the revenue stream of the Church of Scientology
Mission of Buenaventura and his own personal "STATS" (statistics) as
registrar of the Mission. On multiple occasions when Mr. Hamre was
"regging" (Hard Selling) individuals who had no funds to purchase
Scientology goods or services, Mr. Hamre would pressure Plaintiff to
loan funds to the individual. Thus, the Mission would get paid for its
services, while Plaintiff would have to collect an unsecured loan. This
pattern and practice was known to Mr. Steiner, the Mission's owner and
approved and ratified by him.
55. In or about 1993, in response to one of Plaintiff's many complaints
about the failure of RC&A to pay him in accordance with the terms of the
contracts, Plaintiff was referred to an attorney for assistance. The
attorney, Defendant Brent Jones, was also a Scientologist dedicated to
the furtherance of Scientology pursuant to its "ethics" policy as
described in Paragraph 32 above. Accordingly, he advised Plaintiff that
the WISE arbitration procedure was in Plaintiff's best interests,
despite knowing that WISE's foremost concern was for the furtherance of
Scientology and not for the acquisition of justice for Plaintiff.
56. Upon undertaking the representation of Plaintiff, Defendant Jones
was fully apprised of Plaintiff's vehicular accident and ensuing mental
incapacity. Nevertheless, during the time when he was representing
Plaintiff before the WISE Charter Committee, Defendant Jones failed to
seek the appointment of a conservator or guardian to act on Plaintiff's
behalf. Instead, Jones repeatedly exploited and took advantage of
Plaintiff's vulnerable mental state.
57. In or about mid-1994, which was also during the course of his
representation of Plaintiff before the WISE Charter Committee, Defendant
Jones approached Plaintiff regarding a business venture in which Jones
was then involved, the breeding and sale of ostriches. Jones represented
to Plaintiff that he, Plaintiff, should invest in the venture, that if
he did so he would reap a sizeable return on his investment, and that
there was no need to seek independent advice about the viability or
advisability of going forward with the investment. Jones further advised
Plaintiff that he should act quickly so as not to miss out on the chance
to become involved with the venture. With Jones' representations in
mind, Plaintiff invested in the venture for the purchase of two ostrich
eggs to be harbored for incubation and subsequent maintenance with other
such ostriches on property owned by Jones.
58. Despite having paid for two ostrich eggs, when Plaintiff
subsequently visited the property of Jones to see them, Jones told him
he could not distinguish which of the several eggs then present belonged
to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Jones assured Plaintiff there was nothing to
worry about. Plaintiff, having complete trust in Jones, accepted Jones'
assurances.
59. Subsequently, after the ostrich eggs had hatched, Plaintiff again
visited the property owned by Jones where the ostriches were harbored.
At that time, Jones showed Plaintiff an open yard with many ostriches
standing about. Upon Plaintiff's inquiry about which of the live
ostriches belonged to him, Jones indicated he was unable to distinguish
between the ostriches; however, he nevertheless again assured Plaintiff
he had no reason to worry, and Plaintiff acquiesced.
60. Subsequently, Jones advised Plaintiff that, in order to assure the
maximum protection of the ostriches, it would be necessary to build a
pen on Jones' property where the ostriches could be contained. At Jones'
request, Plaintiff purchased the materials with his own funds and built
the pen himself on Jones' property.
61. Shortly after Plaintiff completed construction of the ostrich pen on
Jones' property, in or about late 1994, Jones advised Plaintiff, without
further explanation, that both of Plaintiff's ostriches had died.
62. In addition to the investment in Ostrich Farming in 1995, Defendant
Jones also convinced Plaintiff to invest $15,000 in a company Jones was
the President of, New Era Technologies. Plaintiff's entire investment in
New Era Technologies was lost when the company went bankrupt.
63. At various times during the course of his affiliation with
Defendants, Plaintiff, upon the insistence and urging of Defendants
and/or their authorized agents, paid money for Scientology products and
services by not only extracting funds from his personal accounts, but
also by charging them to his credit cards up to the maximum allowable
limits. Defendants, knowing that they were taking advantage of
Plaintiff's mental incapacity, sought to cover up their systematic
looting of Plaintiff's funds. Defendants instructed Plaintiff on
numerous occasions that he should purchase cashier's checks made out to
himself. Defendants would then have the Plaintiff endorse the cashiers
check on the back with his name in payment for Scientology "Services".
Also, at the urging of Defendants and/or their authorized agents,
Plaintiff was taught how to obtain funds by refinancing the two homes he
had purchased free and clear after receiving his lawsuit settlement
proceeds, and he tendered these funds to the Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission and/or Celebrity Center International and/or Church
of Scientology Flag Land Base. Plaintiff has subsequently been unable to
keep either of the two homes.
64. At various times, pursuant to the policies of the enterprise of
Scientology, Plaintiff was passed "up the Bridge to Total Freedom" by
the Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission so that he could receive
advanced "auditing" and other Scientology services and products at the
Celebrity Centre International facility in Los Angeles, California and
the Church of Scientology Flag Land Base also known as the Church of
Scientology Flag Service Organization in Clearwater, Florida. On the
occasions that Plaintiff was "passed up the Bridge to Total Freedom"
Plaintiff's records including his "preclear file" was also "passed up
the Bridge" thus each Scientology Organization selling products and
services to Plaintiff knew of Plaintiff's incapacity as alleged herein.
Plaintiff was obligated to pay for all Scientology products and Services
he received.
65. In furtherance of the policies of the enterprise of Scientology and
for the economic benefit of all Defendants with the exception of
Defendant Haley, the Defendants formulated a plan to unduly influence
Plaintiff by isolating and disconnecting him from the advice, protection
and support of those persons who would naturally be concerned with his
welfare and were not in full alignment with the goals, policies and
doctrines of the enterprise of Scientology. Defendants' plan of
isolation and disconnection of Plaintiff was carried out with full
knowledge of Plaintiff's limited capacity to manage his own affairs and
included, but was not limited to: 1) supplying the Plaintiff with
"instructions" for investment within the Scientology community; 2)
channeling Plaintiff away from the "Wog," (non-Scientology) justice
system and into the closed Scientology WISE justice system; 3) supplying
Plaintiff with a Scientology lawyer in order to divert him from
competent legal advice; 4) supplying him with a Scientology tax preparer
in order to monitor his funds and shield the extent to which Plaintiff's
resources were being depleted from examination by a "Wog" accountant; 5)
having his auditor, an agent and employee of the Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission and the enterprise of Scientology live in
Plaintiff's house for approximately a year and a half in order to
monitor Plaintiff's activities and contacts with others outside the
enterprise of Scientology.
66. Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Haley have acted to
conspire to commit the acts alleged herein. Defendants conspiracy had as
its purpose to unduly influence Plaintiff so as to the systematically
strip him of his assets for the benefit of the individual Defendants and
for the benefit of the enterprise of Scientology and to cover up
Defendants wrongdoing and to induce Plaintiff to forgo his legal rights
against the individual Defendants and the enterprise of Scientology.
Said conspiracy was and is ongoing and includes overt acts in
furtherance of said conspiracy through October of 1998.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against Defendants RC&A, Robert Cefail, Toli Cefail
and Michael Zetner)
67. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-18 and 32-45 and paragraph 66
above.
68. Defendants RC&A, Inc. Michael Zetner, Robert Cefail and Toli Cefail
have repeatedly and in an unjustified manner materially breached their
obligations under the contracts attached hereto as exhibits "A", "B" &
"C."
69. Defendants' breaches of their contractual obligations have never
been excused or waived by Plaintiff.
70. As a result of Defendants' material breach of contract Plaintiff has
been made to suffer and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence Against Defendant Church of Scientology Mission of
Buenaventura and Thomas Steiner only)
71. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-25, paragraphs 30-31 and
paragraph 64 and 66, above.
72. Defendants' fully and completely controlled Plaintiff at all times
while he was being counseled by means of auditing.
73. Defendants knew or should have known that in Plaintiff's impaired
mental state that counseling Plaintiff by means of auditing presented a
risk of injury to Plaintiff that was both predictable and unnecessary.
74. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in
dealing with Plaintiff's counseling thus causing Plaintiff to suffer
physical, emotional and mental damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fiduciary Abuse Against All Defendants, except Defendants RC&A, Robert
Cefail, Toli Cefail and Michael Zetner)
75. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-66, and 71-74 above.
76. Plaintiff is a dependent adult within the meaning of Welfare and
Institutions Code section 15610.23.
77. Each of the Defendants herein stood in a relationship of trust and
confidence to Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission, Tom Steiner, Celebrity Centre International,
Church of Scientology Flag Land Base, Church of Scientology Religious
Trust, and World Institute of Scientology Enterprises stood in a special
relationship to Plaintiff in that, individually and/or through their
agents, they represented to Plaintiff that they could and would provide
him with guidance, all in his best interests, and that, as
Scientologists, they were bound to do so according to the highest
ethical calling in the world; in saying these things to Plaintiff,
Defendants knew that Plaintiff would place especial trust and confidence
in them, and he did. These Defendants ratified, the acts of their
agents, including but not limited to Jim Hamre, as described herein
above.
78. Defendants Haley and Jones stood in a special relationship to
Plaintiff in that they served as Plaintiff's attorneys.
79. Defendant Valle stood in a special relationship to Plaintiff in that
he was referred to Plaintiff by Plaintiff's advisors at the Church of
Scientology Mission of Buenaventura to serve as Plaintiff's tax preparer
and financial advisor and thereby owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty of
care.
80. Plaintiff's expenditure of thousands of dollars each month on
Scientology products and services was done, in every instance, at the
instruction of Defendants Church of Scientology Buenaventura Mission,
Tom Steiner, Celebrity Center International, Church of Scientology Flag
Land Base and the Enterprise of Scientology, individually and/or by and
through their authorized representatives, who frequently and
relentlessly exhorted and directed Plaintiff to purchase said products
and services, despite knowing he was afflicted with a brain injury
rendering him of substantially limited capacity and unable to comprehend
the significance of his actions. In so doing, Defendants acted to
further their own pecuniary gain, in that each said Defendant obtained a
direct economic benefit from the Plaintiff's expenditure of funds for
Scientology products and services, to wit: each said Defendant received
an incremental financial benefit based upon the amount of money
Plaintiff spent on Scientology products and/or services.
81. In doing the things herein above alleged, Defendants Haley, Jones
and Valle disregarded their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as follows:
Defendant Haley knew, based upon the professional opinion relayed to him
by the neuropsychologist, Dr. Charles Frethiem, that Plaintiff's
impaired mental condition required that a conservator be appointed to
manage his affairs. Yet, Defendant Haley declined to seek such an
appointment in order to avoid the necessity of obtaining the approval of
a court of competent jurisdiction of the settlement of the claim, which
would almost certainly lead to a direct reduction of his fee.
82. Defendant Jones failed to pursue Plaintiff's claims against RC&A,
the Cefails and Zetner in such a way as to obtain, or attempt to obtain,
a fair forum; Defendant's failure in this regard demonstrated his
loyalty was to the Church of Scientology's policy to ensure maximum
funds for Scientology and that he had no comparative loyalty to his
client, the Plaintiff herein.
By doing so, Jones participated in exploiting Plaintiff's incapacity and
contributed to unduly influencing him.
83. Defendant Jones further acted to involve Plaintiff in dubious
business dealings, including direct dealings with Jones as alleged
herein above, without permitting Plaintiff to seek independent advice or
counsel and without obtaining a written waiver of Plaintiff's conflict
of interest; and in those dealings, Jones took unfair advantage of
Plaintiff.
84. Defendant Valle took unfair advantage of Plaintiff by extracting an
exorbitant fee each month in exchange for which he obtained and
continues to obtain de minimis payments from the Defendants Cefail and
RC&A. Further, despite representing to Plaintiff that he has made
efforts to obtain increased payments consistent with the true
obligations of said Defendants, Defendant Valle has in fact made no such
efforts, or any efforts he has made have been illusory. Defendant
Valle's conduct has been, and continues to be, designed to placate
Plaintiff and dissuade him from seeking remedies in an alternate forum.
85. Each Defendant was bound by its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff to act
with his best interests in mind. However, in doing the things herein
above alleged, the Defendants, and each of them, disregarded Plaintiff's
best interests by causing Plaintiff to act in accordance with their own
wishes, and to benefit themselves and not Plaintiff, thereby
misappropriating and/or diverting Plaintiff's funds in the furtherance
of Defendants' own pecuniary interests.
86. Defendants' acts as herein above alleged, were committed in reckless
disregard of Plaintiff's rights and were oppressive and malicious.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Constructive Fraud Against All Defendants)
87. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-86, above.
88. By virtue of the fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and
Defendants as set forth herein above, and especially because they knew
of Plaintiff's mental incapacity, Defendants owed Plaintiff the utmost
good faith and fairness in all matters pertaining to their financial
and/or legal advice to him.
89. Defendants, and each of them, were aware of Plaintiff's reliance
upon them for matters pertaining to his financial affairs. By virtue of
Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants, Defendants gained an advantage over
the Plaintiff in matters concerning his financial dealings.
90. Defendants, however, were not the least interested in the
Plaintiff's financial well being, but were motivated solely by
Defendants' own greed and desire for pecuniary gain.
91. As a result of the Defendants' constructive fraud, the Plaintiff has
been damaged as herein alleged.
92. As a further result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has incurred
and will incur attorney's fees and related expenses in an amount
according to proof.
93. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants' conduct was malicious and
oppressive, and was committed intentionally and in conscious disregard
of the rights of and perils to the Plaintiff.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation Against All Defendants Except
Defendant Haley)
94. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-93, above.
95. In representing to Plaintiff that Scientologists are the "most
ethical people on the planet," all Defendants with the exception of
Defendant Haley, individually and/or by and through their authorized
agents, knew Plaintiff would comprehend that statement, if at all,
according to the common English definition of the word "ethical." Thus,
Defendants' representations were false, since they used and meant the
word "ethical" according to its Scientology definition, which provides
that "ethical" actions are those which serve to advance Scientology.
96. In addition, Defendants' false representations to Plaintiff
included, but were not limited to the following: (1) that by receiving
auditing, Defendants would return Plaintiff to his pre-accident
condition; (2) that Plaintiff would be provided a fair, and conflict
free forum so that he could resolve grievances with other
Scientologists; (3) that Plaintiff would not be placed in investments
for the benefit of others; and, (4) that Plaintiff was eligible for
auditing under Scientology's internal rules.
97. Further, said Defendants knew, when inducing Plaintiff to join
and/or participate in WISE and use its arbitration procedure to air his
claim against the Cefails, Zetner and RC&A, that WISE also operates
according to the Scientology definition of "ethics" and is therefore
committed to performing in a way which will secure and preserve the
maximum resources for Scientology enterprises, even if, as was the case
with Plaintiff, it does not result in justice for the claimant.
98. Further, in representing to Plaintiff that the business investments
they recommended to him were sound, Defendants, either individually
and/or through their authorized agents, misrepresented the true facts,
which were that the investments were shams or designed to primarily
benefit the enterprise of Scientology.
99. In saying the things to Plaintiff as herein above alleged,
Defendants knew them to be untrue.
100. As a result of Defendants' fraud and deceit as stated herein,
Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' control and undue influence without
his knowledge or consent which exacerbated his preexisting mental
capacity.
101. The true facts were that said Defendants, individually and/or by
and through their authorized agents, intended to induce Plaintiff's
reliance on their false statements, in order to further their own
pecuniary interests and/or those of the Enterprise of Scientology at the
expense of Plaintiff.
102. Plaintiff, being of limited capacity as described herein,
reasonably relied on the statements, believing that Defendants were
acting in his best interests, as Defendants had induced him to do.
103. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' statements has caused him
injury in an amount according to proof, including inter alia, 1)
foregoing the opportunity to have his disputes heard in a fair forum; 2)
investing his funds in dubious, unsound schemes which ultimately
resulted in the loss of substantial sums; 3) the loss of his homes and
other property; and, 4) foregoing sound medical and psychological
treatment because of Defendants' representations that Scientology would
cure his mental and physical ills.
104. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants' conduct was malicious and
oppressive, and was committed intentionally and in conscious disregard
of the rights of and perils to the Plaintiff.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud - Concealment Against All Defendants)
105. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-104, above.
106. In making the representations to Plaintiff as herein above alleged,
Defendants concealed true facts which were material to the ability of
Plaintiff and/or his mother to act to preserve his welfare.
107. Defendants knew the information they withheld from Plaintiff would,
if disclosed to Plaintiff and/or his mother, be likely to result in
measures advantageous to Plaintiff but disadvantageous to Defendants'
pecuniary interests. Despite this, Defendants withheld the information
in order to induce Plaintiff's reliance.
108. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants to provide him with
information in accordance with his best interests, as they had ensured
him they would do, and, particularly because of his impaired mental
status, he had no reasonable basis for suspecting Defendants were
withholding material information from him.
109. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' representations, including
their material omissions, resulted in damage in an amount according to
proof.
110. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants' conduct was malicious and
oppressive, and was committed intentionally and in conscious disregard
of the rights of and perils to the Plaintiff.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants)
111. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-110, above.
112. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants' misconduct,
Plaintiff has been subjected to severe mental pain and suffering, all to
his general damage in an amount according to proof.
113. As a further legal and proximate result of Defendants' misconduct,
Plaintiff has incurred special damages in an amount according to proof.
114. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as herein above
alleged, was so vile, base, contemptible and loathsome that it would be
looked down upon and despised by ordinary, decent people. Since, despite
knowing the Plaintiff placed special trust and confidence in them,
Defendants have acted and/or are continuing to act in furtherance of
their own pecuniary interests, and in disregard of Plaintiff's
interests, their conduct constitutes despicable conduct that has
subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship; and, in so conducting
themselves, Defendants have acted in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's
rights, resulting in oppression to Plaintiff.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Business Practices Against All Defendants
except Defendant Valle)
115. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-114, above.
116. In the course of the conduct by Defendants Church of Scientology
Buenaventura Mission, Celebrity Center International, Church of
Scientology Flag Land Base, Church of Scientology Religious Trust,
Steiner, and/or their authorized agents on behalf of the Enterprise of
Scientology as herein above alleged have violated a number of laws,
including breaches of "common law" duties, statutes prohibiting such
conduct and a stipulation that, upon information and belief, was entered
into between the Founding Church of Scientology and the United States
Food and Drug Administration, prohibiting the Enterprise of Scientology
or its agents from representing to its members or members of the public
that use of an "E-meter" in Scientology activities would give rise to
medical benefits, including but not limited to cures for physical
ailments. Defendants Jones and Haley have violated rules of professional
conduct which bind attorneys in their dealings with Plaintiff.
Accordingly, said Defendants have engaged in unfair and fraudulent
business acts and practices as set forth in Business and Professions
Code section 17200.
117. Therefore, this Court should issue an injunction prohibiting
Defendants and each of them from engaging in such unfair and fraudulent
business acts and practices, as set forth in Plaintiff's prayer for
relief herein.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Professional Malpractice Against Defendants Haley, Jones and Valle)
118. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-117, above.
119. Defendants Haley, Jones and Valle owed Plaintiff the duty to use
such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of their
professions commonly possess and exercise.
120. In doing the things herein above alleged, said Defendants breached
their duties to Plaintiff by placing their pecuniary interests ahead of
his and thereby acting contrary to Plaintiff's best interests.
121. As a proximate and legal result of the acts of Defendants as herein
above alleged, Plaintiff has sustained actual damage in an amount
according to proof.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants Church of Scientology
Mission of Buenaventura; Tom Steiner; Celebrity Centre International;
Church of Scientology Flag Land Base)
122. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs1-31 and paragraphs 64 and 66.
123. Defendants' through their authorized agents, repeatedly represented
to Plaintiff that counseling by auditing was a safe counseling process
for Plaintiff to undergo and would not cause Plaintiff to suffer
physical reactions or emotional harm; that Plaintiff was an eligible
candidate for auditing under the governing policies of Scientology; that
auditing was a reliable, proven and efficient method of eliminating all
of Plaintiff's life problems including resolving Plaintiff's organic
brain damage.
124. Defendants representations as to auditing as set forth in paragraph
122 were not true and constituted misrepresentations of fact. Plaintiff
placed great reliance on Defendants repeated representations as to
auditing and believed them to be true.
125. As a result of Plaintiffs belief in Defendants misrepresentations
as to auditing Plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited
to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on auditing, wasting
hundreds if not thousands of hours of time and experienced abnormal
physical reactions and effects, emotional distress and mental pain and
anguish.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Rescission and Restitution Against Defendants Church of Scientology
Religious Trust; Church of Scientology Mission of Buenaventura; Church
of Scientology Flag Land Base; Church of Scientology and Celebrity
Centre International)
126. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-45 and paragraph 66 above.
127. At various times from 1986 through 1997 Plaintiff was "regged" by
Defendants on a regular basis to contract to purchase various
Scientology services and to "donate" funds to Scientology entities.
128. At the time Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the contracts to
purchase Scientology goods and services and to make donations to
Scientology entities, Plaintiff was a person of unsound mind,
substantially unable to manage his own financial resources to resist
fraud or undue influence.
129. On March 1, 1999, Plaintiff was adjudicated incompetent to handle
his own affairs by the order of the Superior Court of Ventura County in
case No. P 73699.
130. Plaintiff has been damaged in that he parted with sums in an
unknown amount but estimated to be between $700,000 and $1,100,000.00
for Scientology products, services and donations. Said sums then
represented between one half and two thirds of his entire net worth. The
Scientology services and products purchased by Plaintiff had absolutely
no monetary value to Plaintiff in his incompetent condition.
131. Plaintiff intends service of the complaint in this action to serve
as notice of rescission of the various contracts for the purchase of
Scientology goods and services and for the donation of sums to
Scientology entities. Plaintiff hereby offers to return all
considerations furnished by Defendant under the various contracts, on
condition that Defendants account to the Plaintiff for all consideration
paid by the Plaintiff and restore to Plaintiff the consideration
furnished by him to Defendants as well as interest on the sums Plaintiff
paid as consideration from the date received by Defendants.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Constructive Trust and Order of Conveyance Against Defendant Church of
Scientology Religious Trust)
132. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1-45, paragraph 66 and paragraphs
126-131.
133. In December 1991 Plaintiff was in possession of the sum of
$100,000. As a portion of the consideration for the contract to purchase
an interest in jailhouse telephones as set forth in Exhibit "C" attached
hereto Plaintiff was prevailed on to transfer said sum of $100,000 to
Defendant Church of Scientology Religious Trust by Jim Hamre and Michael
Zetner who were acting as agents of the enterprise of Scientology and
the Defendant Church of Scientology Religious Trust. Plaintiff transfer
of the sum of $100,000 to Defendant Church of Scientology Religious
Trust was accomplished by the exercise of fraud and undue influence on
Plaintiff who was of unsound mind.
134. Defendant Church of Scientology Religious Trust gained an unfair
advantage over Plaintiff who trusted in Defendants' agents as ethical
persons and believed that the transfer of funds was being effected as a
portion of his investment in a jailhouse telephone scheme that would
generate income to Plaintiff as promised by the Defendants' agents.
135. But for the fraud and undue influence exercised over Plaintiff,
Plaintiff would never have transferred said funds to Defendant.
136. By virtue of Defendants' acquisition and detention of Plaintiff's
property through undue influence and fraud as alleged above, Defendant
holds said $100,000 as a constructive trustee for Plaintiffs benefit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:
1. For general and special damages according to proof at trial;
2. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in
the practices as alleged and such other equitable remedies caused by
these practices;
3. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code section 15657 and the applicable provisions of the Business and
Professions Code;
4. For punitive damages against Defendants Steiner, Haley, Jones and
Valle. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to allege punitive damages,
pursuant to C.C.P. ß 425.14 against Defendants Church of Scientology
Mission of Buenaventura, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre, World
Institute of Scientology Enterprises, Church of Scientology Flag Land
Base, also known as Flag Service Organization and Church of Scientology
Religious Trust;
5. For an award of treble damages pursuant to C.C.P. ß 3345.
6. For an order that Defendant Church of Scientology Religious Trust
hold the sum of $100,000 in trust for the Plaintiff;
7. For an order-compelling Defendant Church of Scientology Religious
Trust to return to Plaintiff the sum of $100,000;
8. For an order that all contracts entered into between Plaintiff and
Defendants Church of Scientology Religious Trust; Church of Scientology
Mission of Buenaventura; Church of Scientology Flag Land Base and Church
of Scientology Celebrity Centre International for the donation of funds
to Scientology entities or the purchase of Scientology goods and
services be rescinded;
9. That Defendants Church of Scientology Religious Trust; Church of
Scientology Mission of Buenaventura; Church of Scientology Flag land
Base and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre international be ordered
to account to Plaintiff for all sums received from Plaintiff for
donations to Scientology or the purchase of Scientology goods and
services;
10. That Defendants Church of Scientology Religious Trust; Church of
Scientology Mission of Buenaventura; Church of Scientology Flag Land
Base; and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International be
ordered to pay to Plaintiff the total amount paid by Plaintiff to said
Defendants plus interest for the purchase of Scientology goods and
services and donations to Scientology entities;
11. For civil penalties pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 17206.1;
12. For Interest on damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 3287 and
3288;
13. For costs of suit herein; and,
14. For such other or further relief as the Court may deem proper.
DATED: May 26, 1999
LEIPOLD, DONOHUE & SHIPE, LLP
By:______________________
DANIEL A. LEIPOLD
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
RAUL LOPEZ, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem ALICIA LOPEZ
HUB LAW OFFICES
By:______________________
FORD GREENE
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
RAUL LOPEZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem ALICIA LOPEZ