*1 No. 25038. Oct. 1988.] [S.F. Plaintiff, MOLKO, Cross-defendant and Appellant;
DAVID LEAL, TRACY Plaintiff and Appellant, OF FOR THE UNIFICATION
HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION Defendants, al., Cross-complainants CHRISTIANITY et WORLD Appellants; MAXWELL, and Respondent. Cross-defendant
NEIL *8 Counsel Rennert, Greene, Stanley Lynn M. & Carl Shapiro Shapiro, Shapiro,
Ford Whelan, Leal, Leal, and Leal & Davilla Kelly, F. Davilla & Kelly, Olimpia, Plaintiff, and Kelly, Appellant, & Cross-defendant Leal Olimpia and Respondent. Plaintiff and and Cross-defendant Appellant Dorskind, Ross, Friedman, and Jeffrey S. James A. Sloan & Ross Lawrence Defendants, A. Cross-complainants Appellants. Gibbs for Morantz, Wiener, Kwalwasser, D. Tuttle Paul Taylor, Harold J. Robin & Jackson, MacDonald, Philibosian, & B. Halsted Robert H. Morton McKenzie, Ennis, Bersoff, & J. N. Kit Laybourne, Baker Bruce Donald Bersoff, Woodruff, Adelman-Pierson, Ennis, J. Friedman & Michael Ericsson, Paulsen, W. A. Heidi S. Earl Hagerman, Samuel E. Michael Trent, Jr., Remcho, Purcell as Amici Johansen & Curiae.
Opinion whether, MOSK, J. This case with the consistently raises three issues: free clause of First of the United States Constitu exercise Amendment Constitution, I, mem tion of article section of the California former may on causes religious organization organization bers of a sue various arising allegedly deceptive practices; of action out of its recruitment may a former member and organization against whether the cross-complain statutes; civil under others for its federal state allegedly violating rights *9 an inten- indemnity and whether California’s doctrine equitable permits indemnity from concurrent intentional tortfea- tional tortfeasor to obtain sors on a fault basis. comparative are Tracy David Molko and Leal former members of
Appellants Church, Church.1 they Unification While members of the were on separate forcibly occasions abducted from a street third and “de- public parties their programmed”—i.e., belief and association persuaded relinquish the Church. with Thereafter Molko and Leal filed the action present against Church, fraudulently had been induced to alleging join the Church variety through tactics on the of some of its members. deceptive part deceit, Molko and Leal each asserted causes of action for fraud and inten- distress, tional infliction of emotional and false Molko also imprisonment. $6,000 sought restitution of a he gift alleged the Church obtained him from by undue influence.
The Church filed a first amended cross-complaint and Neil against Molko Maxwell,2 their alleging deprogramming activities violated the Church’s federal Code, and state civil rights.3 (42 51.7, U.S.C. Civ. 1985(3); 52.) § §§ The Church also sued Maxwell for full or partial indemnity, on the theory Maxwell, Molko, kidnapping deprogramming had wholly or partially any caused damages for which the Church might be found liable to Molko.
The court granted summary judgment for the Church in the action Leal, brought Molko and and entered a judgment of dismissal for Molko after sustaining his demurrer without leave to amend as to the Church’s amended cross-complaint him. against Similarly, the court entered a judg- ment of dismissal for Maxwell after his sustaining demurrer without leave to amend as to the Church’s amended him. cross-complaint against
Molko and Leal from the appealed summary for judgment the Church. The Church from the cross-appealed Molko, judgment of dismissal for appealed from the judgment of dismissal for Maxwell and Alexander. The 1 We use the names “Unification Church” and collectively “the Church” to refer to the Holy Spirit Association for the Christianity Unification of World and New Education Devel Systems, opment organizations entities, Inc. While the two apparently separate are we need not differentiate purposes between them opinion. of this cross-complaint Alexander, Sr., 2 The Leal, Joseph Stanley also named Mabry, Virginia F. Judy Powell as parties cross-defendants. Those are present not involved in the appeal. Molko, alleged 3 The Church after deprogramming, his own became involved in kid napping deprogramming other Church members. summary it affirmed the all appeals; consolidated Appeal
Court of Church, Mol- of dismissal for the judgments but reversed judgment for the *10 to Maxwell, and Leal ko, by Molko granted petitions We and Alexander. Church, Max- and the summary of for judgment the affirmance review dismissal.4 judgment of his of well review the reversal to the summary the for judgment conclude that As we appear, will imprisonment of action for false affirmed as to the cause should be fraud, infliction of for intentional as of action but reversed to causes restitution, distress, of reversal judgment and and of emotional be affirmed. for Maxwell should dismissal
I. Facts as A. Facts to David Molko5 Universi- graduated Temple
In David from 27-year-old June 1978 Molko Pennsylvania bar and ty A month later he took passed School Law. successes, he was unsure about educational examination. In these spite California, to San and decided visit moving his He considered future. Francisco, He bar examination. job to find a or take the California perhaps early January in arrived in San Francisco 1979. Mol- Mark and Ernest Patton Sunday, January approached
On Bush in San Bush and Patton told Molko ko as he waited at a bus Francisco. stop socially they community” lived in an “international conscious people in the to discuss evenings important from different who met occupations They to come dinner that Molko asked еvening. issues. invited Molko they two was told did work and worked with their and social occupations if Bush and Patton had a “religious environmental He asked programs. Bush Patton did not reveal to Molko that They connection.” said “no.” and Church, they of the or that their purpose were members Unification him him into the inviting him and to dinner was recruit approaching Church. dinner, there attended the at which to be number appeared
Molko He guests. during other invited was from the other and kept apart guests, judgments sought of dis Neither Molko nor Alexander review of reversals their missal. Leal, Molko, Leal, testimony Tracy stipulated deposition Church have that the and the Molko, Leal, Patton, Zeilinski, Stanley was David F. Collette Ernest Gibbs Jr.—which summary extensively quoted papers supporting opposing motion for Church’s judicial judgment—be appeal. transcript Accordingly, in the we take no included clerk’s on transcripts part purposes ap deposition tice the record of this of the consider them Code, (Evid. (d).) peal. subd. § dinner members. After group dinner was held constant conversation with by a show on there on followed slide general problems, was a lecture social north, at the owned the group “Boonville”—a “farm” a few hours to Boonville a rural where getaway people house. The slide show depicted When the from the house went for relaxation pleasure. presentation Bush, concluded, all the farm. the dinner were invited visit guests Patton, member, Molko to strongly urged and another David group Hager, invitation, be in a and told him van would for Boonville accept leaving him, few Molko said he no and he personal belongings minutes. had with preferred to think about it. The members assured him would group *11 needs, for all his to provide again urged go. and him this Impressed enthusiasm, hospitality finally and Molko At their he agreed go. request name, address, then filled out and a signed declaring form his and telephone number,6 way and 15 minutes later in a van He was on his to Boonville. did and not facility know was told Boonville was an indoctrination for the Unification Church.
The van arrived at Boonville several later. given hours Molko was a sleeping bag and shown to a shelter where already others were He sleeping. quickly fell and asleep, awoke the next to discover morning many more than the 12 people just from van the were in the large room. When sleeping bathroom, he arose and walked to the a member group arose and walked went, with him. Wherever he a him. group member accompanied Molko expected some relaxed spend time the but country, soon learned the day’s schedule tightly was and left planned him no time to calisthenics, breakfast, himself. First came group then then lecture on issues, moral and ethical followed small the group discussions of lecture. lunch, exercise, discussion, Next came more another and lecture then a dinner, break to take a shower. came Finally “testimonials” individuals about their Boonville, lives and their day of the impressions and group singing by yet followed another small discussion. At end of group day Molko was exhausted quickly and fell asleep.
Tuesday Monday, was repeat Molko except that became acquainted with member group Bethie Rubenstein. He asked her the name of the and group, she told him it was Community Project.” “Creative He asked if the was group associated with any and religious organization, she By tired, told him “no.” Tuesday, end of Molko was uncomfortable and 6The Church program claims form identified the being at Boonville as associated with the Unification Church. acknowledged Molko claims did not. Appeal Court this dispute, created a factual dispute but deemed the immaterial because of the conclusions the holding summary court reached judgment. the Church was entitled to Because we reach conclusions, not, seen, different we do be dispute as will find the immaterial. Patton He informed and life was taking. the direction his
concerned about him he was free to They Francisco. told to return to San he desired Bush but morning, in the at three o’clock that a bus would depart leave and that would hear the information stay important him to urged strongly a little stay longer. on days agreed Molko be in the to come. discussed Tuesday—even exactly Monday like Wednesday Thursday were spoke The lecturers verbatim. two-day cycle repeated lectures was God references to social and included brotherly love and problems, Molko informed Wednesday, Rubenstein some amount of On prayer. sources, including Aris- many derived from teachings philosophical group’s totle, Jefferson, not disclose that Moon. She did Myung and Reverend Sun was leader. group’s spiritual Reverend Moon leave Boonville was about to Friday night, group On Molko was told Molko retreat used on weekends. K”—another “Camp group-owned Francisco, urged give return but again said he wanted to to San K, *12 days. Camp and made the to still trip a few more He group agreed Church. of his involvement with Unification oblivious both the throughout continued regimen The exercise-lecture-discussion Boonville, during at K week back at Camp following weekend and of his became disoriented and future. increasingly despairing which Molko once Friday—his day group activity—Molko again On 12th continuous any Finally, was with a larger organization. asked if the involved group him the time that the was group member named Gloria revealed to for first and but in- angry, of the Unification Church. He was confused was part negative because who had heard necessary formed the deception people knew the the Church to be if unreceptive group’s stories about tended try He and to work identity hearing say. agreed stay before what it had to to out his confusion. K, returned he approximately
That he to where remained for night Camp The and five weeks of same structure training.” regimen to seven “advanced welfare, this about his period. continued Molko’s concerned during parents, week, in a February They stayed Florida late to talk to him. but flew from hours, only only in of Church presence saw their son for a few briefly, The him come but he refused. members. to home parents urged were by taught agents this time had been his parents Molko—who by away to him from the Church—was confused trying tempt Satan visit, parents but remained with the Church. His returned Florida. K, ready judged Molko was training Camp his advanced finishing On Shortly for the Church. and “witness”7 city to sell flowers go back to des- thereafter, Molko the Church Church leaders told early in two April, taxes, money. him He donated give urged needed funds for perately $6,000 he also became formal this during period to the Church. Sometime Church member. by Church most becom- Molko he could help
Church leaders advised bar, his that the Church would for pay a member of the ing promised for and took the California bar bar course. He and studied agreed, review San house. As he left while in the Church’s Francisco living examination examination, however, Molko was abducted and the final session of the bar days taken hired his After three parents. to motel “deprogrammers” with the Unification Molko terminated his association deprogramming, Church.
B. Facts as Leal Tracy
In June 19-year-old Tracy year Leal her freshman at San completed Diego University. State She had found the she college large impersonal; considered to Humboldt State transferring University northern Califor- nia, but desired to visit the school before admission. To applying end she a bus ticket to Humboldt and set 7. bought Sunday, out on June trip required changing busses San Frаncisco. Francisco,
While waiting for her bus San Leal was approached *13 Zielinski, Unification Church member Collette who was for the witnessing Church. Zielinski told Leal she was for a friend from waiting arriving Switzerland. Leal always remarked that she loved to ski and had wanted to go to Switzerland. Zielinski said her friend a was also skier and perhaps Leal would like to talk to her. Church member Bradford Parker then arrived, and Zielinski and Parker told Leal in they about the house which lived. They they said were of the “Creative part Community Project,” described as a socially concerned group professional people involved good They works such as food to the invited Leal giving poor. to have lunch them, and go sightseeing join with then them for dinner at the They house. Leal assured she could catch another bus to Humboldt later that evening. if Leal asked Zielinski and Parker were of a part religious and said group, they she did not want to involved with them if were. get They only replied 7“Witnessing” process recruiting name is Unification Church’s for the new members Patton, example, witnessing they persuaded on the street. Bush and were when Molko to come to dinner. Open witnessing employed religious and candid other denominations. back- “all came from different group in their people invitation. Leal their
grounds.” accepted Like David house for dinner. group’s Leal went to the evening That Molko, held con- guests from other dinner and was apart she was kept lecture, saw Church members. She heard same stant conversation with Boonville, there. same invitation to go the slide show on and received the form,8 invitation, a the same kind of few signed She accepted Molko, not know the bus to Boonville. Like she did minutes later was on Church. Boonville was of the Unification part regi- Leal the same exercise-lecture-discussion experienced At Boonville at Tuesday, day received five earlier. On her second men Molko months Boonville, Joshua, asked a codirector of the whether the camp, group she they whether were religious organization, specifically was part Moonies, they but were a form of Chris- “Moonies.” Joshua said were said, however, they tian He about it for a while” group. “keeping quiet were they away. did not want to frighten people because Boonville, days After two at Leal went for a two-week seminar at Camp K. this she the same of doubts and fears as During period experienced type weeks, had Molko. At the end of the two she asked Zielinski and again Parker if the of the Moonies.” assured her it organization “part They that, Moonies, they they was not. Later that added while evening were not some later— teachings days did follow of Reverend Moon. Five twenty-two days after Leal the bus informed Leal recruiting depot—they they were fact of the Unification Church. part Leal identity. remained with after its the next group learning During months her visited her family away two and tried to convince her to get from the Church for while. She told her she would not leave the parents them being house with for fear of abducted and On deprogrammed. Septem- Boulder, Colorado, ber Leal flew to for a month-long series of advanced lectures, at the conclusion of which she became a formal Church member. *14 From Boulder she went to Los where she street Angeles, sold flowers on the 29, money to raise for the Church. On October Leal was abducted from a Los Angeles street hired her The deprogrammers parents. depro- successfully Leal to abandon her the grammers persuaded association with Unification Church. 8 signed identify Leal the states form she did not the Church. She Unification took to be trip
some kind of “hold harmless” form for the to Boonville.
1107 II. and Deceit Fraud
A. Standard Review of if papers all the summary granted “shall be judgment
A motion for material fact and any triable issue as to show that there is no submitted Civ. (Code a as a matter of law.” judgment is entitled to moving the party Proc., 437c, summary is to judgment The (c).) purpose subd. § ascertain, by means of and to evasive language adept pleading penetrate affidavits, v. Bank (Chern of fact. or absence of triable issues presence 110, 866, 1310].) 544 P.2d 15 873 (1976) Cal.Rptr. America Cal.3d [127 a for sum the function the trial court in on motion Accordingly, ruling exist, issues of fact mary merely is to determine whether such judgment 18 (1941) decide the themselves. v. Walsh (Walsh not to merits of issues 439, 441 62].) Cal.2d P.2d [116
Summary is a drastic measure that judgment deprives losing party 18, a trial on the v. 38 35 (Mann (1985) merits. Cracchiolo Cal.3d [210 762, caution, 1134].) 694 P.2d It should therefore be used with so Cal.Rptr. that it a v. (Rowland (1968) does become substitute for trial. Christian 108, 97, 561, Cal.2d 496].) 69 111 443 P.2d 32 A.L.R.3d Cal.Rptr. [70 construed, affidavits of the should be moving party strictly those of v. opponent liberally (Stationers construed. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (1965) 412, 449, 62 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. 785].) Any 398 P.2d doubts as to [42 in propriety granting motion should be resolved favor of the party v. opposing motion. Western Travelers Ins. Co. (Slobojan (1969) Life 432, 895, Cal.2d 450 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 271].) A defendant summary is entitled to if the judgment record estab lishes as a matter of law that none of the asserted causes of action plaintiff’s Bradstreet, can v. prevail. (Stationers Dun & Corp. Cal. 2d at succeed, To p. 417.) conclusively necessary the defendant must a negate case, element of the that under plaintiff’s demonstrate no is hypothesis a there material issue of fact that (Ibid.) trial. We requires process summary shall examine the in grant judgment this case with the forego standard in mind.9 ing argues Digest Superior 9 The Church that under Reader’s Assn. Court 37 Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 610], summary judgment 690 P.2d should be deemed a “favored remedy” and viewed under a standard more favorable to the Church because the case in religious rights. suggestions
volves the exercise of While similar have been made elsewhere (see Religious Applying Balancing Torts: the Consent Doctrine as Comment Definitional 972-973), 19 U.C. L. Rev. Davis we decline the Church’s invitation to elevate Digest, higher summary standard here. As we judgment stated Reader’s standard for necessary requires defamation cases because verdict such actions actual malice be *15 (37 252.) convincing necessity shown clear and evidence. Cal.3d at No such exists here. 1108 the Fraud Claim
B. Nature of are: necessary (1) misrepresentation (false of fraud elements concealment, falsity knowledge nondisclosure); (2) or representation, justifiable reli reliance); (4) to induce (i.e., intent to defraud (scienter); (3) 409, Cal.2d 414 v. Odell 18 (1941) ance; resulting damage. (Seeger and (5) 977, mem specified Molko and Leal contend 1291].) 136 A.L.R. P.2d [115 the Church’s knowingly Unification misrepresented of the Church bers and associate with ulti intent each of them to identity with the to induce they justifiably contend Church. and Leal further mately join the Molko to agreeing participate misrepresentations unknowingly relied on those activities, damage financial as psychological suffered Church. in the Unification their involvement with membership result of Church had to with the they would not have chosen associate They state its true they identity. known knowingly members mis- purposes
The Church concedes for its pleading Molko Leal. It further concedes identity the Church’s to represented Molko and Leal the intent to induce were made with misrepresentations recruiters and to continue participating first to associate with Church later Nor, finally, does the Church contest claims plaintiffs’ in Church activities. a result of their involvement with Church. they damages suffered contends, however, summary judgment that it is The Church entitled conclusively negate justifiable facts the element undisputed because reliance. or
Justifiable reliance exists when nondisclo misrepresentation alters his legal sure an immediate of the conduct which plaintiff’s cause relations, and when such or nondisclosure he misrepresentation without not, in all have into the contract or would reasonable entered probability, (Wennerholm v. Med. (1942) other transaction. Univ. Sch. Stanford 522, 713, A.L.R. v. Clark 1358]; P.2d Spinks Cal.2d [128 P. 147 Cal. The Church contends that because Molko and 45].) members, identity formal prior becoming Leal learned the Church’s true “cured” and Molko and Leal could have misrepresentations were join relied on them in the Church. Neet v. justifiably deciding (See, e.g., 25 Cal.2d P.2d went ahead Holmes who [plaintiff 854] with transaction after true facts “waived the learning fraud”].) they identity and Leal aware of the Church’s at the
Molko admit were However, they formally joined. time contend that the time the identity, Church disclosed its true the Church’s had rendered them agents Church, them, deciding not to without join subjecting incapable consent, their or an intense coercive knowledge program persuasion *16 contend, words, that the Church deceived They mind control.10 other “brainwashed,” they be and that the setting them into which could them the truth after telling Church could not then “cure” the deception and Leal there- involuntary their indoctrination was Molko accomplished.11 that a fact as to whether the Church fore contend triable issue of remains them If disclosing identity. brainwashed its the answer is prior affirmative, they they justifiable have established reliance. urge,
Although Molko and Leal are far from the first to advance a brainwash- ing theory a case recruitment and indoctrination involving religious (see, Katz v. e.g., Court Superior (1977) 234]; Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. Holy Meroni v. Assn. Spirit Misc.2d 1061 N.Y.S.2d 706]; Orlando v. Alamo (8th 1288; Cir. 646 F.2d Turner v. 1981) Unification Church Cir. (1st 1979) 458; 602 F.2d Lewis v. Holy Ass’n Spirit (D.Mass 10; 1983) 589 F.Supp. Schuppin Unification Unification (D.Vt. 1977) 435 603), they are the F.Supp. first to do so in this court. We therefore find it appropriate briefly review the concept brainwashing. is “a forcible
Brainwashing indoctrination to induce someone to give social, basic up political, beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented (Webster’s ideas.” Ninth New Collegiate Diet. 175.) The methods of specific vary, indoctrination but the basic theory is that brainwashing “is fostered through creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to and suggestion manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cogni dissonance, tive and a peer pressure, clear authority assertion of and domin ion. The aftermath of indoctrination ais severe impairment autonomy the ability to think independently, which induces a subject’s un [of] yielding connections, compliance affiliations, and the rupture of past associations.” (Peterson v. Sorlien (Minn. 1981) 299 N.W.2d 126 [11 A.L.R.4th 208].)
The brainwashing concept controversial. Some highly au respected thorities conclude brainwashing remarkably exists and is (See, effective. e.g., Lifton, Thought Schein, Reform and the Psychology Totalism (1961); Coercive Persuasion (1961).) Some commentators additionally conclude that certain religious groups use brainwashing techniques to recruit and control,” 10 We persuasion,” use the terms “coercive “brainwashing” “mind inter changeably to refer to the procedures intense indoctrination discussed herein. Appeal 11 TheCourt of mischaracterized the fraud plaintiffs’ claims when it stated that was, “they justifiably contention representations they relied on knew to be untrue because representations those who made the stripped false first independent of their [Molko Leal] (Italics judgment.” added.) The contention justifiably is rather that Molko and Leal relied on true, representations they believed to be subjected and as a result were process to a which stripped independent were their judgment. *17 and Un Gentle Totalism: Religious Delgado, (See, e.g., members. control 1, 3- 51 So.Cal.L.Rev. (1977) Amendment the First Under Persuasion gentle (1980) Cults Rudin, Religious The New or Paradise? Prison 9; Rudin & Theory, Research al., Cult Conversion: Destructive 20-25; Clark et pp. brain the existence of have recognized Courts 1-15.) (1979) pp. Treatment Sorlien, N.W.2d at supra, v. Peterson settings. (See in washing Assn., 1061, 1067.) 125 Misc.2d Holy supra, 126; Spirit Meroni either does brainwashing believe contrary, other authorities To the Coleman, Control Mind Myth and the Religions New at all (see exist combined only effective when or is 323) J. Orthopsychiatry Am. (1984) The Mind & Scheflin (see Opton, restraint abuse or physical with physical controversy; we need We need not resolve 23). (1978) p. Manipulators the conclu- differing compels of such views that the existence only conclude a factual theory question—viz., indeed raises and Leal’s sion that Molko brainwashed—which, if not prohibited and Leal were whether Molko considerations, summary judgment grant precludes other Church. Declarations Singer/Benson
C. The introduce the and Leal theory, sought In of their Molko support Dr. Sam- Singer psychiatrist Dr. Margaret of psychologist declarations by religious and its use are on coercive persuasion uel Benson. Both experts Leal, and stated examined Molko and Drs. and Benson Singer groups. the Unification Church’s they sophisticated that believed their declarations exer- Molko and Leal incapable had rendered techniques indoctrination upon or of judgment, responding independently their own will and cising recruitment. deceptive of their learning ruled the and Benson declara- Singer
The court and Court of Appeal trial testimony that the doctors’ conflicted grounds inadmissible on the tions the declarations would (2) introducing that of Molko and Leal and with clause of the First Amendment. forbidden the free exercise raise inquiries We with both conclusions. disagree that found a conflict between statements plaintiffs’ courts below concerns and anxi- the Church because it satisfied
they joined “personal that it was una- plaintiffs’ and Benson’s statements (2) Singer’s eties” and no stay. that caused them to We identity perceive of the Church’s wareness First, is that it very theory persuasion oper- conflict. of coercive such ates, and anxi- subject’s concerns personal first part, amplifying (Schein, a means of them. Coercive satisfying eties and then providing Second, Persuasion, the mere fact that the Church 117-258.) pp. conclusively and anxieties does not concerns plaintiffs’ personal addressed necessarily and Leal would have chosen to associate establish Molko Thus, in the they identity. its viewed most light with the Church had known Leal, sets of statements are consistent with favorable Molko both they were were then deceived into situation which contention not, are Singer/Benson declarations Accordingly, brainwashed. *18 v. the rule in D’Amico Board argues, made inadmissible of 1, 786, 21 520
Medical Examiners Cal.3d P.2d (1974) Cal.Rptr. 10]. [112 The the Singer courts below also held that and Benson declarations raised not under free questions allowable exercise clause of the First Amend- ment to United States will disagree, Constitution. We for reasons we momentarily. discuss
First, however, we must in place the constitutional discussion the correct The perspective. theory Court declared that Appeal Molko and Leal’s entirely” on the Singer and Benson it declarations. Accordingly, “rest[ed] framed its in discussion terms of whether the declarations’ admission would run afoul of the First Amendment. While reach we the same issues under Constitutions, both the federal state do we so terms not of the declarations, but of the brainwashing theory itself. Although Singer Benson declarations a scientific provide basis for and lend support plain- tiffs’ theory, we find that brainwashing theory the basic amply stated Therefore, own plaintiffs’ if declarations.12 even arguendo declarations excluded,13 correctly were their exclusion not brainwashing does affect the theory for purposes summary judgment. Molko and Leal have an stated fact; issue if the issue survives it analysis, constitutional must defeat summary judgment on their actions for fraud. 12Molko, example, my for spirit “I felt stated: of free will had been broken total ab [the] world, sence rigid of contact with the program outside going indoctrination which I was daily, through inability any my and the to make decision on own.” He stated also the Church subjected “psychological him to manipulation.” and emotional Leal stated: “While I had no Moonie, becoming my
intention ever retrospect, ability freely I feel that I lost stay choose whether or not I group.” wished to with the “pretty She also described herself as Boonville, thoroughly day her indoctrinated” fourth and as “robot-like.” These state ments, incorporated pleadings, from documents liberally pur into must be construed for poses contesting summary judgment. (Gray motion Cal.App.3d Reeves construed, Cal.Rptr. 716].) support So amply Molko and Leal’s coercive persuasion theory. excluded, contending In properly argu declarations were the Church offers several Appeal, (Cal. ments it did not raise in Court and which we therefore do not reach. Court, 29(b).) Rules of rule Issues
D. Constitutional Principles
1. Applicable United States provides of the Constitution The Amendment to the First religion, an establishment respecting make no law shall “Congress very .” two . . The creates provision thereof. the free exercise prohibiting govern- guarantees clause” “establishment different protections. us; guarantees the “free exercise” clause religion on ment will not impose we any religion freely not us from prevent pursuing will government choose. did only Congress, originally refers the First Amendment
Because
Orleans
(See,
Permoli v. New
e.g.,
local governments.
to state and
apply
589, 610
How.)
[upholding
L.Ed.
(3
44 U.S.
748-749]
*19
against exposing
for
ordinance
priest
violating
Catholic
conviction of
mass].)
at a funeral
he blessed the deceased
view when
corpses
public
Amendment, and
the
the
War the states ratified
Fourteenth
After
Civil
made
free exercise and establish-
Court
Supreme
thereto the
pursuant
v. Board
(Everson
the states.
federally
against
ment clauses
enforceable
504,
719-720,
1,
711,
168
L.Ed.2d
67 S.Ct.
330 U.S.
8
Education (1947)
[91
296, 303-304
v.
310 U.S.
(1940)
A.L.R.
Cantwell
Connecticut
1392];
[84
1217-1218,
900,
1213,
California free exercise guarantees Const., I, 4.) stitution. art. (Cal. § only belief. religious claims rooted religion
The clauses protect 205, 25, 15, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Yoder 406 U.S. 215 92 (1972) v. (Wisconsin [32 absolutely. (Cant- beliefs 1526].) religious The free exercise clause protеcts Connecticut, 1217- at 303-304 at pp. pp. well v. 310 U.S. L.Ed.2d supra, [84 beliefs, it sincerity can into the of a 1218].) person’s While a court inquire or those States v. Ballard may falsity (United the truth beliefs. judge 1148, 78, 1153-1155, 64 The 882].) 86-88 L.Ed. S.Ct. 322 U.S. (1944) [88 v. affirmation belief may religious (Torcaso neither of a government compel 987, 488, 982, 81 nor 1680]), 367 U.S. 495 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Watkins (1961) [6 reli individuals because of their against groups or discriminate or penalize 828, 67, v. Island 345 U.S. 70 L.Ed. (Fowler (1953) beliefs Rhode gious [97 831, 73 nor inhibit the dissemination 526]), taxing power S.Ct. use the 105, v. U.S. Pennsylvania (1943) views 319 religious (Murdock particular 870, 1292, 1300, 81]). 116 L.Ed. 63 S.Ct. 146 A.L.R. [87 However, absolutely religiously while protected, religious belief 398, 402-403 not. v. Verner 374 U.S. (1963) motivated conduct is (Sherbert
1113
965, 969-970,
v. Woody(1964)
L.Ed.2d
83 S.Ct.
61 Cal.2d
1790];People
[10
69,
716, 718
813].)
subject
394 P.2d
Such conduct “remains
Cal.Rptr.
[40
Connecticut,
v.
regulation
society.” (Cantwell
supra,
protection
Applying Court has Supreme allowed some *20 conduct to entirely be banned Reynolds v. (see, e.g., United States (1878) 98 145, 244, U.S. 166 L.Ed. [upholding against law polygamy]; [25 Prince 250] 158, v. 645, Massachusetts 321 (1944) 654-655, U.S. 170-171 L.Ed. 64 [88 S.Ct. [permitting state to from prohibit parents allowing their children 438] to distribute religious literature when necessary to protect children’s health and safety]), and some conduct to be in the face of compelled religious objections (see, e.g., 11, Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 38 [49 643, 654-655, L.Ed. 25 S.Ct. [upholding compulsory vaccinations for 358] diseases]; 252, communicable States Lee United v. U.S. (1982) 261 [71 455 127, 134-135, L.Ed.2d 102 S.Ct. mandatory [upholding participation 1051] of Security Amish in Social system]). conduct, banned,
Other religious though not has been (See, restricted. Consciousness, e.g., v. Society International Krishna (1981) Inc. Heffron for 640, 298, 310-311, 452 654 U.S. L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. [upholding law [69 2559] restricting sale and distribution literature and at state soliciting funds fair v. locations]; to booths at Cox specified New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 1049, 1053, 575 L.Ed. 61 S.Ct. license [upholding requirement [85 762] conduct, religious for Still other parades].) religious though not banned or restricted, Brown, (See, has been made costly. e.g., more v. Braunfield 599, 563, 366 605 U.S. L.Ed.2d Sunday [upholding [6 567-568] 1114 Jew must Orthodox who refrain law in of financial burden on spite
closing
University v.
well]; Bob Jones
United States
Saturday as
working
from
157, 181,
574,
103
[upholding
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
461 U.S.
604
(1983)
2017]
[76
motiva-
religiously
school
private
practicing
status to
tax-exempt
denial
v. Secty.
Alamo Foundation
discrimination]; Tony and Susan
ted racial
278, 290-291,
290,
105 S.Ct.
471 U.S.
305
L.Ed.2d
Labor (1985)
1953]
[85
to religious groups].)
minimum
laws
wage
applicable
[holding
recovery constitutes state action
sanctioning
While
of tort
judicial
to statutes
applicable
to invoke the
constitutional protections
sufficient
same
v.
376 U.S.
(New
(1964)
York Times Sullivan
and other
actions.
legislative
254,
686, 697-698,
710,
1412]),
A.L.R.2d
84 S.Ct.
95
265
L.Ed.2d
[11
settled,
It well
for
liability.
are
immune from all tort
is
religious
groups
in tort for
acts.
may be held liable
secular
religious groups
example,
356,
P.2d
Malloy
Fong (1951)
v.
37 Cal.2d
372
(See, e.g.,
[232
[reli
241]
Most relevant
driving by
liable for negligent
employee].)
gious corporation
here,
liability even
acts
recognize tort
cases courts will
appropriate
v. Driscoll
135
(See,
O’Moore
religiously
e.g.,
that are
motivated.
770,
his
against
superi
P.2d
action
[allowing priest’s
Cal.App.
438]
[28
his
for false
of their effort
obtain
confession
imprisonment
part
ors
(1975)
2. Fraud Claim Constitutional the issue,14 as a church is not at standing While the Unification Church’s “entirely and Leal contend the Church’s were misrepresentations Molko by clauses. We protected religion disagree. secular” and therefore not its misrepresentations and Leal claim the Church made Molko themselves Accord- “Heavenly in what they Deception.” because a belief describe standing Although religious Appeal, in he not the Church’s the Court did contest substance, argue, Unification not a bona fide reli seeks to in that the Church is Molko now may raise this doubtful contention for the first time gion because it is “dishonest.” He Court, (Cal. 29(b).) here. Rules of rule Leal, holds, essence, to Molko and that doctrine that it is ing acceptable to lie to in order him give opportunity someone to hear Reverend Moon’s As the Church’s teachings.15 alleged plaintiffs, deceptions, surface, although clearly secular on the are “rooted in belief.” Yoder, (Wisconsin v. 406 U.S. L.Ed.2d at While supra, p. 25].) this does not mean misrepresentations gov- such Church are immune from ernment any it does mean such must regulation, regulation survive constitu- scrutiny. tional
Preliminarily, we note Leal sincerity Molko and do not contest the indeed, stated, they beliefs; what understand to they be the Church’s as just assert the Church’s of sincerely were held be deceptions product then, liefs. Our initial is inquiry, whether actions for fraud plaintiffs’ former, implicate religious or religiously motivated conduct. If the belief (Sherbert Verner, actions are barred. 374 U.S. at supra, 402-403 pp. latter, L.Ed.2d at pp. 969-970].) If further constitutional analysis necessary.
Molko and Leal they claim challenge do not the truth falsity of the beliefs; Church’s they contend rather that challenge only Church’s fraudulent conduct in those implementing beliefs. The Court of Appeal disagreed, that it would reasoning be impossible to consider Molko and theory Leal’s “without authenticity questioning and force of the Unification Church’s religious teachings and permitting jury to like- do wise, is constitutionally which forbidden.” The court relied on Katz v. Court, Superior conclusion, Cal.App.3d reaching its the Church this adopts view. We therefore examine Katz to determine whether such reliance was placed. properly case,
Like the present Katz involved allegations brainwashing against Katz, however, Unification Church. The plaintiffs were not former Church members but parents current Church members. their Claiming brainwashed, adult children had been sought and parents received or- ders from the superior court appointing them temporary conservators of the of their persons children. The parents’ objective their have children and their deprogrammed children’s with association the Unification Church terminated.
The Court of orders, in Katz Appeal overturned the conservatorship *22 holding that the rendering absence of actions the adult believers “gravely disabled,” the processes of the state could not “be used to the deprive believer of his freedom of action and to subject involuntary him to treat- any argument, At oral the Church disavowed such belief. The court declared the сonservator- 988-989.)
ment.” at (73 Cal.App.3d pp. free because the rights Church members’ exercise orders violated the ship falsity of their the truth or judgment regarding were based on a orders changes the Church members’ radical (Id. p. 987.) Likening beliefs. at high to their children to lifestyle to the refusal of the Amish in Yoder send school, not be one in which conduct could the court found the situation asked to deter- It “When the court is (Ibid.) from beliefs. separated queried byor by was induced faith coercive change lifestyle] mine whether that [in validity it the investigating questioning is not in turn persuasion (Ibid.) faith?” course, court, substantially different
The Katz faced circumstances stand, orders, if allowed to would conservatorship from those before us. The Church members’ absolute directly severely right have burdened the only of the Unification Church. Not would teachings believe to remove their adult children from parents orders have allowed the desire; have further community they claimed to the orders would religious individuals, will, their to a subject against those parents allowed religious intended to eradicate their current beliefs. program specifically Yoder, Thus, on the Katz court was correct—as the burden the Church on their beliefs. members’ conduct was from burden inseparable contrast, liability In for fraud in the case at bar would burden no sharp right religious to believe and no one’s to remain of his right part one’s involuntary community, subject anyone nor would deprogramming: are Church members themselves. It might, here the former plaintiffs course, somewhat burden the Church’s efforts to recruit new members deceptive means. markedly Katz a different from that legal court also faced question a if an
now it considered whether court could determine asserted posed: induced faith or religious conversion “was coercive persuasion.” Court, words, In other (Katz Cal.App.3d p. 987.) Superior a of a validity” Katz court had to decide whether court could “question someone else claimed that was brain- person stated faith because person’s (Ibid.) washed. contrast, here not
Again in does court legal question require faith, current or is or real. As stated anyone’s past, determine whether above, Molko and Leal the Church’s beliefs. Neither do question do faith; they of their former state challenge “validity” quite plainly legal in the Unification Church were sincere. The that their erstwhile beliefs organization can be held liable on a whether question simply *23 subject- cause in fraud for nonmembers into deceiving trаditional of action themselves, consent, their to ing knowledge persuasion. without or coercive in The Court of held that Katz was different certain although Appeal ways, analysis the conclusion that to consider fraud compelled plaintiffs’ its authenticity force” the require “questioning claims would here, stated, We The have is teachings. disagree. challenge Church’s as we validity not to the of a teachings to Church’s or conversion. religious is challenge practice concealing to the Church’s or misrepresenting identity in its order to its bring unsuspecting highly outsiders into struc tured That practice “subject environment. is not itself conduct is Connecticut, belief-—it to for regulation society.” v. protection (Cantwell supra, 310 U.S. at p. L.Ed.2d at p. 1218].) [84 then,
Our next is inquiry, whether the state’s in allowing interest liability tort for the Church’s is deceptive practices important enough any such outweigh liability burden would on the Church’s impose religious Yoder, conduct. (Wisconsin v. at U.S. L.Ed.2d supra, p. pp. at 28-29].)
We turn first to the question liability whether tort for fraudulent recruit- ing practices any burden on imposes the free exercise Unification Church’s think religion. We it does. While liability such not does impair right Church’s in recruiting believe through very its deception, purpose to discourage the Church from such putting belief into practice subject- ing Further, the Church to monetary loss possible doing liability so. presumably nonbelievers, impairs ability Church’s to convert because some members who potential would have been recruited will deception choose not associate with they the Church when its identity. are told true burdens, real, Yet these while are not substantial. Being subject to liabili- ty way for fraud does in any or degree prevent or inhibit Church communities, from members their operating worshipping as fit, freely another, see literature, with associating one selling distributing street, funds, proselytizing on the soliciting or generally Reverend spreading not, message among Moon’s certainly It like population. does the educa- Yoder, tional requirement Church members to “at compel acts perform odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.” Yo- {Wisconsin der, most, 406 U.S. at L.Ed.2d p. 26].) At potentially closes questionable one avenue for bringing new members into the Church.
We next must consider whether a compelling state interest justifies marginal burden liability such on the imposes Church’s free exercise rights. We difficulty have no such an finding interest “substantial threat
1118 allegedly fraudulent conduct safety, order” the Church’s or public peace Verner, p. 970].) at 403 L.Ed.2d at 374 U.S. (Sherbert p. v. poses. supra, [10 voluntarily to a submits knowingly is a thing person For it one when influence, a entering novice" on monas- as a does involving coercive process Schein, 272.) But is (1961) p. Persuasion seminary. (See a Coercive tery or his to coercive without subjected persuasion a is person another when quite individuals who coercive experience While some consent. knowledge unscathed, and sometimes many others serious emerge develop persuasion disorders, including to and schizo- up physical psychiatric irreversible self-mutilation, To- Religious (See generally Delgado, suicide. phrenia, Amendment, Under the First supra, Persuasion Ungentle talism: Gentle and 10-25, 1, has a clearly cited The state therein.) 51 and sources So.Cal.L.Rev. into sub- being its citizens from deceived interest in preventing compelling dangerous process. a mitting unknowingly potentially such family interest in protecting has an equally compelling state States, 145, 165-166 supra, v. United 98 U.S. (See, e.g., Reynolds institution. 390, 244, v. 262 U.S. 399-403 250]; Meyer (1923) Nebraska L.Ed. [67 [25 625, 1042, 1045-1047, 1446]; Society 43 A.L.R. Pierce v. S.Ct. 29 L.Ed. 1070, 1077-1078, 510, 45 S.Ct. 534-535 L.Ed. (1925) Sisters 268 U.S. [69 494, v. 431 U.S. 468]; City A.L.R. Moore East Cleveland 39 531, 539-541, S.Ct. Since the [plur. opn.].) 503-504 L.Ed.2d 97 1932] [52 sig- incurs invariably suffers stress and sometimes family great almost subjected its members is unknowingly nificant financial loss when one of Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults (Enroth, coercive persuasion fami- a interest compelling protecting the state has (1977) pp. 199-201), a fraud and result of suffering impairments deception. lies from such therefore, conclude, liability for recruitment although deceptive We the Church’s free exercise of reli- marginal a burden on practices imposes interest in compelling protecting is state gion, justified the burden safety, public threat to peace and families from the substantial individuals unconsenting the fraudulent induction individuals posed and order into an of coercive atmosphere persuasion. here, A action analysis government cannot end however.
Our exercise, interest, justified by state though compelling free even burdening burden any religion if lesser on would imposing action impermissible Bd., v. Review Ind. Sec. Div. satisfy (Thomas Empl. that interest. Verner, 624, 634, v. 1425]; 101 S.Ct. Sherbert U.S. L.Ed.2d [67 Brown, 971-972]; L.Ed.2d at p. pp. 374 U.S. at
supra, Braunfield at After careful 568-569].) 607 L.Ed.2d p. pp. U.S. consideration, restrictive alternative available. It no such less perceive we be criminalized. brainwashing been suggested, example, has Martell, (Lucksted Religious Liberty & Cults: A Between and Invol- Conflict Bull, at untary (June 1982) 21.) Servitude? F.B.I. Law Enforcement This would which invoke coercive the state and could approach, power *25 members, the jailing clearly rеsult in of church would a impose greater burden on than civil has religion liability would tort for fraud. It also been suggested involuntary that the law should authorize deprogramming Cults, by (Aronin, brainwashed individuals their or friends families. Depro- gramming, and A Legislative Model 17 Co- Guardianship: Proposal (1982) lum. &J.L. Soc. Probs. But the 183-216.) severe burdens on potentially Katz, religion inherent this are evident our discussion approach from Lastly, supra. it has been proposed proselytizers that be to obtain required informed consent to attempting to initiate prior (Del- conversions. Cults gado, and Conversion: The Case Consent (1982) Ga. Informed for L.Rev. 537-540.) To the extent an such would approach require nature, active dissemination of specific information about a religion’s activi- however, lifestyle, ties and it would religion also burden to a extent greater short, than would passive liability for fraud. In simple to appears that injured allow parties to bring private actions for fraud is the least restrictive means available for advancing the state’s interest in protecting individuals and families from harmful effects fraudulent recruitment.
Finally, even though state action a justified by compelling state interest and imposes the minimum required burden satisfy interest, it can be if upheld only it (1) has and effect of advanc purpose ing the state’s goals secular and (2) does not discriminate religions, between Brown, or religion between and nonreligion. (Braunfield v. 366 U.S. L.Ed.2d at pp. 568-569].) We find judicial sanc tioning traditional tort liability for fraudulent recruitment satisfies these First, standards. its purpose effect is plainly to advance the legitimate goal secular Second, protecting persons being from harmed fraud. isit all nondiscriminatory: otherwise, organizations, religious may be held liable for caused their damages fraudulent acts. Were a nonreligious a organization—e.g., group espousing or social political cause—to deceive into person unknowingly to coercive submitting persuasion, the same liability would ensue.
We conclude that neither the federal nor state Constitution bars Molko and Leal from bringing traditional fraud actions against them, for allegedly inducing by misrepresentation and concealment of its identity, into unknowingly an entering atmosphere in which were then subjected to persuasion. coercive Because triable issues fact exist as to (1) whether the forms Leal Molko and signed before going Boonville put them on notice regarding identity the Church’s whether Molko and were, respond rendered unable of coercive persuasion,
Leal means deceived, we hold that been they had upon learning independently the Church summary judgment affirming erred Appeal Court actions for fraud. plaintiffs’ Distress of Emotional Intentional Infliction III. the Claim A. Nature of emo intentional infliction of of action for
The elements of a cause defendant, intention to by the are conduct (1) outrageous tional distress *26 distress, causing of emotional or reckless of the disregard probability cause of the proximate actual and causation suffering, (4) and (3) severe emotional 43 Dist. Cal.3d (1987) v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection (Cole emotional distress. 308, 148, 155, and Leal 743].) 729 P.2d Molko contend fn. Cal.Rptr. 7 [233 carried conduct was outrageous, the fraudulent and coercive Church’s of them emotional causing of disregard probability out with reckless the distress, their severe emotional the actual and cause of proximate and was suffering. divine retribu that threats of part
The Court of
found
Appeal
tion,
religious speech
and Leal
were
complained,
protected
of which Molko
claim of intentional infliction of emotional
could
form the basis of a
and
not
merely
To
extent the claims are based
We
this view.
distress.
with
agree
church, they
Leal left the
of
retribution if Molko and
on threats
divine
Island,
Since we fraud under tionally whether the Church’s conduct we must consider permissible, 1121 that also to an infliction emotional theory gives rise action intentional First, however, we Churсh. distress. consider two contentions raised Preliminary B. The Church’s Arguments initially
The Church that all contends misrepresentations which Molko and Leal are Civil complain under Code section privileged malice, therein, as . without to a interested . . person “communication[s] by one . . . .” who also Molko point interested is without merit. communications, Leal that concede were misrepresentations the Church’s intent to recruit and Leal Molko did reflect a “state of will,” mind arising from hatred or ill required for of malice. showing (Agarwal v. Johnson Cal.3d P.2d Cal.Rptr. However, 58].) they correctly urge that communications cannot be said to have been from one “interested” to another. The relies party Church on Brewer v. Baptist Cal.2d 791 P.2d 713], to establish Molko Leal were parties. interested But Brewer that “the holds common interest of the members of a church in church matters is sufficient to a give rise qualified privilege to communication between members on *27 (Id. subjects relating to the church’s interests.” at italics p.796, added.) Here the Church has vigorously taken position that Molko and Leal did not become Church members until after learning of It can deceptions. not now inconsistently claim a theory on the privilege that Molko and Leal were members at the time the occurred. deceptions
The Church also contends that a in statement Leal her deposition certain of her were harms “self-inflicted” an constitutes of con- admission sent and therefore provides complete liability defense to under Civil Code section 3515. This is argument also without merit. Leal’s statement relates Church, to her final few weeks with she during which sold flowers on the streets of Los from 7 Angeles a.m. until midnight 19 of 20 consecu- tive days. Leal said the harms she physical were experienced self-inflicted because was she obeying Church’s doctrine of suffering to indem- “pay nity” Leal, to God. Viewed in light most favorable to as it must be on motion for summary her judgment, statement reflects not but consent mere event, submission. In any since the statement to a relates of time period later considerably than that during which fraud alleged and brainwash- occurred, ing it provide cannot a defense to the present action.
C. Analysis the Claim
We begin that the observing Church does not attempt (1) to its negate cause, intention to or its reckless disregard of the probability causing, distress, emotional (2) severe plaintiff's’ (3) emotional its suffering, or Be suffering. causation of that conduct’s actual and proximate necessary least element conclusively at one negate cause the Church must (,Stationers Corp. summary judgment entitled to this cause of action to be Bradstreet, summary of the 417), Cal.2d at p. propriety Dun & supra, as matter of law establish on whether the Church can judgment depends conduct, theory, not “extreme and Leal’s even under Molko its action for emotional in sense to an outrageous” required support distress. “ ‘ all bounds “exceeds outrageous is extreme and when
Conduct of a nature which society, a decent decency] usually tolerated [and is] [of ’ ” cause, cause, . . .” does mental distress. to is calculated especially Dist., 155, fn. at (Cole p. 7.) Protection Cal.3d supra, v. Fair Oaks Fire insults, threats, annoyances, indignities, mere Liability “does not extend to Torts, d.) com. (Rest.2d or other trivialities.” oppressions, petty § “ ‘ if abuses a outrageous (1) “. . a defendant may . Behavior be considered inter damage him gives power plaintiff’s relation or which position distress; mental est; injuries through plaintiff susceptible knows the that the acts unreasonably recognition with the intentionally acts or . . v. Fair (Cole mental . likely through are illness distress result Dist., 7.) fn. Fire 43 Cal.3d Oaks Protection not, as a why conduct was The Church offers two its arguments law, its amount First it contends actions outrageous. matter of extreme therefore were more “intensive religious practice,” ed than nothing kind, many from those other only degree, different Although fasting, silence unconvincing. poverty, We find this claim groups. have may religious practice, constitute intensive we living or cloistered *28 fraud, determined be religiously even already though purported motivated, here. is under the circumstances presented actionable conduct
Second, above, hours of long the Church that Leal’s argues mentioned her to sell contends its for encouragement were It work “self-inflicted.” conduct. But since money outrageous does not constitute flowers solicit formally after Leal had Church relies on occurred the conduct that the Church, its original no whether argument bearing the has on joined con- into an of coercive persuasion—the fraudulent inducement atmosphere and outrageous. duct at issue—is extreme Church’s continued most favorable to light plaintiffs,
Viewed in the trust breaching plaintiffs’ well be seen as conduct might deceptions meaningful. to make their lives more of those who were integrity promising viewed, “a rela- an abuse of actions well constitute might So the Church’s the plaintiff’s to damage tion which gives power or position Church] [the
1123 Dist, 155, Fire 43 Cal.3d (Cole v. Fair Oaks Protection at interest.” 7.) fn.
“ differ, to the may jury, subject ‘Where reasonable men is for the whether, case, court, determine con- control of particular ” sufficiently liability.’ been result in duct has extreme and outrageous 493, 2 (Alcorn v. Anbro Inc. Cal.3d Engineering, Cal.Rptr. [86 88, here, 468 P.2d Since reasonable of 216].) could differ persons question fact remains as to whether the Church’s conduct outrageous pur- for poses of this action. It follows that the Court of erred in affirming Appeal summary judgment for the Church as to actions plaintiffs’ for intention- al infliction of emotional distress.
IV. False Imprisonment imprisonment False “the liberty is unlawful violation of the personal Code, (Pen. 236; another.” see Parrott v. Bank America § 14, 89, P.2d Cal.App.2d A.L.R.2d crime [217 263] [definition same].) tort the “The tort of is the imprisonment false nonconsensu al, intentional confinement of a without an person, lawful for privilege, time, length of appreciable (City however short.” Basse Newport Beach v. (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d falsely A im Cal.Rptr. 476].) person is “if he prisoned wrongfully deprived his to leave freedom a particular place by conduct another.” (Schanafelt v. Seaboard Finance Co. (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 422-423 P.2d 42].) Leal falsely contends she was imprisoned by Church at Boon- ville, K, Boulder, at at at Camp Angeles, Los and at various locations San Francisco.16She admits she was theoretically time; free to depart any restrained, force, she was not physically subjected to physical threats subjectively insists, however, afraid of force. physical She that her “impris onment arose from the harm she came to believe result if would she left harm, community.” That specifically, family was that her “would be damned in Hell forever and forever sorry would feel blown having their one chance to unite with the Messiah and make it to Heaven.”
The claim cannot survive
scrutiny.
constitutional
Leal
Although
correct-
ly
that
asserts
false
. .
imprisonment may
by
be “effected
.
fraud or deceit”
Code,
(Pen.
237),
theory
her
implicates
Church’s beliefs: it plainly
§
seeks to make the Church liable for
divine
threatening
retribution. As we
earlier,
stated
such threats are
v.
protected religious
(see Fowler
speech
16Although
alleged
Molko also
a cause
imprisonment,
of action for false
he has
not
chosen
summary
Appeal’s
judgment
contest
the Court of
affirmance of
for the
Church on
action.
1124
Island,
v.
831];
at
Van Schaick
p.
L.Ed.
Rhode [97 Inc., Cal., and can- 1139) 535 at F.Supp. p. Scientology supra, of of hold the Court оf Accordingly, we liability. for the basis tort provide not as the Church summary correctly judgment affirmed Appeal for false imprisonment. Leal’s action
V. Restitution $6,000 Elis claim to the Church. gift restitution of his Molko seeks deceived he that the Church theory: his fraud asserts directly out of arises thereby obtaining coercive submitting persuasion, unknowingly him into gift. later to extract the him which it used undue influence over validity of challenge could not held that Molko Court Appeal beliefs, which is validity of his former gift challenging without a natural We Molko’s assertion is constitutionally disagree.17 forbidden. contends, effect, that one of his damages he theory: of his fraud extension $6,000 loss. from the fraud was use, by reposed in whom a confidence is influence is “the one
Undue
him,
another,
of such
authority
a
over
who holds
real or apparent
or
unfair
obtaining
advantage
an
authority
or
for the purpose
confidence
Code,
way, undue
1575.)
Stated another
(Civ.
him.”
over
§
“
mind
another
one
over
supremacy
is
‘that kind of influence or
influence
to his
wish or
acting according
own
which that other is
from
prevented
”
444, 448
v.
57
(Bolander
(1943)
Cal.App.2d
judgment’
Thompson
[134
uses
dominant
added);
party
italics
it occurs when “one
924],
P.2d
[its]
subservient party
in an unfair manner to induce the
position
psychological
not
have consent
an
to which he would
otherwise
to consent to
agreement
Perillo,
(2d
1977)
274-275).
&
The Law Contracts
ed.
pp.
(Calamari
ed”
religiously
infrequently,
claim occur
Although
support
sufficient to
such a
circumstances
strong showing
occasionally
a
of undue
gifts
particularly
set aside on
motivated
have
been
289,
(See, e.g.,
Cal.App.2d
299-
by religious
of Bourquin
Estate
influence
advisors.
leaving
the result of undue
to a church rest home was
P.2d
bulk of estate
604] [will
[326
religious
as
relationship
held
with testator
employees,
home
who
confidential
influence of rest
advisors].)
414-415
Appeal
Supple
Cal.App.2d
cited Estate
The Court of
however,
Supple,
undue influence case. In
Cal.Rptr. 542],
position.
was not an
support
its
lifelong
portion
his
to various church charities with
Supple, a
church member left a
estate
challenged the
on the sole
longstanding
grandnephew
will
he
association. His
which
had
false,
in that sense
teachings were
and hence
testator was
ground
the church’s
412.)
(Id.
attack on the
leaving part
at
Such direct
of his estate to
church.
tricked into
(United
clearly
the First Amendment.
falsity
prohibited
beliefs
truth
However,
Ballard,
1153-1155].)
pp.
we
pp.
supra,
v.
We have in the fraud context of Molko’s claim, ability that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Molko lost his submitting to make decisions as a result of deceived into independent being indeed, then, to coercive It would be odd if we did unknowingly persuasion. whether, by not find that a triable issue of fact exists as to means of the alleged Church established and used its dominant deception, psycholog ical and its confidential position with Molko “for the relationship purpose $6,000 obtaining unfair over him” with advantage regard gift. to his find,
We do so hold that the accordingly Court of erred Appeal affirming summary judgment for Church as to Molko’s claim for restitution.18
VI. The Church’s Cross-complaint Against Maxwell The Church alleged Maxwell’s deprogramming activities violated the federal and state civil rights of the Church and (42 its members. U.S.C. Code, 1985(3) 51.7, section Civ. 1985(3)]; It 52.) also assert- § [hereafter §§ aed cause of against action Maxwell for full or partial indemnity, on the he, theory that Molko, kidnapping deprogramming wholly had partially any caused damages for which the Church be held might liable to Molko.
The trial court sustained without leave to amend Maxwell’s demurrers to action, all three causes of and entered judgments of him. dismissal for Court of Appeal reversed the judgments of dismissal on the state and feder- action, al civil rights causes of that the holding court abused its discretion leave refusing to amend the Because complaint. it affirmed the summary judgment for the Leal, Church in the action Molko and it did not review the dismissal of the Church’s cause of indemnity. action for A. The Federal Claim19
The Church
alleged
Maxwell conspired with others to deprive
it and its members of equal protection of the laws and of “equal privileges
and immunities under
was,
the laws.” It contended Maxwell’s
inter
purpose
alia, to prevent Church members from freely
their
exercising
be
religious
through
liefs
interstate travel. The Church sought injunctive relief as well as
18Accordingly, we need not consider
adopt
Molko’s invitation to
the views of the Nebraska
supreme
and Rhode
gifts
Island
courts that
presumptively
leaders or advisors are
(See
made under undue
Wolper (1974)
influence.
Guill
235
1126 it its to the Court damages. appeal Appeal In compensatory punitive free exercise claims under it could assert abandoned its contention that to standing it had representational but continued to assert 1985(3), section to constitutionally guaranteed right members’ sue a violation of its for 672, 55 102 S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed.2d v. Williams 457 (Zobel (1982) travel. [72 that and reversed dismissal on agreed The 2309].) Appeal Court ground. federal his demurrer to the Church’s why three arguments
Maxwell offers First, he As will none is appear, persuasive. claim sustained. properly was three for requirements to meet the second of contends the Church failed Washington Advertising v. in Hunt standing Apple set forth representational 383, 394, 333, The 97 S.Ct. 432 U.S. 343 L.Ed.2d (1977) Comm ’n [53 2434]. to organization] seeks is that “the interests requirement question [that us (Ibid.) Maxwell asks germane organization’s purpose.” are to the protect a fide a the Church’s status as bona to from that test of requirement infer is a wishes to that the Church argue he religious organization: apparently its to right rather and that members’ religious organization, than political to true But germane organization’s purpose. travel somehow not law, to such a novel has in the and we decline adopt contention no support aof federal statute. reading
Second,
a
because
Maxwell contends his demurrer
sustained
properly
rights does not violate section
infringe
First Amendment
conspiracy
in the
conspiracy
unless
a state is involved
or the
1985(3)
conspiracy
either
activity.
correctly
While the contention
states
aims to influence the state’s
v.
463 U.S.
Carpenters
Scott
holding
Court’s
Supreme
1049, 1055,
it
the court’s further
3352],
103 S.Ct.
overlooks
L.Ed.2d
[77
Breckenridge
v.
in accordance with
statement
Carpenters
Griffin
S.Ct.
section
does
1790],
1985(3)
Third, federal cause of action was barred Maxwell contends the Church’s one-year subject by the state statute of limitations because was 1985(3) conspiracies Carpenters pass reaches 20 The court declined to on whether section (463 1058].) p. at bias. U.S. L.Ed.2d other than those motivated racial have, Circuit, however, excep without noting that “the federal courts almost Fourth lower tion, [citations],” expressly held coverage religious groups has of the statute extended by religious falls discrimination conspiracy against the Unification Church motivated 45, 48; (Ward (4th F.2d see 1985(3). 1981) v. Connor Cir. ambit of section within the Annot., Liability Religious (1982) 11 “Deprogramming” Sect generally Member Civil basis, not on we need 228.) the Church’s claim this A.L.R.4th Maxwell does contest As question this of federal law. address *32 Civil Proce in Code of claims set forth injury for personal limitation period However, correct 340, Appeal as the Court (2). subdivision dure section relief injunctive to seek held, amend its complaint Church seeks to ly the Maxwell and among an ongoing conspiracy it to be only alleges as to what run not begin limitations does The statute of the cross-defendants. other been has conspiracy overt act of the cases until the last in civil conspiracy 773, 787 24 Cal.3d Mortgage Co. Union (Wyatt completed. Thus, the proved, if a is 45].) continuing conspiracy P.2d Cal.Rptr. relief will injunctive obviously timely; if no is conspiracy proved, action is cannot be resolved is factual and The determinative issue be denied. demurrer.
B. Indemnification above, demurrer to the trial court sustained Maxwell’s
As stated indemnification, and entered a judgment of action for Church’s cause summary dismissal; judgment the Court of because it affirmed the Appeal, any did not address of the damages, the Church in action for plaintiffs’ for Be- in the from the of dismissal. appeal judgment issues raised Church’s merits, however, those summary judgment we reverse the on cause longer issues are no moot. Maxwell, theory indemnification action on the bases its Molko, any wholly caused deprogramming partially kidnapping liable The Church might for which the Church be held to Molko.
damages contends, words, if it as an intentional in other is held liable to Molko tortfeasor, it should be allowed to seek indemnification from Maxwell as concurrent intentional tortfeasor. an
Thus the Church asks us to consider
issue of first impression—wheth
doctrine,
in American
indemnity
er the
as set forth
this court
equitable
Assn. v.
Court
The Church claims Maxwell per- and coercive through alleged deception Church Molko its the suasion, caused of Mol- deprogramming that Maxwell’s kidnapping but rather damages of that Molko’s damages—i.e., ko the actual causes Molko’s were for which Church might result harm than the one the were the of a different jury the may freely attempt liable. the Church to convince Although be held caused Molko any damages rather than its own that Maxwell’s actions suffered, mutually in way it are it does and Maxwell some allege an facts harm; support the thus it not state sufficient liable for same does indemnification action. an intention- day for another the whether
Accordingly, question we leave indemnity tortfeasors may from concurrent intentional al tortfeasor obtain fault basis. comparative on
VII. Conclusion above, we as follows: On the complaint, For the reasons conclude given the of of affirmed insofar as it affirms Appeal the Court judgment false summary impris- the Church on the cause action for judgment for onment, as it for summary judgment and reversed insofar affirms fraud, emotional on the of action for intentional infliction of causes distress, Court On the of the cross-complaint, judgment and restitution. for judgment as it reverses the of dismissal is affirmed insofar Appeal rights for civil on the cause of action federal cross-defendant Maxwell violations, for judgment of dismissal implicitly insofar as affirms indemnity. on the cause of action for Maxwell Church’s Kaufman, J., J., J., J., Lucas, Broussard, J., Arguelles, Eagleson, C. concurred. and Dissenting. (Carl W.), J.,* I concurwith
ANDERSON Concurring cause of imprisonment the false majority regarding disposition but cross-complaint, respectfully action as well the claims raised in the * District, Four, Justice, assigned by Presiding Appeal, Appellate Court of First Division Chairperson of the Judicial Council. with the disagree summary judgment with reversal of connection fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and the restitution counts. I am strongly liability “heavenly that the of tort persuaded imposition “systematic and for its deception” proselytizing ensuing manipulation social influences” (religious persuasion) legal runs counter established and the free precedents exercise clause of the First Amendment. Further- more, liability imposition such cases constitutes bad since legal policy, it unnecessarily the court projects into arena of the truth or divining falsity beliefs. I that the trial respectfully suggest court’s thor- analysis ough and the Court of Appeal’s well-reasoned affirmance thereof correctly the law. apply
I. Fraud
law,
Under well-settled
the necessary elements of fraud
are: misrepre
(false
sentation
representation, concealment or nondisclosure); (2) knowl
edge
falsity
(scienter);
intent to
(i.e.,
defraud
to induce reliance); (4)
*34
justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Seeger v. Odell
18
(1941)
409,
977,
Cal.2d
Witkin,
P.2d
136 A.L.R.
1291];
Summary of
Torts, 446,
Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974)
2711.) It is
likewise recognized that
§
actionable,
order to render the fraud
the misrepresentation or nondisclo
sure must be
only
not
the cause in fact (causa sine
non), but
the
qua
also
legal
Indeed,
immediate cause of the damages.
majority
the
quite agrees:
“Justifiable reliance exists when the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was
an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s conduct which alters his
rela
legal
tions, and when without such misrepresentation or nondisclosure he would
not, in all probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.
(Wennerholm v.
713,
Univ. Sch. Med.
(1942) Cal.2d
717 [128
Stanford
P.2d
A. Reliance on Initial Misrepresentations In granting summary judgment action, on the fraud cause of the trial court found that appellants, by admissions, their own joined the Unification and satisfied concerns personal that “Association because (Church) in reliance on they joined find it did not were experiencing”;
anxieties both trial finding This of the court recruiters. misrepresentations the initial by the record. is well supported the invitation to for accepting reveals that his reason
Molko’s deposition early As person. to a better himself and become was to participate improve Boonville, and felt involved was already Molko day spent as the second there. brotherly experienced love because of to the group attracted stayed there liking, to he entirely life his was Although regimented he life; (2) his meaning thinking he was about because: better, Bethie Ruben- curious; he people especially and wanted know be “fascinating, intelligent—a joy to and LaGrasse who were stein Gloria belonged that the group within less than two weeks learning with.” On “Moonies,” admittedly bit) took a “wait and confused (while Molko attitude, calls rejected coming with the group repeatedly see” remained him quit. parents imploring from friends She had for reasons. personal Leal the initial invitation also accepted family her and was longing from psychological support little emotional Diego, imperson- She left San a “cold and understanding. affection and to “learn how a community. She went to Boonville city al” search By the fourth community actually something.” gets together accomplish sincere, involved. She was attracted day completely she felt stayed there because group affectionate attention she received from the *35 her and to the which overwhelmed with grew group she was attached happy her all the things and and to take care of and praise promised provide love addition, the had wanted. In she was commitment impressed she ever others, worthy hard and was anxious to herself of prove and work the Also, responsi- their attention. found the of individual relinquishment she akin identity of a to be true to bility acceptance group happiness, the In her from was joy “Departing “the of childhood.” own words: Boonville care listening a result of attention and such prevented large as doses family.” friends highly expressive, loving as that between or majority these facts the maintains that Despite undisputed appellants’ initial fraud did the element of reliance following negate behavior the not fraud as result of the (i.e., “cured”); they the initial was not conclude that a “heavenly (i.e., fraudulent conduct), appellants Church’s initial deception” they thereby in a were “brainwashed” placed were situation where of their this judgment. majority predicates deprived independent that due to theory upon declarations “brainwashing” primarily appellants’ indoctrination, they the and emotional lost rigid psychological pressure, and, instead, ability freely stay their decide to with the acted group to analysis. in a robot-like Such conclusion fails to withstand critical manner. view, does not the fact that belief widely Under the adopted rule, not, raise a a does as a voluntary presumption choice originate Control” or as “Mind (Shapiro, affirm the belief one’s own. to incapacity Religious Faith: The Constitutional Protection Intensity Beliefs been contrary, it has said 789.) 13 Harv. Civ. Liberties L.Rev. To a should con justify impinging upon that “An intentional not deception ideas, after so has the to affirm his faith long ability vert’s convert [i.e., realized. If capacity he retains his deception personhood ... he can or commitment], adopt ratify evaluate the still the beliefs as his Robots, Religious own.” Persons and the Protection (Shapiro, Of Beliefs illustration, 56 So.Cal.L.Rev. Mr. (1982-1983) 1295.) By Shapiro if the had points merely out that offered proselytizer self-improvement course and the in fact aimed at con subsequent banquet lectures had the recruit to a of the verting religion, introduction would deceptiveness be as long immaterial as the convert would still capable adopting be belief. his affirming (Ibid.) us,
The evidence before including clearly indi- appellants’ depositions, cates that the Church’s indoctrination did render mindless appellants Instead, or robot-like puppets creatures. shows both before and after of the disclosure true group’s identity, both retained their appellants think, ability to to evaluate the events and exercise their independent judgment. For record on the example, days reveals that first two Boonville Molko became so dissatisfied regimented with the life that he decided return to San Francisco. He discussed his with decision two other leave, members of the While he was that he group. advised was free to he stay decided to because he was persuaded that it was to his own benefit Also, to do so. during the first week in Boonville Molko with expressed other people (although his private) resentment about the lectures and regimentation and on that he noticing being Taylor, followed by Joe membеr, him, he violently confronted him in threatening smash Church, face. After learning that group was connected with the *36 Molko did not Gloria, but simply acquiesce, rather consulted and his deci- sion to was stay again the an result of evaluation of this turn of events. lectures, Lastly, all the indoctrination, despite discussion and other forms of Molko still doubted that Reverend Moon the new was Messiah and he well, shared his doubts with other Church members as including Gloria Victoria. testimony deposition appellant of Leal likewise with is facts replete that her
indicating the Church joining did not rest on upon reliance the initial representation, but rather her conscious evaluation and adoption of the Church’s of teachings. In view this testimony, sworn the unsupported allegations of in brainwashing appellants’ pleadings should declarations fact which of material raise that triable issue to
not be deemed sufficient summary judgment. of grant reversal of requires Damages the Immediate Cause B. Conversion Is of reason that for the additional summary is judgment improper Reversal i.e., fraud, heavenly the incipient was not damages the immediate cause of by “brainwashing” effected ensuing but rather the indoctrination deception, That the gist appel- conversion. ultimately resulted in appellants’ which by actionable was achieved that conversion fraud was complaint lants’ (ante, Indeed, so defines the issue majority “brainwashing” is manifest. issue of fact contend that triable 1109): and Leal therefore “Molko its prior disclosing Church brainwashed them as to whether the remains affirmative, have they urge, they just- is established If answer identity. that “statements majority appellants’ declares Again, ifiable reliance.” in they were deceived into a situation are the contention that consistent with on the fraud summary judgment which were then brainwashed” advanced in brainwashing theory count must be overturned because issue fact. This same notion triable presented declarations appellants’ For its briefs. Molko example, has unsurprisingly genesis appellants’ not uti- “By deceptions that means of deceits and asserts in his brief opening Boonville, was thrust plaintiff abruptly in order place plaintiff lized entirely plaintiff’s directed toward the conversion into an environment to become a Sun Moon as Messiah and accept Myung allegiance oc- plaintiff Church .... The conversion of member of the Unification Amici curiae likewise (Italics added.) in an place.” partially curred unusual of convеr- damages process the immediate cause of emphasize reform, many labels—brainwashing, thought sion which has been known etc. persuasion, coercive and the conver- (i.e., “brainwashing”)
Identification of the indoctrination summary determining applicability sion as the critical issues for under law the legal carries For settled judgment far-reaching significance. obtaining methods conversion coer- (including indoctrination employed are actionable brainwashing) per cive mind control not persuasion, and/or se; scrutiny subject judicial religious regardless conversion is scrutiny used entails the necessarily questioning methods because such faith—scrutiny absolutely forbidden the First Amend- Moreover, scrutiny governmental ment. even if were judicial permitted, interference in this case is not warranted. *37 The Indoctrination Is Not Actionable
(1) indoctrination, that even if achieved cases primary holding by if force or “brainwashing,” unaccompanied physical not tortious
1133 threat are Lewis v. Holy (D.Mass. 1983) Ass’n 589 Spirit for Unification 10; v. Holy Meroni Ass’n F.Supp. Spirit for Unification N.Y.S.2d and Center App.Div.2d 174]; Conversion Application 388 Pa. A.2d 107]. Church,
The Lewis plaintiff, former member of the Unification brought alia, a tort action the Church against inter that he was alleging, subjected brainwashing that as a result thereof he suffered disorders. psychiatric claims, In dismissing plaintiff’s tort the court stated: “Both of the plaintiff’s claims in tort are seriously flawed. Indoctrination and initiation procedures and conditions of in a religious are membership organization generally not subject judicial Similarly, review has not indicat- plaintiff [citations]. any ed precedent for recognition of tort of brainwashing, my own (Lewis research has revealed v. Holy none.” Spirit Unification, Ass’n for supra, F.Supp. p. 12.) Meroni,
In the plaintiff’s son entered the training indoctrination program the Church; Unification after one month he left the program and committed suicide. In an action against the Church plaintiff purported to state decedent, causes of action in tort contending an emotional- ly youth, disturbed subjected to highly programmed behavior tech- niques (such exercises, isolation, as lectures, confession, intensive physical strict work study schedules) as a result of he which was brainwashed.
In dismissing action the court opined the indoctrination methods of the Church were not tortious. “The conduct of the defendant Unification . . . which the tortious, plaintiff classify seeks to as constitutes common and accepted religious proselytizing practices, e.g., chant- fasting, exercises, ing, physical confessions, lectures, cloistered living, and a highly structured work and study schedule. To the extent that the plaintiff alleges that the decedent was ‘brainwashed’ as a result of the church’s program, this claim must be viewed in whole, i.e., context of the situation as a as a method of religious indoctrination that is neither extreme nor outrageous . . . .” (Meroni v. Holy Spirit Ass’n Unification, supra, N.Y.S.2d at p. 177.) In finding the brainwashing nontortious in the absence of physical torture, violence or mental the court remarked: “It is important to note that no facts are set forth which would warrant the conclusion that the plain- tiff’s decedent was falsely imprisoned by the appellant that he was sub- jected violence, any form of torture, or physical or mental as such. The claim of brainwashing is based described, upon activities heretofore which, noted, as previously are commonly used religious and other and are groups, accepted society legitimate means indoctrination. are They as so extreme or outrageous, or society, classifiable offensive (Id., as to incur liability 177-178, at pp. italics added.) therefor.” Center, In Application Conversion 130 A.2d the court recog- nized that persuasion is an integral part many religious organizations and *38 1134 “The 14th religion: free exercise of of the protected
a positively aspect the which incorporates of the United States of Constitution Amendment the Not a Amendment, only of .... is religion the free exercise 1st guarantees beliefs, religious to free his country expression this entitled the citizen of thereto, and we to convert others endeavor may peaceful persuasion but he guaranteed effectuate their no to individuals to organizing are aware of bar . . even of disbelief . . of belief—or Propagation in this rights regard. or in church or chapel, mosque whether protected the supernatural—is ” (Id., 110, added.) . .’ at italics p. . meetinghouse. tabernacle or synagogue, Is Not Actionable (2) The Conversion First Amend- the exercise clause the majority The concedes that free v. (Cantwell Connect- religious ment for beliefs protection absolute provides 900, 1213, 1217-1218, 296, 60 S.Ct. icut 310 303-304 L.Ed. (1940) U.S. [84 indi- against discriminate 1352]); government 128 A.L.R. that the cannot the authorities they hold views abhorrent viduals or because groups 831, 67, 828, 345 70 L.Ed. 73 S.Ct. (Fowler (1952) v. Island U.S. Rhode [97 an sincerity the can into the individu- 526]); and while court inquire beliefs, beliefs falsity (United al’s not the truth or of those may judge 1153-1155, 78, 1148, 64 86-88 L.Ed. (1944) States v. Ballard 322 U.S. [88 However, is S.Ct. concludes that while belief 882]). majority religious v. (Sherbert not 374 absolutely religious conduct is Verner protected, 398, 965, 969-970, v. 1790]; S.Ct. U.S. 402-403 L.Ed.2d 83 People [10 69, 24, 28-36, P.2d Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. [40 813]); subject regulation even if motivated is religiously that conduct Connecticut, U.S. society protection (Cantwell p. 1218]); L.Ed. at and that the Church’s initial fraud which led to which, under test brainwashing balancing was conduct appellants Amendment, by the First can be with tort sanctions required penalized U.S. v. Yoder (Wisconsin based state interest upon compelling 205, 214, 1526]). 221-235 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. with, the begin
I that this flawed. reasoning submit is To respectfully majority which issue of fact is according conduct constitutes triable clearly not act but also the only (an subject proof), initial fraud only conversion—matters subsequent “brainwashing” comprising intangible or but ele- sociological involving also psychological phenomena, belief. It follows that and conversion are so religious brainwashing ments of scrutinized, be inextricably religious intertwined with faith that dannot proven, authenticity much less without questioning discussion, detailed Such (See infra.) the Church. teachings inquiry free exercise of the First absolutely clause Amendment. proscribed its that the act or conduct of a proposition religious organization scrutiny if into judicial members is immune from thereof calls proof *39 in case law religious faith well established falsity the truth or of is question commentary. as legal well as in Ballard, the the leading defining
United
U.S.
case
States
faith, dealt
the
with
protection
religious
of
constitutional
of
parameters
Therein it
that
prosecution
religious
alleged
respondents,
of
fraud.
was
movement, fraudulently
they
“I am”
that
were
represented
founders of the
and,
divine
that
to heal all diseases
messengers;
they had miraculous powers
fact,
had cured
afflicted
and that
a result of these
hundreds of
people;
they
money
obtained
the
the mail.
misrepresentations,
public through
from
jury
The trial
excluded
the
the
court
from
consideration
issue of
truth or
falsity of
claim of divine
and
respondents’
designation
powers,
miraculous
and the case
submitted
the sole
whether
on
issue of
made
respondents
good
those claims in
faith. In
trial
approving the
court’s
the Su
ruling,
Court reasoned: “Freedom of
which
freedom
preme
thought,
includes
of
belief,
religious
society
is basic in a
of free men.
It embraces the
[Citation.]
right to maintain theories
of life
of death and of the
which
hereafter
are
heresy
rank
to followers
Heresy
of the orthodox
foreign
faiths.
trials are
our
Men may
Constitution.
believe what they
They may
cannot
not be
prove.
to the
thеir
put
proof
religious doctrines or
Religious experiences
of
beliefs.
which are as real as life
may
to some
be
Yet
incomprehensible to others.
they may
fact that
be beyond
ken
of mortals does
they
not mean that
can be made suspect before
Many
the law.
take their
from the
gospel
New
Testament.
hardly
But would
be supposed
they
could
tried
be
before
jury
with
charged
duty
of determining whether those
con
teachings
tained
Testament,
false representations. The miracles of the New
the Divin
Christ,
ity
death,
life after
power
are
prayer
deep
religious
many.
convictions of
If one could be sent
jail
because a
in a
jury
hostile
false,
environment found those teachings
indeed
little
would be left of reli
gious
The
freedom.
Fathers of
were
Constitution
not unaware of the
sects,
varied and extreme views of religious
of the violence of disagreement
them,
among
any
and of the lack of
one
creed on which all men
religious
would
They
agree.
fashioned a charter of government
envisaged
which
widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man’s
his
relation to God was
made no concern
the state. He was granted
right
worship
as he
and to answer to
pleased
no man
the verity
his
views.
religious
The
religious
incredible,
viewsespoused by
might seem
respondents
not prepos
if
terous, to most
But
people.
those doctrines are subject to trial
a jury
if
before
charged with finding their
falsity,
truth or
then
same can be
done with
task,
any sect. When the triers
undertake
beliefs
of fact
”
enter a
domain.
(Id.,
pp. 86-87
L.Ed. at
1154], italics
forbidden
added.)
Another analogous
involving
case
religiously motivated
fraud
Found-
ing Scientology v. United States
Cir.
(D.C.
(Church Food, (21 Cosmetic Act Drug Federal under the labeling misleading that the Hubbard representation their seq.), upon U.S.C. 301 et based § ailments.1 bodily and mental cure both can (E meter) Electrometer *40 literature describ- instruments and religious the electric seized government by they were the instrumentalities that alleged church doctrine and ing expert introduced government At the the fraud was committed. trial which and in the diagnosis E meter of no use that the was showing evidence church’s (i.e., represen- mental that the any disease or disorder treatment of Scientology of thousands of false), pages and also introduced tations were it thereon, found jury the mislabeling. of Based literature relevant to the issue The Court of Apрeal and misleading labeling. of false appellants guilty was admis- testimony not expert under Ballard concluding reversed in that religious Scrip- and the that representations to disprove appellants’ sible courtroom evaluation. subject Significantly of church were not to tures the audit- the concerning powers “The statements enough, the court noted: body readily general from separable over ills of mind and are ing the the the nature of man and concerning doctrines statements of Scientological doctrines, those body. will these Many his find of his mind to relationship not, do absurd or incoherent. health well as those which which relate to as of such doctrines suspect legal inquisition But the Ballard case makes the {Id., 1159.) at they religious where are held tenets.” as Court (1977) Even this case is Katz analogous Superior more to in which the Unification 234], Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. parents they that an action for claimed conservatorship: members brought brainwashing to and subjected persuasion their children were coercive isolation, tactics, guilty fear use of through food and sleep deprivation, indoctrination; ex- they psychological offered and feelings psychiatric to unwilling The Katz was evidence to establish such claims. court pert the the merit the assertions because it felt evaluation inquire into in the was style evidence relevant to whether the individual’s life change faith, investiga- an necessarily requires effected or by brainwashing 987-988.) the that faith. validity {Id., pp. tion questioning Katz from case at bench is not majority’s distinguish effort to arose, indeed, Katz setting While in a somewhat different persuasive. legal members; was rather than ex-church (i.e., brought parents action Code, 1751; under Prob. seeking conservatorship were orders § children, etc.), their was to their issue pivotal purpose deprogram mind, by “clearing” “auditing” improve that can both Scientology teaches one bodily plays process auditing. The spiritual health. The E meter an essential role in the claims, alia, ailments, bodily including describing Scientology many literature inter vast cancer, may by auditing. be cured and was their the church brainwashed were the children the same: proceeding? in a court subject proof brainwashing majority’s suggestion primary with disagree respectfully Katz, and is here, recruiting, fraud in is the initial assertion opposed language, From their be scrutinized. judicially conduct which can therefore however, is at the core of conduct which clearly wrongful thаt the appears However, as the controversy fraudulently brainwashing.2 is the induced admits, (i.e., knowing misrepresenta- the first of the issue majority part identity partici- and the intent to induce appellants tion of the Church’s The remaining the Church. activities) in the Church’s is conceded pate “brainwashing” limited which alleged triable issue of fact is therefore the Church. What fact is joining resulted in conversion and their appellants’ *41 at trial? The same fact that majority it that the remands to be determined i.e., scrutiny, (or Katz found immune from was the conversion judicial by by induced coercive indoctrination or “brainwashing”) religious persua- sion? That unequivocally such is not for mortal courts to resolve is question by judicial answered Katz-. No such or is without proof inquiry possible absolutely underlying faith—an which is questioning person’s inquiry by forbidden the First Amendment.
The Katz and conversion are teachings “brainwashing” really that the methods used in each are either identical distinguishable; very similar; or virtually and that of the existence of each is identical proof are well by testimony illustrated case. The here was present expert offered to show that the “a .brainwashing was achieved appellants systematic mainly of social influences” which consisted of the manipulation (1) environment; control following: over social and physical separa- tion of the recruits family from outside world friends and (including rewards, members); (3) influencing individual behavior through punish- Church; ments and experiences; (4) oppression of criticism of the and However, attainment aof uniform state of mind. as special demonstrated below, all of these methods are used widely more accepted and/or tolerated in churches conversion. effecting religious conversion, is,
The effect of is rebirth—that generally speaking, spiritual attainment of a new life. The first that direction is a from step separation environment to a where previous one can meditate and contem- place without distraction. Our world’s monasteries and plate numerous convents demonstrate how retreat and isolation can devotion promote single-minded majority: legal question In the words simply religious organiza “The is whether a can held deceiving tion be liable on a traditional cause of action in fraud for nonmembers into ” themselves, consent, subjecting knowledge persuasion without their or to coercive and “The challenge practice identity misrepresenting concealing is to the Church’s or its in order tо bring (Italics added.) unsuspected highly outsiders into its structured environment.” be an family may impor- and members God. The from friends separation “He saying: Christ is who goal. quoted
tant this Jesus step achieving me.” worthy (Matthew, more than me is not loves father mother that true Christians must be The Mennonites likewise teach 10:34-38.) Christ, father, and forsake to take themselves the cross of upon prepared mother, wife, children, self, husband, and the for the sake of possessions it. and of God testimony Holy require of His Word when honor praise History 1947).) and Doctrine ed. (J. Wenger, (2d of Mennonite Glimpses family may one’s be traumatic and Although transcending painful, guilt sometimes an essential element in the of faith. The pilgrimage may awareness of sin also be an factor to conversion. important leading very of salvation and the threat of damnation are the foundation promise Ascetic, life, work, the life hard regulated fasting giving of the devout. earthly many are also aimed at up pleasures parts religious teachings God. The and intolerance spiritual dogmatic purity pleasing approach of criticism are not uncommon with established which religions profess divine truth in ex Holy is revealed church cathe- Scriptures, dogmas infallibility dra declarations of anointed leaders in the Catholic (e.g., papal Finally, which is not to be faithful Church) followers. questioned necessarily introverted in the forsaking view interest outside world flows from the that one must from religious teaching himself or herself separate *42 by the world dominated Satan and his evil forces in to and serve join order God’s kingdom.
Indeed, what this evidence characterizes as expert indicia of brainwash control, very or mind well be ing might with the more equated popularly of accepted symptoms genuine religious conversion. behavioral Religious change by mystery by induced of faith cannot be proved disproved science, secular which limits its of scope inquiry tangible, rational and logical phenomena, comprehensible explainable by human reasons. As Mr. Shapiro essay: states his beliefs—whether held “Religious by adher by ents to new sects or ‘mainstream’ believers—may not be dictated societal Such easily norms. norms can labels that transform encourage cult; beliefs into ‘A religious religion illnesses. becomes a proselytization becomes brainwashing; persuasion becomes missionaries be propaganda; retreats, monasteries, come subversive agents; convents become prisons; holy conduct; ritual becomes bizarre observance religious becomes aberrant ” behavior; devotion and meditation become psychopathic trances.’ (Shapi Robots, Persons, ro, and the Religious Beliefs, Protection 56 supra, Of 1316-1317, So.Cal.L.Rev. at fn. A analysis similar pp. omitted.) has been advanced “[religious] Justice Jackson: like experiences, some tones and colors, one, have They existence for but none at all for another. cannot be verified to the minds of those field whose of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which any turns on aspect
1139 likely are judges his among unbelievers belief or representation, . him. . . Prosecu certain not to believe and are almost not to understand into easily degenerate religious prosecution.” could tions of this character Ballard, 93, L.Ed. at pp. 95 v. 322 U.S. at supra, pp. States (United [88 Jackson, 1157, J.].)3 opn. 1158] [dis. Be “Outrageous” Subject Is The Church's Conduct Not so Regulation
to Governmental with the exercise Case law teaches that overt acts or conduct connected if the conduct only are interference religion subject governmental safety, substantial threat to the or order. As the poses public peace Supreme “ abuses, interest ‘only endangering give Court stated: the gravest paramount ” Verner, limitation.’ v. 374 U.S. at (Sherbert supra, occasion permissible Yoder, v. 406 italics This was reiterated in Wisconsin p. added.) supra, “[0]nly highest U.S. at L.Ed. 2d at those interests page [32 25]: order and those not otherwise served can claims to legitimate overbalance the free exercise of v. Review Ind. religion.” (Accord Empl. Thomas Bd. 624, 633-634, Sec. Div. U.S. 717-718 L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. 1425], italics added.) majority rests on a brain- opinion theory fraudulently induced However,
washing. “brainwashing” conduct of itself is not actionable because that commonly method is and it employed by religious fails groups, beyond constitute that conduct which outrageous goes the limits of social Ass’n, toleration. (Meroni 174; Holy.Spirit N.Y.S.2d see also v. Church P.2d Scientology (1981) Ore.App. Christofferson 577, 584, Thus, 40 A.L.R.4th 1017].) the critical issue is whether the act of becomes brainwashing tortious because it was act preceded wrongful of “heavenly deception” employed recruiting. *43 concedes,
It bears and indeed the that the claimed emphasis, majority surface, deceptions, although clearly secular on the are in religious “rooted Yoder, (Wisconsin belief.” v. 406 215 supra, 25].) U.S. at L.Ed.2d at p. p. [32 It is settled that the only Constitution not the free exercise of guarantеes some Katz tematic opinions make choices concerning concern: “The declarations of Dr. But these are not statements which are either ed, 3 The trial fns. principles applicable requires, may omitted.) manipulation in be the the entire large part upon court they imposition only would not have made in the ‘free exercise of granting true outlook to others. outlook of the Unification Church. What is of social influences’ to of regulation summary the view that liability Singer cannot be of acts of judgment and Dr. Defendants’ which, ... true or constitutionally religious organizations [11] for defendants Benson both doctors Testing false-, they recruitment reveal the uncontroverted (their) countenanced.” eloquently conclude, ‘systematic that both doctors rest their are veiled value techniques own will and intellect.’ and their lead Plaintiffs to voiced this same manipulation facts involve members, (Italics judgments here add ‘sys ’ by as to 1140 these in undertaken furtherance but certain acts also
religion, protects and indoc- the proselytizing these acts are among beliefs. Included religious v. As in McDaniel explained organizations. of religious trination activities “the 618, 626 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Paty U.S. 1322]: to the right religion encompasses the free unquestionably to exercise right v. Turner functions.” religious and other similar proselyte, perform preach, in- that further teaches 1978) F.Supp. (D.R.I. Unification usually a joins religious group who doctrination and the motivation one activities’ only ‘operational “the judicially cannot be scrutinized intellectual solely are in the or ideological a those activities that not religion, realm, may be to achieve judicial regulated to review and subject are [that] (Id., 371-372.) at sufficiently objective. pp. state important [Citations.]” inter- majority government listed for the permissibility examples all they are with Turner inasmuch ference with affairs consistent religious against law organization (i.e., involve activities of operational religious vaccinations, literature, li- religious compulsory distribution of polygamy, status, than rather etc.), cense for denial of tax religious exempt parades, matters, indoctrination. intellectual or such as proselytizing doctrinal Thus, here may wrong be made that persuasive argument principal subject govern- is not (i.e., “heavenly deception” recruiting) claimed all, rather than ment at because includes doctrinal matters intervention if are purely activities. But even we assume such acts operational fail may government, “secular” nature and be properly regulated amount to of such that would justify government an abuse magnitude This is so interference under the strict test law. balancing prescribed because the Amendment wide protection religious persua- First ensures may outright but also false- encompass only exaggeration, sion which Connecticut, hood. As stated in Cantwell U.S. at p. faith, L.Ed. at the realm and in that of political “In 1221]: belief, In tenets of seem may differences arise. both fields the one man sharp view, rankest To others to his neighbor. error to his own persuade point of know, times, vilification of exaggeration, as we resorts to pleader, been, are, state, have or men who in church and even prominent false statement. But the of this nation have ordained in the of histo- people light are, that, abuses, ry, liberties spite of excesses these probability view, in the on the long enlightened essential to conduct opinion right democracy.” added.) of the citizens of a part (Italics *44 sum, “heavenly In I and its firmly am convinced that since deception” abuses, is ensuing gravest fail to constitute those this court “brainwashing,” tort sanctions thereon. powerless impose I
Finally, holding find an additional for of tort reason that imposition sanctions is in the Case law particularly inappropriate present instance.
1141 am interest only supported emphasizes compelling governmental v. justify (Wisconsin evidence can state regulation practices. ple Yoder, 25, 215, In 30-31].) 224-225 L.Ed.2d at pp. 406 U.S. at pp. [32 bench, claim that such the case at the State of California has made no exists, any regulation nor has it enacted statute or governmental interest scrutinizing to restrict the at issue. When conduct purporting practices ostensibly which is and which can be subject protection to constitutional interest, only by judiciary state should regulated showing compelling cautiously tread creating governmental such interest with independently any out consideration The far better prior Legislature. Legislature is than this court to undertake the factual equipped investigation to for mulate the social justify which restrictions on policies exercising religious Indeed, freedoms. in the overwhelming majority merely of cases courts have state upheld regulations curbing religious creating conduct rather than such regulation. The majority’s liability creation of this new tort in such an area, historically heretofore sensitive without either legislative initiative guidance, judicial constitutes activism of the first degree.
II. Intentional Emotional Distress Infliction of of a elements cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional (1) distress are: outrageous conduct the defendants; (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability causing distress; emotional severe emotional suffering; (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress. (Newby Alto Riviera (1976) 60 Apartments Cal.App.3d Point, Cal.Rptr. 547], on disapproved other in Marina grounds [131 721, 740, Ltd. v. 496, Wolson (1982) Cal.3d fn. 9 640 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [180 115, Torts, 1161]; A.L.R.4th Rest.2d §46.) The conduct is deemed “ ‘ extreme and when outrageous it exceeds “all bounds decency] usually [of tolerated aby decent society, of a nature which is especially calcu [and is] ’ ” cause, cause, lated to and does mental . . distress. .” v. Fair (Cole Oaks 148, Fire 155, Protection Dist. (1987) 308, 43 Cal.3d fn. 7 Cal.Rptr. P.2d In 743].) order to successfully resist a motion summary judgment the plaintiff must sustain each action; element of the cause conversely, the defendant is summary entitled to judgment if proof any one element lacking. (Stationers v. Dun & Corp. Bradstreet 62 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. 785].) 398 P.2d
Respondents herein contended that the emotional distress cause of action was inherently defective because the Church’s conduct was not outrageous within the of the meaning law. The majority rejected has argument by this finding very that the (i.e., same wrong the fraudulent inducement of appel- lants into an where atmosphere could be brainwashed), served as the foundation of both the fraud and the emotional distress causes of action because the conduct complained was both extreme and I outrageous. *45 and majority is erroneous of the submit that conclusion
respectfully authorities. legal unsupported above, wrong actionable on failed to state appellants discussed
As fortiori, cannot fur- A fraudulent conduct allegedly count. the same fraud action. distress cause of for the emotional legal nish the premise facto, valid, not, ipso if cause action were would But even the fraud of severe recovery causing rise to for giving conduct outrageous constitute majority of the that the reasoning The bootstrapping emotional distress. of a double cause automatically produces conduct very same fraudulent emotional dis- for as well as for intentional infliction of (i.e., action fraud case authorities. rejected by been unequivocally persuasive has tress) 1984) LeCroy Reynolds, (E.D.Ark. in v. Dean Witter Inc. example, For 753, an for and intentional action fraud F.Supp. brought plaintiff intentiоnal mis of out of defendant’s growing infliction emotional distress in selling with securities. and wilful concealment connection representation “The rejected emotional distress claim plaintiff’s stating: The court fraud the sale of securi that and associated with recognizes deception Court can, occasion, Moreover, ties create distress. a broker’s repeat on emotional unsavory ed such business methods purely pursuit exploita use of citizen. Yet average tion and financial can offend the conscience gain ipso . . with the sale securities . mere in connection does fraud a facto case intentional emotional distress. make out prima facie for infliction of an truly outrageous, Unless the acts are action intentional defendant’s for 766, (Id., added.) emotional distress will not lie.” at italics infliction of 46, d, In Restatement Second of Torts section comment referring to “ has ‘Liability only court been found where conduct emphasized character, has been so and so extreme in as to outrageous degree, go atrocious, beyond decency, all to be regarded bounds possible ” community.’ in a civilized v. Dean Witter utterly (LeCroy intolerable Inc., 763-764, Reynolds, omitted.) italics supra, F.Supp. pp. v. & (Ala. 1984) In Barrett Farmers Merchants Bank So.2d instituted an action defendant bank its vice plaintiff against president wantonness, damages outrage, recover fraud conversion connec In payment ruling tion with life insurance policy proceeds. against held that the tort of plaintiff, outrageous court conduct not estab rather, fraud; mere by showing lished it should have been shown that society. defendant’s conduct was such as not to be tolerated in a civilized (Id., 263-264.) at pp. etc., Scientology, In P.2d Christofferson close, factually took complained
case defendant church control plaintiff *46 by way her mind and her into life service of fraudulent representa forced infliction of tions. In claim on intentional rejecting plaintiff’s premised distress, in “Plaintiff was recruited and emotional the court emphasized: That recruitment and indoctri Scientology. doctrinated into the very by any nation . . . were different than be used number of might not so albeit, claims, voluntarily, She as she on the organizations. joined group However, made her. she continued to partici basis misrepresentations and maintained her involvement for whatever reason without action pate by able threat or coercion defendants.” at “If (Id., pp. 590-591.) misrepre sentations were made nature . . . regarding Scientology benefits or fraud, remedy her 590.) would be for conduct.” outrageous {Id., Assn, finally, And v. Holy Unification, Meroni Spirit 174, issue, i.e., N.Y.S.2d the court nearly was confronted with the identical by whether brainwashing defendant Unification Church constituted outra geous conduct rendering it liable for intentional infliction of emotional not, distress. In finding it did the court that no emphasized outrageous conduct has been inasmuch presented as “The failed plaintiff has to demon strate that the recruitment indoctrination by used techniques appel lant, which are similar to those used a number of other organizations ‘go beyond atrocious, all possible decency, bounds of to be regarded as [are] utterly intolerable a civilized . . . community’ .” (Id., 177.) at p.
III. Restitution I Finally, myself find in profound disagreement with the reversal of summary judgment on the restitution count. The majority’s as to this ruling issue rests on the theory of fraud (fraudulent inducement to facilitate brain- However, washing) undue influence.4 neither of these theories support the cause of action at issue.
The uncontroverted evidence provided clearly Molko demonstrates $6,000 that he made the gift Thus, out aof then-held religious belief. Molko that he explained gave money God, to the Church to please Father, Heavenly and that he had not asked money that the be returned Church, while a member because he had been afraid of the evil forces and felt guilty of back demanding he something given had to God.51 quite 4 majority also mentions breach of confidential relationship poten Church as a However, tial emphasis basis for restitution. aspect on the latter does not add new dimen sion to the cause of fiduciary action because under well-settled law breach of or confidential relationship (i.e., Code, fraud). is constructive subspecies (Civ. 1573; fraud Darrow v. § Co., A. Robert Klein & Inc. Cal.App. 566]; 315-316 P. Barrett v.Bankof Cal.App.3d America Cal.Rptr. 16].) 1369 [229 pertinent part 5 The (and of the record reads as follows: Molko was told at that time he be lieved) Heavenly that “The asking help “[y]ou Father is . us . giving are a benefit that”; favorably to God and he would look on “that it tax time and that the church was deposi Mr. Molko’s “Careful review of finding: with the trial court’s
agree Com in the conclusionary contained allegations testimony negates tion *47 and consultation careful consideration his after gift Molko made plaint.” greatest he had the members in whom two Church one of the with e.6 the negates further savings all he did with his part That not confidenc indisput and complaint influence in his of undue conclusionary allegations of his free will.7 the as a edly gift product establishes beliefs, and the by religious prompted Since was gift indisputably this into be without inquiring cannot determined of fraudulent inducement issue beliefs, justifying fraud as a ground the of falsity theory truth or of such the free the transgressing judicially be entertained without restitution cannot discussion, supra.) detailed First Amendment. (See exercise clause of the of theory the undue influence is to reasoning equally applicable This same inducement, intricately it is so fraudulent recovery; theory as with the of be without beliefs that it cannot religiously proven held interwoven with (Estate Supple doctrines. verity underlying religious of the questioning 542].) Cal.Rptr. 247 410 Cal.App.2d arising may religious themselves entangle disputes That civil courts Church, supported ex-church members and the is well between disgruntled In 80 U.S. by Jones case law as well as scholars. Watson legal 679, 666, Court emphasized: 731 L.Ed. the United States 677], Supreme “ veil forbidden cannot the of the church for the judicial eye penetrate ‘the members; the excised when vindicating wrongs alleged purpose not as they did the condition of continuing became members so upon determine, they thereby submit to they and their churches and might funds, Heavenly really desperate and would need of that it would be most—that Father .”; money really favorably seeing give me . . appreciate, look to church on God, your you money your money you using gave rather God then used than “[t]hat words, your money money, way. you give and then and it better that In other to God worked money. way, you.” your spiritual can can And that world work for God distribute following ex- gift ask return of reflected The reason Molko did not for the his is Yes, “Q. money A. cerpts: you you feel that ask for the back in order Did ever should to—[]f] you thought Q. [j|] for A. The was such I about that. But never asked it back? situation [][] just something like guilt much fear that I—there was too much and too to ask. You don’t ask [j|] Q. you you you for particular happening that. afraid of if did not—if did ask What were money [j[]Q. [j[] something me. afraid that happen back? A. That evil could You were church, No, by asking your money something evil—[j[] back that A. not some- from see, Q.—would you? [j[] thing stand, happen to A. You evil force. You have to under- some —[fl] really lurking I that there evil forces around. And that if I disturbed believed was therefore, enough, something happen. I felt a spiritual could I believed that. And world something guilt supposedly given fear to God.” terrible sense of ask for that I had “thought thought I I best” and He testified that she told him she should dо what leaving up pretty to me.” “was much he referring When the several dollars available him and which thousand which were members, stated, They . . quite not control, Church he “I the line. . were under did disclose to drew my they stayed they were.” but where ecclesiastical and cannot now invoke the of the power supervisory power ” States, Scientology civil tribunals.’ In v. United Founding supra, issue, F.2d to the same the court stated: “under Ballard speaking a unlikely it seems former adherent could sue a church for disgruntled fraud and deceit because it had from him on the basis money collected . . .” fn. allegedly 32.) ‘false’ doctrines . (Id., 410, 414, Estate Supple, reaffirms that Cal.App.2d made to church be set aside court gifts cannot on grounds fraud or undue influence because the entertainment of such issues *48 by foreclosed the guarantees religious constitutional of freedom contained Ballard, in the First Amendment and in 78.8 applied U.S. Tribe, Finally, scholar, Professor a highly constitutional respected fearing affairs, with entanglement church expressed thusly: his concern “Once it is conceded that first amendment are values when unacceptably compromised issues, civil courts undertake to settle religious it clear becomes that allow- a legal determination ing about or some other property secular matter to turn on a court’s answer to a a religious question represents path fraught with peril: the is one path along which unsatisfied former believers could the civil drag courts into the theological thicket the simple of expedient suing for a refund of their prior religious organization. donations to a . . . The same is true a when church contributor seeks return aof donation on the ground that the religious beliefs inducing false; the contribution were once we assume that the underlying dispute is properly characterized as the suit a religious, for refund becomes vehicle for transparent invoking disagree position majority 8 I with the of the the complaint Supple in Estate was not of upon influence; clearly based fraud and opinion undue it was. That “It states: was also al leged Hell, representations [i.e., that all the of above that there are Heaven and eternal award punishment conduct, untrue, depending earthly and on were in fact false consti etc.] tuting superstitions incompatible childish position with man’s advanced tech science and nology, and that the charitable representations guilty who made these were un beneficiaries of duly influеncing guilty the they testator and were also positive because had made as of fraud which, true, they although sertions believed them to be were not warranted the informa Code, they (Civ. 2) tion which had they duty subd. and because had breached § which, intent, actually an gained without advantage misleading fraudulent them an the Code, prejudice prejudice (Civ. testator to his and the of his heirs at law subd. § case, 1). . . . In this state judgment of the the under the will moved on the []]] beneficiaries for pleadings against Smith toas the pleading, undue counts his of fraud influence against pleading. day, Hallinan as to entire his On the same the moved to also beneficiaries the pleading strike Hallinan and the and undue pleading. counts of Smith fraud influence matter, due ruling upon In time the matter was heard and the court filed a memo opinion gist randum which it stated that the and undue counts of fraud influence of pleadings two was that the charitable named will in the had the mak beneficiaries influenced ing by teaching religious the will certain testator beliefs which were in untrue and fact 412, 413, (247 Cal.App.2d which had no reason . .” pp. to believe were true. . italics added.) excerpts opinion clearly Since the cited Supple indicate that Estate was de influence, relevant, upon only extremely fraud and persuasive. cided undue is not but in a conflict at to benefit one side assistance
governmental other, forbids.” plainly the establishment clause something of the expense 14-11, 1235.) Constitutional Law American (Tribe, § We heavenly may practice deception. Members of this court detest (and successful) proselytiza- Church’s selective may abhor the results integrity of the of the may We as destructive tion. condemn such practices Yet, into this resist the tread family.9 temptation we must judges nor their instrumen- governments, thicket. For it is neither theological talities, courts, is the law to teachings. divine the truth of those That Appeal are all bound.101 am satisfied that both the Court which we it to these correctly it have found the law and applied the trial court before Therefore, summary I affirm the trial grant would court’s appellants. fraud, counts. emotional distress and restitution judgment on the *49 very recruiting beguiling intensive Appeal 9 The Court of it best: “The methods said Church, primarily young people most appear directed those who are the Unification which vulnerable, us, objectionable emotionally impressionable and seem as doubtless do most disinterested observers.” opinion affirming principle eloquent concurring this when he voted See Justice Mosk’s constitutionality penalty, People v. Anderson 69 Cal.2d uphold the death judge I am the law I find it to Cal.Rptr. 447 P.2d “As bound to be 117]: fervently might be.” not as I wish it to