The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. United States

OF CHURCH SCIEN- FOUNDING WASHINGTON, TOLOGY OF C., al., Appellants, D. et America, UNITED STATES Appellee.

No. 21483. Appeals

United States Court

District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov.

Decided Feb. Rehearing

Petition for Denied April 18, 1969. Atty., Dodell, U. Asst. S. Mr. Nathan Bress, U. S. David G. whom Messrs. Nebeker, Q.

Atty., U. Asst. Frank S. Goodrich, Atty., Assistant William W. Health, Department Counsel, General Welfare, and Joanne and S. Education Health, Attorney, Department Sisk, Welfare, and were Education brief, appellee. for and Before Wright, Robin- McGowan Judges. son, Circuit Judge: WRIGHT, Circuit J. SKELLY judgment appeal This from a is an destruction decree of condemnation and against instruments several electrical large quantity of owned and a by claimants-appellants, Washington, Church of adherents individual D. C. various organization. The instruments by the Food and literature were seized Drug with “devices" Administration as misleading accompanying la- “false and beling” subject under condemnation Act, Drug Food, and Cosmetic seq. (1964). et Govern- U.S.C. § charged the instru- ment further lacking "adequate ments were “devices" use,” in violation for further directions trial, jury of the Act.1 After a re- was verdict “for Government” judgment turned, and decree and a entered. condemnation was Appellants contend that the seizure Amend- the articles violated their Fourth rights, proceedings inter- ments of their re- fered the free exercise ligion, insuf- and that evidence was Because Brinkman, Washington, Mr. ficient verdict. Oscar H. sustain C., appellants. re- we find that much the literature D. “Any while court of the United jurisdiction be misbranded— shall be liable to be ^[*] * * * U.S.C. “A “ (a) * drug in interstate * # False or ft § ^[*] and condemned * 334(a). or device shall of which the article * * misleading misbranded device commerce States proceeded * * be label. within the deemed to ^[*] is found ** * against district ^{[*] [*]} * quate on label. trict of * * * U.S.C. U.S.C. “Unless “The “If “(f) Directions any particular. its directions term ‘interstate Columbia § § labeling (2) 321(b). commerce labeling is false for use and ** use commerce’ bears within the misleading warnings (1) means Dis- ade- lied on the Government to establish Court, formation with the District de- misbranding scribing within the instrument and literature meaning interpreted averring together of the statute consti- light Amendment, accompanying tuted First a “device” and “false misleading labeling” subject reverse. we to con-

demnation under the Act. The court or- authorizing I dered issuance of a warrant literature, seizure of the instruments and appellants’ outset, At the confront public advertisement of the seizure. disputed claim that instruments and agents FDA and United States Marshals literature, lawsuit, the res of this were carried January 4, out the seizure on seized in violation of the Fourth Amend premises ap- various owned provides ment. The Act that misbrand pellant Founding Church and its affili- proceeded ed devices “shall liable to ates, * * * after service of the warrant at- against on libel of informa tachment. 3 tion,” and that such “shall devices Appellants contend that by process pursuant seizures such liable to seizure governed by as this are libel, procedure warrant and the in un cases Amendment, clause of the Fourth conform, nearly der this section shall provides issue, that “no may be, Warrants shall procedure admiralty as * * to the in upon probable cause, supported by but applicable procedure The in affirmation, particularly or Oath admiralty and de- at the time of the seizure was scribing place searched, to be and the provided Admiralty 21, in former Rule marg persons things or to be seized.” Since text of which is set out in the appellants’ view the warrant of seizure in.5 “upon probable cause, sup- not issued complied The Government with the ported by affirmation,” they Oath or procedures required by statute and rule exclusionary contend that rule bars inspection in this case. Pursuant to the the use in evidence in a condemnation provisions Act, agents of the FDA visit- proceeding of the matter seized. Scientology, ed the Church of arguing the Fourth Amendment is- obtained a demonstration of the instru- sue, parties chiefly bought have concentrated seized, copies ment later and upon question alleged whether the exclusion- the literature later to be “label- ary applies proceed- ing” rule to condemnation of the instrument. United ings under the Attorney Act.7 Because we find States filed in- then a libel of provided, may require, as the case (m), 2. As defined in 21 U.S.C. § prayer and shall conclude with a 15, due text of which is set out Note process forfeiture, to enforce the and infra. give persons notice to all concerned in 334(a). 3. 21 § U.S.C. appear interest and show cause at the day process why return forfei- 334(b). 4. 21 U.S.C. § ture should not be decreed.” 5. “All informations and libels of informa- Moobe, .30, 7A J. Federal Peactioe 1f tion seizures for breach of the p. (2d ed.1968). revenue, navigation or other laws of Appellants appeared as claimants States, place the United shall state the goods Court, seized in the District and seizure, whether it be land or on jury trial, demanded a under U.S.C. § high seas, navigable or on waters 334(b). admiralty juris- within the and maritime States, Plymouth diction of the United and the See One 1958 Sedan v. Com. property Pennsylvania, 693, district within which the 380 85 S.Ct. brought Boyd (1965); in- where then is. The 14 L.Ed.2d 170 States, formation libel information shall United 116 U.S. 6 S.Ct. propound (1886); in distinct articles the mat- 29 L.Ed. but see grounds ters relied on as or causes United States v. 2000 Plastic Tubular forfeiture, Cases, etc., Cir., (1965), and aver the same to be 352 F.2d 344 contrary denied, to the form of the statute cert. 383 U.S. statutes the United States 15 L.Ed.2d magistrate. In the case ordi- “rea- fore in this case was the seizure attachments, nary of such applicable Fourth civil the details sonable” under aré, proceedings in the federal standards, do reach even Amendment courts, left to law.9 In cases ad- state question. governed by miralty, process protects Amendment Fourth lately Admiralty Rules, recodified as a right people be secure “[t]he supplement to the Civil Rules.10 houses, effects, persons, papers, and forms Tradition has sanctified these against and sei unreasonable searches attachments, processes of civil gives procedural this form to zures.” It sweeping subjected much through protection the warrant scrutiny Fourth Amendment in either magistrate requires clause, litigation scholarly literature. We to arrest search review except decision generally now, need not review them exigent cases. The often stated however, particular for we find that this requirement purpose of is to inter seizure in both was reasonable pose independ relatively detached and judicial grounds supporting it and the privacy ent maker between the decision supervision the decision to make it. over un individual and the otherwise checked zeal of enforcement officials.8 libel information filed Attorney particular the United States generally Though warrants ly seized, described items necessary persons arrests of gave reasonably particular account of searches, requirement the has warrant thought respects in which were traditionally imposed upon sei been Though to contravene Act.11 the libel type zures of involved this case— complaint, was not a verified it has been property of of attachment course admiralty complaints been held that proceedings. mean civil This does not signed by Government officers are at the Fourth that apply Amendment does by tested oath to officer's of office.12 seizures, to such sub in both its subject scrutiny by The libel was against prohibition stantive unreasonable Judge, United District and was States procedural require seizures and its only by after his and court order review judicial quasi-judicial ment of review that the warrant In these cir issued. of the ly mere decision to seize. It means cumstances, by requirements imposed all judicial imposed restraint complied the Fourth Amendment were through proceeding a different form with.13 showing probable than the cause be- 778, 92, denied, cert. 320 64 S.Ct. Municipal City U.S. 8. v. and Camara Court (1943). County 523, 88 L.Ed. 467 Francisco, 387 San U.S. 532-533, 1727, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Appellants 13. also sei- contend that (1967) ; States, 333 Johnson v. United illegal an search zure was the fruit of 10, 14, 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 68 S.Ct. U.S. in the form of a visit headquarters to the years previously by four agent passing as member of an FDA 9. Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. general public. There was no show- C, 10. Supplemental Fed.R. B Rules previous any visit bore re- Civ.P. case, lationship seizure in this inspections premises alleged event libel the “Hubbard illegal open general public accompanied are not were Electrometers” States, by labeling Lewis v. United searches. a list of named books and alleged pamphlets, L.Ed.2d which were to claim (1966). Appellants also contend that be used in the the E-meter could was carried out an unreason- seizure list of named cure or treatment manner, diseases, alleged of the able but on examination claims to be false misleading. record find contention to be this without merit. Cases, etc., States United Cir., Puree, F.2d Tomato analytic analytic II an mind. The mind is superior computer, incapable error, Gov- the merits of the turn then to We to which can be none attributed of the against the instruments ernment’s misjudgments human which create social to the decree and literature problems suffering. and much individual condemnation. These are traceable rather to the reac- seized, charged that instruments mind, up tive which is made imprinted “en- “E-meters,” Electrometers Hubbard patterns grams,” Act14; defined in “devices” as are system pain, nervous moments “la- that beling” seized constitutes the literature stress or These im- unconsciousness.J device, “writ- in that it is of the printed patterns triggered may by ten, printed, graphic matter original stimuli associated with the im- accompanying” device15; and that printing, produce then uncon- misleading. Be- false or this scious or conditioned behavior which is appli- reading of cause our the Act in its harmful irrational.17 by ap- cation to is influenced this case presented simple Dianetics is not as a pellants’ free exercise description prac mind, but as a background religion, some concern- many tical science which cure can necessary. ing their becomes movement terms, ordinary per ills of man. son, It Appellants case, A. in this claimants “engrams” encumbered of his materials, are individual the seized mind, “preclear,” reactive ogy as a anal corporate adherents movement computer previously to a from which Scientology. The known as apparently movement programmed have not instructions entirely upon the rests almost goal Dianetics is make erased.! writings Hubbard, man, of one L. Ron an persons “clear,” freeing the thus rational headquar- American who maintained the analytical and infallible mind. The bene England ters of the at the movement bring fits will out in set consid brought. time this action was alluring erable and All detail. mental early 1950’s, wrote eluci- Hubbard tracts by are disorders said to caused “en dating Di- what he “Dianetics.” called grams,” psychosomatic as are all disor theory is of the sets anetics a mind which ders, broadly concept and that is defi many therapeutic techniques out of the including Scientologists, now used ned.18 techniques by the process attacked working A of toward “clear” healing. in this as false “auditing.” process is described as This explicitly theory “therapy” was of characterized as basic Dianetics is \' possesses man and best-selling both reactive mind in Hubbard’s book Dianet- * * * Astounding appeared 14. ently “The in- term ‘device’ means in Science contrivances, struments, apparatus, magazine and in 1950—see A Brief Fiction Biography including components, parts, and (au- of L. Bon Hubbard (1) accessories, given, for use 1959); intended in thor not Dianetics : The diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, cure, or Modern Science of Mental Health prevention (1950); of disease man or other Science of Survival: Pre- animals; (2) or to affect structure of diction Human Behaviour any body of the succeeding footnotes, function of man or and where given, other animals.” is author is author D. Bon Hubbard. 321(h). 21 U.S.O. § ‘labeling’ exposition 15. “The term means all labels 17. An of the “fundamentals of written, printed, graphic clarity brevity and other Dianetics” of relative and (1) any publisher’s matter article or of is to be found introduc- wrappers, (2) supra Survival, its containers or accom- tion to Science of panying such article.” Note at i-viii. (m). 21U.S.O. § 18. Dianetics: The Modern Science of supra Health, Evolution Mental Dianetics : The of Note at 91- (a appar- (1958) Science work which “doingness.”24 philosophical and theory Mental of Science Modern íes: developed is that the was world process involves (1950). The Health relationships “Af- of constructed who “auditor” an conversation “Communication,” finity,” “Reality” “preclear” lead together discovering track,” taken denominated are along “time his Triangle.” way. along “the ARC “engrams” exposing primarily represented Though is early level, more mundane On spiritual improving the as a method Scientology fol- Hubbard’s the career explicit man, benefits rather condition United lowers—at least those promised well. bodily health are began to themselves constitute States — arthritis, der- asserted Hubbard matitis, religious The Found- into formal bodies. coronary asthma, difficul- some Washing- Church trouble, bursitis, ties, eye ulcers ton, C., appellants, in- one of the was D. psychosomatic and can sinusitis cured, corporated in the of Columbia District tuberculosis and further promulgated formal creed 1955. A was engrams.” “perpetuated part In- Articles of and was made corporation. appearance years From literature of few after the A began trial, appears Dianetics, forth to set Hubbard movement evidence at Scientology. Di- formal theories the move toward the broader part organization explicitly adherents endorsed as disturbed some anetics regard- Scientology, Scientology, who have seem to “that branch legal attempt provide Anatomy.” Testi- ed it as an Mental that covers But by Scientology at for the mony cloak movement’s activities. adherents movement, up- defended Hubbard the church made clear that continue trial though disavowing mysticism supernatural- Dianetics, theories hold the they ism, pointing kinship of his out the some but feel that there and other early with those the Vedas ideas errors in formulations. Eastern doctrines.26 much of came With trial, overlay developed the charac- lends color to From evidence appears activity major terization movement as kinship be- or- one. Hubbard has claimed Church affiliated and its espoused by ganizations tween his theories and those District Columbia religions, especially providing “auditing,” Hinduism Eastern fees at substantial argues (at Buddhism.21 He that man is the time of trial for a 25-hour $500 (a essentially spirit course), persons a free immortal interested in Scien- tology. Scientological Academy “thetan” ogy) in terminol- affiliated Scien- tology engaged merely training the “mest in inhabits auditors. body” paid (“mest” acronym directly by of the Auditors are the Church. is an time).23 energy, space, membership matter, There is no such; words in the Church as persons accepted to are Man is said qualities characterized “beingness,” “havingness,” basis their interest in Scientol- Scientology (3d work, 23. See 8-8008 13-19 at 19. In Id. at 92-93. a later Hubbard ed.1956). brought scope cancer within the of treat- Scientology: by “auditing.” ment See Scientology: 24. See op History The Fundamen- 1961). (4th A Man 21 ed. Thought, supra tals at 16. Note op Survival, supra See Science Note Scientology (apparently in- 8-8008, supra at n. a footnote 25. See Note pre- printing serted into a later of this 20-44. at Scientology book). dispute, 26. For Hubbard’s account of this See, e.g., PAB’s, L. Eon Hubbard’s PAB’s, IH, Bon see L. Hubbard’s Book (1956). Book III 14r-20 supra 21, at Note 14r-20. Scientology: 22. See The Fundamen- op Thought tals

J153 ability ogy pay (and presumably background B. With this factual in benefits). mind, litigation turn of this case in the District Court. The Govern- Electrometer, or E-me- The Hubbard typical ment has Food, framed this as a ter, plays essential, impor- or at least an Drug case, involving and Cosmetic Act auditing. process tant, part in accompanying device promotional whose galvanometer, The E-meter is skin sim- pow- literature makes claims to curative giving ilar in lie to those used detector unsupported ers in fact. The Govern- “preelear” tests. The holds ment has culled from the vast literature cans, soup his hands tin are two Scientology large number state- apparatus. linked the electrical A imply ments which assert or “en- registers chang- apparatus needle grams” or the “reactive mind” cause ines resistance of the electrical sub- conditions, mostly normally various those ject’s questions skin. auditor asks psychosomatic considered mental dis- subject, and the movement of the including orders, but also diseases or con- apparently needle is used as a check ditions opinion which standard medical questions. reaction emotional regard organic. Further state- According complex proce- rules and asserting ments have been found au- Scientology publications, dures set out diting clearing away processing, interpret auditor can movements “engrams,” can cure or alleviate these prescribed of the needle after certain finally conditions. And statements have questions asked, are and use them in di- indicating been introduced the E- agnosing spiritual the mental condi- to, meter is essential or at least useful subject. tion The E-meters are in, auditing processing. ba- On this $125, sold for about are advertised sis, the Government have shown Scientology publications available that the E-meter ais “device” within the adjoining Distribution Center meaning Act, that it “intend- Church. ** diagnosis, ed for use in the movement in the Dis- cure, mitigation, treatment, preven- trict of Columbia also the entire offers tion of disease 21 U.S.C. § range publications for 321(h). years sale. Over the this literature has put The Government on a series ex- grown corpus. into a formidable Hub- pert First, physicists witnesses. and en- early bard’s two books on Dianetics are gineers concerning testified the E-meter sold, along developing with later treatises They itself. found skin be a crude Scientology. large pam- A number of galvanometer, reasonably craftsman- phlets supplements and tracts the hard- design though like and construction, cover books. The movement certain serious defects if meant to be monthly magazine, which at Ability, meaningfully used aas research tool for published time of trial had over 100 num- measuring electrical resistance. skin addition, bers. “L. Ron Hubbard’s Bulletins,” Next, Professional Auditors’ num- a series of doctors and medical bering trial, at least 80 at the psychiatrist time researchers and a testified published pamphlets. collected and that, expert knowledge, within their Much of this literature is before there was no use for such an instrument evidence, large court as diagnosis exhibits in and a 'in the any or treatment dis proportion by of it condemned stands ease or They mental disorder. were ask the District Court’s decree or specific as ed “false about the or condi diseases misleading labeling” of the Scientology E-meter.27 tions claimed in the litera appendix In toto, an to its decree the Dis- the court must be reversed in appellants’ trict Court listed the works found to do not reach claim that the . respecting make false claims the curative Act does not authorize condemnation powers auditing labeling, especially and ordered them which takes along condemned with the E-meter. form literature. judgment we conclude that Since religious guide persons susceptible to make of alleviation intended ture be unanimously spiritual be- through auditing, more aware of as themselves and diagnosing ings, treating hu- and not or agreed treat could be that none these mind, through any body way not any man ailments of or and helped or ed teaching engaged of medical arts E-meter.28 known use or sciences legal arguments the In Government Finally, respect to their claim to that from the outset has contended religion pro- religion, Scientology be a and hence within is or not whether they Amendment, auditing process- tection of the First or not and whether Founding religion, have that the Church shown practice are en- of that is a incorporated Religious church is as a tirely case. irrelevant Columbia, entirely protect- in the that its argued, District and beliefs, it is qualified perform Amendment, by ministers are mar- action ed but the First riages They religion susceptible have intro- burials. is in legal regulation name of duced into their Creed evidence. under stand- the same degree claim it Government has made no that to the same as ards and re- bona entirely purpose. Church is if secular fide ligion, part auditing is not that argued Appellants from the first have religion, exercise of or that the- that an un- the entire case must fall as that auditing ory of of that is not doctrine religious persecution. In constitutional religion. auditing view, processing is a practice religion, akin parties of their central C. Thus have both viewed Church, simple in the Catholic to confession issue one. In the reg- entirely exempt religion from simply hence view, ir- Government’s is They prohibition. engaged have made appellants ulation or have relevant — attempt expert to contradict the testi- stripped no “action” and hence themselves mony protection. introduced the Government. of First In Amendment They appellants’ view, religion dispositive— conceded that the E-meter is have is diagnosis no or treatment part practice use is of their argued such, and have disease as faith and hence the free exercise clause having put protects regulation. forward as never from all secular Auditing processing, in their view, use. our issue is more view, spirit man, not his complex parties treats the though through than either of the healing body, maintained. They body spirit can affected. First, it is clear First numer- their literature have culled from regu protect Amendment does from disclaiming any intent ous statements prohibition lation reli all bona fide recommending that treat disease gious practices. Supreme As the Court Scientology practitioners un- send those has stated: organic de- care to doctors when der their “* * * They [The intro- First fects be found. Amendment] concepts, through testimony two embraces a document duced —freedom undergo believe and freedom to who act. The first which auditing assert all those but, sign processing things, is absolute in the nature of must spiritual the second “a cannot be. Conduct re- states witness, psycho- flict an who is charac- within individual One neurophysiologist, physiologist ailment, did if terized a neurotic However, testify is a between word to use here.” there connection correct including stimuli, mental or emotional the witness did not consider the E-meter “good stimuli, skin He stated: resistance device” because and skin resistance. good have to such fac- skin resistance devices needle reacted irrelevant “The only tightness tool and tors as the with which as a research the sub- been used ject very occasionally soup to held cans. as a clinical tool try emotional con- areas of discover to give ing paramount regulation interests, for occasion to mains ” ” *** society. permissible religious for of protection of limitation’ practices. case, In that the Court held 296, Connecticut, 310 U.S. v. Cantwell unemployment that denial to benefits 903, 303-304, 900, L.Ed. 1213 84 60 S.Ct. Saturday, those who work (Footnote (1940). omitted.) Thus though rule, permissible as a marriage plural prohibition has been applied could not to one whose refusal though practice re- upheld, is a even religious objec- to work was based on ligious duty Similarly, parad- to some.29 30 tions. by a license and the sale without religious children of literature31 have principles Cantwell, enunciated in prohibited, though practiced even Barnette and Sherbert at least raise a religious concerning faith. as tenets constitutional the con- doubt demnation of instruments and literature legal hand, re On the other apparently practice re- central to applied strictions cannot be to ligion. That doubt becomes serious more they practices, as can much sec when we turn to the decision the Su- showing realm, merely ra ular on a preme Ballard, in United Court States v. regula relationship tional between the 78, 322 U.S. 64 882, S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 1148 imposed legitimate tion and the end (1944). sought. Cantwell, supra, at 310 U.S. 304, 903, 60 S.Ct. stated the Court religion Ballard involved an eccentric power regulate “the so must be exer known as the “I Am” movement. The not, attaining permissible promoters cised as religion, of this members of end, unduly infringe protected family, the Ballard claimed to have been added.) (Emphasis appointed freedom.” And one “Saint “di- Germain” as Virginia messengers,” West Board Education vine given State and to have been Barnette, 624, 639, power v. By 319 63 U.S. S.Ct. to cure all diseases. virtue 1178, 1186, (1943), claims, they 87 these money L.Ed. 1628 obtained spoke elaborately Court public. They more from and more members of the were forcefully tried judge same for mail fraud. issue: The trial excluded from jury consideration “ * ** right of a State falsity the issue of the truth of their regulate, example, utility public designation claims to divine and miracu- may include, well so far the due powers, lous and the case was submitted process concerned, power test is im- sole issue of whether made pose leg- all of the restrictions which a good They those claims in faith. were may islature ‘rational basis’ convicted, and on review the Court adopting. speech But freedoms of Appeals ruled that exclusion of the issue press, assembly, and of and of wor- falsity of truth or improper. Bal- infringed ship may not be on such slen- States, Cir., lard v. United 9 138 F.2d 540 grounds. They susceptible der (1943). only prevent grave restriction danger Supreme immediate to interests Court reversed Court ” lawfully protect. Appeals, holding State First prohibited Amendment trial of the truth Similarly Verner, v. Sherbert 374 falsity beliefs: 398, 406, 1790, 1795, U.S. S.Ct. “ * * (1963), thought, L.Ed.2d 965 held the Court Freedom of “‘[o]nly gravest endanger- abuses, which includes freedom of be- Beason, 333, 29. Davis v. U.S. 31. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachu Reyn- 299, (1890); setts, L.Ed. 637 S.Ct. L. 321 U.S. 64 S.Ct. (8 States, Otto) (1944). olds United Ed. 645 (1878). L.Ed. Hampshire, 30. Cox v. New 312 U.S. 85 L.Ed. 1049 merely society men. The Ballard case does not hold of free

lief, ain is basic * * * religious right protected. is to that belief It embraces engaged action; they solic- in death Ballards life and of theories maintain money from their faithful. Rather ited rank which are the hereafter and of heresy holding of that the regulation the case seems orthodox to followers religious foreign in- action which Heresy are trials faiths. falsity testing in the truth or may volves court Men believe our Constitution. religious the First They belief is barred prove. they cannot what Amendment. proof of reli- put their * * * gious or beliefs. doctrines The relevance of Ballard to the be- gospel the New Many from their take fore us Here the E-meter is obvious.32 hardly be But it Testament. condemned, not it has been because is tried be- could be supposed that represen- harmful, itself because the but duty of charged jury with the fore concerning tations misleading.” it are “false or made teachings determining those whether largest part And the * * * representations. contained false representations those contained in the is by re- religious espoused views describing literature of incredible, might if not spondents seem process appellants if people. preposterous, But to most claimed, contest from the without Gov- subject trial be- are those doctrines ernment, part of the of their is doctrine finding charged their jury with fore religion and central to its exercise. Thus falsity, can be the same truth or then religious if ac- their claims to status are any religious beliefs done with finding cepted, a litera- that seized of fact under- triers sect. When misrepresents ture au- benefits from task, they forbidden enter a take that religious diting finding is a that their ”* * * domain. are To doctrines Food, false. construe permit Drug Act to 86-87, and Cosmetic at 886. at 64 S.Ct. U.S. “ * * * any meaningful perceive if are But those doctrines 32. We do not subject jury charged trial before a civil the fact this is a distinction finding falsity, their then crim- truth rem Ballard was a action whereas prosecution. place the same can be with the the first done inal long recognized Supreme When the triers beliefs of sect. Court has taslc, they penal undertake enter a are rem forfeiture actions fact ” (Empha- many of same domain. nature and forbidden added.) placed prosecutions. sis restrictions Pennsylva- Plymouth v. Sedan One unlikely Thus Ballard seems under Boyd nia, supra 7; United Note disgruntled former that a adherent could States, supra taken Note The action and deceit be- sue fraud church against ajipellants here more than money him cause it had collected from punitive. merely remedial; The de- allegedly on the basis “false” doctrines properly be cannot condemned here vices concerning salvation, hell— heaven and per se. One contraband See considered or for matter on the basis of doc- Sedan, Plymouth supra, 380 U.S. trines, Christian those of such as L.Ed.2d at They Scientists, concerning cure the cause and harmful, are not themselves of disease. drugs or mis- adulterated foods Indeed, Supreme only has recent- Court Their al- wired electrical devices. ly unanimously supposedly leged illegal cannot held courts is the attribute pow- property dispute concerning civil between settle claims made false dispute turns church bodies where the ers. orthodoxy Second, perceive doc- consti- we do parties. espoused trines Pres- in Ballard to have defect found tutional byterian prosecution United States v. Church been the individuals Mary religion. promulgating Pres- de- Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial false That byterian Church, litigation S.Ct. U.S. of the truth fect was rather falsity 21 L.Ed.2d 658 doctrines. See at 887: S.Ct. light would, finding Bal- in the use distribution a and sale of the ” * * * drug, gravest present lard, constitutional and it was so used. difficulties. 335 U.S. at 69 S.Ct. at 109. Nor did pamphlets the fact con- were D. It with these constitutional sold being “labeling” them save from our siderations in mind that we turn to context of that application examination of the of the case: * “* * Appel- statute the facts of this case. drugs he booklets and [T] argued have much of the lants Sci- interdependent; were nonetheless entology literature from claims parts integrated were of an distribu- concerning powers the curative of audit- program. tion cir- Act cannot be by was culled a witness by easy cumvented device “labeling” is not E-meter within advertising of the ‘sale’ matter where meaning part of the it is Act, since advertising performs the function their church. doctrine of labeling.” purposes Act, “the term ‘la- For. Ibid. beling’ means all and other writ- labels Kordel thus laid down the broad printed, upon ten, graphic (1) matter determining lines whether literature any article or of its containers “accompanies” drug device; do so wrappers, (2) accompanying such arti- together shipped it need not be with the 33 litigation cle.” Most of the over this device, “designed but it must be for use question definition has turned in the distribution sale of” the de of when written matter be said to vice, “parts and the two must be of an “accompany” an In article. integrated program.” distribution Government has contended that Scientol- Subsequent in the eases lower courts ogy literature on sale in the Distribution helped rough sketch in the Center, adjoins outlines the Hubbard Guid- 34 by drawn Kordel. In Molasses ance Center where E-meters were used best-selling case, extolling book auditing, “accompanied” the E-meters. powers blackstrap molasses, curative The courts have construed the word though mentioning names, no brand was “accompanying” give broad remedial by pro used health food in a retailers purposes effect of the Act. copy motional scheme. A of the book States, Kordel United 69 placed in the window of the store (1948), S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 52 the Su- display next to of mo brand preme that, Court ruled in order to be Prospective purchasers lasses. of mo promo- considered drug, of a cop lasses inside the store were handed pamphlets shipped tional need not be to- passages ies of the book and referred to gether drug. It held that: misleading in it which made thing accompanied “One article or product. particular copies about the by supplements another when it ex- of the book used in this scheme were plains it, in the manner com- found the District Court “accom report Congress mittee accom- pany” the molasses.35 panies physical a bill. No attachment hand, On the other Balanced necessary. one to the other is case, general Foods36 literature which misleading “The falsely false and properties claimed healthful for a present designed case was food was found Circuit not Second (m). Jars, etc., Fancy 33. 21 Honey, U.S.O. § S.U. Pure E.D.Mich., F.Supp. (1963), af- Cartons, etc., 34. United States v. 8 Mo- firmed, Cir., (1965). 344 F.2d 288 lasses, W.D.N.Y., F.Supp. (1951). “Sterling 36. United States v. 24 Bottles case, involving Vinegar 35. For Honey, etc.”, a similar the book Cir., & 338 F.2d see v. 250 United States A330UT Honey, usa services were “accompany” of that which it. facts interesting. provided. The best-sellers case are Arthritis and Folk Folk Medicine proportion of this literature A small vinegar prescribed mixture of Medicine directly deals the E-meter itself. with variety honey of maladies. for a wide books, apparently intended for Two entology Sci- success, a achieved After Folk Medicine general the auditors rather than prep- bottled a food manufacturer health workings public, describe the nature and this mixture sale. aration of E-meter, of the the same time and at purchased copies also of manufacturer give guidance some as to its use in the spe- them after the distributed book and auditing process.38 these Within books promotional to cial efforts the same can be statements effect found sold the mix- health food outlets which the to E-meter is an essential aid that the retail ture. There evidence auditing. proper However, these works copies displayed the mixture and stores very the contain of what Govern- little facts, apart. On these the book a few feet misleading ment in contends false and judgment that the the court reversed a Though labeling E-meter. the of the labeling” the “false book constituted concerning there the are scientific distinguished food. Kordel The court properties open of the E-meter which are drug ground pamphlet the the ,thai¿ placed question,39 the Government lit- in in “inte- had mailed that case presenting tle reliance these in its grated transactions,” ven- jury. case to the given away copies pam- of the dors had Among the literature drugs phlets of the in some with sales found before the are few court there

instances.37 advertisements, apparently at directed general public, ap- which make direct of the case us facts before converts, peals (or if the customers materially differ from those in the cases ' appellants’ accepted). version is just alleged reviewed. The copies These in advertisements are found single readily digestible here is not a Scientology magazine monthly of the book, pamphlets or a collection of obvi Ability. representations Their concern- ously promotional nature, but rather a auditing process appear to be array vast of the often obscure literature general designed bring come-ons, Scientology. was, ac This literature gullible.40 the curious or the cording trial, at of to the evidence all By greatest far Center, bulk mate- fered for at sale the Distribution alleged labeling” Inc., rial “false corporation affiliated general E-meter Church, consists literature which had its book presents Scientology, in an which inte- store next to the Guidance at Center However, labeling libel. of false 37. Second In another case the Circuit great allegations charges (in general bulk of the this found misleading journals) statements “la false or were in medical to be articles itself, made, promo beling” used in about the E-meter but it was not because auditing process about with a device. United tional scheme Corp. Diapulse Manufacturing it is used. States v. America, Cir., 612, F.2d cert. See, e.g., Ability, 58, 40. No. at 5: denied, “Plagued you by make illness? AVe’ll L.Ed.2d 1365 proc- good Get able to have health. Sanborn, 38. Electrom- J. The Hubbard capable essed the finest auditors Hubbard, (1959); E Me- eter L. R. today. Every a D.D. the world auditor ter Essentials Three-week inten- One-week intensive. group instance, sive. intensives. Per- For in E Meter Essentials Weekend supra sonally Hubbard and monitored L. Note coached Hubbard, Come will also read Ron Founder. “[t]he claims that meter - Street, W., Registrar, N. The Government 19th Basal Metabolism.” among allegations Washington 9, D. C.” included this claim grated theory claimed, ear- here manner sketched lants and as Gov- mind, concerning denied, lier ernment the human has not these books are scriptures. unhappiness, sources of its ing various sorts statements concern- powers psychosomatic auditing personality disorder and over ills way readily complaints, body separa- mind and and the process ble from can alleviate these statements Sciento- logical concerning ills. found Within literature is to be doctrines nature only passing relationship most refer- of man occasional of his mind body. Many E-meter; ence to the more his find these doc- often than will not, trines, the meter those even mentioned which relate to health as general Among not, these are well as those do works. these absurd or in- introductory describing the coherent. But the Ballard case makes works Scien- tology, suspect legal presumably works, inquisition it is the these of such doc- any, pressed they if upon which are trines where are held curious as public of members the in tenets. effort might promote be sale made to the the introduced Were literature here of services. clearly might secular, conclude we well general It is within this existing that under law it constituted the passages Government has found the “labeling” jUje purposes of Act. Such

which, isolation, in stand dra- out most might justified a conclusion a matically healing as fraudulent claims. reading statute, broad of consistent instance, perhaps For in the most ob- high purpose protecting with of its impenetrable books, scure and against public pocketbook health and Hubbard’s Scientology: History A of However, health frauds. readings such broad (4th 1961), damaging ed. occurs the Man are favored im- not when “Cancer sentence: has been eradicated pinge upon constitutionally sensitive by auditing conception out and mito- areas, especially of in the absence a show- short, sis.” it is mass legislative ing regulate these intent to largely literature that depended the Government Nothing history or inter- areas. in showing, satisfaction pretation of the Act indicates that jury, that the move- special prob- meant to with the deal concerning ment had made false claims religious healing, problem often lem of powers the curative of its tech- given legislative separate from treatment niques. imposed general upon the area of These, however, are books which public practice.42 In health and medical Scientology. set forth highlighted light considerations, doctrines of these If that appel- holding Ballard,43 movement is religion, explicit as we page Bartlett). curring opinion Judge At of Chief exemptions from Official unofficial 134(d) (1967) exempts 42. 2 § D.C.Code protect- regulations various health operation from li- medical exercise ed Christian Scientists censing “persons treating laws human Schneider, religion. Chris- their See by prayer spiritual means, ailments Room Science Law: tian enjoyment as an exercise or Compromise?, & Soc. 1 Colum.J.Law According freedom to Caw- Pkob. ley, Liability Sealing, Criminal in Faith “[M]ost, (1954), 39 Minn.L.Rev. miracu- 43. The Ballards made claims * * * * * money all, if healing powers not states and collected lous except licensing requirements from the truth claims. The on the basis of these persons falsity those who to treat hu- held not endeavor claims was their ? by prayer spiritual prosecution man ailments in a to evaluation exclusively.” argued They means been no “de- It has marketed for mail fraud. requires claims, but Constitution such ex- with their vice” connection ceptions confidently licensing to medical to conclude that laws. Peo- is difficult ple Cole, 98, 111, they, practices N.Y. 113 N.E. and had had drug 795, L.R.A.1917C, (1916) (con- food and laws under attacked including ing interpret place of man’s nature the Act not within theories his as concept of the literature which characterize rec Universe litigation religion. ognized religions. Though developing doctrines given group question whether a Finally, E. come vex is or is not is a set beliefs Scientology religion? question: legal business,46 system our delicate whole, we find that On the record as a t requires it that secular en sometimes so prima appellants out a have made facie unjustly enjoy erprises im case that the Church Scien granted to the munities sacred. When tology religion. incorporated as It is is a granted churches, exemptions tax of Columbia. It District concerning litigation is or is not a what such, ministers, who are licensed exemption church will follow.47 When bury. legal authority marry Its and to granted military to those from service is writings contain fundamental object religious grounds, there is who compara account of man nature and his litigation.48 otherwise similar When scope, content, if those ble permitted proscribed substances are recognized religions.44 of some The fact worship, worship purposes of used for deity postulates that it no in the conven provided be defined.49 The law must preclude tional sense does not its status unsatisfactory definitions, doctrines and religion.45- as a disp they be, may to such as deal with might to have chosen Government not the Government chose Since utes.50 to contest Founding the contest claim that religious appellants’ V claim religion. every Church was enterprise fact a Not appellants status, in our and since view cloaking of itself in the name prima for case have made a facie religion pro can claim the constitutional status, purposes of that for we conclude It tection might conferred status. they judgment oí us review before possible to show that a self- protection free entitled to the are proclaimed religion merely com was underly enterprise, exercise clause.51 mercial without the Woody, 716, People 40 statute, 61 Cal.2d 49. v. the mail fraud rather than (1964) Cal.Rptr. 69, ; 394 P.2d 813 been truth of their would have claims Cal.Rptr. 887, Grady, litigation. 39 re 61 Cal.2d fit for more (1964). 912, 394 P.2d 728 21-26, accompanying 44. See text purposes finding for the of the Act. a that this literature was false your religious ternal Code of Revenue which ex- fine claims as and empts corporation “organized op- a and claims a were ordinarily of nature that would not * ** exclusively religious religious; erated for as be understood * * purposes, second, holding yourself drug or educational no out as a part earnings implied you spoke of the net inures salesman that ”* * * any private authority. benefit of shareholder medical or individual A Commission- Weiss, Privilege, Posture Protec- er Court Claims has filed an “Religion" Law, tion: in the 73 Yale opinion, including findings of fact and 593, 604, L.J. law, recommended conclusion of recom- The distinction between a healer who mending uphold that the court the denial represents his cure from the first as re exemption (No. 226-61, filed Au- ligious, represents and one who it as gust 7, 1968). The Commissioner found medical scientific but then defends large part a that of the activities of the religion, on the well basis is marked profit making Church was People cases, Cole, two New York v. nature, earnings and that some of net (Christian supra prac Note 42 Science inured the benefit of L. Ron Hub- only exempt by prayer titioner who cured bard. licensing statute), from medical and Peo ple Vogelgesang, v. 221 N.Y. thoughtful 52. As one commentator has (1917) (Cardozo, J.) (“faith N.E. 977 only “[W]e noted: can know that a “specialist healer” who self advertised as religion claim is based when we are in all forms of chronic diseases” and who legal it told is. The basis for stat- prescribed drugs exempt). religious ing that a claim inis domain course, opinion, imply In this we being can be is held as out re- no view as to whether the District ligious in nature.” licensing statute, Columbia medical And further: (1967), ap- D.C.Code is §§ “ * * * simply If a man sells bad plicable appellants’ activities. drugs religious grounds, and defends on See, g., Schneider, op. supra we can find his defense insufficient. e. cit. Note say: first, you For we failed to de- 42.. labeling misleading E-meter, (3) public We do hold health Food, Drug general, set that verdict must be aside. or the laws ap- particular, no Act in Cosmetic Ill religion. plication to the activities may instance, For well be adulter- has our to this conclusion Since road drugs foods, in re- or devices used long complex, ap- ated .we think it been ligious practices un- can condemned be propriate to we have what summarize drug or a der Act.54 It be that We have what we have not held. religion con- following: device used held the if its label- “misbranded” demnation as (1) of the record before the basis On lack, instance, ade- found to for us, Founding Church of charged use, quate for as was directions prima a that it is out case made facie only holding prevents (cid:127)'m this case.55 Our and, religion no rebut- a bona since fide labeling finding basis false regarded offered, it tal has been must N,of literature. doctrinal religion purposes of this case. as holding (4) no con- Finally, we make us, prima (2) theOn record before Congress cerning power, deal prac- ais case exists that facie making generally false with the Scientology, tice accounts of injurious by religions deemed auditing integrated into the- public Bal- or welfare. The health ory doc- on some lard doubt course casts has been of- trines. Since no rebuttal opin- aspects power; of such a but this point proven. fered, must take the narrowing construction, only ion makes (3) doc- In view of the constitutional constitutionally area, of a’ sensitive Ballard, supra, trine of United States quite proper- statute which has otherwise setting forth doc- ly broadly courts. construed trines, and related to an instrument Reversed. “auditing” in which the liter- manner E-meter, ature here is can- related Judge (dissent- McGOWAN, Circuit subjected not be to courtroom evaluation ing) : “la- and therefore cannot considered Court, At the trial District beling” pur- of such instrument an which, put from in evidence misleading poses of the label- “false my view, jury in in a would be warranted ing” provisions of the Act. finding practice (1) that the of the as- following hand, On the other the religion Scientology serted involved should noted: be of a in the use mechanical device associ- (1) do hold the Found- We not publications ation with certain ing legal purposes is re- Church for all a utility represented the device to have Any prima ligion. made out ease facie relief, prevention, physical the or cure for is to contra- status (2) cancer, de- illnesses such as showing by diction a that the beliefs as- capacity. no vice in fact had such good are not held serted to be that, it, majority, holds as I understand asserting them, by those and that faith go not fur- did because religious organization were forms Scientology prove not ther and was cloaking purpose of for the erected sole religion, fide First Amend- a bona legal pro- enterprise a secular with the ments, interpreted United States religion. tections of Ballard, 322 U.S. S.Ct. (1944), any judicial (2) that, in- even not hold if Sci- L.Ed. 1148 bars We do pub- entology religion, quiry all into the de- is a literature whatsoever whether healing by powers for it is doctrine immune had the claimed lished vice determination, from the Act. it. Absent such a 334(a), 331(a), 352(f) 55. See 21 § U.S.C. 54. See 21 U.S.C. §§

Hfl3 logically judg- majority support finding a fore is concludes that us such as to certain items of the tha't the device is misbranded can that lit- ment healing e, upheld. (i. erature not be did contain claims by “Cancer has eradicated proceeding This did involve an in- conception mitosis”); and that out validity any personal quisition into the association of these with the religious beliefs, infliction sufficiently justify meter is close as holding punishment any person for the latter’s seizure. But relation- this disseminating It beliefs. was ship in the case of one or more books against proceeding property under a Con- pamphlets necessarily would not mean gressional protecting statute aimed at that all the sub- unsophisticated against only wasting ject Every aspect to confiscation. money but, importantly, more en- religion practice preaching of a can- dangering by relying upon their lives simply not be interfered with because is, machines. misbranded majority points out, There as the phase legal exposed one itof action. well-recognized good distinction between the faith hold- pains The District Court was at some religious belief, bizarre, of a however identify those items of literature implement and unlimited freedom to misbranding which ters, effected me- by belief do conduct. I not believe and those did not. It is not required, the Government separation least clear me that this was uni- statutory proceeding formly rem differentiating successful in af- involved, that, kind here show over hand, faith, firmations of the one misbranding device, above the representations from as to the curative religious pretensions sponsors capacities meters, on the other. were fraudulent. that, special Indeed, it absent a showing beyond of need eviden- respect colleagues my I difficulties tiary use, Congressional purposes case, have with Ballard I do not but permanent exhausted a seizure and re- compels think it the result reach. Certainly, tention of the devices alone. prosecution That was a criminal for mail practical matter, objectives as a proclaimed of an fraud who individual normally realized statute religion as a the fact that “di- he was a thereby, problems and difficult of re- messenger” appoint- vine endowed ligion speech, inherent in the whole- power ment of “St. Germain” with the printed matter, sale seizure of avoided. ease, to cure all diseases. The at least posture, in its then did not involve a Appellee’s Rehearing On practice Petition for giving healing treatments for hire, much less the and use of sale devic- PER CURIAM: es like the meters with which we are con- petition From the Government’s cerned here. To the extent that there are rehearing case, appears that the expressions may in Ballard that conceiv- following clarifying are in observations ably point majority the direction the order. goes, peculiar I would to limit them the ease, which, facts that repeat, to .did I not the involve use misbranded devices proceedings did and against result in criminal has cor Government persons the there involved. rectly opinion our a inferred from that showing “auditing not, however, I am have satisfied services that the general peddled public to the sweep Government did officials too non-religious broadly wholly pseudo- basis this seizure. The meters are representations” only support to vulnerable seizure scientific if U.S.App. labeling. misbranding a misbranded, verdict of false and 133 here gave separate, at-, must be 409 found in D.C. F.2d at 1161. We but associat- ed, pieces explication of a The record as further this view literature. be- 1164 noy support verdict, a Weiss, Privilege, Posture did we to dence passage from Law, “Religion” in the that all submitted to find literature Protection: and labeling” jury 604, (1964), and as 593, “false was Yale L.J. that some York we found Rather New doctrine. to instructive two citations prima 98, at least Cole, was People 219 N.Y. literature cases, v. J doctrine, (1916), L.R.A.1917C, 790, facie 113 N.E. instructed,2 Vogelgesang, jury, 221 N.Y could have People as it was v. . finding (1917). against basic Our found the E-meter 116 N.E. re which was that, to raise order false statements point charge See false time doctrine. at same ligious defense -, U.S.App.D.C. misbranding), per opinion, 133 at main (here statement misrepre alleged course, And, charged where F.2d at 1161. son explicitly may him jury’s held have rested verdict must have sentation religious, opposed making grounds improper as Amend First out self reviewing secu medical, reasons, will otherwise ment court scientific

s, pause speculate lar, whether claims. actually, jury’s on verdict reached was argues now that there grounds. other, permissible, Strom was evidence in record sufficient 367-368, California, berg v. 283 U.S. labeling permit jury false on to find (1931); 75 L.Ed. 51 S.Ct. “wholly non-religious basis Chicago, Gregory City representations.” pseudo-scientific In 946, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 Scientology pages thousands trial, introduced at it finds literature II appear passages be based religious claims, than rather secular petition, In its finds the Government pre- “a claim that as the unclarity in our failure to state whether science, designed for cise and exact an or not trial a second follow in this sciences,” age exact and that “[n]o course, case. Of is not within our except physics on earth other power authoritatively to declare the res testing chemistry grueling had such judicata of our effect own decision. findings).”1 (proofs, exact However, since the of our reversal basis argument framed, improperly This misconceives was that case was Scientologists’ ground upon rather than that de- we reversed. We competent absolutely pro- evi- vices and literature insufficient were did not find by appellants. Appellants already opinion, framed their we main 1. In our point made on behalf more some claims Amendment broadside First noted auditing process, and the opinion, E-meter fashion as described in the main trial, at had -, into evidence introduced U.S.App.D.C. at 409 F.2d at re to whatever relation no discernible though However, even the narrow might have. ligious content point Ballard was never raised in er U.S.App.D.C. —-, 409 F.2d at See objections form of evidence n. 40. 39 and n. suggested jury instructions, regard as subsumed in the broader free exercise Scientology liter- volume A2. tremendous objections actually any case, made. jury, and was submitted ature rights denial of First Amendment is one charged jury if exceptional of those instances where an “accompanied” sense the E-meter appellate will court notice error in the opinion, 133 main described charge objection no even where is made at-, App.D.C. it was F.2d at 1157 409 Moore, trial. J. Federal Prac labeling. a win- neither there was Thus (2d ; 1968) tice 51.04 ed. Shoku If judge nowing out Higeyoshi Naga wan Shimabukuro v. jury material, an instruction nor yama, U.S.App.D.C. 271, 273, find such material it could 13, 15, denied, F.2d cert. 322 U.S. labeling. be false (1944). S.Ct. L.Ed. 1584 sifting process no true that It is requested instruction no such tected, Ohio, false.3 See Jacobellis v. or that insuf- evidence was 378 U.S. ficient, appear 184, 187-188, it new trial would 84 S.Ct. 12 L.Ed.2d (1964). in order. Finally, it should be noted follow, If a new trial fur does time, up to this includ helpful. ther observation We ing rehearing, its motion for has not statutory have held that as matter of challenged the bona appellants’ fides compelled by construction the constitu religion. claim of In the event of tional doctrine of United States v. Bal trial, panel opin new as indicated in the lard, 322 U.S. 88 L.Ed. ion, open it would be to the Government (1944), religious claims cannot be challenge. make challenge this If the labeling” found “false within mean successfully, made the First Amend ing Food, Drug Act. Cosmetic question would, course, ment disap judge Thus it is incumbent the trial pear from this case. See United States to rule in the first instance whether each Kuch, D.C., F.Supp. D. alleged labeling item of false re makes ligious Judge and hence cannot be sub Circuit McGOWAN does not jury join mitted to for the deter majority factual in this clarification of the opinion, whether is a label minations for the and continues to to his adhere dissenting question opinion. device whether respect item-by-item (book, pamphlet, 3. With to this deter- an item ad- mination, inquiry vertising flier) should be whether makes out self-sufficient puts allegedly non-religious item forward claim for serv- respecting ices, religious appeal false claims E-meter to which has been “wholly non-religious” merely on a basis. tacked on. course, preclude does Of a find- Notes “defining” thoughtful efforts at 50. For supra. litigation, religion see in the context of Seeger, supra 45 Note United v. States Seeger, 45. See v. U.S. United States 380 concurring opinion (with Mr. of Justice 850, S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 733 85 850), Douglas, at U.S. 85 S.Ct. 380 Society (1965) ; Washington Ethical v. County Fellowship Humanity of v. Columbia, U.S.App.D.C. of 101 District supra Alameda, Further on Note 47. of (1957). 371, 249 F.2d 127 Defining Comment, question Re see God, ligion: Constitution Of Ballard, 46. United States v. 322 Cf. 32 U.Ciii.L.Rev. D.A.R., 78, 92, 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148 Religion Op ; Boyan, Defining (1965) opinion (1944) (dissenting of Mr. Jus Terms, 116 erational Institutional Jackson). tice recognition (1968). For U.Pa.L.Rev. professions of the tona fides Society Washington 47. Ethical v. District may litigated, properly see United Columbia, 45; supra of Note and see supra Seeger, 45, 380 U.S. v. Note States particularly, perhaps dis- for fullest Grady, 850; In re S.Ct. meaning religion for of cussion Cole, supra 49; People supra v. Note exemption Fellowship purposes, tax N.E. at 794. Note Humanity Alameda, County v. Scientology Cal.App.2d (1957). P.2d Church has sued United States Court recovery Seeger, supra Note of income taxes States v. Claims United exemption Cir., paid upon Kauten, 45; denial of an to the United States 501(c), In- § Church under U.S.C. 133 F.2d 703 ju Appellants their have contended that This was tried before a concerning auditing part ry charges: on theories two that the E-meter was have delin doctrine. We misbranded in that its made misleading concerning on which this false eated detail the evidence claims Again process auditing used, claim based. the Government which was claim; accompa has not contested this has not that the E-meter argue instance, adequate prove, nied tried instructions for its use. practiced jury even if as here returned a verdict for religion, auditing During is a peddled have services Government. course of general public trial, prove on the basis in an effort to the first wholly non-religious pseudo-scientific charges, of these two the Government put cannot into representations.52 We assume as evidence some Scientology literature, thousands pages matter law that all theories describ all ing powers jury techniques curative are which the was invited consider f religious. misbranding. Through medical and therefore Es issue of religions prac witness, jury’s tablished claim for their attention power prevent passages tices ease, treat or was directed dis litera hagiologies describing include within their ture the theories of Scientol ogy accounts of miraculous cures.53 In the relate to and claim powers circumstances of process. this case we must con curative for that setting that, clude that the forth have Ballard, We found under theory including auditing, properly subject these theories are not efficacy therein, for curative contained courtroom evaluation as to truth or fal sity. jury’s general Vis doctrine of Since the verdict hence as a matter of ing” is not part law “label or in rested in whole

Case Details

Case Name: The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Apr 18, 1969

Citation: 409 F.2d 1146

Docket Number: 21483

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.