SCI
page 5 / 8
==== 2023 — Leah Remini v. Scientology ====
Leah Remini v. Scientology. In 2023, Leah Remini filed a lawsuit against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige claiming defamation, harassment, stalking and tortious interference with a contractual relationship (Remini's business relationships), seeking compensatory and punitive damages for economic and psychological harm. Remini claimed she had been stalked, surveilled, harassed, threatened, intimidated, and subjected to intentionally malicious and fraudulent rumors. Remini's family and friends had also been subjected to the harassment, and in 2015 Remini hired bodyguards fearing for her physical safety. "For 17 years, Scientology and David Miscavige have subjected me to what I believe to be psychological torture, defamation, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation, significantly impacting my life and career", Remini said.In January 2024, the lawsuit survived an anti-SLAPP motion by the Church of Scientology, though the judge removed some of the defamation claims which occurred prior to the one-year statute of limitations, kept some, where the defendants published false claims "with at least a reckless disregard of the facts", and rejected Scientology's argument that their early surveillance of Remini was a "pre-litigation stance". Both parties appealed the ruling. Accused of "service dodging", in February 2024 judge Hammock told David Miscavige's lawyer, "He should just appear, and defend himself."
== Civil lawsuits filed by Scientology ==
=== Policy ===
Critics state that the ultimate aim of Scientology lawsuits is to destroy church opponents by forcing them into bankruptcy or submission, using its resources to pursue frivolous lawsuits at considerable cost to defendants. In doing so, they draw particular attention to certain controversial statements made by Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, in the 1950s and 1960s.
In 1994, Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin was fined $17,775 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema cited a frequently quoted statement of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject in the case of Religious Technology Center vs. The Washington Post, on November 28, 1995:
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
Critics also allege that the Church uses litigation as a cover for intimidation tactics, such as investigating the criminal records (or lack thereof) of opponents and subjecting them to surveillance and invasive inquiries, both to discourage further criticism and to ensure the opponent's unwillingness to fight the lawsuit. A policy letter by L. Ron Hubbard, distributed in early 1966, says:
This is correct procedure:
Spot who is attacking us.
Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.
Critics of Scientology cite this passage, among others (such as the widely documented fair game doctrine), to support their contentions that the Church uses smear tactics to augment the effectiveness of legal threats.
=== Copyright enforcement ===
Hubbard v Vosper (1972) was a copyright case involving the book The Mind Benders authored by Cyril Vosper that contained numerous excerpts from Scientology writings. Using the fair dealing defence, Vosper won his case on appeal.
In 1996, Zenon Panoussis of Sweden published some of the confidential NOTs documents online and the Church of Scientology sued Panoussis for copyright infringement. In his defense, Panoussis used a provision of the Constitution of Sweden that guarantees access to public documents. Panoussis turned over a copy of the NOTs documents to the office of the Swedish Parliament and, by law, copies of all documents (with few exceptions) received by authorities are available for anyone from the public to see, at any time he or she wishes. This, known as the Principle of Public Access (Offentlighetsprincipen), is considered a basic civil right in Sweden. The case, however, was decided against Panoussis and he was ordered to pay $164,000 for infringing copyright. The results of the case sparked a legal firestorm in Sweden that debated the necessity of re-writing part of the Constitution.
In 1997, the Church of Scientology engaged Sonny Bono, then a member of the United States House of Representatives who had studied Scientology in the 1970s and 1980s, to pressure US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky to pressure Sweden to change their law permitting free access to any published work regardless of copyright. Along with pressure from Congress, the State Department and the Commerce Department, Sweden agreed to pass tougher copyright protection laws.