c/o 12400 Ventura Blvd. #137
Studio City, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)
Stephen Mitchell, Kathleen Carey
In the superior court
 Concurrent with and equivalent to the district court as created in the Constitution of the State of Cailfornia
of 1849, and the seventeenth judicial district, see Stats 1872, ch. CXIV, p. 116.
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY,
Stephen Mitchell, and Kathleen Carey, (hereinafter, the "Plaintiffs"), allege:
1. The plaintiffs, and each of them, are now, and at all times mentioned
in this complaint have been, one of the people of California, specifically
not welfare enumerated, in propria persona and not PRO SE, living on the
Land within the boundaries of Los Angeles county, in California, one of
the United States of America; with express and explicit reservation of
all Vested Natural, Inherent, and Common Law Rights, whether enumerated
or not in the Constitution for the State of California of 1849; specifically
and expressly not within the venue and/or jurisdiction of the quasi-constitution
of 1879 based on the document entitled "Affidavit of Truth in Support of
Verified Complaint for Libel" filed concurrently with the Verified Complaint
and incorporated as if fully restated herein; specifically and expressly
not within the venue and/or jurisdiction of Penal Code, the Code of Civil
Procedure, the Political Code, and the Civil Code, alleged to have been
enacted in 1872; nor any amendments or additions to any of the original
four divisions of the code; without representation of any attorney-at-law.
The codes were never given "chapter numbers" and were therefore never published as part of the Statutes
of California. The text of the four original Codes, Senate Bills 221, 360, 375, arid 430, cannot be verified. It
cannot be determined whether the handwritten changes on said bills were made before or after the Governor
________________________________________________________________________________3. Defendants, JOHN/JANE DOE #2-99 (hereinafter the "Defendants"), are now and, at all times mentioned in this First Amended Verified Complaint, have been persons or entities which, when discovered to be culpable for the libel, will be named as they are discovered.
4, The Plaintiffs hereby declare, as a matter of law, that this First
Amended Verified Complaint has been filed in the venue of Los Angeles county
as established by statute under the authority of the Constitution for California
of 1849 at Stats 2853, ch. LXXVIII, p. 119, and therefore within the seventeenth
judicial district as established by statute at Stats 1872, ch. CXIV, p.
116. It shall be construed for the purposes of this case that the superior
court for Los Angeles county is concurrent with and equivalent to the seventeenth
judicial district of the district court as created in the Constitution
of the State of California of 1849. The Plaintiffs hereby declare that
the failure on the part of the Defendant, or the Court, to have presented
evidence that any of the foregoing is not true, is thereby deemed as a
matter of law, that estoppel by silence is thereby invoked, and establishes
express agreement with the Plaintiffs as to the venue within which this
case will be adjudicated.
5. As a matter of law, the foundation of the jurisdiction of this case,
is established by Stats. 1850, ch. 95 which expressly states:
"The Common Law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or law of the State of California, shall be the rule of decision in all the Courts of this State."6. With regard to the foregoing statute, 58 Cal.Jur. 3d. §6 at 303, states that "California's statute adopting the common law, when not repugnant to organic or state law, has been interpreted to mean that the rules of common law which are not in conformity with our institutions or applicable to the habits and conditions of society prevailing in this country were not intended to be continued, and will not be allowed to control conditions not contemplated."
7. It has been settled as a matter of law that when the rules of common law are not repugnant to organic or state law, the court cannot "... adopt a rule other than that established by the common law". Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, at 261.
8. Based on Lux v. Haggin, supra., in order for the court to apply any rule of decision other than that of the common law, the court would necessarily be required to establish and prove that the rules of common law which would ordinarily apply to the relief herein sought are repugnant to the organic or state law. Since repugnant means "extremely distateful" or "contradictory", if an actual repugnance was in existence, it could be clearly shown and established. Legal evidence of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, in the form of an original volume of 69 California Reports has been produced in open court by the Plaintiffs on April 7, 1998, and the position of the Plaintiffs was not controverted by the Court or the Defendant,
9. The California Supreme Court has ruled that "... where the code is silent, the common law governs." Estate of Apple, 66 Cal. 432. Legal evidence of Estate of Apple, 66 Cal. 432, in the form of an original volume of 66 California Reports was produced in open court by the Plaintiffs on April 7, 1998, and the position of the Plaintiffs was not controverted by the Court or the Defendant.
10, The Plaintiffs hereby declare, as a matter of law, that all twenty-nine (29) divisions of the California Code are silent. This is an indisputable fact in that the original four divisions of the code were never assigned chapter numbers and were never published as part of the Statutes Of California 1871-2. Legal evidence of the Statutes of California 1871-2, in the form of an original volume of the Statutes of California 1871-2, was produced in open court by the Plaintiffs, and the position of the Plaintiffs was not controverted by the Court or the Defendant.
11. Stats 1872, ch. CCCL was required in order to authorize the Secretary of State, via the State Printer, to publish the codes. The codes would have automatically been published in the Statutes of California 1871-2 if they had been actual law. It is a fact that every statute passed by the legislature and approved by the governor, or passed by the legislature in override of an executive veto, has been automatically published in the Statutes of California by the Secretary of State via the State Printer.
12. It is an indisputable fact that within the text of Stats 1872, ch. CCCL, the codes are not referred to as "law" or "statutes".
13. The Plaintiffs hereby declare that any ruling by the court with regard to this matter that is not made in accordance with the common law, must be accompanied by the express acknowledgment that the ruling is other than a common law ruling due to the fact that the common law rule would be repugnant to the organic or state law of California, as any other manner of ruling shall be construed to be in want of all jurisdiction.
14. The California Supreme Court ruled in Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal 1, at 13, that even the acts of the most humble magistrate in the state who transcends lawful jurisdiction are utterly void. Legal evidence of Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal 1, in the form of an original volume of 7 California Reports, was produced in open court by the Plaintiffs on April 7, 1998, and the position of the Plaintiffs was not controverted by the Court or the Defendant.
15. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Johnson v. MacCoy, 278 F2d. 37 that when a judicial officer does an act in clear absence of jurisdiction, and knows of the absence of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is pierced.
16. The superior court for Los Angeles county is hereby given actual
notice that as a matter of law, the Common Law of England, where it is
not repugnant to the organic or state law of California, shall be the rule
of decision with regard [to] all issues of law raised in this First Amended
Verified Complaint. Any ruling asserted by the superior court for Los Angeles
county alleged to be pursuant to any of the California Code, shall been
deemed to have been asserted in want of all jurisdiction and the appropriate
remedy will be sought by the Plaintiffs.
17. The Code of Civil Procedure, for example,claims to have been "enacted 1872". The Plaintiffs hereby declare that it must be noted that it does not state its origin in the manner of "Stats. 1872, ch. ???". This is significant because every valid Statute of California has a reference to its origin in the manner of "Stats (legislative year), ch. (number)". This method began with Stats 1850, ch. I (see Exhibit 2), and has continued since. This is due to the constitutional mandate found at Article V, Section 19, where it states, "The Secretary of State shall keep a fair record of the official acts of the legislative and executive departments of government, ..." (see Exhibit 3).
18. The Plaintiffs hereby declare that it is an indisputable fact that the original four divisions of the California Code were not assigned chapter numbers, and were never made a part of the Statutes of California. The Plaintiffs presented an original volume of the Statutes of California 1871-2 as indisputable evidence that the code was never published as a part thereof in open court on April 7, 1998 and the position of the Plaintiffs was not controverted by the Defendant or the Court.
19. The Plaintiffs hereby declare that Stats. 1872, ch. CCCL  (see Exhibit 4), is of indisputable significance. This statute granted the Secretary of State legislative permission to publish the code. Nowhere within Stats. 1872, ch. CCCL is the code referred to as being law. It was in fact self-declared in the Political Code at section 4494 (see Exhibit 5) that it could not be published as part of the statutes.
20. Stats 1870, ch, DXVI (see Exhibit 6), created a commission with authority to revise and compile the statutes of this state. 42 California Law Review, 766 at page 773 (see Exhibit 7), acknowledges that it was well known at the time that the commission went beyond any delegated authority.
21. In 22 Law Library Journal, 8 at page 19 (see Exhibit 8), the following
facts are revealed:
The Civil Code of California as originally adopted was the Field draft code from New York, and was patterned after the Code Napoleon. The Penal Code Of California is practically taken from the New York Draft of a Penal code. The Political Code proposed by the Commissioners for New York was the model for the Political code of California. Annotations in Farrell's Code of Civil Procedure cites notes of the California Code Commissioners which frequently included explanatory matters from the Now York Field Code.22. The people of California were led to believe that the code was an expression of California law. The historical facts show that it was not. In a report found in the Appendix to Journals of the Senate and Assembly for 1872 entitled FIRST REPORT of the Joint Committee to Examine the Codes, prepared by the REVISION COMMISSION, at page 8 (see Exhibit 9), it is revealed that the legislature as a whole was blatantly lied to. It stated that:
"It must be borne in mind that _this Act does not provide for the adoption of any new system of law, but simply reenacts the existing law._ (italics supplied)
23. The California Code cannot be viewed as valid law in light of the state constitution at Article IV, Section 25 (see Exhibit 10), which stated:
"Every law enacted by the Legislature, shall embrace but one object,..."24. In County of Butte v. Merrill, 141 Cal. 396 at page 399 (see Exhibit 11), the California Supreme Court stated that no division of the code is limited to a particular subject.
25. With the foregoing facts clearly establishing that the original four divisions of the code were never made a part of the Statutes of California, any section or new division that has been subsequently added to the code, is also not a part of the Statutes of California.
26. In Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1, at page 13 (see Exhibit 12), the California Supreme Court stated the following fundamental truth:
"Under our form of government, the Legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs of that absolute sovereignty of the people; like other departments of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state, who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void". (bold emphasis added, italic emphasis supplied)27. The Plaintiffs hereby declare that it is an indisputable fact that the California Legislature has never had any delegation of authority from the people of California to create any written statute not enacted as part of the Statutes of California, that would have any force of law over any one of the people of California.
28, The Plaintiffs are, each of them, one of the people of California.
Therefore, in order for the Defendant to controvert any of the foregoing,
they would have to present indisputable evidence as to the date and the
manner in which the code became part of the Constitutional Statutes of
29. On or about February 9, 1997, the Plaintiffs became aware of a printed publication (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint) which has apparently been sent out in the mail to various addresses, though the quantity of the names on such a mailing list is unknown to the Plaintiffs. This "mailing list" will be demanded by the Plaintiffs on discovery.
30. Said publication has a heading which distinctly identifies that it is a "SPECIAL BRIEFING" of the "Office of Special Affairs International, an organization of the Church of Scientology (hereinafter "Church").
31. Said publication displays the following at the bottom of the third page (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint):
A. "(c) 1997 CSI";32. It is hereby averred by the Plaintiffs that the foregoing is evidence that the highest levels of authority had full knowledge of and gave full approval to the content of said libelous publication, including all written words and the clearly identifiable photographs printed therein. The Plaintiffs believe that it can be established that a long-standing procedure of expressly and explicitly protecting the copyrights and trademarks owned by the Church exists. The Plaintiffs allege that all Scientology organizations are bound by the policies announced in the Organization Executive Course (hereinafter "OEC") Volumes and issued as Hubbard Communication office Policy Letters (hereinafter "HCOPL") and specifically HCOPL 22 April 1965, "Booklets, Handouts, Mailing Pieces." which states (in part):
"No mailing may be made without a complete sample of the entire mailing being okayed..."This policy letter originally bore the copypright "L. Ron Hubbard" but is now published in the OEC Volume 2, found at pages 178-179 under the 1991 copyright, "L. Ron Hubbard Library" establishing that the Defendant is aware of its existence as policy for the Church and its organizations. The Plaintiffs allege that the copyright and trademark permission on said libelous publication is indisputable proof that the subject matter and content of "Public Warning" was actually and expressly approved by the Religious Technology Center, the Office of Special Affairs, and especially the Church of Spiritual Technology dba L. Ron Hubbard Library.
33. In the Declaration of Sherman D. Lenske, dated February 4, 1986 (see Exhibit 14), Mr. Lenske states, "In 1965, I assisted in drafting a new pour-over Will for Mr. Hubbard, which was executed on January 23, 1986 and is his last Will and Testament."
34. The Last Will and Testament of L. Ron Hubbard, executed on January 23, 1996 (see Exhibit 15), established Norman F. Starkey as the Executor of said Will and as Trustee of the Author's Family Trust-B, also created on January 23, 1966, and which received the rights, title and interest in copyrights, trademarks and service marks created by L. Ron Hubbard prior to January 1, 1978,
35. Subsequently, Norman F. Starkey as Trustee of Author's Family Trust-B filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with the County Clerk's Office registering the name L. Ron Hubbard Library in 1986. On January 30, 1989, Norman F. starkey as Trustee of Author's Family Trust-B once again filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with the County Clerk's office registering the name L. Ron Hubbard Library. Sherman D. Lenske of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, 6400 Canoga Ave., Suite 315, Woodland Hills, California, is named on this Fictitious Business Name Statement in the "return address data field" (see Exhibit B to First Amendment to Complaint).
36. In the Declaration of Church of Spiritual Technology (hereinafter "CST"), dated February 4, 1986 and executed by Daniel J. Przybylski (see Exhibit 16), Mr. Przybylski states that the Church of Spiritual Technology is the principal beneficiary of the Author's Family Trust-B.
37, On December 27, 1993 CST filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement registering the name "L. Ron Hubbard Library" on which Sherman D. Lenske of Lenske, Lenske & Abramson at 6400 Canoga Ave., #315, Woodland Hills, California is named in the "Recording Requested by and Mail to" data field (see Exhibit C to First Amendment to Complaint).
38. The Articles of Incorporation of CST filed May 28, 1992 with the Secretary of State of California (see Exhibit C to the First Amendment to Complaint), named Sherman D. Lenske of 6400 Canoga Ave., Suite 315, Woodland Hills, California 91367 as initial agent for service of process, as well as the incorporator.
39. The Plaintiffs hereby allege that the foregoing is indisputable
proof that CST, dba L. Ron Hubbard Library, is ultimately responsible for
the use and implementation of the Scientology copyrights and trademarks,
and that the Defendant CST, and no other, has the ultimate authority to
grant permission to use said copyrights and trademarks, and only then for
a specific use and for a specific purpose.
40. As one of the people of California, each Plaintiff's right and title to the Inalienable Rights acknowledged in and protected by the Constitution for the State of California of 1849 is indisputable. The Plaintiffs have a right to enjoy their good reputations in their business lives and in their personal lives. The Defendant has caused the loss and destruction of said rights belonging to the Plaintiffs, expressly stated at Article I, Sections 1 and 21, as follows:
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
41. No one has the right to violate those inalienable rights that are
acknowledged in and protected by the Constitution for the State of California
of 1849, and the Defendant CST has a legal duty to honor the sanctity of
the rights of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant CST, a corporation, whose existence
is evidenced by the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Secretary
of State of California on June 1, 1982 (see Exhibit C to the First Amendment
to Complaint), does not share these rights with the Plaintiffs, and does
not have any position where it can lawfully violate the rights of a citizen
acknowledged in and protected by the Constitution. This includes the right
of protecting property, and as such the good reputations and good names
of the Plaintiffs. The officers of Defendant CST, acting in the capacity
of officers, do not have the right to ignore or violate the rights of the
Plaintiffs, or of any other citizen, which are acknowledged in and protected
by the Constitution.
42. The Plaintiffs allege that the publication known as "Public Warning" and exhibited to the Verified Complaint for Libel as Exhibit A, is libel as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, which states:
Libel. A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged publication in writing of defamatory material43. The following is evidence of libel within the publication known as "Public Warning."
44. The Plaintiffs' identities and clearly identifiable photographs, among others, appear on the front page of "Public Warning". (see Exhibit A from the Verified Complaint)
45. The italicized "caption" under the clearly identifiable photographs and identities of the Plaintiffs, and the labels "Tax Evader" on the first page of "Public Warning" reads: "Calling themselves 'tax protestors,' a handful of out-ethics individuals have attempted to use Church lines to promote their off-policy and illegal tax evasion schemes. They are in fact engaged in criminal activities..."
46. The Plaintiffs allege that the intent of those statements, by proximity and insinuation, is to defame the Plaintiffs. Although the Defendant has attempted to characterize "Public Warning" as a general treatise on taxes which would encompass matters of public interest to their parishioners, the Plaintiffs aver that the italicized caption beneath the photographs, identities and labels of "Tax Evader" of the Plaintiffs on page 1 is merely a restatement of paragraph 1 on page 1 which is a statement of the purpose of "Public Warning." By innuendo, that purpose is to identify the Plaintiffs as the subject of this "Public Warning". Therefore, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant cannot claim that the "Public Warning" is of a general nature, but is a specific and libelous attack upon the Plaintiffs.
47. The very first paragraph makes a specific statement that the Plaintiffs are involved in "illegal" activity. (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint) The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following ground;
A. The Plaintiffs declare that they are not involved in any illegal activity.48. In lines 9-10 of the first column of type on the first page, "Public Warning" states, "We are providing you with some facts...". (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint) The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following ground;
A. The definition of the term "fact" in the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, demonstrates that "Public Warning" is clearly and specifically claiming that the "facts" regarding the Plaintiffs and their alleged "illegal" activities are of the following status:
49. In lines 17-18 of the first column of type on the first page, "Public Warning" states, "...they are criminals..." (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint). The definition of the term "criminal" (as a noun) in the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, states,Fact. A thing done;an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence; ...; that which has taken place. The quality of being actual; actual existence or occurrence.
"Criminal, n. One who has committed a criminal offense; one who has been legally convicted of a crime; one adjudged guilty of a crime."The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following grounds:
A. The Plaintiffs declare that they have never been convicted of a crime, especially and specifically any type of criminal activity as alleged by "Public Warning", put out and/or approved by the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiffs declare that they have never been adjudged guilty of any crimes.
C. The Plaintiffs allege that they are not engaged in criminal activities.50. Beginning at line 15 of the first column on the first page, "Public Warning" states, "These individuals portray themselves as 'tax protesters'". (see Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint) The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following grounds:
A. The Plaintiffs, and each of them, hereby declare that they have never made the claim that they are "tax protesters".51. In the "Public Warning", at the beginning of the fifth paragraph, it states that four of these "tax protestors" tried to involve Scientologists in their scams and then names the Plaintiffs as two of the four. The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false with respect to the Plaintiffs on the following grounds:
A. The Plaintiffs declare that they have never tried to involve any Scientologists, or anyone else for that matter, in any scams of any description.52. Further into the fifth paragraph it states: "They were recently declared Suppressive Persons for their suppressive acts." The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following grounds:
________________________________________________________________________________53. Further down, in the fifth paragraph, "Public Warning" states; "Like parasites, they had been attempting to use the theta lines of Scientologists to promote their own out-ethics activities." The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the following grounds:
A. The Plaintiffs have never used "theta lines of Scientologists" to promote anything other than Scientology, Scientology books and Scientology courses as evidenced by the Commendations issued by the Church to Stephen Mitchell (See Exhibit B to the verified Statement Of Demand for Damages of Stephen Mitchell in the Verified Complaint) and the Commendations issued by the Church to Kathleen Carey (see Exhibit 17) which cover dissemination activities by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Church spanning two years.54. on page three, paragraph three, enumeration number three it states: "In LRH's assignment to RTC of the trademarks and service marks of the Scientology religion, he mandated that RTC obtain tax exemption, if RTC did not get tax exemption, they would no longer be.entitled to keep the trademarks." The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false on the grounds that it is inconsistent with HCOPL's written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard on the subject matter. The Plaintiffs further allege that this statement has been manufactured by the Defendant in order to justify its actions against the Plaintiffs and to gain the force and authority, by invoking the name of L. Ron Hubbard, to lend credence to the libel.
55. On page 1 of "Public Warning", photographs of the Plaintiffs appear, captioned with their identities and the label "Tax Evader." The Plaintiffs allege that the statement made by the juxtaposition of their likenesses, identities and the label "Tax Evader" is false on the following grounds:
A. The Plaintiffs assert that they have never sought to evade any tax that they are lawfully obligated to pay.56. The following is evidence of libel by insinuation within "Public Warning."
57. The title of the libelous publication is "Public Warning." The definition of "Warning" per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, is:
"Warning. A pointing out of danger. Also, a protest against incurring it. The purpose of a 'warning' is to apprise a party of the existence of danger of which he is not aware to enable him to protect himself against it,The statement is made by insinuation and innuendo, through the use of the word "warning" in proximity to photographs and identities of the Plaintiffs, along with the label "Tax Evader", that the Plaintiffs are dangerous to anyone receiving the "Public Warnlng." The Plaintiffs allege the falsity of that statement.
59. On page 1, the subheading reads: "Subject: Squirrel Tax Avoidance Schemes" juxtaposed with photographs of the Plaintiffs, their identities and the label "Tax Evader." The Plaintiffs allege that the statement made by this juxtaposition is false on the following grounds;
A. The definition of the Scientology term "squirrel" as found in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary is: "2. Those who engage in actions altering Scn, and ofbeat (sic) practices.59. The first paragraph of "Public Warning" states: "This briefing is to alert you to a small group of individuals trying to use Church of Scientology lines to gain agreement for off-policy and illegal tax avoidance schemes." The Plaintiffs aver that this is the "mission statement" for "Public Warning", contained in the first and defining paragraph, and it states conclusively that it is specifically about certain individuals, not the general populace, and then names the Plaintiffs, thereby creating an estoppel against any claim of a general interest purpose for the publication. The Plaintiffs further aver that that statement creates the implication in the mind of the reader that every statement, insinuation and innuendo that follows attaches to the Plaintiffs, particularly since the publication identifies the Plaintiffs by name, photograph and identity and the "italicized caption" below their likenesses repeats that language. Therefore, the Plaintiffs aver that the following insinuations are intended by the Defendant to attach themselves to the Plaintiffs;
A. They belong to "a class of people who often call themselves 'sovereign citizens,' or sometimes 'patriots' or 'true patriots.'" (page 1, par. 4) The Plaintiffs assert that they do not consider themselves "sovereign citizens," "patriots" or "true patriots" and have not used those terms to identify themselves.60. The Plaintiffs allege that the publication known as "Public Warning" falls within the definition of "actual malice" as found in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. which states:
"Actual malice. ...In libel law, 'actual malice' can be established either by proving the publication was made with the knowledge of its falsity of its contents or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."61. In the latter part of 1995 or the early part of 1996 the Plaintiff Stephen Mitchell executed the formula for the condition of Doubt as found in the book "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" copyright 1989, 1993 L. Ron Hubbard Library pg. 99 (see Exhibit 10). He then issued a written document fulfilling Step 6 of the Doubt Formula which is: "Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides." It can be established by reading the Plaintiff's "doubt formula" (see Exhibit 19) that the only question raised by the document concerned the legitimacy and provenance of Scientology Policy Directives (hereinafter "SPD's") which Church officials allege were authorized by L. Ron Hubbard, but to date have been unable to document that claim with an HCOPL as policy for the Church would require. This "doubt formula step 6" makes it very clear that SPD's, are at odds with and contradict and nullify policies, procedures and even organizations established by HCOPL's. Per the requirements of "step 6" of the Doubt Formula, the facts in this document were announced publicly.
62. On 29 August 1996 the Plaintiff Kathleen Carey issued a "Query of Orders" (see Exhibit 20), a form used to question destructive orders pursuant to policy published in the OEC volumes in HCOPL form. The Query raised the issue of SPD's being used as foundation for off-policy actions on the part of Church management to replace existing organizations, to allow activities that are clearly and unequivocally proscribed by policies as published in HCOPL's and to permit the issue of books and courses "based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard" when HCOPL's s demanded that only the writings of L. Ron Hubbard were to be issued.
63. The Plaintiffs aver that these two reports, among others of a similar nature issued by the Plaintiffs, point to indisputable proof that current Church management had supplanted the only policy for the Church. and its organizations and that such an action would, per policy contained in HCOPL's be labeled a HIGH CRIME - SUPPRESSIVE ACT resulting in immediate expulsion from the Church if discovered.
64. On two separate occasions, Plaintiff Stephen Mitchell was called before separate Committees of Evidence within the Church in an ethics action intended to silence his reports. The testimony given by the Plaintiff at these committee hearings provided actual notice to the Ethics Division of Scientology, and the Defendant, that the Plaintiff's only concern was for the integrity of Scientology, which is constituted by the writings and the words of L. Ron Hubbard only. The Plaintiff testified to the Second Committee of Evidence that he would honor any and all HCOPL's with regard to taxation and/or any other subject matter. The Plaintiff further testified that the insinuation of additions, deletions and changes of any nature to the works of L. Ron Hubbard by other authors, whether named or anonymous, was a HIGH CRIME SUPPRESSIVE ACT per Church policy. The Plaintiffs aver that both Committees were handled non-standardly inasmuch as neither were supported by the probable cause of Knowledge Reports implicating the Plaintiff, Stephen Mitchell, in any "out-ethics" situation, and neither Committee showed their findings to the Plaintiff as required by Church policy.
________________________________________________________________________________65. The Plaintiffs aver that prior to the second Committee of Evidence they were under the impression that the blatant violation of Church policy by Church management had been inadvertent, accidental and possibly the isolated actions of a Church official or officials. Subsequent to the second Committee's failure to respond to the evidence provided, the Plaintiffs came to see and aver that the corruption of Scientology texts was knowingly and wilfully perpetrated by those in control of the Church, the Defendant CST in the instant case, and that the Plaintiffs' reports were thereby threatening to a revenue source which has been estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per annum and which relies upon advertising claiming that the texts are "100% pure" L. Ron Hubbard.
66, The Plaintiffs aver that if the Church were operating on authorized HCOPL's as policy, the existence of Meade Emory as one of the Founders of Defendant CST would not have been possible given that L. Ron Hubbard declared the Internal Revenue Service a "suppressive group" and no member of a suppressive group can participate in Scientology until that group has been disbanded per HCOPL and since Emory is a former Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. HCOPL's deny IRS employees and their families access to Dianetic and Scientology auditing (pastoral counseling). Furthermore, no HCOPL would countenance a former IRS official having control and authority over the copyrights, trademarks and advanced technologies of Scientology,
67. The Plaintiffs Aver that, having reported wrongdoing on the part of Church management that included not only misrepresentation to the rank and file Scientologists but carried with it implications of consumer and copyright fraud, the Defendant sought to discredit the Plaintiffs, to ruin their good names, to defame them, to hold them up to ridicule and to see to it that every Scientologist would shun them as a strategy to discredit the Plaintiffs' reports. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendant took this action with reckless disregard for the truth, and for the sole purpose of keeping secret their own fraudulent misrepresentations--offered through the mail and over the airwaves, to Scientologists and the public at large--which were at risk of being publicly exposed by the reports written by the Plaintiffs.
________________________________________________________________________________68. The Defendant has cited Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, to demand that the Plaintiffs allege the falsity of the claims in "Public Warning" on the grounds that because "Public Warning" dealt with matters of public concern it was a privileged communication. However, in Brown v. Kelly, supra, in footnote #13 on page 716 it states, "A privileged publication is one made: [¶] 3. In a communication, =without malice,= to a person interested therein, by one who is also interested, or who stood in such a relation to the former as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing his motive innocent, or who was requested by him to give the information; ..." (emphasis added)
69. The Plaintiffs aver the action of the Defendant in approving the
publishing and distribution "Public Warning" was done with actual malice
against the Plaintiffs, and therefore "Public Warning" cannot be considered
a privileged publication.
70. The Plaintiffs Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey hereby declare that the existence, publication and distribution of "Public Warning" by the Defendant, in wanton disregard for the truth, has exposed them to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy, which has caused them each to be shunned and avoided in their personal and professional lives.
71. The Plaintiff Stephen Mitchell hereby incorporates the Verified Statement of Demand for Damages of Stephen Mitchell in Support of the Verified Complaint for Libel as if fully restated hereinat.
72. The Plaintiff Kathleen Carey hereby incorporates the Verified Statement of Demand for Damages of Kathleen Carey in Support of the Verified Complaint for Libel as if fully restated hereinat.
73. Because of the malicious nature of "Public warning" the Plaintiffs
hereby demand punitive damages to be assessed at trial.
The Plaintiffs hereby aver in this First Amended Verified Complaint, that the actions of the Defendant are indisputably and conclusively libelous and were undertaken with wanton and reckless disregard for the truth, inasmuch as the Defendant was in possession of facts, provided to them by the Plaintiffs, that would have forestalled such actions absent malice. The Plaintiffs aver that the Defendant's actions were undertaken with "actual malice" against the Plaintiffs, as a strategy to discredit their "whistle-blower" reports, and through the use of direct statement, insinuation and innuendo the Defendant aggressively sought to defame, disgrace and degrade the Plaintiffs, their good names and reputations, after the fact of having the good names and reputations of the Plaintiffs documented and acknowledged by the Church of Scientology over an extended period of time. The Defendant must be held liable for the damages as claimed by the Plaintiffs. A trial by jury is hereby demanded and required by the Plaintiffs, and each of them.
We, Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey, hereby swear under penalty of perjury, under the law of the Land in California, one of the United States of America, that ¶¶ 1 through 73 and the Conclusion hereinabove are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn this seventh day of the eighth month, in the year
A.D. nineteen hundred ninety eight,