Folks this is huge in my humble opinion.


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Former "Moonies" can sue the Unification
Church for alleged deception and brainwashing because freedom of
religion does not protect fraudulent recruiting, the state
Supreme Court said in reinstating two suits.

A lawyer for the National Council of Churches called Monday's
6-1 ruling "a real blow" to freedom of religion.

"The challenge here ... is not to the church's teachings or to
the validity of a religious conversion," said Justice Stanley
Mosk in the decision.

"The challenge is to the church's practice of misrepresenting
or concealing its identity in order to bring unsuspecting
outsiders into its highly structured environment. That practice
is not itself belief -- it is conduct subject to regulation for
the protection of society."

Reversing two lower court rulings, the high court decided that
two former church members who brought their cases could seek to
convince a jury that they had been brainwashed and were unable to
exercise independent judgment when they joined the Rev. Sun
Myung Moon's church after being told of its identity.

In dissent, Appeals Court Presiding Justice Carl Anderson,
assigned to the Supreme Court for the case, said religious
conversion -- whether or not it involves "brainwashing" -- is
constitutionally protected from court scrutiny.

"`Brainwashing' and religious conversion are not really
distinguishable," Anderson said, noting there were no claims of
force or threatened violence in the case.



Kenneth Ross, a lawyer for the church, said he would recommend
an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, whose lawsuits had been rejected
in San Francisco Superior Court and a state appellate court,
hailed the ruling.

The court recognized "the rights of people who have been
exploited by the dishonest and unethical practice of religion,"
said Ford Greene, lawyer for David Molko.

"Until this case was decided, cults had taken the position
that they could do whatever they chose to do with respect to
deception and fraud in their recruitment activities and claim
that they were immune from responsibility by virtue of the First
Amendment," said Stanley Leal, attorney for his daughter, Tracy.

But Kathleen Purcell, a lawyer for the American Baptist
Churches in the U.S.A. and the National Council of Churches who
filed written arguments supporting the Unification Church, called
the ruling "a real blow to both free exercise of religion and the
separation of church and state."

She said it was the first ruling of its kind by any state's
high court.

Ms. Leal, now 28 and studying for a teaching credential at
San Jose State University, was a 19-year-old college student when
a recruiter approached her at a San Francisco bus station in
1979. A few months earlier, Molko, a 27-year-old Pennsylvania
lawyer newly arrived in San Francisco, also was recruited at a
bus stop.

Both said the recruiters denied any church affiliation,
instead claimed membership in the Creative Community Project, and
invited them to dinner. Soon afterward, they said, they were
taken to a retreat and subjected to intensive lectures,
discussions and exercise. Molko said he was not told of the Moon
affiliation for 12 days, and Ms. Leal for 22 days.

Both remained church members for several months before they
were abducted by "deprogrammers" hired by their parents, the
court said.

Their lawsuits sought damages from the church for emotional
distress and punitive damages. Molko also sought return of his
$6,000 he donated to the church.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/cultinfo/mon-suit.htm

I think this is HUGE! This has to have the Mormons shaking.

My husband, kids, and myself were all baptized on the same day in the early 90's. We were ALL deceived BIG time.

I'm thinking I just may hop on over to see an attorney. The precedent has been set.

It's not even difficult to show how the mormons have deceived. They've kept so much hidden for so long. I hope this is their undoing.

The missionary who baptized us has left the church. He thinks we were deceived by him, and he was deceived by the church.

Holy 26-year-old story, Batman.

http://www.fordgreene.com/lit/molko-46-cal.3d-1092.html

That lawsuit was closed out in 1988.

The lulz.

Holy mybad.

Was the decision reversed on appeal?

Good question. I hope not. Still, someone made some traction at one time. A class action suit may have a better chance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 10:04PM by madalice.

No, but don't hold your breath on anything. The interesting (and most relevant bits) are here:

"Again in contrast, the legal question here does not require a court to determine whether anyone's faith, current or past, is or was real. As stated above, Molko and Leal do not question the Church's beliefs. Neither do they challenge the "validity" of their former faith; they state quite plainly that their erstwhile beliefs in the Unification Church were sincere. The legal question is simply whether a religious organization can be held liable on a [46 Cal.3d 1117] traditional cause of action in fraud for deceiving nonmembers into subjecting themselves, without their knowledge or consent, to coercive persuasion.

The Court of Appeal held that although Katz was different in certain ways, its analysis compelled the conclusion that to consider plaintiffs' fraud claims would require "questioning the authenticity and the force" of the Church's teachings. We disagree. The challenge here, as we have stated, is not to the Church's teachings or to the validity of a religious conversion. The challenge is to the Church's practice of misrepresenting or concealing its identity in order to bring unsuspecting outsiders into its highly structured environment. That practice is not itself belief -- it is conduct "subject to regulation for the protection of society." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at p. 304 [84 L.Ed.2d at p. 1218].)"


The most critical line is this:
"The challenge here, as we have stated, is not to the Church's teachings or to the validity of a religious conversion. The challenge is to the Church's practice of misrepresenting or concealing its identity in order to bring unsuspecting outsiders into its highly structured environment"

The Moonies lied about who they were in order to bring people physically into a coercive environment (in this case, a literal cabin in the woods). What missionaries do today would not rise to the same. If a missionary said he was, perhaps, selling time shares, and brought somebody to church on that basis, he'd be lying and thus subject to the scope of this case. But the first words out of a missionary's mouth are supposed to be "We're missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (I can still say that in 4 languages) when he meets somebody, so it's hard to imagine a scenario in which this would apply as precedent.

What if the LDS said they wanted me to go to the temple - where I would receive light and knowledge from God, instead I was coerced into promising to give everything I owned, even my own life if necessary, to the church. And I was threatened that my throat or bowels world be slit if I mentioned certain stuff?

Any chance of that being successful in a lawsuit?

Won't fly.

The Moonie case was very narrowly tailored. Basically, it rested on two elements:

1) The Moonie 'missionaries' (for lack of a better word) lied about who they were when the individuals they ended up taking to a cabin in the woods were a) made to sign a contract and were b) continually misinformed while at said cabin; and

2) The coercion (as opposed to fraudulent misrepresentation) was undertaken in an isolated, physical location after fraudulent misrepresentation occurred.

The court determined that the Moonies could be vulnerable to fraud torts *if* they did not declare who they were or otherwise misrepresented themselves when bringing individuals to a physically isolated location.

The LDS missionaries always declare who they are. When you go to the temple, you know it's an LDS temple. Moreover, you're not made to actually sign your life away (you chant as much, but that is not a legally binding contract). In the Moonie (and Scientology) faiths, you are made to sign something.

The LDS church dropped the threat/punishment aspect of the temple ceremony.

For better or worse, the LDS temple rites wouldn't fall under this precedent.

Won't fly.

The Moonie case was very narrowly tailored. Basically, it rested on two elements:

1) The Moonie 'missionaries' (for lack of a better word) lied about who they were when the individuals they ended up taking to a cabin in the woods were a) made to sign a contract and were b) continually misinformed while at said cabin; and

2) The coercion (as opposed to fraudulent misrepresentation) was undertaken in an isolated, physical location after fraudulent misrepresentation occurred.

The court determined that the Moonies could be vulnerable to fraud torts *if* they did not declare who they were or otherwise misrepresented themselves when bringing individuals to a physically isolated location.

The LDS missionaries always declare who they are. When you go to the temple, you know it's an LDS temple. Moreover, you're not made to actually sign your life away (you chant as much, but that is not a legally binding contract). In the Moonie (and Scientology) faiths, you are made to sign something.

The LDS church dropped the threat/punishment aspect of the temple ceremony.

For better or worse, the LDS temple rites wouldn't fall under this precedent.

._._.

Won't fly.

The Moonie case was very narrowly tailored. Basically, it rested on two elements:

1) The Moonie 'missionaries' (for lack of a better word) lied about who they were when the individuals they ended up taking to a cabin in the woods were a) made to sign a contract and were b) continually misinformed while at said cabin; and

2) The coercion (as opposed to fraudulent misrepresentation) was undertaken in an isolated, physical location after fraudulent misrepresentation occurred.

The court determined that the Moonies could be vulnerable to fraud torts *if* they did not declare who they were or otherwise misrepresented themselves when bringing individuals to a physically isolated location.

The LDS missionaries always declare who they are. When you go to the temple, you know it's an LDS temple. Moreover, you're not made to actually sign your life away (you chant as much, but that is not a legally binding contract). In the Moonie (and Scientology) faiths, you are made to sign something.

The LDS church dropped the threat/punishment aspect of the temple ceremony.

For better or worse, the LDS temple rites wouldn't fall under this precedent.

._._._.

The fact that the temple death threat penalties was a secret until they spring them on you at a time it's nearly too late to back out, tells anyone it's a cult, and dishonest at best. The heavily implied threat of physical violence against you was secret that you were told under threat of violence against you not to discuss with anyone. That made it exploitive and something you didn't agree to ahead of time, and was not something that most people knew how to deal with afterward. So the only path for most people to adjust and survive psychologically in that case is to give obediance to the church. There should be a class action lawsuit over that issue. And there shouldn't be any early settlements. Every church member and former church member alive who went through that ceremony should be invited to take part in a class action law suit against the church to collect damages resulting from this ceremony. If they can drive the church in to bankruptcy as a result, so be it.

"The challenge is to the church's practice of misrepresenting
or concealing its identity in order to bring unsuspecting
outsiders into its highly structured environment. That practice
is not itself belief -- it is conduct subject to regulation for
the protection of society."

Well thanks for setting the record straight.

I was turning blue holding my breath.

The link was dated Oct 18 with no year indicated.

Oh well.

Looks like someone is searching court case verdicts for cult retrobution

From wikipedia

The defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court which refused to review the decision of the California Supreme Court, and the case was settled out of court.

Only one way to find out John.

Get a good exmo lawyer and let em have it.

Out of court settlements are the refuge of scoundrels like the Moonies and Mormies who are unwilling to risk a trial.... but so what?

You could be laughing all the way to the bank.

So when do we start?

How could you argue that fraud, and misrepresentation, and causing uniformed consent are all illegal -- UNLESS they are done in the name of God and under the protection of Freedom of Religion?

If, when I was baptized, I did so with the church's official assurance that Joseph Smith had only one wife, and I later find out I was lied to, why shouldn't I be entitles to get my tithing back?

This applies to hidden doctrines, or hidden historical facts, or any other misleading church claims that I had a right to know before I "contracted" with the church to become a member.

A class action of the most extreme cases of coercion and non-disclosure might stand a chance.

Mishies who are trapped in foreign countries against their will maybe.

Remember folks, the Morg would rather stay out of court and settle.

Does anyone remember Norman Hancock, the man who forced them to allow resignation without excommunication?

We all owe a debt to him. It was his multi-million $$ lawsuit that got their attention.

Alpineer's got a point. Without the misrepresentation and the cabin-in-the-woods, you've got, basically, a caveat emptor situation.

JS's story, as told by the Mormons, is that JS went to the woods, prayed about religion, God told him they were all false and to start his own. So he did. Would anyone in their right mind follow a guy who pushed this? No. It doesn't matter what technicalities are missing from the story, the government won't protect you from yourself if you decide to follow a church that says it's the true church because a conman said it was. You should've know better is the answer.

So why did all those people join? Because they were immigrants trying to get to America and the church was helping them--for its own purposes: for soldiers, for laborers, for concubines. Just read Uncle Dale's thread. Would Central American children fleeing vicious drug gangs join a cockamamie church in order to immigrate to America? I think they would. They're willing to risk being trafficked or sent to a detention center for months before being deported back from whence they came. Join a church; big deal.

Is there a cause of action in the courts for being systematically brainwashed into a cult by ones own parents and relatives? Because if you're BIC, it started there. I don't think there is. Not yet. If the people--as a whole--reject such unamerican concepts as Obedience is the First Law of Heaven, and we're waiting for Jesus' Own True Totalitarian Theocracy, then TSCC will fare as well as FLDS. Without the cover of public sanction, the government will let vindictive attorneys general tear the lamb apart.

This is most interesting. Top.

Pooped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is most interesting. Top.


Tanks