------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION RE: THE POWER OF A MUNICIPALITY TO REGULATE ORGANIZATIONS CLAIMING TAX EXEMPT OR NON-PROFIT STATUS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN, ESQUIRE THOMAS G. HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS GREENE, ESQUIRE WILLIAM SHERIDAN, ESQUIRE PAUL JENKINS, ESQUIRE * KEVIN SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE KEVIN FLYNN * MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR Master of Law Degree in Taxation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 II. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 5 A. 1. Municipal authority to regulate the solicitation of funds by an organization holding itself out 5 to be a religion 2. Mu~Licipal authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices by an organization holding 6 itself out to be a religion B. Municipal authority to tax organizations claiming tax exempt status 6 C. Municipal authority to limit expansion of purported "Church" facilities in the "Downtown Development Area" 7 through zoning regulation D. Muncipal authority to regulate the practice of psychology or psychotherapy 7 E. Municipal authority to regulate education 8 F. Municipal authority to regulate in areas of public health, safety, lodging, fire and building 8 G. Organizations operating in Clearwater in violation 9 of law III. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW ................................ 10 A. Municipal authority to regulate solicitation of funds by an organization holding itself out to be a religion 10 B. Muncipal authority to regulate unfair and deceptive 15 practices C. Municipal authority to tax organizations claiming tax exempt status 25 Page D. Municipal authority to limit expansion of purported "Church"facilities in the "Downtown Development Area" through zoning regulation 36 E. Municipal authority to regulate the practice of psychology and psychotherapy 39 F. Municipal authority to regulate education 45 G. Municipal authority to regulate in areas of public health, safety, lodging, fire and building 45 IV. FACTUAL DESCRIPTION, HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF SCIENTOLOGY ... 47 A. General history and description of Scientology 47 1. The founder and promoter - Lafayette Ronald Hubbard 48 a. His background 48 b. Creation, operation and control of Scientology 61 2. Structure of Scientology 66 B. Factual account of Scientology policies practices and business methods ' 68 1. Marketing and sales policies 68 2. The effect of Scientology practices on the mind and personality 75 3. Enforcement policies 85 a. Security check 85 b. Freeloader's debt 87 c. Disconnect 89 d. Blown student 91 e. Attack the attacker 92 f. Fair game 93 g. R-2-45 93 4. Commercial, profit-oriented activities of Scientology 96 Page C. Scientology and the courts 106 1. Lawsuits by the Scientologists against private Citizens 106 2. Lawsuits by private citizens against the Scien- tologists 113 3. Litigation between the Scientologists and government agencies 121 a. Tax litigation history of Scientology 121 b. Enforcement of criminal and regulatory laws 127 D. Scientology operations in Clearwater 130 1. General description 130 2. Scientology origins in Clearwater 131 3. Clearwater, the communications link for criminal activity 135 4. Clearwater "RPF"- physical and mental abuse of private individuals 139 5. Commercial activities of Scientology in Clearwater 143 V. APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL LAW TO SCIENTOLOGY ACTIVITIES, POLICIES AND PURPOSES .................................... 147 A. Application of the proposed Charitable Solicitation Ordinance to the Church of Scientology 147 B. Application of proposed Consumer Protection Ordi- nance to operations of the Church of Scientology 166 C. Standards for Determining Tax-Exemption as applied to Scientology 183 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 191 I. INTRODUCTION Within the framework of limited time and cost, this preliminary report is intended to provide the Clearwater City Commission initial research and review of legal questions relating to the authority of the City, as a Florida municipality, to regulate organizations operating within the City .and claiming tax-exempt status. The Report also provides the City Commission relevant and material facts concerning the operations of the Church of Scientology within the City. The Church of Scientology has been investigated by this firm in connection with numerous law suits presently pending in many state and federal courts in the United States. The facts established by our investigation support the position that Scientology is engaged in systematic, widespread violations of state and federal, civil and criminal laws. Since the Report is preliminary. in nature, it is designed to give the City Commission an initial grasp of the legal authority and factual basis to begin drafting regulatory measures or to begin planning for the institution of appropriate legal proceedings. Any decision of the Commission to enact specific regulatory measures, or to pursue specific avenues of legal redress, should be based upon a more particularized analysis of the specific measures or procedures. The Report does, however, provide the basis, if the Commission so chooses, to proceed to the drafting, preparation and implementation stage. Although preliminary examples of proposed ordinances are con- tained in the Report, it is recommended that a more thorough and exhaustive analysis, and a more detailed drafting process should be followed, before actual enactment of such ordinances. This Report is divided into three Sections. Section I contains a general legal analysis of applicable statutes and case precedents in seven primary areas of public domain. These areas are: 1. Solicitation of funds by purported "religious", "charitable", or "non-profit" organizations; 2. Unfair and deceptive practices by purported "charitable", "religious", or "non-profit" or- ganizations; 3. Taxation of organizationsclaiming tax-exempt status; 4. Zoning regulation of "Church facilities" in a "Downtown Development Area"; 5. The unlicensed practice of psychology or psycho- therapy by a purported "religion"; · 6. Education 7. Public health, safety, lodging, fire and building. The legal analysis of these areas is based upon Florida statutory and municipal codes, Florida case decisions, and where deemed appropriate state, federal and United States -2- Supreme Court decisions and state and federal statutes. Since the Report required preparation within very limited time and cost constraints, the legal analysis is not intended to be exhaustive in either citation of authority or factual analysis. It is, however, a preliminary survey with recommendations and conclusions based upon the most applicable decisions and statutes. Section II of the Report contains a general description and analysis of the creation, structure, policies and purposes of Scientology. The history of Scientology involvement in the Judicial process, consisting mostly of failure, abuse, delay, harassment and attack, is recited together with a detailed outline of Scientology's tax litigation history. An historical outline of the background of Hubbard, the founder of the Organization, is included along with a description of his sales techniques and enforcement policies including "Disconnect", "Fair Game", and "R-2-45" The "schizophrenic" nature of Scientology which exists between the i..~age it presents to the public that it proselytizes, and in most instances deceives, and its internal operating goals and policies is also discussed. The doctrinal or belief structure of Scientology is presented in the perspective of its confrontation with traditionally accepted mental health techniques and treatments. The commercial vis~-vis religious motivation and operation of Scientology is briefly discussed- Finally, the actual operations of Scientology within Clearwater are set forth. Again, this Section of the Report is not intended to be either exhaustive or comprehensive in fact or analysis, but merely serves to highlight those areas which have become a matter of public concern and arguably fall within the domain of municipal review and regulation. The facts presented have been collected from thousands of documents, publications, and the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of individuals. The documents and publications are primarily internal materials of Scientology, many of which reveal a systematic pattern of criminal activity, harassment, abuse, breach of confidentiality, fraud, extortion, suppression of free speech, and deprivation of human rights and dignity. Similarly, the eyewitness accounts of Scientology activities and policies disclose and illustrate a sustained scheme of commercially motivated, anti-social, deceptive and fraudulent practices which compel/ingly warrant c~mmunity review and regulation. Section III of the Report provides a limited analysis of the applicable law contained in Section I as applied to the factual basis of Scientology policies and practices contained in Section II. The rational basis for the conclusions and recommendations made in the Report are to a limited extent set forth in this Section. A preliminary analysis of proposed ordinances and possible proceedings to regulate and prohibit specific policies injurious to the public welfare is presented in this Section. The Report is summarized with final conclusions and recommendations including an opinion concerning the projected im- -4- pact of enacting regulatory measures and anticipated litigation. The various appendices to the Report contain miscellaneous materials in support of those portions of the Report where references were deemed necessary. References are made to the appendices by numerical correlation of the material in the Report to the appropriate appendix. Thus, a footnote number such as I-3 refers to Appendix I, item 3. II. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS A. Issue 1: Does the City of Clearwater have the legal authority to regulate the solicitation of funds or property by a purported religious organization where there is evidence of systematic, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent practices in the solicitation of said .funds? Conclusion: 1. The City has the authority, under state and federal law, to enact an ordinance regulating the solicitation of funds by a purported religious organization through the enactment of a narrowly drawn ordinance with specific regulatory measures. The ordinance must meet the requirements of the recent United States Supreme Court case of Schaumburg v. Citizens, Etc. The Florida Court of Appeals has upheld a more broadly drawn ordinance enacted by the City of Jacksonville than that recommended by this Report. -5- 2. The City has the authority, under state and federal -law, to enact an ordinance regulating consumer f~aud, which ordinance is applicable to all organizations, including purported religious corporations. The Florida Supreme Court has upheld the power of Pinellas County to enact a Consumer Protection Ordinance. B. Issue 2: Does the City have the power to tax an organization which holds itself out to be a religion, but which systematically engages in activities, practices and policies indicative of a commercial, profit-motivated enterprise,~ and which activities fail to meet the requirements of the "operational test" for organizations claiming tax-exempt status under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code? Conc lus ion Although the City has limited taxing powers under Florida law, it should seek to have the County and State initiate appropriate action. Primary authority to tax a religious "front" organization lies within Pinellas County and the State. The County has the authority to impose real estate, personal property and occupational taxes. The State has the authority to impose sales, and miscellaneous taxes. The Church of Scientology has lost every major court test in both state and federal courts with respect to its qualfying for exemption under the "operational" test as applied by the Internal Revenue Bureau. The operational practices of Scientology in Clearwater disqualify it for exemption under both state and federal standards. The City should conduct public hearings in connection with the proposed ordinances, as to the operational practices of Scientology within the City, and turn over its findings to the appropriate state and county taxing authorities for the purpose of obtaining redress from those authorities. C. issue 3: Does the City have the authority to enact a zoning regulation limiting expansion of purported "Church facilities" in the "Downtown Development Area"? Conclusion The City has the authority to enact a zoning regualtion limiting expansion of "Church facilities" in the "Downtown Development Area" provided that the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate public interests. The City should prepare a list of defined goals for the "Downtown Development Area" which reasonably warrants the enactment of the suggested regulation. D. Issue 4: Does the City have the power to enact an ordinance regulating the practice of psychology or psychotherapy? Conclusion There is uncertainty under Florida law as to whether a municipality may enact such an ordinance. Florida repealed its statutes regulating the practice of psychology. There are no existing precedents treating potential First Amendment problems in this area. Thus, municipal regulation is questionable at this time. Exigent circumstances, however, such as the unlicensed practice of medicine, suicide, or clear and flagrant psychological abuses, may warrant an effort to regulate. The founder of Scientology, L. RonaldHubbard, has specifically stated that Scientology is a method of "psychotherapy", and "the world's largest mental health organization". Foreign nations such as Australia have enacted regulatory measures specifically in response to investigations concerning harmful psychological practices of Scientology. E. Issue 5: Does the City have the power to enact any regulatory measures governing education? Conclusion The time and cost restraints for this Report did not allow sufficient time to adequately research this issue. However, the presence of numerous small children within Scientology in Clearwater suggests that this issue should be fully explored, particularly where there is strong evidence that minors living within the City are not receiving minimal educational requirements. F. Issue 6: Does the City have the power to enact regulatory measures governing public lodging, public health and safety, fire and building codes. Conclusion Time and cost constraints for this Report did not allow -8- sufficient time to adequately research this issue. However, there is evidence of overcrowding, beds in corridors and other violations of public safety type ordinances, within Scientology-operated buildings to warrant further investigation and review. G. Issue 7: Has the Church of Scientology operated within Clearwater with activities, policies, practices and business methods which are in violation of local, state and federal law, and which activities and practices have caused, directly or indirectly death, physical, mental and emotional abuse and financial loss to individuals within and without the City? Conclusion The Church of Scientology has engaged in a pattern of independent criminal activity, fraud, and deceptive sales practices, and vicious personal attack and abuse, all violatire of fundamental human rights. The City should seriously deliberate and consider taking appropriate action to protect individuals within its jurisdiction from policies and practices causing loss oE labor, money and property and de!eteriously affecting the physical and mental health of those within the City. The City should conduct a public hearing as to fraudulent and criminal activities within the City and thereafter, enact ordinances similar to those proposed, in order to prevent such"activity. The City should not undertake to regulate any of the doctrines, beliefs or religious activities, if any, of Scientotogy. Scientology, on its face, ambraces a non-theistic, compilation o~ ~octr~nal Delief~, written by Lafayette R. Hubbard, which are arguably religious -9- in the broadest legal definition adopted by the U.S. Courts. However, there is substantial evidence to warrant the conclusion that Scientology (1) does not encompass belief in a deity, which is one of the traditional tests for religion; (2) does have a structure of authoritative precepts fundamentally opposed to the laws and ethics of our society which precepts condone and encourage the commission of crimes and fraud; and (3) employs a "religious front" for the sole purpose of obtaining money and power. Despite these latter conclusions, the City should not interfere with those beliefs and praczices which arguably fall within the ambit of "religious activity" in the broadest legal interpretation. The specific regulatory measures proposed would safeguard legitimate First Amendment free exercise of religion, while protecting the community, and individuals from many of the fraudulent, deceptive and criminal practices of Scientology which appear to be widely employed within and without the City. III. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. A FLORIDA MUNICIPALITY HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE TAX- EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS SOLICIT'ING MONEY OR PROPERTY /~/ 'In most states and in many cities and towns in the Uni- ted States, ordinances have been enacted which, in varying ways, regulate organizations which are or hold themselves out to be benevolent, civic, educational, fraternal, volun- tary health, philanthropic, humane, patriotic, or religious organizations. In most instances, regulation is accomplished by requiring registration, application for and issuance of pe_nnits before the organization is allowed to solicit money -10- or property. The purpose of such an ordinance is generally considered to be that of protecting the public from fraud. See Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens, Etc., 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980) and cases cited therein. The compelling interest of the state or municipality to protect fraudulent practices by organizations operating under the pretext of a charity or a religion is universally recognized in the law. Village of Schaumburg, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 at 206 (1940). L.eague of ~ercy Association, Inc., v. City of Jacksonville, 376So2d 892 (1972); Gospel Army v. city of Los Angeles, 163 P2d 704 (1945); see generally, Delgado, Religious Totalism: Gentle and Ungent!e Persuasion Under the First Amendment, 51 Southern California L. Rev. 1 (1977). Societal interests in protecting against such fraud are compelling because there are few fraudulent schemes more easily contrived and executed than those conducted under the aegis of charity or religion. Florida has enacted a statute entitled "Solicitation of Charitable Funds", Section 496.01 et seq, of the Florida Code, which requires registration, payment of a fee, maintenance and availability of financial records, prohibited acts, enforcement procedures and penalties. The statute has not yet been constitutionally tested, but the Department of State has been regulating "Charitable Organizations", as defined in the statute, pursuant to the provisions thereof. Under the Florida Regulatory Reform Act, the statute is currently being reviewed, and as originally drafted, the statute is being repealed effective July !, 1982. The Florida Statute provides that it does not "preempt any more stringent county or municipal provision to restrict local units of government from adopting more strinqent provisions, and, in such case, such provisions shall be complied with if the registrant desires to solicit within the geographic district of the local unit of governance" (Emphasis supplied). F.S.A. 496.132 In fact, the City of Jacksonville has adopted such an ordinance, the First District Court of Appeals in Florida has upheld the ordinance, and the Florida Supreme Court has denied further appeal. League of Mercy, supra. In the League of Mercy case, the City of Jacksonville successfully shut down a commercial enterprise operating as a racket religion with enforcement of its ordinance. In England, an ordinance regulating the taxation of purportedly "religious" property through the use of a Fer. mit was specifically upheld against the Church of Scientology. Although the ordinance involved taxation of property as opposed to the regulation of charitable funds, there is analogous application of the principles in that case because a permit was required. In the case of R.v. Registrar General, 3 All ER 886 (1970), a local public official denied a permit to the Church of Scientology which would have exempted from taxation the "Saint Hill Manor:', a Scientology-owned property. The English Court upheld the ordinance in that case and the power of the official to refuse the permit in finding that the Scientology property was not "a place of meeting for religious worship" as required by the ordinance. This case is discussed in Section IV C (3) of this Report. We have carefully reviewed the Florida statute and the Jacksonville ordinance in light of most, if not all, of th~ pertinent decisions of the United States Supreme Court as well as many of the decisions of other appellate courts -12- throughout the United States treating the First Amendment problems of free exercise of religion. Based upon our analysis of these decisions and of many ' different ordinances, including the Florida statute and Jacksonville ordinance, it is our opinion and recommendation that the City should enact an ordinance drafted with more "narrow specificity" than those enacted in most jurisdictions, including Jacksonville. We have proposed such an ordinance in Section V (1) of this Report. The proposed ordinance is recommended to the City based upon the conclusion that it is unwise to enact an ordinance with broad discretionary powers delegated to a public official to issue or not issue permits to "charitable organizations" engaged in solicitation. Such ordinances may be described as "Permit Approval" ordinances as illustrated by the Jacksonville ordinance. Although the Florida Court of Appeals in the League of Mercy case, supra, upheld such an ordinance, and the Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has traditionally struck down such ordinances as overly broad. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 1979); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1970); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945); ~ynes. v. Mayor of Oradel'l, 425 U.S. 610 (1976); Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens, Etc., 100 S. Ct., 826 (1980). The result in the League of Mercy case suggests that enactment of an ordinance similar to the Jacksonville one would -13- be upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. However, there is a significant probability of an appeal' to the United States Supreme Court and a questionable risk as to the result, particularly in light of the cases cited above. There are Justices in the Court, such as Justice Rehnquist, who advocate states' rights, specifically the right of a municipality to · regulate the solicitation of charitable organizations with a "permit approval" ordinance. (See his opinion in the Schaumbur~ case, supra.) The recent appointment of Justice O'Connor, a states' rights advocate, would bolster this view on the Court. The Schaumburq case and previous cases cited above, and Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness 49 Law Week 4762 (1981) dealing with this issue, have consistently viewed the First Amendment principles of Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion to be of such importance that ordinances such as that in the League case, must be drafted with very "narrow specificity". The Court in Schaumburq encouraged proscriptionsagainst fraudulent misrepresentation and detailed disclosure requirements in such ordinances as opposed to the broadly discretionary "permit approval" We have adopted this approach in the proposed ordinance. Compare U.S.v. Church of Scientolo~y, 520 F 2d 818 (9th Cir. 1975);Bouroeois v. Landrum 396 So 2d 1275 (1981) and Surinach v. PesJuera de Bus~uets, 604 F 2d 73 (1979). The Florida "Soiicitaticn of Funds" statute, Section 496.01, has both permit requirements and it has broad disclosure requirements requiring "charitable organizations" to provide financial records and relevant information to the Department of State. The statute contains various prohibited acts and provides for administrative proceedings for: -14 - "purposes of enforcing the provision... (of the stat- ute ) and in makina investigations relatin~ to any violation thereof, ~or purposes of investigation oz character, competence or integrity of any organization, and for purposes of investigating practices and business methods thereof." Section 496,021 (6) Although the statute has never been constitutionally tested, one of its sections (Section 496.1118]) appears to be in violation of the Schaumburg case. Portions of the statute could be enacted by the City of Clearwater which would, based on existing precedent, pass constitutional muster, and also provide significant local regulatory authority. This power would include identification of those soliciting funds, maintenance and availability of the organization's records, and public hearings to determine whether the organization is violating the criminal law or engaged in fraudulent practices, with attendant penalties. The Supreme Court in Cantwell, supra, and Schauraburg, supr. a, suggested that such measures are constitutionally valid. We have incorporated narrowly drawn measures of this type in the proposed ordinance set forth in Section V (1). B. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT A CONSUMER PROTECTION ORDINANCE The Federal Government, most states and many municipalities have enacted what have been commonly referred to as "consumer protection" laws. Although there is a limited body of case decisions interpreting these laws because of their relatively recent origin, the underlying rationale for such laws is to prevent fraud and to provide for governmental action against such ra~ud.i -15- The Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C S45, serves as the model for many of the state and municipal laws. Both the federal act and state statutes are designed to prohibit false and misleading representations in the sale of goods or services, preventing unfair competition and prohibiting the use of a "bait and switch" scheme to lure unwitting consumers into higher-priced transactions. See generally 89 A.L.R. 3rd 399 and 449 (1979). In 1973, Florida enacted a "deceptive and Uniform Trade Practices" act which is modeled upon the Federal Trade Commission Act. F.S.A. 501.201 et seq. Florida refers to its act as the "Little FTC Act". In the case of Departmen. t of L. ega! Affairs v. Rog.ers, 329 So2d 257 (1976), the Florida Appellate Court held that the "Little FTC Act" properly proscribed unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices; that "great weight" should be given to interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and that the "Little FTC Act" did not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the administrative agency enforcing the act according to federal trade law standards. The "Little FTC Act" gives to the State Attorney and the Department of Legal Affairs the authority to enforce the act through various remedies set forth in the act. These remedies include the power to obtain a declaratory judgement, injunctive relief, to recover actual damages on behalf of victims, and the power to hold administrative hearings to investigate violations of the Act. The "Little FTC Act" specifically provides that the Act "~.~ supplemental to and makes no attempt to preempt, local -16 - consumer protection ordinances not inconsistent with the Act. F.S.A. 501,213 (.2). (.Emphasis supplied) The Florida Supreme Court in the case of Pinellas County, Etc. v. Castle, 392 So 2d1292 (.1981) specifically held that Pinellas County was constitutionally authorized to enact its own consumer protection law and that the changes made by the Pinellas consumer protection law did not violate due process. Thus, it appears that under the provisions of the "Little FTC Act" and by case decision of Florida's highest court, the City of Clearwater could properly enact a consumer protection ordinance designed to prohibit fraud and unfair competition. The fact that a local consumer protection ordinance might be applicable to the acts or conduct of a non-profit, charitable or religious organization, as well as to any other individual or entity, does not render the ordinance unconstitutional. The law certainly does not give special protection to a religious organization committing crimes, torts or deceptive practices, which consumer protection laws are designed to prevent. See U.S.v. Baliard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) discussed infra. A consumer protection law such as that proposed in Section V of this Report, has been made applicable to a religion. In the case of F.E.L. Publications v. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, ~.66 F. Supp. 1034 (1978), a Federal District Court in Illinois held that the Illinois deceptive trade practices act applied to alleged unfair competition and deceptive acts by a conference of Catholic bishops. The court in that case rejected the bishops' claim of First Amendment protection for the alleged wrongful acts holding that the case did not involve an intra-church dispute, but whether the cop~wright, unfair competition and consumer protection law were violated. In numerous lower court cases, some of which are still in litigation or on appeal the Church of Scientology has moved to di~_mi ss claims brought by individuals alleging violation of consumer protection laws, as well as fraud, the unlicensed practice of medicine,.intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of minimum wage laws, violations of racketeering laws, and other miscellaneous claimed wrongs. In all of those civil cases, in a variety of court proceedings involving criminal indictments and convictions, the Church Of scientology has attempted to dismiss the case or proceeding on the grounds of freedom of religion. The courts have almost unanimously rejected this defense. The cases set forth in Section IV (C) of this Report outline most of these cases. Appellate or reported case decisions involving the relationship between a purported religious organization, the right of the state to protect its citizens from crime or fraud and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment have been rendered by many American courts. The protection provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to organizations claiming religious status is not absolute. Where representations are involved, a party is immune to liability only if his representations are (1) religious in character and (2) made in good faith. Where actions az-= .... ~ .... , a party a!~.~,ays remains subject to ]u- dicial review to achieve sufficiently important state objectives, and cannot cloak himself with the First Amendment -18 - to commit otherwise tortious acts. Fraudulent Misrepresentations The U.S. Constitution gives every person the absolute right to believe what he or she wants, but does not create a license to do or say anything in the name of religion. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296,303 -4, the Supreme Court stated: "The Amendment embraces two concepts, --- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." In Cantwell the Court struck down a state criminal statute barring the solicitation of money by a religious organization without the prior approval of the Secretary of a state agency. The Court, however, made it very clear that its decision did not apply to fraudulent practices: Nothing we have said is intended even remotely to imply that under the cloak of religion persons may, with impunity, commit frauds upon the public...the state is...free to regulate the time and manner of solicitation generally, in the interest of public safety, peace, comfort, or convenience. In U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the issue of a First Amendment "religion" defense in a fraud case. In Ballard the "I Am" movement was charged with mail fraud for soliciting funds through false representations. The defense was that the representations were religious in nature and therefore immune from inquiry. The Federal District Court had ruled with the acquiescence of all ccu:~_i! tb~ the representations were religious in nature and that the standard to be applied in instructions to the jury was not the truth or falsity of the assertions -19- made by the defendants but: "Did these defendants honestly and in good faith believe those things?" [322 U.S. at 81) On review the Supreme Court approved and adopted this "good faith" standard. The Court stated: "...We conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents." (322 U.S.at 88) The Court approved the following jury instructions: "You are not to be concerned with the religious belief of the defendants, or any of them. The jury will be called upon to pass on the question of whether or not the defendants honestly and in good faith believed the representations which are set forth in the indictment, and honestly and in good faith believed that the benefits which they represented would flow from their belief to those who embraced and followed their teachings, or whether these representations were mere pretense without honest belief on the part of the defendants or any of them, and, were the representations made for the purposes of procuring money, and were the mails used for this purpose." (322 U.S. at 82) This "good faith" standard has stood for thirty-five years and been applied in a variety of contexts, notably selective service litigation. See U.S. v. Seeyer, 380 U.S. 163 (1964). The rule means simply that where a religious defense is interposed, the jury may not look into the truth or falsity of a religious belief but only the question of whether the belief is sincerely held. Conversely, a defendant raising a "religion" defense may be required to show that he holds his beliefs sincerely and not as a mere pretext for some other purpose. in Ballard, as noted, there was no factual controversy -20- whether the representations were religious in nature. It is clear, however, that before a defendant can interpose a "religion" defense he must establish that his representations were religious and not secular. U.S.v. Carruthers, 152 F2d 512 (7th Cir., 1946). Carruthers was also a mail fraud case. The decision stresses t~he importance of distinguishing between religious and secular representations. The defendant :s representations included both secular and religious promises. He claimed to be a Doctor of Medicine and Divinity and to have studied in Tibet and England. He administered to both religious and physical needs of the Foundation's "students" and made numerous representa.tions in both categories. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the conviction, held that a jury could properly determine into which category the representations belonged, secular or religious. If the represenations were of a religious nature, the "good faith" test of Ballard would apply; if they were secular the jury would judge them by ordinary common law standards of fraud. The jury instructions in Carruthers stated, in part: You are further instructed that representations of the defendants, or any of them, concerning or relating to the subject of breathing, silence, and positions of persons during sleep, if you believe that they are matters within the field of religion, as taught the defendant Carruthers, and the truth or falsity of such representations, if any, may not be questioned in any way by you in arriving at your verdict in this case. 152 F2d at 517) Thus, Ballard and Carruthers, taken together, clearly state that when a "religion" defense is raised, a jury may first determine whether the particular representations are religious, and if they are, may further question whether they are since~eiy held. Both these factual hurdles must be cleared before First Amendment immunity attaches. Only the truth or falsity of sincerely held religious beliefs are immune from inqui~"f under the First Amendment. -21- The activities and.representations of a purported religion, namely the Church of Scientology, have been tested under the Ballard and Carruthers standards in two related cases decided in the District of Columbia, Founding Church of Scientolog~ v. U.S., 409 F. 2d 1146 ~D.C., 1969), and United States v. Article or Device, 333 F. Supp. 357 (D. Ct. D.C,, 1971). Founding Church involved an effort by the Federal Government to condemn the "E-Meter" under the Food and Drug laws, (the "E-Meter" is a crude lie detector used by the Scientologists during auditing). The issue was one of "mislabeling", and the government was required to show false secular representations regarding the uses and benefits of the device. In the course of the trial a great many representations were proven and submitted to the jury. The Court of Appeals found that some of these were clearly secular, but that some were of a religious nature. The Court concluded that in view of the manner in which the evidence was submitted to the jury, there was a possiblity that they had rendered a verdict based on an evaluation of the truth or falsity of some of the religious representations. This was held to violate the Ba!lard doctrine. It should be noted that in Founding Church, the government made no effort to attack the "good faith" cf the religious representations involved. Thus, the Court expressly refrained from making certain holdings: (1) We do not hold that the Founding Church is for all legal purposes a religion. Any prima facie case made out for religious status is subject to contradiction by a showing that ~_he~~heli~e.fs asserted to religious are not held in q good fa~h'~~ ~,~ asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were erected for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protections of a religion. -22- (2) We do not hold that, even if Scientology is a religion, all literature published by it is a religious doctrine immme from the act. 409 F. 2d 1162. The Court thus made it clear that on retrial the government could secure a conviction by showing either secular misrep- resentations, or religious representations not held to bein good faith. The case was then retried, and an opinion issued by the District Court entitled United States v. Article or Device (supra). The Court's opinion directly and forcefully confronts the issue of claimed First Amendment protection by Scientology. The judge noted, initially, that Scientology representations are to some extent an admixture of secular and religious claims. A few of these writings are primarily religious in nature. Others contain medical or scientific claims in a partially religious context. Most of the mater- ial, however, explains aspects of Scientology and Dianetics in purely matter-of-fact medical and sci- entific terms without any apparent religious refer- ence. 333 F. Supp. at 361 ~ On retrial the government again made no effort to attack the "good faith" of the defendant's religious claims. Thus, to comply with the Foundin~ Church decision the trial court considered only those claims which were clearly secular. The trial court in Article or Device had no difficulty separating secular from religious claims. The Court stated: The bulk of the material is replete with false medical and scientific claims devoid of any religious overlay or reference. 333 F. Supp. at 361 (Empasis supplied) The Court also stated: ...it is a gross exaggeration to insist that the en- ergetic, persistent solicitation of E-Meter audited cures for a fee has all occurred in a spiritual set- ting without use of a secular appeals and = ......... ~-' entific promises made in a wholly non-religious context. 333 F. Supp. at 360 Finally, the Court set forth in an appendix to the decision -23 - a listing of Scientoloq~ publications which it concluded to be secular misrepresentations. Tortious and Illegal Acts As noted above, the First Amendment confers absolute protection for religious beliefs, but does not necessarily confer immunity for actions, even if they are religiously motivated. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, .supra. Over the years many restraints upon action have been upheld even though they run afoul of particular citizen's religious beliefs. These included laws restricting child labor, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)., compulsory blood tranfusions, Jehovah's Witnesses v. King County Hospital, 390 U.S. 598 (1968). In short, action may be regulated whenever the state has a sufficiently important objective. The guarantee of a judicial remedy for intentionally inflicted torts is clearly an important state objective. See Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.C.R.I., 1978). In Turner, the Court stated: In ruling cn this motion, the Court initially finds that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not immunize the defendants from causes of action that allege involuntary servitude or intentional tortious activity. 473 F. Supp at 371 There appear to be no case decisions which hold that activity which is otherwise tortious is excusable simply because it was committed by a religious organization or for religious reasons. Nor would such a rule be compatible with established constitutional principles. In effect, a grant of such immunity for otherwise illegal activity would convert the First Amend- -24 - ment, which is intended to be a shield against government interference, into an offensive weapon. Furthermore, the granting of such immunity would come dangerously close to the establishment of religion, also forbidden by the constitution, since it would give a significant legal advantage to those persons and entities claiming "religious" motive which it withheld from a non-religiously motivated person. Therefore, a consumer protection ordinance, such as that proposed and discussed in Section V (2) of the Report, implemented and enforced to proscribe fraudulent practices should withstand constitutional attack. C. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO TAX ORGANIZATIONS CLAIMING TAX EXEMPT STATUS Tax exemptions have existed since biblical times, and today all of the fifty states allow tax exemptions for places of worship. Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). State and Federal Statutes and many state constitutions provide tax exemptions for various charitable, non-profit, religious, educational and scientific organizations. An applicant who seeks exemption from a state or federal tax bears the burden of demonstrating qualificationDickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 74S. Ct. 152 (!953). This part of the Report requires an examination of the burden on those organizations which seek a religious exemption from state and federal taxation, and the criteria by which the taxing authority determines exemption. -25- Religious Exemption The First Amendment forbids the federal and state governments from enacting legislation which prohibits the free exercise of religion or which tends to favor or establish one religion. U.S. Constitution Amendment 1. However, the Supreme Court has held that granting a tax exemption to a bona fide religious organization does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, supra. The Supreme Court has not decided whether taxing religious properties would constitute a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Wa!z, supra. Keeping First Amendment considerations in mind, an organization must qualify as a religion to claim exempt status. Otherwise, any organization masquerading as a religious entity, could qualify for a tax exemption. The taxing authority is empowered to determine whether an organization qualifies for tax exempt status. Whether the taxing authority is the state or federal government, the criteria for determining religious exemption is contained in case and statutory law. The statutory schemes which regulate religious exemptions provide for administrative remedies for an aggrieved applicant. Assuming an applicant is denied exemption and has exhausted his administrative remedies, resort may be had to the courts. Many exemption-denied organizations have sought judicial relief which has created a body of federal and state case law concerning the necessary criteria for qualification for a religious tax exemption. This case law will serve as a useful guide when applying Florida's ,Statutory scheme in determining and granting tax exemptions for religious organizations. -26 - Florida Law The Florida Legislature has enacted statutes which create exemptions for various organiz. ations and entities. See generally, Florida Statutes Annotated, Ch. 196. Section 196.19 creates an exemption for religious organizations and Section 196.192 exempts all property used exclusively for exempt purposes from ad valorum (property) taxes. Likewise, the Florida Constitution grants an exemption for religious organizations. FLA. CONST. art. VII, ~3. Most critically, the exemption for religious organizations is based upon the purpose for which the property is held and the manner in which the property is used. 1963 Op. Atty. Gen. 063-138, Nov. 13, 1963. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Fla., inc., v. Dade County 216 SO. 2d 4 (1968). The mere fact that the title to real property is vested in a religious organization is not sufficient to show a right to tax exemption as the applicant must demonstrate that the property is used exclusively for religious purposes. Op. Arty. Gen. 066-17, March 11, 1966. An applicant seeking exemption for a religious organization must affirmatively demonstrate that the property is actually held and used exclusively for religious purposes. Moffett v. Ashby, 139 So. 2d 133 (1962 ; Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation v. Wilcox, 156 Fla. 704, 24 So. 2d 237 (1946); Op. Atty. Gen. 071-56, April 5, 1971. A religious organization that seeks a tax exemption must file an application for exemption with the county tax assessor. The application must list the property for which the exemption is sought and certify its ownership and use. F.S.A. -27- 196.011. Once the property appraiser receives an application for exemption, he shall determine the following: (a) whether the applicant falls within the definition of any one or several of the exempt classifications (b) whether the applicant requesting exemption uses the property predominantly or exclusively for exempt purposes (.c) the extent to which the property is used for exempt purposes See F.'S.A. S196.193 (3) (a) - (c). The property appraiser shall apply the following criteria in determining whether an organization qualifies for a religious tax exemption: (a) the nature and extent of the religious activity of the applicant, a comparison of such activities with all other activities of the organization and the utilization of the property for religious activities as compared with other uses. (b) the extent to which the property has been made available to groups who perform exempt purposes, at a charge that is equal to or less than the cost of providing the facilities for their use, or the extent to which services are provided to persons at a charge that is equal to or less than the cost of providing such services. Such rental or service shall be considered as part of the exempt purposes of the applicant. See F.S.A. 196.196. The property appraiser may not grant a tax exemption for a religious organization if it is a profit organization. F.S.A. 196.195 (4). The Florida Legislature has set the following criteria for determining profit or non-profit status of an applicant seeking a religious tax exemption: (a) the reasonableness of any advances on payment ~rectly or indirectly by way of salary, fee, loan, gift, bonus, gratuity, drawing account, commission, or otherwise (except for reimbursements of advances for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred on behalf of the applicant) to any person, company, or other entity, directly -28- or indirectly controlled by the applicant or any officer, director, trustee, member, or stockholder of the applicant; (b) the reasonableness of any guaranty of a loan to, or an obligation of, any officer, director, trustee, member or stockholder of the applicant or any entity directly or indirectly controlled by each person, or which pays any compensation to its officers, directors, trustees, members, or stock- holders for services rendered to or on behalf of the applicant; (c) the reasonableness of any contractual arrangement by the applicant regarding rendition of services, the provision of goods or supplies, the management of the applicant, the construction or renovation of the property of the applicant, the procurement of the real, personal, or intangible property of the applicant. On other similar financial interest in the affairs of the applicant; (d) the reasonableness of payments made for salaries for operation of the applicant or for services, supplies and materials used by the applicant, reserves for repair, replacement and depreciation of the property of the applicant, payment of mortgages, liens, encumbrances upon the property of the applicant, or other purposes; (e) the reasonableness of charges made by the applicant for any services rendered by it in relation to the value of those services. See F.S.A. 196.195 (2) (a) - (e). In summary, the property appraiser's function is twofold: first, the appraiser must determine the nature and extent of the app!icant's religious activities and the purpose for which the property will be used. F.S.A. 196.196; second, the appraiser must determine that the religious organization is a non-profit entity. F.S.A. 196.195. Assuming the property appraiser determines that an applicant fails to qualify for a religious exemption, the appraiser must ...... ~' the applican~.~ who is entitled to an appeal to the property appraisal adjustment board. F.S.A. 196.193, 196.194. The board must review the decision of the property appraiser and apply the statutory criteria (supra) in reviewing the ap- -29- praiser's decision. F.S.A. 196.193. The Florida Courts have considered laws in which the appraiser must determine the nature and extent of the applicant's religious activities and the purpose for which the property will be used. F.S.A. 196.196; secondly, the aDpraiser must determine that the religious organization is a nonprofit entity. F.S.A. 196.195. Assuming the property appraiser determines that an applicant fails to qualify for a religious exemption, the appraiser must notify the applicant, who is entitled to an appeal to the property appraisal adjustment board. F.S.A. 196.193, 196.194. The board must review the decision of the property appraiser and apply the statutory criteria (supra) in reviewing the appraiser's decision. F.S.A. 196.193. The Florida courts have considered cases in which a religious entity was denied exemption from property tax. However, these cases address the character of the property use and not the nature and extent of the app!icant's religious activities. The Florida courts have not addressed the issue of religious exemption based on the profit character of the applicant. Although the Florida courts may rely on the statutory criteria for determining the non-profit and religious character and use of property owned by entities seeking religious exemption, resort may be had to the case law of other jurisdictions. Some foreign courts, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Tax Courts have examined the nature and extent of an organization's activities and the intended use of property in determining whether an applicant qualifies -30 - for religious exemption. A Limited examination of those cases is helpful. Foreign Jurisdictions Consider The Religious Exemption As suggested, Florida courts may consider opinions of other courts in interpreting the definition of religious purpose as it pertains to the exemption granted by F.S.A. 196.19. Recently, the application of the Unification Church (Moonies) for a religious exemption was denied by the tax commissioner for the City of New York. Holy Spirit Association, Etc. v. Tax Commissioner, Etc., App. Div. 438 N.Y.S. 2d 521 (.1981). New York's Supreme Court rejected the Church's contention that its primary purpose was religious. The Court stated: By denying petitioner (Unification Church) tax exemption, this Court is not limiting petitioner's freedom to practice its beliefs and disseminate its doctrine; rather it is merely declaring that petitioner is not organized and conducted in the manner required by law to entitle it to a tax exemption. 438 N.Y.S. 2d at 530 The court noted that the Unification Church's primary purpose was not religious since its buildings were being used to espouse political and economic opinions. 438 N.Y.S. at 530. The Court reasoned that a denial of religious exemption for the Unification Church was "consistent with a legislative intent 'to stem the erosion of municipal tax bases by permitting local governments to terminate exemptions for non-profit organizations other than those conducted exclusively for religi- ous .... purposes' ". 438 N.Y.S. at 531. The court was not reluctant in expressing its duty to scrutiruize those entities claiming religious exemptions: -31- We are compelled to conduct a broad inquiry into petitioner's doctrine and activities in order to determine whether petitioner qualifies for the tax exemption provided by law... Courts can and will, however, examine such beliefs to determine whether they exhibit the minimum requirements of a religion. 438 N.Y.S. at 526 In the Unification Church case, Justice Birns applied the theistic definition of religion, a belief in a Supreme Being who is superior to all things in the universe, 526 N.Y.S. at 526, and found that the Unification Church met that minimal standard. However, the Court concluded that the Unification Church espoused political and economic doctrine which defeated any claim that the Church was organized for religious purposes. 526 N.Y.S. 528. Consequently, the Church was denied tax exemDtion. Other courts have aDDlied a more liberal definition of reliqion when interDretinq "reliqious DurDoses" as the phrase pertains to religious exemption applicants. In Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 693, 315 P. 2d 394 (1957) the Court considered a claimed exemption from property tax predicated upon religious use. The Court refused to consider the theistic definition of religion, i.e., belief in a Supreme Being, but defined religion in the following manner: 1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers; 2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief; 3) a systemTM of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and 4) an organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief. The content of the belief is of no moment. 315 P. 2d at 406 The Court recognized that the applicant lacked belief in a Supreme Being but reasoned that the applicant's activities were similar in all respects to those of a theistic religious -32- group. The Court concluded that the property was used for religious purposes. As demonstrated, Courts define the word religion differently for purposes of determining qualification for religious exemption. Apart from the concern for theistic or non-theistic belief, Courts will examine an applicant's activities to determine if the property is being used for "religious purposes" Many cases decided by the United States Tax Court and regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service reflect this approach. Internal Revenue Service and Application for Religious Tax ExemPtion The Internal Revenue Service has considered numerous applications for religious tax exemption, and has developed a two-prong inquiry to assist in the determination of qualification for religious exemption: the organizational test and the operational test. A. Organizational Test ~n organization seeking a tax exemption must first demonstrate that it is organized exclusively for a religious purpose, I.R.C. 501 (c) (3). The Internal Revenue Service has not rendered a definition of "religious purpose" and the Supreme Court has been reluctant to announce a constitutional definition of religion, as the Court refuses to inquire into the truth cr falsity of one's religious beliefs. United States v. Ba!!ard, 322 U.S. 78, (194~) ~m~,~fore, courts may not evaluate the content of an organization's doctrine to determine if the organization qualifies for a religious ex- -33- eruption. Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F. 2d 1146 (D.C. Cir.), cart. denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969). The Service or a state taxing authority may consider the "sincerity" of an organization's purported religious beliefs, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944); Teterud v. Burns, 522 F. 2d 357 (Sth Cir. 1975). If the taxing authority finds that the apDlicant does not sincerely believe the espoused beliefs, the tax exemption may be denied. B. Operational Test The Internal Revenue regulations'require that an organization engaged primarily in activities which accomplish one or more exempt purposes, Reg. 51.501 (c) (3) - 1 (6) (1), forbid the net earnings to inure to the benefit of a private shareholder or individual, Rag. ~1.501 (c) (3) - 1 (c) (2), and forbid the organization from serving a private interest, Reg. 1.501 (c) (3) - 1 (d) (i) (ii). If the above regulations are violated the organization will have failed to meet the operational test, i.e. it was not operating exclusively for religious purposes. The"primary activity requirement"requires that a substantial part of an organization's activities be in furtherance of an exempt purpose. Better Business Bureau of Washington, D.C.v. United States, 326 U.S. 279, 283 (1945). In The Church in Boston, 71 T.C. No 9 (1978), the Tax Court upheld the denial of an organization's application for religious exemption and held that the Church had en~aqed in substantial non-profit activities bv arantinq substantial portions of funds to indi- -34 - viduals. In Western Catholic Church, 73 T.C. No. 19 (1979), the Tax Court upheld the Internal Revenue Service's revocation of the Organization's religious exemption for failure to operate for an exempt purpose. After a review of the evidence the Cou'rt concluded that the Organization's primary activity was accumulating money and making investments. The public interest requirement forbids an organization from serving a private rather than public interest. ReC. ~1.501 (c) (3) - 1 (d) (i) (ii). An organization must demonstrate that it does not function for the benefit of the creator or h/s/her family, designated individuals or any person controlled by the creator, or his/her family. Unity School of Christianity, 4 B.T.A. 61, 69 (1926): Rev. Rul. 77-430 1977 - 2 C.B. 194. Finally, organizations are prohibited from permitting inurement of their net earnings to any private individual. Courts will examine the following factors to determine if funds inure to the benefit of a private person: 1) the individual controls the disposition of the organization's funds; 2) the funds are transferred to the controlling individual or to persons controlled indirectly or directly by him; and 3) the fund transfer is not an ordinary and necessary expenditure of the organization, thus resulting in a benefit to the indivudual. See Founding Church of Scientology, 412 F. 2d 1146, 1200. The reasoning implemented by the Service when interpreting "religious purpose" and the opinions of the Ta:-'rendered upon review of the Service's rulings, may serve as a guide for the property tax assessor for Pinne!!as County -35- when reviewing an application for religious exemption. D. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO LI~/T EXPANSION OF PURPORTED "CHURCH FACILITIES" IN THE "DOWNTOW~ DEVELOPMENT AREA" Florida law very clearly affords county and municipal authorities the right to reasonably regulate the location of churches and church facilities. See Town v. State ex rel Reno 377 So2d 648 (Fla. 1980) appeal dism. 101 S. Ct. 48. Florida differs from several other states in this regard. While courts in some of these states have .held that First Amendment considerations take precedence over zoning laws, the Florida Supreme Court has consistently taken an opposite view, and its decisions have not been disturbed by the United States Supreme Court. See Town v. Reno ex rel State, supra; Miami Beach United Luther v. City of Miemi Beach 82 So.2d880 (Fla. 1955); Pylant v. Orange County 328 So.2d199 (Fla. 1976); see also Town of Hialeah v. Hebraia Community Center 309 So.2d 212 (D. Ct. App. 1975); Trachsel v. City of Tamarac 311 So.2d 137 (D. Ct., App. 1975) Board of Commissioners of Dade CountX v. First Free Will Baptist Church 374 So.2d1055 (D. Ct. App. i979). These decisions approve a fairly broad range of zoning regulation of church buildings. In Board of Commissioners of Dade County v. First Free Will Baptist Church, s.upr. a, a regulation was upheld which permitted churches only in RV-3 zoning (4-unit apartment). In that case the Court upheld a ) zoning decision to deny a permit for a church in an agricul- -36- rural zone. In Town v. State ex rel Reno, supra, the Court upheld a zoning ordinance which excluded churches from single family residence zones. In the P~!ant and Miami Beach cases, Courts approved zoning churches out of single family zones. Other pertinent !eqal rules have developed. A new zoninq ordinance, in order to withstand judicial scrutiny, need only be "fairly debatable". See the Trachsel case. Zoning ordinances may be justified by a change in a neighborhood. See Trachsel. Finally, zoning may be tailored with the intention of preserving existing property values, and there are many Florida cases which so hold. With particular reference to churches, the Courts have been particularly unsympathetic to church groups which purchase properties in areas where zoning prohibited the location of churches prior to the purchase, and then attempted to overturn the zoning rule with a First Amendment argument. See Town v. State ex rel Reno. This is marticularly so where there are other areas of the city in which churches are allowed. Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court has not accepted the First Amendment argument as a basis for the "UPSet" Of a comPrehensive municipal D!an. See Miami Beach. The City of Clearwater has designated a Downtown Deve!oDment District ,and is presently considerinq a revamping of its zoning laws which will, among other things, create a zoning corollary to the Downtown Development Area. This may be called the Downtown Development District. At the present time there is an unusually high and apparently growing -37- concentration of purported church facilities in the Downtown Development District. In deliberating on the adoption of a zoning ordinance for the Downtown Development District, the City should carefully consider the following factors: 1) What is the present concentration of church facilities in the Downtown Development District? 2) What has the effect of such concentration been on the business and commercial life of the area and on the property values of the area? 3) What is the projected expansion of church facilities in the area? 4) What effect would continued expansion of church facilities in the area reasonably be expected to have on the goals and objectives of the Downtown Development Area? If the City were to adopt a zoning ordinance restricting expansion of church facilities in the Downtown Development Area Cor conditioning it on a soecial permit or exception), it is likely that a church qrOuD or Groups may attempt to test the validity of the ordinance with litigation. It is forseeable that a group seeking to expand in contravention to the ordinance would allege that the ordinance is invalid because it constitutes ethnic, religious, or invidious discrimination. See Town of Hialeah v. Hebraia Community Center, _s.upra. Where such an attack is mounted against an ordinance the Court will ordinarily make a close examination of the record of the deliberations of the body which adopted the ordinance. Accordingly, it is important that the City Commission, in considering this issue, consider only those factors which are regarded as valid objects of zoning regulation (see above) and avoid irrelevant or inflammatory matters. -38 - E. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE P~RACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY There are three possible approaches to the regulation of psychotherapy. These are 1) taxation, 2) registration, and 3) substantive regulation. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed, infra. SCIENTOLOGY AS THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY The practices of Scientology undoubtedly constitute psychotherapy. Among the various psychotherapeutic claims of Scientology are increased I-Q., increased interpersonal communication skills, improved memory, freedom from neurosis and anxiety, marital and family harmony, and cures for drug addiction and psychosomatic illnesses. All of these benefits are claimed to be achieved by a process of "auditing" identical to psychotherapy. An auditor, on a paid hourly basis, interviews a "proclear" intensively about the details of his emotional life, while using a lie-detector (the "E-Meter") to sharpen his questioning. The auditor keeps notes of everything that is said. He propounds various words to the pre-clear such as "sex", "excreta", "mas- "dirty words" "saliva" turbation" "eating human bodies", , , "semen", "urine", "beastiality", "homosexuality","bowels", and "genitalia" If the auditor detects a response on the E-Meter at the suggestion of the word, he focuses in on it, as he believes that he has found an "engram" Basically, an "engram" is an imprint on the subconscious mind caused by a negative experience in this or a past life. For example, if one had a traumatic experience as a child with a dog, words such as "dog", "bark", or "bite", might trigger a response on the -39- E-Meter. Supposedly, engrams prevent us from "handling" certain situations effectively when thay are triggered. The entire process is represented as having a scientific basis and stated to be the product of "research". The "pre-clear" is told that the process, if carried through, is guaranteed to achieve results. No appeal to faith or religious belief is involved. See discussion infra, Section IV B. Hubbard himself has written that the process is a form of psychotherapy. He explains how Scientology is related to Freudjan thought. At one point he described Scientology as the "world's largest mental health organization". Although Scientology very deliberately began calling itself a religion in the late 1950's in an effort to achieve certain legal and tax benefits, the ,>~d nature of the "auditing" process has not changed since the time when Hubbard was aggressively selling his process as a science. Regardless of what Hubbard says or said, however, it is obvious that auditing is essentially psychotherapy. 1. TAX APPROACHES. Under present Florida law, it seems clear that the City has the power to levy an occupational tax on psychotherapists. Florida Statutes (1979) ch. 205 specifically grants municipalities the authority to levy occupational license taxes. At the present time, however, the authors of this report do not recommend such an approach for the following reasons: a) Any such tax would have to be set at a reasonable, non-burdensome amount. Too large a tax would be subject to invalidation on the basis that it was a covert form of regulation and an improper use of taxing power. See Consolidated City of -40- Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So.2d 132 (D. Ct. of App., 1978). b) The tax would be politically unpopular with other practitioners. c) The Scientologists would simply refuse to pay the tax, claiming religious status under Fla. Star. (1979) ch. 205, 191. A.legal battle would ensue. Although the City would undoubtedly win in the end, the cost of litigation would certainly exceed expected revenues. 2. REGISTRATION APPROACHES. In 1979 the Florida legislature repealed then existing state statutes regulating the practice of psychology. Accordingly, the state preemption in this area has been removed. Whereas municipalities were formerly unable to enact ordinances in this area, (see Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Boswell, 167 Sc.2d 866 (Fla., 1964), they pre- 1 sumably are now free to regulate. The least intrusive form of regulation, and the one most immune to constitutional attack, is registration. By this, we mean, "informational" registration. The City could require anyone intending to practice psychetherapy to register and provide, under pains of perjury, background information, including his name, address, employer, educational background, professional experience, previous names and address, criminal convictions, disciplinary actions, suspensions, and legal actions in other areas and states, etc. The disclosure of this type of information is common in most professions, is vitally important for the protection of the public interest, and is easily defensible as a course of action for the City. i An argument could be made, albeit weak, that the state repeal now preempts any regulation at all. -41- In the case of Scientology, adoption and enfocement of such a provision would provide the public with vital information. Many Scientology "auditors" have backgrounds which belie their exaggerated claims of experience and expertise. Some of them have backgrounds which raise substantial questions about their moral character The information would inform the public about the background of "auditors". It would also assist members of the public who feel they have been wronged in seeking remedies at law by establishing facts regarding the whereabouts, affiliations, and histories of particular "auditors" 3) SUBSTANTIVE REGULATION. As noted, above, the City is now free to enact substantive regulations for the practice of psychotherapy (see footnote 1, above; see also, Bd. of Comm. v. Boswell, supra). It is well-settled in American law that the regulation of psychological practice is a valid exercies of the state's police power. So long as the requirements relating to education, skill and certifying examination bear a direct, substantial and reasonable\ relationship to the practce of psychology, the state may set reasonable standards for determining qualification of those who hold themselves out as psychologists and may also grant to an administrative body the authority to enforce those standards. Oliver v. Com. Dept. of State, Pennsylvania Board of Psychologist Examiners, 404 A.2d 1386, 45 Pa. Commlth. 195, Nelles v. Bartlett, 145 N.W.2d 795, 5 Mich. App. 47, app. dism. cert. den., 88 S. Ct. 85, 389 U.S. 9, 19 L. Ed. Ed. 9 See 81 ALR 2d 791. Among the other regulated F~of=~icnals are sccia! workers, alchoholism counselors, and marriage and family counselors. Licensing or certifying statutes, as typified by the repealed Florida statutes (Chapter 490), generally specify the qualifications for psychological practice: 1) Personal Characteristics such as being of "good moral character" and conformance to the "ethical standards of the profession as adopted by the board". Some statutes particularize certain disqualifying acts such as homosexual behavior. 2) Formal Education as manifested by "entry level professionall degrees" such as M.A.'s, Ed. M's, or PH.D.'s. Statutory schemes that fail to exempt on "grandfather" practitioners who have substantial experience but lack the requisite degrees have been stricken as deprivations of economic interests. See Berger v. Board of Psychological Examiners, 521, F.2d 1056 (D.D.C. 1975); Whittle v. State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 483 P. 2d 328 (Okla. 1971). 3) Practical Experience under the supervision of or association with a licensed psychologist. Florida required two~ (2) years or 4,000 hours of full-time experience in the field of psychology. 4) Examination by a state licensing or certification board. The Florida State Board of Examiners of Psychology consisted of five (5) licensed psychologists empowered to adopt rules of professional ehtics and to examine by written or oral examinations. Such boards have discretion in their adminstration of statutory standards, but they may not develop standards different from or inconsistent wi~-hthe statute. Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 492 S.W. 2d (Tex. 1973). With regard to the actual manner of practice, it should -43- be noted that, as with most professions, this is left to the common law or to the profession itself. Doctors and lawyers, for example, are ultimately subject to censure by their own profession or to malpractice suits. However, in the case of the medical profession, there are a number of specific acts which are subject to regulation. In most states, for example, a physician is prevented by statute from disclosing patient records without the patients consent; he must report occurrences of certain diseases to authorities; he must report the prescription of certain drugs, etc. At the present time, the authors of this report do not recommend the enactment of general substantive regulations, although a caveat is given that these may become necessary in the future. There are several reasons for this recommendation. As noted above, there is some doubt, albeit weak, that the City has authority to do so. More significant is the fact that the regulation of professional practice has historically been left to professional bodies and the common law. There are, at the present time, a number of lawsuits pending around the United States regarding the practices of Scientology auditors. It is expected that these suits will result in a de facto standard of responsibility for Scientology auditors more effectively than could any formbf municipal regulation. At the same time, however, the authors of this report do recommend ordinances which regulate specific acts of psychotherapists. Primarily, practitioners should be prohibited from disclosing patient infromation without written consent of the patient. This is consistent with the dictates of common law and consistent with statutory regulation of the medical profession. There is a present need for such an ordinance in Clearwater. -44- F. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE EDUCATION Chapter 232 of the Florida Statutes annotated regulates compulsory school attendance and child welfare with regard to education. The superintendent.of schools for the local school district has the legal authority under F.S.A. Ch. 232.16 to enforce this statute. There is substantial evidence that many young children have lived in property owned by the Church of Scien.tology in Clearwater, who have not attended school as required. The City should initiate an investigation of this condition and take appropriate action. The time and cost limitations of this Report prevented further analysis. G. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE IN AREAS OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, LODGING, FIRE AND BUILDINGS The time and cost limitations for this Report prohibited research and analysis in these subject areas. The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable regulations in any of these areas. There is evidence of conditions in buildings owned by the Church of Scientology which should raise legitimate concern with the City. These conditions include: - hepatitis epidemics; - people being prevented by force and intimidation from seeking medical attention; - people being maintained on restrictive and unhealthy diets; - people sleeping on a regular basis in hallways and on concrete floors; - enforced loss of sleep used as a brainwashing technique; and - deliberate deception of City Inspectors. -45- All of these conditions have been reported to us by clients who were present in Clearwater for varying periods of time and who are presently willing to testify before the City Commissioners in any investigative proceedings. It should be noted, however, that this is primarily an enforcement question. Many of the conditions reported above are in violation of existing ordinances. There may be a need for additional legislation, however. -46- 'IV. FACTUAL DESCRIPTION, HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF SCIENTOLOGY A. General History and Description o~f Scientology Scientology is an international cult created, operated and controlled by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard for the purported purpose of selling courses, publications and services, which claim to cure various physical and emotional ills, and which allegedly provide spiritual rewards. There is substantial, perhaps overwhelm.ing evidence, to support the conclusion that, despite Scientology's attempted religious front, it is in real- ity a criminal, fraud-ridden, commercial, profit motivated en- +terprise engaged in the practice of psychotherapy with a military structure and operational methods designed to accumulate money, information and power. ........ .~".~-..IScientology's legacy of victims, who have been swindled, .~.~ mentally cripple~d and sometimes killed,by. Scientol. ogy practices have caused many nations to convene formal inquiries into Sci- ento10gy ~ · These nations include England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Rhodesia. France has convicted Hubbard of criminal fraud. The Reports from trio of these inquiries, Aus- I and tralia and England, are contained in the Appendix to this Report. It is fair to say that in general these inquiries have concluded~ that Scientology is a maze of intertwined corporations, claiming tax-exempt status, masquerading as a religion, and conducting anti-social, fraudulent, and psychologically ~harm. ful .pr..,acti~c.e.~ .~.. ~.~I~,:~ The English and Australian reports and '~ ' "' '" 'the "fa6ts established'by this firm also' support the finding that the above-cited practices" are generally directed towards the weak, unbalanced, immature, unstable, footless and often traumatized individuals, in our society. -47- Such individuals are generally more susceptible to false claims of promised cures. Scientology is adept a-t finding the person's "ruin" or problem, and making extravagant promises to solve the problem at exorbitant, and patently commercial fees. The purported belief systems or dogma of Scientology are a hocus pocus menagerie of science fiction, the occult, magic and claimed physical and mental well-being. Sciemtology does not worship a God. It is rather a pseudo-philosophy of mental and ~~ physical health based on supposed scientific research and case studies. A Federal Court in Washington, D.C. found that the writings of Hubbard which embody Scientology "doctrine" or "dogma'~ are predominantly non-religious, false and fraudulent. X-4 The writings of Hubbard also contain vicious Scientology policies used against opponents including "Fair Game", "Disconnect", "R-2-45", the "Blown Student" and "Attack the Attacker". Hubbard's own mental illness and twisted perspective on fundamental human values is reflected in much of his writing. Hubbard's own falsified background is typical of the fraudulent representations made by his Organization. Thus, any inquiry into Scientology must begin with an inquiry into Hubbard. I. The Founder and Promoter - Lafayette Ronald Hubbard a. His background L. Ron Hubbard was born at Dr. Campbell's Hospital on Oak Street in Tilden, Nebraska, on March 13, 1911. His mother, Ledora May Hubbard was also born in Tilden, Nebraska. Ledora's father, L. Ron Hubbard's grandfather, was Lafayette O. Waterbury, born in the State of Michigan on July 20, 1864. L. Ron Hubbard's grandmother was Ida Corinne DeWolf born in Illinois on August 6, -48- 1863. L. Ron Hubbard's father, Harry Ross Hubbard, {U.S. Navy), was born Henry August Wilson in Fayette County, Iowa, on August 31, 1882. Harry Ross Hubbard's father died when Harry was a child, and he was adopted by Mr. and Mrs. James W. Hubbard, also of Fayette County, Iowa, and his name was legally changed to Harry Ross Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard's birth data is verified by his certificate of birth in the Bureau of Vital Sta- III-1 tistics in Lincoln, Nebraska, File No. 126-165-11. According to various biographies published in Scientology books, Hubbard was raised on a cattle ranch "one quarter the size of Montana", which was owned by his maternal grandfatherHere, Hubbard was said to have learned to ride a horse before he could walk, to have become friends with an Indian medicine man, and to have become blood brother with the "Blackfoot" (sic "Blackfeet") Indians. He refused to go to school, since schooling was unecessary for h'im, and was more interested in exploring, breaking wild horses, and hunting coyotes. Hubbard's grandfather (Waterbury) never owned a large cattle ranch in Montana. No records can be found showing that he owned any land at all in Montana. He did own a business several miles southeast of Helena, the Capital City Coal Company where the grandfather sold coal, feed, and was a practising veterinarian. Records indicate that Hubbard lived at 726 Fifth Ave., in Helena. This was the address of his father and mother and also of his III-1 maternal grandparents, as well as a number of aunts and uncles. The Scientology biographies state tht Hubbard was able to spend several years traveling through Asia, China, Tibet, India, the South Pacific, the Philippines, etc., from 1925 through 1929, -49- living in the company of a magician descended from ancient masters, lamas, priests, and other wise men. Hubbard supposedly learned an entire dialect in one night (the Igoriti of the Philippines), and lived among native bandits who didn't harm him "because of his honest interest in them and their ways of life". Here, as a young man, Hubbard al!egedly became interested in the "composition and destiny of man" The facts are that during the years 1925 to 1929, Hubbard was a student at Union High School in Seattle, and Helena High School in Helena, Montana. In 1925, when Hubbard was 14, his father was stationed at the Puget Sound (Washington) Naval Shipyards. The father and his wife lived in Bremerton, Washington as did L. Ron, which is where he went to high school. Hubbard's mother was a school teacher. Hubbard's father remained at the Naval Shipyards until 1927, when he was ordered to Guam as a. Supplies Officer. The Xavyallowed Hubbard and his mother to join him in Guam during the summer of 1927. A few months later, Hubbard returned to Montana and was enrolled at Helena High School in Montana. He subsequently dropped out of Helena High School because of poor grades, on May ll, 1928. After that he attended Swathely Prep School in Manassus, Virginia and then Woodward Prep School in Washington, D.C. Woodward was a school operated by the Y.M.C.A. for difficult students and slow learners. Hubbard artended Woodward from February to June, 1930. He graduated and was accepted into the School of Engineering at George Washington University. At the end of his first year, he was placed on proba- 5ion because of poor grades, and at the end of his second year III-1 was asked to leave, again because of poor grades. -50- According to further Scientology biographies, Hubbard is supposed to have combined his experiences as a traveller with his great knowledge of engineering, math, and physics which enabled him to discover the secrets of life. Hubbard wrote a book called "All About Radiation", written by L. Ron Hubbard, a "medical doctor and a nuclear physicist" Copyright L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard alleges to have received degrees of Civil Engineering from George Washington University, and Doctor of Medicine, Divinity and Philosophy. This is all III-1 false. Hubbard flunked the only physics course he took. Hubbard alleges that he artended Princeton University. Hubbard may have received naval training at Princeton, New Jersey, as many officer candidates did during WW II, but this is not considered formal admission to Princeton University as an undergraduate student. His naval records suggest the fact that he artended the naval training school there from Septem- III-2 ber 29, 1944 to January 27, 1945. Hubbard also claims in his Scientotogy biographies to have made expenditions into the jungles of South America, producing a Caribbean underwater motion picture expedition, financed by the navy Hydrographic Office for the University of Michigan, and to be the first person to use the navy's bathysphere, or diving bell. Hubbard's claims also include: the first complete mineroiogical survey of Puerto Rico", rewriting the "Co-pilot", a navigational guide for the State of Alaska, leading expeditions into San Juan and Central America, for the Department of the Interior, and National Geographic Society. The ascertainable facts are that the State Department PassOOrt Office records show that Hubbard was issued passport No. -51- Z1889248 on April 23, 1974. He presumably had a previous passport. Hubbard's claims to have been a teenager traveling in Tibet, China and India back in the 1920's are unlikely because of hostility to visitors, especially Americans. One of the first to be allowed to travel in these areas was Lowell Thomas, in the 1950's. Regarding his other purported expeditions, the Department Natural Resources in San Juan has no record of L. Ron Hubbard, nor does the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of the Interior, the National Geographic Society, a number of prominent geologists who were working in Puerto Rico and Central American areas at that time, the Department of the Navy's Hydrographic Office, the University of Michigan, Princeton University, the State of Alaska and records researched by III-! the ~~ew York Explorers' Club. The next segment of Scientology biographies concerning Hubbard, relate to a brave young U.S. Navy officer, eager to defend his country, who was the first casualty in the Pacific. Because of Hubbard's "importance" he was flown back to the United States in the Secretary of the Navy's personal airplane. Though severely wounded he was ordered to take command of a fleet of ships without any rest. He was "highly decorated"' for his bravery in battle, and was America's first real life hero. After four years of battle, Hubbard was admitted to the Oak Knowles Military Hospital in Oakland, California, on September 5, 1945. Here, supposedly crippled, blind, and not expected to live from having been so severely wounded in action, facing an uncertain future, Hubbard applied all of his knowledge of nuclear physics, etc., and healed himself, by the sheer power of his mind. It is written that so complete and so miraculous was his recovery, that he amazed Navy physicians and psychiatrists. -52- The facts are as follows: Naval records indicate Hubbard (U.S.N. No. 1133-92) was commissioned as an ensign on the 19th of July, 1941, and spent.the first five months of his service in the Eastern United States. In December of that year, he was transferred to Melbourne, Australia where he was an Intelligence Officer for about three months, and was then sent back to the U.S. He bounced around from Maine to Florida to New York for a year, and then came to Portland, Oregon, where he became Commanding Officer of the U.S.S.P.C. - 815, a small destroyer-escort type vessel. This ship remained at the Albina Shipyards in Portland for about two months. In the middle of June, 1943, the 815 went down the Willamette and Columbia rivers to the Pacific Ocean, and steamed south to San Francisco and San Diegeo. A few days later, while at exercises in Mexican territorial waters, Hubbard ordered the crew to fire some practice rounds, using the ship's three-inch naval gun. The target was in line with the Coronados Island off the coast of Baha, California. The practice rounds of the gun exploded on or near the Coronados Island. The Navy Department convened a Board of Investigation aboard the ship. The transcript of that hearing, (about 100 pages), showed conflicting testimony on estimates of how far from Coronados the ship was at the time the gun was fired, varying from a few hundred yards to eight miles. The results of the Board were not released, but it is a matter of record that a few days III-2 later, Hubbard was no longer in command of the PC-815. After leaving the PC-815, Hubbard was ordered to Portland, Oregon, and assigned to the U.S.S. ALGOL. The ALGOL was an armed troop carrier commissioned at Portland, Oregon, on July 21, 1944. Hubbard was aboard. as Navigating Officer and Training Officer. Like the PC-815, she proceeded down the Willamette and Columbia rivers to the Pacific, then south to San Francisco, where she went through her "shakedown" cruise practising man- III-2 oevers and training exercises. On the afternoon of September 27, 1944, while docked in Oakland, California, Hubbard reported to the officer of the day that he discovered an attempt to sabotage the ship. Someone, Hubbard claimed, had filled a coke bottle with gasoline and inserted a cloth wick, and then had hidden it among some cargo that was to be hoisted aboard and placed in the Number One hold. The F.B.I. and Navy Intelligence were called in to investigate, but the records of this investigation are not available. The following day, just a few days before the ALGOL sailed for the Pacific and into combat, Hubbard was relieved III-2 of duty and transferred to a training school in New Jersey. After Hubbard left New Jersey, he spent nine months at the Office of Naval Civil Affairs, in Monterey, California, and on September 5, 1945, was admitted to the Oak Knowles Military Hospital in Oakland, California. Hubbard was apparently discharged from Oak Knowles on December 5, 1945 where he was awarded a 10% disability for duodenal ulcer, but this di~ not become effective until February 17, 1946, the day he was released from active duty. His disability was later increased to 40% for arthritis, bursitis, and conjuctivitis (an eye inflammation). His Veterans' Administration file No. is C-7017422. Hubbard's naval recora ~+.~l. ~ndicates there was nothing in Hubbard's service record to indicate that he ever received -54- medical treatment for injuries sustained in the line of duty. He did not receive the purple heart. III-2 It is interesting to note that Hubbard's father had a naval career and during the period in September - December 1975 when the father became ill and died, Hubbard sold his "flagship", the "Apollo" and set up his land base in Clearwater. On October 15, 1947, Hubbard wrote a letter to the Veterans' Administration requesting treatment. The request concerned "a mind which I had every reason to suppose was seriously. affected. I cannot account for, nor rise above, long periods of moroseness III-3 and suicidal inclinations" (Emphasis supplod) The foregoing letter and other Hubbard activities at the time, including his involvement in the occult, suggest that Hubbard was bordering on the brink of serious mental illness following WW II, and that his in-patient treatment from September 5, 1945 to December 4, 1945 at the OakKnowles Hospital may have been for treatment of an undisclosed mental or emotional disorder. However, the records for this hospitalization will not be released without Hubbard's consent and the nature I!I-2 of the treatment he received at Oak Knewles may never be known. Hubbard's possible mental illness is also indicated in a series of events which allegedly took place shortly after his discharge from the U.S. Navy in 1945. in the book, "Ritual .Magic in England," Francis King describes Hubbard's involvement with Jack Parsons, a fellow involved in ritual magic and the occult. Parsons was a disciple of the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn'z, an occult group founded in England. Parsons associated with an author, Aleister Crow!ey. In that year, Parsons struck up a "close and immediate" friendship with Hubbard, and in a letter. to Crowley at the beginning of 1946, Parsons said of Hubbard, "He is a gentleman, red hair, green eyes, honest and intelligent, and we have become great friends. Although he has not formal training in magic, he has an extraordinary amount of experience and understanding in the field. Ron appears to have some sort of highly developed, astral vision; he describes his angel as a beautiful winged woman with red hair whom he calls the Empress and who has III-4 guided him through his life and saved him many times." King relates that during the First World War, Crowely wrote a novel called "The Butterfly Net", which was later published under the name of "Moonchild". This book relates the story of a magical operation in which a particular type of spirit is supposedly in an unborn human embryo "by surrcund~ ing the mother with appropriate influences, carrying out certain rituals, etc. Parsons wished to carry out such an operation designed to achieve the incarnation of Babylon - an aspect of the great mother goddess Nuit - in an unborn child, and he decided that Hubbard would make an ideal co-worker." King states that in order to obtain a woman prepared to bear this magical child, "Parsons and Hubbard engaged themselves for eleven days in rituals." After some time the rituals had the desired result when on January 14, so Parsons said, "Hubbard had a candle knocked'-out of his hand': Parsons went on to record that Hubbard called him, and "we observed a brownish-yellow light about seven feet high. I brandished a magical sword, and it disappeared. Ron's right arm was paralyzed for the rest of the night. " III-4 According to Parsons, on the next night, "Hubbard had a vision of an enemy of the O.T.O-