![[image]](img/pg05_1.jpg)
| ||
 |
Attorney Kendrick Moxon: With the Court of Appeals’ recent decision affirming a multimilliondollar verdict against the old Cult Awareness Network, “efforts to force someone into changing their religious views – whatever they are and for whatever reason – are clearly labeled as violations of federal law.” | |
Vast implications
The Court of Appeals determined that CAN's agent in Washington state, Shirley Landa, acted for and on behalf of CAN in making referrals for what CAN euphemistically called "involuntary deprogramming" -- a practice where the target is held against his will while attempts are made to forcibly alter his religious beliefs. Since the verdict against CAN, the practice of deprogramming in America, which had been a lucrative criminal enterprise, has apparently ceased. The court found CAN responsible and that "CAN members routinely referred people to deprogrammers."
In its 23-page opinion, the court acknowledged the role played in the case by violent deprogrammer and convicted felon Rick Ross, and Ross' ties to the old CAN, noting that "The evidence indicates that it was CAN's practice to refer people to deprogrammers, including Rick Ross, and that Ross was known to engage in involuntary deprogramming."
The court also turned to CAN's violations of civil rights laws, and the issue of whether a private organization can be held liable for the acts of its members, under a legal doctrine known as vicarious liability or respondeat superior (literally, "let the master answer"). "We conclude that vicarious liability may be imposed on CAN in this action," said the court. "Under either traditional principles of respondeat superior or 'policy and practice' principles, CAN would be liable. Landa acted as CAN's agent, and Landa acted in accordance with CAN's practice of referring people to involuntary deprogrammers."
Further, confirming that CAN engaged in "a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws," the appellate panel concluded that "The record shows that Landa was involved in the agreement to deprogram Scott and thereby violate his civil rights. Landa referred [Scott's mother] Tonkin to Ross, and Landa was aware of Ross' methods. ... The fact Ross contacted Landa for 'legal advice' after his arrest is further evidence of her complicity."
CAN argued before the court of appeal that it was its "official policy" to not involve itself in deprogramming, and thus it should be let off the hook. The Court rejected this argument as contrary to the evidence at trial, saying that "CAN's 'official' policy prohibiting involuntary deprogramming [does not] undermine the evidence concerning CAN's practices...." and thus held CAN fully liable for the original judgment, plus interest.
| Your View on this Scientology website | Scientology Related Sites | Bookstore | Church of Scientology Freedom Magazine |
