Wollersheim fights on in New Court Filing to Collect 6+ million from Scientology.



                     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL



                   FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



                    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



                             B118114



                       __________________



              CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,



                    Defendant and Appellant,



                               vs.



                      LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM,



                    Plaintiff and Respondent.

                       __________________



           APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

            CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

                 HONORABLE JOHN P. SHOOK, JUDGE

                      L.A.S.C. No. C 332027

                       __________________



      MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

            AND A PREFERENCE ON THE HEARING CALENDAR 

                       __________________



     Pursuant to Rule 19.3 of the California Rules of Court,

appellee, Lawrence Wollersheim (Wollersheim) moves this Court for

issuance of an expedited briefing schedule and a preference on the

hearing calendar.  This motion is based on the accompanying

memorandum of points and authorities, the accompanying declaration

of Daniel A. Leipold, the declaration of appellee Wollersheim, the

Court's file on this appeal, and this Court's opinion in Church of

Scientology of California v. Lawrence Wollersheim (1996) 42

Cal.App.4th 628; 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620.              MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES



               WHY APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR 

                  PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED

     Good cause exists for the granting of appellee's motion for

calendar preference on the following grounds:

1.   Appellant's attorneys have on the record revealed

     Scientology's plans to prolong the appellate process as long

     as possible.

2.   This appeal is simply a continuation of Scientology's

     prolonged battering of plaintiff Wollersheim under the

     Church's "fair game" policy. 

3.   This appeal is collateral to Scientology's ultimate goal of

     denying appellee Wollersheim the necessary financial resources

     he needs to defend himself in a pending copyright infringement

     case filed by Scientology in the Colorado District Court.

              APPELLANT'S ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ABUSE

             THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND MAXIMIZE THE

                 FINANCIAL BURDEN ON WOLLERSHEIM

     This appeal challenges an order of the Los Angeles County

Superior Court amending Wollersheim's 1986 judgment against the

Church of Scientology of California (CSC) to include as alter ego

entities appellants, Church of Scientology International (CSI) and

Religious Technology Center (RTC).  On October 29, 1997, the Court

granted Wollersheim's motion to amend the judgment against CSC

finding, among other things, that CSI and RTC are the alter egos of

CSC (Exhibit "A").

     On November 14, 1997, an order amending judgment nunc pro tunc

and judgment thereon was entered in favor of Wollersheim  and

against CSC, CSI and RTC (Exhibit "B").  

     Subsequent to those orders, on December 11, 1997, the Superior

Court entertained a motion to vacate judgment filed by CSC, CSI and

RTC.  The motion to vacate was denied by Judge John P. Shook of the

Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

     During the hearing on the motion to vacate, Scientology's

attorney Samuel Rosen,  made it painfully clear that it is

Scientology's intent to prolong this already 17 year old case as

long as possible.  In argument to the Court, Attorney Rosen

threatened to drag out the appellate process unless plaintiff

Wollersheim would agree to submit certain issues to a referee. 

Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is the reporter's transcript of the

proceedings of December 11, 1997.  The salient portion of counsel's

argument is as follows:

          "You know what I'm going to do, I will suggest

          you go a step beyond.  Judge Weil has a

          marvelous reputation.  I have not had the

          privilege of being before him, but he is able

          to settle cases.  I will give him a complete

          mandate if he wants to try to settle the case,

          that is fine.  If he wants to try the case,

          that is fine too.

          What is the implication to Wollersheim if we

          do that?  Well, there is going to be a delay,

          three, four, five months, whatever it is,

          depending on Judge Weil's schedule before he

          can give us the hearing that we are entitled

          to.  That pales next to the five years that

          Mr. Wollersheim is going to stand and wait

          because the bond does not do him any good. 

          All that says is at the end of the day within

          five years from now you will get money." 

          (Exhibit "C", reporter's transcript of

          proceedings December 11, 1997, page 16, line

          26 through page 17, line 12.) (emphasis

          added).

     Attorney Rosen indicated further on in his argument:

          "If you want to go through several more years

          of litigation -- which by the way, whether we

          win or lose, you don't get attorneys' fees for

          pending this situation in the Court of Appeals

          and beyond.  So the best you do is five years

          from now, you get the additional interest. 

          Let's do it right.  If we do it right and we

          lose, we will be going to appeal."  (Exhibit

          "C", reporter's transcript of proceedings

          December 11, 1997, page 18, lines 2-8).

     This appellate court has already addressed some of the issues

being raised on this appeal, as well as in this motion for calendar

preference.  In Church of Scientology of California v. Lawrence

Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, this Court specifically saw

through the veil of deception that is continually used by the

appellants when it affirmed the lower court's dismissal of an

action brought by CSC against Wollersheim under California's anti-

SLAPP suit statute (C.C.P. ^U425.16). 

     Plaintiff Wollersheim invites this Court to recall its

specific findings:

          "In the instant action, the Church's actions

          clearly fall within the ambit of ^U425.16. 

          Among its other litigation strategies, the

          Church has filed two non-meritorious federal

          court actions as well as this one (footnote

          omitted).  The Church has filed numerous

          appeals in state and federal courts and

          prolonged Wollersheim's 1980 lawsuit for 15

          years.  When the litigation actions of the

          Church are analyzed in the light of the entire

          litigation history between the parties, it

          appears the instant lawsuit was brought by the

          Church against Wollersheim: (a) in retaliation

          for his 1980 lawsuit against the Church; (b)

          to punish him economically for bringing that

          lawsuit; and, (3) to obliterate the value of

          any victories over the Church by forcing him

          to abandon his efforts to recover the damages

          awarded in the prior action by making it too

          costly to do so.  (footnote omitted).

          The Church argues that it has every right to

          exhaust its legal remedies, including appeal

          rights.  We agree.  However, when a litigant

          continuously and unsuccessfully uses the

          litigation process in filing unmeritorious

          motions, appeals and lawsuits, such actions

          have constitutional implications which might

          be reviewed on a motion under ^U425.16."  42

          Cal.App.4th at 649.  (emphasis added).

     This Court also found that Wollersheim had already:

          " . . . liquidated all of his assets,

          personally spent about $300,000, and gone more

          than $900,000 into debt, not including

          attorney fees, during the litigation of the

          main action and related litigation over an 11-

          year period."

     Here, Scientology intends to use a prolonged appellate process

as a means to the illegitimate ends of fostering its policy of

punishing Wollersheim economically.  The statements of Attorney

Rosen clearly reflect Scientology's intent to prolong this appeal

as it did the appeal from the trial, and to make it as costly as

possible.  Moreover, as noted in the accompanying declaration of

appellee Wollersheim, Scientology has filed a copyright

infringement claim against him in the Federal District Court of

Colorado.  

     Although the merits of the copyright action, albeit suspect,

are not at issue herein, the very existence of that lawsuit

manifests Scientology's continuing pattern and practice of

bludgeoning its "enemy" Wollersheim with litigation.  Appellee

Wollersheim needs a determination of this appeal as soon as

possible to allow him to finance his defense in the pending

district court action.  By granting appellee's motion for calendar

preference, this Court will be accomplishing several things:

     First, it will partially remove from the grasp of Scientology

its ability to continue its bad faith and frivolous tactics of

abusively prolonging litigation and making it as expensive as

possible.  As noted in the statements of Attorney Rosen, the

Scientologists fully intend to drag out the appeal process as long

as five years.  

     Second, and more importantly, plaintiff Wollersheim has waited

12 years to collect a judgment that was rightfully awarded to him

by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury.  Along the way, he has been

sued four times and as noted by this Court herein, those suits were

unmeritorious, unsuccessful and had clear constitutional

implications.  

     Appellee Wollersheim is confident that he has submitted more

and better evidence of alter ego than has ever been submitted in

any reported California case and that therefore, Judge Shook's

order will be affirmed by this Court.  By granting appellee's

motion for calendar preference, this Court will provide appellee

with light at the end of the tunnel and the opportunity to obtain

the financial resources he requires to continue to defend himself

against Scientology's malicious litigation tactics.

   APPELLANTS ARE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT THEY

     HAVE ENGAGED IN LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PUNISH APPELLEE

      SO AS TO FORCE HIM TO ABANDON HIS EFFORTS TO RECOVER

                   THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO HIM

     In Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim, supra

at p. 649, this Court analyzed the entire litigation history

between the parties and held that CSC had acted to economically

punish Wollersheim in order to force him to abandon his efforts to

recover the damages awarded to him.

     The appellants herein, CSI and RTC are collaterally estopped

from denying the application of this finding to themselves.   In

Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221; 236 Cal.Rptr. 285, the

appellate court discussed the concept of collateral estoppel.  At

page 225, the Court stated:

          "A second action between the same parties on a

          different cause of action is not precluded by

          a former judgment . . . but the first judgment

          'operates as an estoppel or conclusive

          adjudication as to such issues in the second

          action as were actually litigated and

          determined in the first action.' [citation.]"

     The Court went on to use the Second Restatement of Judgment's

definition of "actually litigated" at page 226:

          "When an issue is properly raised, by the

          pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for

          determination, and is determined, the issue is

          actually litigated within the meaning of this

          section. . . ."

     CSI and RTC are aligned parties with CSC sharing substantially

the same identity.  C.C.P. ^U1910 states:

          "The parties are deemed to be the same when

          those between whom the evidence is offered or

          were on opposite sides in the former case, and

          a judgment or other determination could in

          that case have been made between them alone,

          though other parties were joined with both or

          either."

     Putting aside Judge Shook's finding that CSI and RTC are the

alter egos of CSC in the within action, one has only to look at a

small portion of the undisputed evidence to determine that RTC and

CSI are parties with substantially the same identity  as CSC.

     1.   Neil Levin, the president of CSC during the pendency of

the SLAPP action testified CSC was a "dormant corporation" (pg. 57,

line 23 through page 58, line 10); he receives no compensation from

CSC (pg. 49, lines 17-22); but was actually employed by CSI in its

Office of Special Affairs (pg. 55, lines 13-23). (Exhibit "D").

     2.   CSI and CSC's attorneys admitted in open court that CSI

entirely funded the SLAPP action.  (Exhibit "E").

     3.   RTC is a plaintiff in two of the actions cited by this

Court in its litigation history between the parties. (Exhibit "F").



            APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE

                 IS TIMELY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED

     California Rule of Court 19.3 states:  

          "A motion for preference on the calendar,

          supported by points and authorities, shall be

          filed no later than the last day for filing

          the appellant's reply brief.  Failure to

          comply with this rule may be deemed a waiver

          of the claim of preference."  

     This Court may grant a motion for calendar preference upon a

showing of good cause, and the pendency of another related action

is sufficient grounds for the granting of such a motion.  Arden

Group, Inc. v. Burk (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1411, footnote 1.



                           CONCLUSION

     For all the foregoing reasons, appellee Wollersheim, hereby

requests that this Court grant plaintiff's motion for a calendar

preference and expedited briefing schedule, and that it provide the

parties with a scheduling order for the filing of briefs and

documentation with this Court and set a date for oral argument no

later than six months from the date of the order granting

appellee's motion herein.



Dated: February 5, 1998

Respectfully Submitted,



Daniel A. Leipold, Esq.

HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY

Attorney for Appellant

Lawrence Wollersheim









By____________________________

   DANIEL A. LEIPOLD

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS







WHY APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE SHOULD BE 

GRANTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2



APPELLANT'S ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ABUSE THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND

MAXIMIZE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON WOLLERSHEIM . . . . . . . . .  2



APPELLANTS ARE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT THEY HAVE

ENGAGED IN LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PUNISH APPELLEE SO AS TO FORCE

HIM TO ABANDON HIS EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO

HIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8



APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE IS TIMELY AND SHOULD BE

GRANTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10



CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

                      TABLE OF AUTHORITIES







CASES



Arden Group, Inc. v. Burk (1996) 

     45 Cal.App.4th 1409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10



Barker v. Hull (1987) 

     191 Cal.App.3d 221. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8



Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim 

     (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 6, 8







STATUTES



California Rule of Court 19.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10



Code of Civil Procedure ^U1910. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9