FACTNet's 1/12/98 court motion against Scientology, which seeks to stay all copyright proceedings in Denver

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF DENVER, COLORADO

Case No.: 95-K-2143



BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

F.A.C.T. NET, INC., a Colorado corporation; LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM,
an individual; and ROBERT PENNY, an individual,

Defendants.



MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR STAY PENDING OUTCOME OF APPEAL IN

IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL



Defendants, LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM and FACTNet, Inc. request that this Court stay this action in its entirety pending the resolution of the appeal currently pending in the Second District Court of Appeal of the State of California entitled Lawrence Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, et al., Case No. C332027 (Originally reported at (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872)]. (Wollersheim I). Clear and convincing circumstances justify this stay in that: 1. The pending appeal will decide factual issues between the parties relevant to the following affirmative defenses in this matter:

a. Unclean hands ( 43, second amended answer);
b. Copyright misuse ( 44, second amended answer);
c. Abuse of the judicial process ( 54, second amended answer);
d. Violation of the Fourth Amendment; unlawful search and seizure ( 56, second amended answer);
e. Plaintiff BPI's agents conducted the seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Colorado Constitution ( 57, second amended answer);
f. BPI is barred from introducing evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure ( 59, 60 and 61, second amended answer);

2. Plaintiff, BPI is one of numerous Scientology entities belonging to the corporate structure of Scientology. Despite the
outward trappings of separate corporate existence, "the nominal corporate structure of Scientology . . . is something of a
deceptis visus." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., 26 Cl.CT. 713, 718 (1992), aff'd. 991 F.2d 819 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Scientology has already been found to "continuously and unsuccessfully use[] the litigation process to bludgeon [Mr.
Wollersheim] into submission" and to use lawsuits against Mr.Wollersheim "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." Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 649; 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620.
The matter on appeal holds two Scientology entities, Church of Scientology International (the Mother Church of Scientology) and Religious Technology Center (the original plaintiff herein) liable for a judgment in excess of $6 million to Mr. Wollersheim. Defendants contend that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to vindicate any legitimate copyright claims of the plaintiff, but rather to exhaust the ability of Mr. Wollersheim and FACTNet to defend the within action so Scientology can seize Mr. Wollersheim's judgment, consistent with its policy of "Not One Thin Dime to Wollersheim."

3. Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice, as neither Mr. Wollersheim nor FACTNet has published any of BPI's materials on
the Internet or by any other means, and, further, defendant Wollersheim is willing to stipulate to expedite the appeal in
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, to limit the duration of this stay.

4. The granting of the stay will lead to judicial economy, since many issues to be decided in the appeal are pertinent to
this matter and will serve as collateral estoppel herein, thus greatly conserving court resources.

BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION:
Since the time of the filing of his original lawsuit in 1980, Mr. Wollersheim has been continuously engaged in litigation
with one or more Scientology entities. The Church, acting pursuant to its "fair game" policy, in which enemies of the
Church can be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" (Exhibit 1, Wollersheim I at 878), has relentlessly pursued Mr. Wollersheim through four separate frivolous and malicious lawsuits in state and federal courts. The design of these suits has been to "punish him economically for bringing [his] lawsuit; and 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." Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (Wollersheim IV) (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 649; 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620.
The instant action was both designed and has been executed so as to make it economically impossible for the defendants to
defend themselves herein and, thus, to win a victory that would wipe out Wollersheim's ability to collect his yet unpaid $6
million judgment. Rather than engage in a lengthy discussion of the litigation history of the five "Wollersheim actions," a litigation history has been appended to the declaration of Daniel A. Leipold filed herewith. (Exhibit 2).
Of importance is a recent ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court amending the 1986 judgment in the Wollersheim I case to add Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center as real parties in interest and judgment
debtors. In a detailed order issued on October 29, 1997, the Honorable John P. Shook of the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted plaintiff Wollersheim's motion to include CSI and RTC, alter egos of the Church of Scientology of California, as judgment debtors on the original judgment. (See Exhibit 3). An amended judgment was issued nunc pro tunc on November 14, 1997 and is appended hereto as Exhibit 4. On December 15, 1997, both CSI and RTC filed their appeal after posting a $9+ million bond. Since the filing of the first amended complaint in this case, it has always been defendants' contention that the inclusion of BPI in this lawsuit was a classic Scientology "bait and switch" tactic. Scientology's original application for a writ of seizure herein, like its corporate structure, amounted to a "deceptis visus." Taking advantage of the ex parte nature of the proceeding and the Court's lack of familiarity with Scientology's litigation tactics, jargon, labyrinth corporate structure and use of complex licensing agreements to control their numerous copyrights, Scientology played word games with the Court that allowed them to get more than they asked for or were entitled to.
Among the deceptions practiced on the Court was the insertion of language in the writ of seizure that subtly but importantly changed the scope of the seizure so as to allow the seizure of material which BPI could never have legally obtained under any circumstances whatsoever. The original application for writ of seizure, and the verified complaint upon which the application was based, requested authorization to seize unpublished confidential materials to which RTC was the exclusive licensee. The writ of seizure that was actually issued went far beyond the literary works identified in the verified complaint's Exhibit "A," to include: "Any articles and things that appear to be the works of L. Ron Hubbard protected by copyrights or Colorado State Trade Secret statute . . ." -- despite the fact that RTC knew that BPI was the licensee of all L. Ron Hubbard's published works and had no independent right to seek a search warrant. Following the denial of the preliminary injunction, the first amended complaint was filed, allowing BPI to be added as a plaintiff in this matter. BPI's claims are based solely on the materials seized from Mr. Wollersheim and FACTNet pursuant to the writ of seizure. No explanation has ever been given as to how BPI, a purportedly separate and independent corporation, gained access to the material seized from Mr. Wollersheim's residence and FACTNet's place of business for purposes of filing the within lawsuit.
The explanation for this extraordinary set of circumstances lies in the simple fact that, as has now been made clear, BPI, like RTC, is merely another puppet dancing in the hands of David Miscavige and his Sea Org gang beyond all corporate lines to control all of Scientology. (See Exhibit 3). This characterization is unequivocally supported by Mr. Wollersheim's recent judgment in the Los Angeles superior court and confirmed by the subsequent release to the public of the terms of Scientology's "secret settlement agreement" with the IRS. In that agreement (Exhibit 5), a Church Tax Compliance Committee is set up to act ultravires of the corporate lines of 114 separate corporations to assure compliance with the corporations' obligations to the IRS.

Both the IRS and Scientology implicitly recognize the sham nature of Scientology's corporate structure and the ability of
David Miscavige to control all activity within Scientology. BPI constitutes one of the 114 corporations controlled by Mr. Miscavige and his Sea Org cohorts. (See Exhibits 3 and 5). In fact, BPI was originally the "PUBS" organization and an integral portion of the Church of Scientology of California in the early 1980's when Mr. Wollersheim filed his original lawsuit. (Exhibit 6). As a result of Scientology's fraudulent corporate reorganization effort, called Mission Corporate Sort-out (See U.S. v. Zolin, 905 F.2d 1344 (9th Circ. 1990), Bridge Publications went through an odyssey of ownership changes. These are discussed in detail at pages 724-726 of Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., supra, 26 Cl.Ct. 713 (1992). One thing did not change through the years: BPI is a Sea Org organization (Id. at p. 724) and thus subject to the direct control of David Miscavige and the Sea Org, as are all Scientology corporations.(Exhibits 3, 5 and 6).

AUTHORITY FOR GRANT OF STAY:
The seminal case with reference to a grant of stay is Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 42
U.S. 800 (1975), which held that a stay may be warranted in the exercise of "wise judicial administration giving regard to
conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation." Id. at p. 817. While the principal of "wise
judicial administration" wholly supports the granting of a stay in this matter, defendants nevertheless recognize that the Colorado River doctrine may be inapplicable here, where a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction (copyright) is involved. Thus, defendants move for stay under the doctrine recently set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Jones, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (1997). There, the Court stated at page 1650:

"The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-166, 81 LD 153 (1936). As we have explained, 'especially in cases of extraordinary public moment, [a plaintiff] may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.'" Id.
at 256, 57 S.Ct. at 166. Although BPI may argue that this case does not involve a matter of extraordinary public moment, in fact the litigation between Mr. Wollersheim and his Scientology opponents has already been judicially declared an issue "of public interest." Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628. The "extraordinary public moment" of this suit was only enhanced by the recent December 28, 1997 "60 Minutes" segment questioning Scientology's use of similar serial litigation tactics to destroy and take over the Cult Awareness Network, a small non-profit corporation which considered Scientology to be a cult. As the courts have noted, "[t]he suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, even if there is a possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else." Landis v. North American Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-166, 81 LD 153 (1936). Here, the case is clear. If Mr. Wollersheim is required to continue this fight without benefit of the resources which will come to him when RTC, et. al. pay the judgment they owe him, his ability to stay the course will be very much in jeopardy. Moreover, the stay presents no potential for real harm to the plaintiff. Should a short stay be granted, BPI will not be prejudiced, since:

1. Neither BPI nor anyone else has ever accused Mr. Wollersheim or FACTNet of publishing ANY BPI materials on the Internet or anywhere else. In fact, except for making some archival CD copies of BPI documents and some BPI materials that were found on the FACTNet hard drive, there has been no allegation of "copying" of any BPI materials. Further, there has been no sale or commercial use of these materials. (See, declaration of Lawrence Wollersheim and Exhibit 7). In fact, there has been no allegation whatsoever despite the lack of a preliminary injunction in this matter, that there has
been a repetition of any alleged copyright violation by Mr. Wollersheim or FACTNet.

2. Despite BPI's hyperbole and strident rhetoric, this case amounts to nothing more than massive over- litigation of what are, at best, minor infringements. Though Mr. Rosen has recently declared that "Mr. Leipold and I are opposing each other in what is the largest copyright infringement case in the United States. . . ," it is apparent that no rational person
or commercial organization would spend even a tiny portion of the money BPI has thrown at this case if its motives were merely to protect against the copyright infringements that are alleged to have occurred here.

3. In order to limit the time of this stay, defendant Wollersheim is willing to enter into a stipulation with BPI's superior organizations, CSI (the Mother Church) and RTC, to expedite the appeal in this matter. Since Mr. Rosen represents both BPI herein and CSI and RTC in the matter before the California appellate court, this stipulation can be readily accomplished. (See declaration of Lawrence Wollersheim.)

PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS:

Defendant Wollersheim and FACTNet have every confidence that Mr. Wollersheim will prevail on the appeal of the Wollersheim I judgment, as he has so many times before against the onslaught of Scientology litigation. At the conclusion of the appeal, he will have well over $6 million (as interest is accumulating at almost $1,300 a day) available from the payment of Scientology's debt to him. There will be ample funds with which to conclude the defense of this lawsuit. Should this stay not be granted, there is every likelihood that Mr. Wollersheim and FACTNet, a small Colorado non-profit corporation, will not be able to afford to adequately present defenses against this vastly over-litigated case funded by an organization with a virtually unlimited litigation budget and a policy of punishing its enemies with litigation. (Exhibit 8).
The issues on appeal are directly relevant to many of the defenses asserted by defendants Wollersheim and FACTNet. Admittedly, some of the defenses asserted herein do not ordinarily see the light of day in a standard copyright case, but this is anything but a standard copyright case. The defenses of unclean hands, copyright misuse, and unlawful search and seizure are clearly applicable to this case despite their rarity in classic copyright litigation. They are simply sui generis to the litigation tactics of Scientology. Among the issues relevant to this case to be established on appeal in Wollersheim I are the Court's findings that:

"Authority over CSC and its affairs was handed over to CSI and RTC, ESPECIALLY DAVID MISCAVIGE WHO CONTROLS BOTH CORPORATIONS AND ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY AFTER THE DEATH OF L. RON HUBBARD. 'SEA ORG' IS AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION WHICH IS THE POWER CENTER - MISCAVIGE IS THE HIGHEST RANKING MEMBER. (Exhibit "B", page 153819.) Miscavige is also Chairman of RTC and ASI (Author Services, Inc.). Scientology's corporate officers and trustees are intermingled at will." (emphasis added) (Exhibit 3) Establishment of these points on appeal will amount to a collateral estoppel on a key issue in the defense of this case. Scientology has already recognized the implications of these rulings:

"As Your Honor knows, unfortunately, Scientology is involved in a great deal of litigation across the country. Indeed, Mr.
Leipold and I are opposing each other in what is the largest copyright infringement case in the United States against Mr. Wollersheim. We are going to trial in Denver on that in the early part of next year. The consequences of Your Honor's determinations, not only in the terms of the seamless web of Scientology, but of Mr. Miscavige's activities and control, has already manifested itself." (Exhibit ).

CONCLUSION:

The Court is authorized under the doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones, supra, to grant a stay of this
matter. Clear and convincing circumstances exist to justify this stay as the stay will:

1. Offer efficient judicial administration and prevent inconsistent rulings;

2. Allow Mr. Wollersheim and FACTNet to fund their defense with the money owed to Mr. Wollersheim by Scientology;
and,

3. Work no prejudice on plaintiff. The stay can be limited in extent to the time of appeal and the time of appeal can be shortened by stipulation of the parties. It is respectfully submitted that the Court should grant a stay in this matter as set forth herein.
Dated this day of January, 1998.

BEEM & MANN



By
CLIFFORD L. BEEM #917
1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3901
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 894-8100
Attorneys for Defendants,
F.A.C.T. Net, Inc. and
Lawrence Wollersheim
WOLLERSHEIM LITIGATION HISTORY
A. WOLLERSHEIM I:
Wollersheim vs. CSC (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872:
1. Complaint filed 7-28-80.
2. Attorney Earle Cooley represented CSC.
3. Trial started 2-18-86.
4. On July 23, 1986, a unanimous jury awarded $30 million in favor of Wollersheim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress (later reduced to $2.5 million on appeal).
5. CSC's Petition for Writ of Cert denied by U.S. Supreme Court 3-7-94.
6. All of Scientologist's appeals were exhausted and the judgment became final on March 11, 1994.
7. Judgment renewed November 3, 1994, in principal sum of $4,649,238.43.
8. On May 9, 1997, plaintiff Wollersheim filed a motion to amend the judgment to include real party defendants and judgment debtors Church of Scientology International (CSI) and Religious Technology Center (RTC).
9. On October 29, 1997, plaintiff's motion to amend to name RTC and CSI as real parties in interest and judgment debtors
was granted.
10. On November 14, 1997, an order amending judgment nunc pro tunc and judgment thereon was signed and entered.
11. On December 15, 1997, after having posted bond in excess of $9 million, defendants RTC and CSI filed their appeal
to the Second District Court of Appeal of the State of California.

B. WOLLERSHEIM II:
RTC and CSI vs. Wollersheim
(Ninth Circuit 1992) 971 Fed.2d. 364:
1. Complaint filed 11-4-85 against Wollersheim, his attorneys and trial experts (in Wollersheim I) alleging RICO
action and copyright infringement claim. Consolidated with the District Court action RTC, et al. vs. Robin Scott, et al., Civil
Action 85-711 MRP.
2. Attorney Earle Cooley, Joseph Yanny and John Peterson representing the plaintiffs.
3. RTC and CSI claimed as an element of damages in their RICO statement the cost of defending the Wollersheim I action and admit that CSI and RTC were real parties in interest to the Wollersheim I action.
4. RTC filed petition to the Ninth Circuit to disqualify entire Central District. (The Ninth Circuit struck the petition.
See CSC vs. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 636.)
5. The District Court dismissed Wollersheim, his attorneys and experts (stating the suit bordered on the frivolous and
malicious), the order of which was affirmed by Ninth Circuit. (See RTC vs. Wollersheim 971 F.2d 364, 365 (9th Cir. 1992).) The case continued as to the other defendants.
6. On 4-11-96 the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum upholding the Honorable James M. Ideman's order of
judgment and imposition of 2.9 million dollars attorneys fees against RTC affirming that RTC had filed its complaint in bad
faith to harass the defendants.

C. WOLLERSHEIM III:
CSC, et al. vs. Superior Court, et al., U.S.D.C. CV86-1362:
1. The complaint filed by CSC and six individually named "reverends" of Scientology alleged violation of the plaintiffs'
civil rights to practice religion against the trial judge in Wollersheim I, Ronald Swearinger, and the Honorable Alfred
Margolis (who had made previous pretrial rulings in the case), as well as the entire Los Angeles Superior Court.
2. The action was dismissed by the Court in November, 1986.
3. Attorney Earle Cooley and John Peterson represented CSC; attorney Timothy Bowles represented all but one of the
"reverends" of Scientology.

D. WOLLERSHEIM IV:
CSC vs. Larry Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628:
1. The complaint filed on February 16, 1993 was one to set aside the Wollersheim I judgment and for other equitable relief.
2. The action was filed by Kendrick Moxon of the law firm of Bowles & Moxon.
3. The complaint contained allegations that trial judge Swearinger was prejudiced and acted with malice against CSC.
4. The complaint was dismissed pursuant to the defendant's C.C.P. 425.16 motion as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation or SLAPP.
5. The trial court awarded defendant attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $132,676.57.
6. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that "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 the lawsuit; and (c) 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." supra at p. 649.
7. The trial court awarded defendant $298,039.74 in attorneys' fees and expenses on the appeal.
8. On April 11, 1997, attorneys for CSC and CSI admit in open court that CSI had sponsored this litigation in its
entirety.

E. WOLLERSHEIM V:
RTC and BPI vs. F.A.C.T.NET, Inc., etc.,
Larry Wollersheim, et al.
1. Complaint filed on or about 10-2-95 in the Colorado District Court (95K2143) alleging copyright infringement, trade
secret misappropriation and injunctive relief.
2. One of the attorneys representing RTC and BPI is Earle C. Cooley who also represented CSC and CSI in Wollersheim I, II and III. Another attorney who has appeared on behalf of RTC and BPI is Kendrick Moxon.
3. District Court Judge Kane denies RTC's request for preliminary injunction September 15, 1995.
4. First amended verified complaint filed naming BPI as a plaintiff.
5. RTC's motion to withdraw as plaintiff in case granted July 31, 1997.

DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. LEIPOLD

I, DANIEL A. LEIPOLD, hereby declare:
1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to the State Bar of California. In addition, I am admitted to practice before the
Federal Court of the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California, as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the District Court of Colorado.
2. I have personal knowledge of all facts contained in this declaration except those stated on information and belief,
which I believe to be true. As to the matters stated herein, I could and would be competently able to testify.
3. I became involved with the defense of Scientology and Scientology-sponsored litigation in 1991 when I was requested to
defend the Cult Awareness Network, a small, non-profit California corporation which had taken a position in opposition to
Scientology, declaring that organization a cult. The Cult Awareness Network (or "CAN") was suddenly hit with hundreds of
virtually identical letters from Scientologists who demanded membership in the organization and if they did not get a positive
reply within a very short of period of time, would assume that they were being discriminated against. An onslaught of
litigation ensued promptly thereafter. Scientologists filed suits in numerous jurisdictions alleging that they were being
religiously discriminated against by not being allowed to join an organization which was directly opposed to the tenets of
Scientology. I represented the Cult Awareness Network in numerous cases filed in California in state and federal court.
See, Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705.
4. I am informed and believe that Scientology advised, managed and sponsored this riptide of frivolous and malicious
serial litigation against CAN until all of CAN's resources had been exhausted. Scientology, through its in-house attorneys then sponsored another lawsuit in Seattle, Washington which CAN was virtually without resources to defend, obtained a massive judgment against CAN and forced it into bankruptcy, where CAN's name was bought by a group of Scientologists who I am informed and believe were acting on behalf of Scientology. Scientology litigated an "enemy" out of business, took control of its name and its 800 telephone number, and now when CAN is called by a parent or member of Scientology for advice, they are likely to be talking to covert Scientology agents.
5. I became involved with Lawrence Wollersheim's litigation with the Church of Scientology when the Wollersheim IV
case was filed. Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628. This action sought to overturn Mr.
Wollersheim's seminal judgment against the Church of Scientology in 1986 because of allegations that the trial judge who had recently died was "prejudiced." The trial court deemed the case a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation brought against Wollersheim and dismissed the suit. This was upheld by both the appellate court and the California Supreme Court. In the course of defending the Wollersheim IV case, I became intimately involved with the litigation history between Scientology and Mr. Wollersheim. The appended Litigation History accurately sets forth the history of the various cases between Mr. Wollersheim and Scientology in chronological order.
6. Because of my involvement with the Wollersheim IV case, I agreed to represent Mr. Wollersheim in amending his judgment in the Wollersheim I case to name the real parties in interest, CSI and RTC, as alter ego defendants and judgment debtors. The amendment of the judgment was granted on October 29, 1997, and an order thereon was issued on November 14, 1997. Scientology appealed from this order on December 15, 1997.
7. Scientology uses theoretically independent lawsuits which they allege have no connection to each other as "building
blocks" with which to punish its "enemies" who stand in opposition to Scientology goals or interests. Every case against
Mr. Wollersheim, including this one are in fact a seamless web designed to punish Mr. Wollersheim and any organization he is involved in for having the temerity to stand in opposition to Scientology.
8. I spent numerous hours compiling the evidence to support the motion to amend judgment so as to add CSI and RTC as
judgment debtors. I am confident that the judge's ruling will stand up at any level of appeal and when that happens, it will be
established between the parties that David Miscavige controls all of Scientology, including BPI and the Sea Org and that
Scientology's corporate officers are intermingled at will. (See order of October 29, 1997, Exhibit 3).
9. Scientology recognizes that money is the lifeblood of litigation. It uses its overwhelming financial clout to over-
litigate every conceivable issue and thus force opponents out of the game before the merits of Scientology's claims can be
litigated on a level playing field. (Exhibit 8).
10. Should a stay be issued here, there will be two clear benefits to this Court and Mr. Wollersheim, with no down side as
to Scientology. This Court will be able to control its docket so as to allow a principal factual issue in this case to be resolved
on appeal between the parties, i.e., the contentious issue of control of Scientology ties in directly with the fair use
defense, the misuse of copyright defense, as well as the unlawful search and seizure defense asserted by defendant. further,
allowing a stay will prevent re-litigation of this issue with a possible inconsistent result. Second, Mr. Wollersheim and
FACTNet will benefit in that the collection of the $6 million owed to Mr. Wollersheim by Scientology will allow the defendants to level the playing field and go forward with a full-fledged defense that will quite easily illustrate to the Court the fraud that has been perpetrated on it. Mr. Wollersheim will enter into a stipulation to expedite the appeal in this matter so that the stay can be as short as possible. Even if Scientology is not willing to enter into this stipulation, we will be moving
independently shortly to petition the Court of Appeal for an expedited appeal based on the Court of Appeal's holdings in the
Wollersheim IV case and the pendency of the within action.
I declare under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of January, 1998, at Orange, California.

DANIEL A. LEIPOLD
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM

I, LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, declare as follows:
1. I am a resident of Colorado and a director of FACTNet, a Colorado non-profit corporation, a party to the within action.
2. I have personal knowledge of all facts contained within this declaration and if called to testify thereto, could and would be able to competently do so.
3. I filed my only action against Scientology in 1980. I have been continuously involved in litigating with one
Scientology entity or another for 17 years, despite the fact that the only lawsuit I ever filed against them was the original one
in 1980. All the subsequent lawsuits have been filed by Scientology against me.
4. Despite the rhetoric in this case, I have never "published" BPI's copyrighted materials. The "copying" of BPI's
material was for archival purposes onto CDs. These CDs have not been sold, although there were voluntary donations to help defer copying costs of these CDs. In fact, to my knowledge, there has never been any BPI copyrighted documents on the hard drive of my computer. If in fact BPI material was found on the hard drive of my computer, I am strongly suspicious that it was planted there while Scientology was in possession of my computer.
5. During the pendency of this matter, I have never published BPI's materials nor do I intend to do so.
6. Seventeen years after I filed my original litigation, I have recently won an amended judgment which names RTC and CSI as the alter egos of the Church of Scientology of California, which was the original defendant in my lawsuit.
7. I am willing to stipulate to expediting Scientology's appeal from that amended judgment so that any stay issued herein
will be limited in time and effect.
8. If Scientology's appeal is unsuccessful, which is very likely, it is my intention to use the money owing from
Scientology for both my interests and FACTNet's herein.
9. I believe I have been placed in this awkward position of coming to the Court and asking for a stay solely because of
Scientology's unrelenting over-litigation and abuse of the judicial process. If the Court will take the time to thoroughly
review the prior cases between the parties, it cannot escape the conclusion that Scientology is still subjecting me to fair game
for the temerity to stand up to them in 1980.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of January, 1998, at , Colorado.


LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM

FACTnet

F.A.C.T.net Inc.

Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network Since 1993

Since 1993, Discussion, Resources and Support for Recovery from the Abusive Practices of Religions and Cults

Did you know there are three other easy ways to donate? For example; buying your cult and mind control research and recovery books via our recommended books website links is an easy and important method of helping to support our mission and non-profit organization. As an affiliate of Amazon.com we get a percentage of every book we sell from our website.

Because only You have the right to control Your Mind.