Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 48
The plaintiff‟s divine retribution argument was a last-ditch attempt to satisfy the
threat requirement (emphasis added).48
Molko‟s attorney, Ford Greene, sees this view as in line with the Molko decision, which
established that the brainwashing theory itself does not require a showing of force or threat
of force as a necessary element of a thought reform regime.49 However, the claim of false
imprisonment must be supported by such evidence.
In Molko, the allegations of fraudulent inducement to join the Moonies had been an essential
element of the emotional distress claim. Here, there was no misrepresentation or
concealment of the cult‟s identity from Robin, so there was no fraudulent inducement to join
the cult or expose herself to coercive persuasion. The court found Robin had not been
subjected to anymore outrageous behavior than a member of any cloistered religious group.
The evidence was sufficient, however, to support liability for this claim as to the mother,
“since the Krishnas recklessly disregarded the probability that their conduct would cause the
daughter‟s parents emotional suffering.”50 The essence of actionable conduct here was a
conspiracy to assist Robin in hiding from her parents. Robin‟s mother‟s claim was based on
that assistance and not, as the defendants maintained, on the activities that led to Robin‟s
conversion, which the court held to be constitutionally protected religious activities.51
The Wollersheim Case
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Wollersheim v. Church of
Scientology,52 a decision that upheld a damage award for the ex-Scientology member
seeking relief but which contained language that may provide difficulties in future lawsuits
by ex-cult members.
Larry Wollersheim was a manic-depressive for most of his life, an important fact of which
the Church of Scientology was aware. From 1972 through 1979 he became heavily involved
in Scientology and underwent rigorous encounter sessions known as “auditing”53 aboard a
ship owned by the group. When he tried to escape, he was forcibly restrained and made to
continue the sessions in spite of his feeling that he “was dying and losing (his) mind.” One
psychiatric expert witness in the trial noted that his was one of several events underlying
and causing Wollersheims‟s mental illness. Scientology also pressured him to “disconnect”
from his family.
Convinced that auditing was causing him psychiatric problems, Wollersheim decided to risk
becoming a target of Scientology‟s “freeloader debt” and “fair game” campaigns, which are
aimed at discouraging defectors,54 Risk became reality when Wollersheim left the group:
Scientologists initiated a campaign to ruin his photography business. Wollersheim went
bankrupt and ended up in psychiatric care.
In his complaint, Wollersheim alleged fraud, and negligent and intentional infliction of
emotional injury.55 The trial court summarily decided Scientology is a religion and auditing is
a religious practice.56 After hearing the evidence, the trial judge dismissed the fraud count
but allowed both emotional injury counts to go to the jury, which awarded the plaintiff $30
million in damages.
The appellate court upheld the finding of intentional infliction of emotional injury but
reversed the finding of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Further, it found the trial
court correctly ruled that Wollersheim‟s claims were subject to the discovery exception to
the statute of limitations.57 The court then reduced the damage award to $2.5 million,
finding $30 million excessive considering the evidence at trial that the Church of
Scientology‟s net worth is $16 million. Wollersheim claimed that the group‟s true net worth
is closer to $250 million but he failed to prove it at trial.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 49
The court found the Church of Scientology‟s conduct met every requirement of an
intentional infliction of emotional distress tort. As to the church‟s defense that such conduct
was protected by the First Amendment, the court had no trouble finding it was not. The
court accepted the trial court‟s adjudication that Scientology is a religion for purposes of this
case58 but concluded that even if Wollersheim had freely participated in the activity, it would
still not be protected religious conduct.
It was the element of coercion that lowered the value of auditing as a religious practice.
Unlike the Molko case, the retribution complained of was not divine but in the here and now,
and the state had a compelling interest in discouraging the deliberate economic ruin of one
of its citizens.
Though the First Amendment analysis is sound, the language in the opinion is frequently
disturbing. The court ventures to say that lawsuits that have a chilling effect on practices
such as auditing ought not to be tolerated because, absent coercion, “the only harm which
occurs is emotional injury to the psychologically weak.”59 The findings of Lifton, Schein,
Singer, Delgado and other scholars in cult-related behavioral studies, and the testimonies of
ex-cult members, would belie such an assumption.60
Greater Accountability
In light of the recent cases involving cults and the First Amendment, it appears self-
proclaimed religious organizations are heading towards a time of greater accountability.
Courts facing cases involving religious issues classically err on the side of religion for fear of
impinging on First Amendment guarantees. The trend now appears to be toward greater
restrictions of religious activities given strict adherence to constitutional analysis. The road
for that analysis was paved in Molko. According to Green, “We have a trend toward
compelling self-ascribed religious organizations to act responsibly and conform their conduct
to the rules of society. The days of special privileges for unethical, if not illegal, abuse of
religious liberty are coming to a close.”61
It is clear from the huge damage awards in these most recent cases that juries are
sympathetic to plaintiffs who claim to have suffered from cult involvement. It is equally
clear the courts are unwilling to enforce judgments so large they threaten the very
existence of the groups in question. Plaintiffs must adequately prove the true net worth of
the defendant groups if they expect judgments to have a truly punishing effect, but this is
most difficult to accomplish. Even so, if groups such as the Krishnas suffer multiple
judgments like the one in the George case, they will not survive.
Notes
1. The Moonies -members of the Holy spirit Association for the Unification of World
Christianity (Unification Church) headed by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon -and the
Krishnas -members of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness -presently
claim membership in the millions. Experts estimate actual Moonie membership is much
lower with perhaps 8,000 members in the U.S. Moon‟s real estate holdings in the U.S.
were worth $200 million in 1984. As to his political clout, see H. R. Rep. of The
Subcomm. on International Relations (Fraser Report), Oct. 31, 1978. Moon spent $42
million alone on his unsuccessful film, Inchon. He owns the second largest newspaper in
the nation‟s capital, the Washington Times. Ron Hubbard‟s Church of Scientology claims
a membership of almost 4 million in the U.S. and 6 million worldwide. In 1984 Hubbard‟s
son estimated scientology‟s assets at $400 million. See Grafstein, Messianic Capitalism,
The New Republic, Feb 20, 1984, at 15.
2. These figures represent the Cult Awareness Network‟s best estimate, based upon figures
from ex-members, mental health professionals who encounter confused victims of such
groups, and the organizations themselves.