Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 51
24. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S. Ct 1526 (1972) Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940).
25. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d 716, 718
(1964)
26. See Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. (1890) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333
(1970). See also T. Keiser &J. Keiser, The Anatomy of Illusion (1987) at 91-2.
27. See Wisconsin V. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) Founding Church of
Scientology v. U.S.,409 F.2d1146, cert denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969) People v. Woody,
61 Cal. 2d 716,718 (1964) Leary v. U.S., 383 F. 2d 851 (1967) U.S. v.Kuch, 288 F.
Supp. 439 (1968) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Reynolds v. U.S. 98
V.S. 145 (1878).
28. Italics in original, italicized words deleted from original 1779 draft prior to adoption by
Virginia General Assembly in 1786. Delgado at 48, citing T. Jefferson, A Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom in 2 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545, 547 and 552
(1950).
29. 46 Cal.3d 1092 (1988), cert denied,_U.S._, 109 S.Ct. 2110, 104 L.Ed. 2d 670 (1989).
30. Id. at 1102 and 1105.
31. Id.
32. The term “deprogram” is used even though professionals who aid adult cult members in
terminating their involvement with their groups prefer to be called “exit counselors.” In
the last 10 years, a distinction has developed between deprogrammers and exit
counselors: deprogrammers traditionally work with families of minor children involved in
cults to remove them --often forcibly, and frequently with the knowledge and help of
local courts or law enforcement officers --from their cult settings to a secret and secure
location where the counseling can be conducted without interruption. “Exit Counselors,”
for the most part, insist on the “voluntary” cooperation of the non-minor cult member,
at least at the moment of introduction to the counselor. The counseling itself is
conducted in much the same fashion, where information is offered to the subject to help
him begin to make an informed decision and recover his ability to think critically and
independently. “Involuntary” exit counseling is becoming a thing of the past, as
counselors face expensive defenses to state charges of kidnapping and tort claims of
violations of civil right brought by cult groups. Even though they frequently win these
cases, the costs of suit prohibit the frequent risk of such encounters. David Molko later
became a deprogrammer himself all of the reputable, professional counselors were once
cult members, and their experience lends them credibility with their clients.
33. As to the church‟s cross-complaint, its claim for violations of federal civil rights was
allowed, and its claim for indemnity was dismissed. The court held that there were two
possible sources of harm -the mind control suffered while in the group and the effects
of the deprogrammings thus, indemnification was not proper. Molko, 46 Cal. 3d at
1092.
34. May 22, 1989.
35. Brainwashing theories have been advanced in lower court cases with varying success.
Compare Merone v. Holy Spirit Assn., 125 Misc. 2d 1061, 480 N.Y.S. 2D 706 (1984)
Lewis v. Holy Spirit Assn., 589 f. Supp. 10 (1983) Peterson v. Sorlien, 299 N.W. 2d 123
(1980) Turner v. Unification Church, 602 F.2d 458 (1979) Katz v. Superior Court, 73
Cal. App.3d 952 (1977).
36. Molko, 46 Cal. 3d at 1117. It is important to note that the supreme court in Molko did
not deal directly with a cause of action for brainwashing, as no such claim avoids
summary judgment rather the claim was for fraudulent inducement into allowing
oneself to be brainwashed. The court left it up to the trier of fact to determine whether
the brainwashing had damaged the plaintiffs.
37. 73 Cal. App. 3d 952 (1977).
38. See nn. 15 and 35, supra.
24. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S. Ct 1526 (1972) Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940).
25. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03 (1963) People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d 716, 718
(1964)
26. See Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. (1890) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333
(1970). See also T. Keiser &J. Keiser, The Anatomy of Illusion (1987) at 91-2.
27. See Wisconsin V. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) Founding Church of
Scientology v. U.S.,409 F.2d1146, cert denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969) People v. Woody,
61 Cal. 2d 716,718 (1964) Leary v. U.S., 383 F. 2d 851 (1967) U.S. v.Kuch, 288 F.
Supp. 439 (1968) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Reynolds v. U.S. 98
V.S. 145 (1878).
28. Italics in original, italicized words deleted from original 1779 draft prior to adoption by
Virginia General Assembly in 1786. Delgado at 48, citing T. Jefferson, A Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom in 2 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545, 547 and 552
(1950).
29. 46 Cal.3d 1092 (1988), cert denied,_U.S._, 109 S.Ct. 2110, 104 L.Ed. 2d 670 (1989).
30. Id. at 1102 and 1105.
31. Id.
32. The term “deprogram” is used even though professionals who aid adult cult members in
terminating their involvement with their groups prefer to be called “exit counselors.” In
the last 10 years, a distinction has developed between deprogrammers and exit
counselors: deprogrammers traditionally work with families of minor children involved in
cults to remove them --often forcibly, and frequently with the knowledge and help of
local courts or law enforcement officers --from their cult settings to a secret and secure
location where the counseling can be conducted without interruption. “Exit Counselors,”
for the most part, insist on the “voluntary” cooperation of the non-minor cult member,
at least at the moment of introduction to the counselor. The counseling itself is
conducted in much the same fashion, where information is offered to the subject to help
him begin to make an informed decision and recover his ability to think critically and
independently. “Involuntary” exit counseling is becoming a thing of the past, as
counselors face expensive defenses to state charges of kidnapping and tort claims of
violations of civil right brought by cult groups. Even though they frequently win these
cases, the costs of suit prohibit the frequent risk of such encounters. David Molko later
became a deprogrammer himself all of the reputable, professional counselors were once
cult members, and their experience lends them credibility with their clients.
33. As to the church‟s cross-complaint, its claim for violations of federal civil rights was
allowed, and its claim for indemnity was dismissed. The court held that there were two
possible sources of harm -the mind control suffered while in the group and the effects
of the deprogrammings thus, indemnification was not proper. Molko, 46 Cal. 3d at
1092.
34. May 22, 1989.
35. Brainwashing theories have been advanced in lower court cases with varying success.
Compare Merone v. Holy Spirit Assn., 125 Misc. 2d 1061, 480 N.Y.S. 2D 706 (1984)
Lewis v. Holy Spirit Assn., 589 f. Supp. 10 (1983) Peterson v. Sorlien, 299 N.W. 2d 123
(1980) Turner v. Unification Church, 602 F.2d 458 (1979) Katz v. Superior Court, 73
Cal. App.3d 952 (1977).
36. Molko, 46 Cal. 3d at 1117. It is important to note that the supreme court in Molko did
not deal directly with a cause of action for brainwashing, as no such claim avoids
summary judgment rather the claim was for fraudulent inducement into allowing
oneself to be brainwashed. The court left it up to the trier of fact to determine whether
the brainwashing had damaged the plaintiffs.
37. 73 Cal. App. 3d 952 (1977).
38. See nn. 15 and 35, supra.
