Cooper v. CoS New York, et al.

[Diane Richardson]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

PAULETTE COOPER, Plaintiff,

against

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF NEW YORK, INC.;
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA;
and U.S. CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY, Defendants.

VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Index # 6732/72

Plaintiff, by her attorney, PAUL D. RHEINGOLD, as and for her amended
complaint, complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges as
follows:

FACTUAL BASIS OF THIS COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff is a resident of New York and a writer by profession.
She holds a Masters Degree in Psychology from CUNY and a Bachelor of
Arts Degree with Honors in Psychology from Brandeis.

2. Defendants are various parts of the international "scientology"
group.

3. Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF NEW YORK, INC., is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with
its principal office at 49 W. 32 St., New York, N.Y.

4. Defendants CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA and U.S.
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY are organizations based in Los Angeles but,
upon information and belief, having national oversight of scientology
in this country and in England and Scotland.

5. In 1969, plaintiff, as a writer, became interested in scientology,
and that year wrote an article which was published under the title of
"The Tragi-Farce of Scientology," in Queen Magazine in England, in
December, 1969.

6. Thereafter, plaintiff continued her research and wrote a book
which appeared in 1971 under the title of "The Scandal of
Scientology," published by Tower Publications, Inc., of New York
(hereinafter referred to as "Tower").

7. Defendants have for a number of years followed the practice of
threatening suit and bringing suit against any person or organization
which wrote or published any statement, true or false, about
defendants and their group if such statement appeared without
defendant's permission.

8. The leader of defendant's group, L. Ron Hubbard, has stated in
connection with the policy of suing:

"We do not want Scientology to be reported in the press
anywhere else but on the religion page of newspapers. It
is destructive of word of mouth to permit the public press
to express their biased and badly reported sensationalism.
Therefore, we should be very alert to sue for slander at the
slightest chance so as to discourage the public press from
mentioning Scientology."

9. The true reason for this policy of litigation held by defendants'
group is to inhibit and stifle free discussion and free press about
the nature and conduct of defendants' group.

10. Further, to stifle investigation and legitimate criticism,
defendants have adopted a policy of attacking its critics and
investigators before they have made or completed their legitimate
investigations. Pursuant to the said policy defendants have issued
instructions to "lay it on thick attacking the attackers only"' advice
not to "worry about libel if our facts indicate rottenness"' and the
opinion that "we must select targets, investigate and expose before
they attack us". Further, and pursuant thereto, defendants have
stated in a memorandum that a policy that they have had of being
careful legally in their utterances has not been effective in handling
attacks upon their organizations.

11. Defendants have stated falsely regarding plaintiff that they have
successfully sued her for libel, as follows:

a. Letter by "Rev. Arthur J. Maren, Department of Public Information,
U.S. Churches of Scientology" (defendant herein) to Howard Cohen,
Editor, World Medical News (a magazine of wide circulation to
physicians in this country): "....Miss Paulette Cooper (whom you may
be interested to know was sued quite successfully for libel by the
Church of Scientology in England)...."

b. In 1972, orally to Henry Heyman, a prospective writer on
scientology, that defendants had won their suit against plaintiff and
they were going "to mop up the floor with her."

c. Letter by Joel Kreiner, attorney for defendant CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, dated March 23, 1972, to Jean Glass, Editor
of Tower, before plaintiff's book had been published: "...Miss
Cooper's manuscript was refused publication in the UK (United Kingdom)
due to its libellous content..."

12. In fact, defendants' suits against plaintiff had not then and
have not yet been tried.

13. Defendants sought unsuccessfully by many means of communication
to prevent Tower from publishing plaintiff's book in the United
States, including taking the following steps:

a. Sending three telegrams to Jean Glass, editor as follows:

1. From attorneys representing The Church of Scientology of Hawaii
which stated in part: "BE ADVISED OF MY CLIENTS INTENTION TO PURSUE
MAXIMUM LEGAL RECOURSE SUGGEST YOU PRIZE YOURSELF OF COOPER
LIBEL ATTEMPT BOTH HERE AND ABROAD OF WHICH SHE HAS BEEN
CAREFUL NOT TO INFORM YOU".

2. From Mr. Kreiner, counsel for defendant THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF CALIFORNIA, stating in part: "THIS WILL ADVISE YOU ON BEHALF OF MY
CLIENTS THAT PREPARATION IS NOW UNDERWAY ON COMPLAINT TO
BE FILED IN THE EVENT YOU PUBLISH THE MANUSCRIPT ON SCIENTOLOGY
SUBMITTED TO YOU BY PAULETTE COOPER..."

3. From an attorney representing defendant THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF NEW YORK and another similar organization, stating in part:
"...PUBLICATION..WILL PROMPT IMMEDIATE SUIT."

b. Series of letters by Joel Kreiner, counsel for defendant CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA threatening suit. In one dated May 24,
1971, still before publication he wrote to counsel for Tower: "...a
complaint for libel is under preparation and will be filed immediately
upon the publication of the Cooper manuscript" and "...I have been
advised by the Church to proceed with legal action immediately upon
publication of the Cooper book."

c. Series of letters and personal visits to Tower as editor and
publisher from "Rev. Arthur J. Maren, Minister of Public Relations,
U.S. CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY," defendant herein, and other
representatives of defendants.

14. True to its threat, defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA commenced suit in 1971 against plaintiff, by serving a
Notice of Writ upon her in New York, alleging libel in the Queen
Magazine article.

15. True to its threat, defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA OF CALIFORNIA commenced suit in 1971 against
plaintiff and Tower, in California, alleging libel in the book.

16. Defendants prevented the publication of plaintiff's book on
scientology in the United Kingdom by virtue of their threats of libel.
Defendants have conceded that they intended, through the threats
and maintenance of libel suits, to prevent publication of plaintiff's
book in the United Kingdom. Defendants' lawyer, Joel Kreiner, in
the letter previously quoted from in paragraph 11 continued the
sentence: "and the Church's many successful libel actions in that
country."

17. Defendants' threats of suit and bringing of suits prevented
plaintiff from finding a publisher for her book in the United States
which would issue a hardback edition and insure to plaintiff greater
royalties than she was able to obtain from Tower.

18. Defendants' threats of suit and bringing of suits prevented
plaintiff from finding a publisher for her material in other
countries, including the United Kingdom, in a book form or serialized
in a magazine or newspaper.

19. Defendants' threat of suit and bringing of suits inhibited sales
of plaintiff's book, and have reduced if not destroyed the market for
future articles or books by plaintiff on scientology.

20. Defendants' threats of suit and bringing of suits have generally
prevented other persons from publicly commenting upon plaintiff's book
as published by Tower or otherwise utilizing it.

21. After the Rev. Lester Kinsolving in March, 1972, in a syndicated
column which appeared in many papers commented upon plaintiff's
book and the lawsuits commenced by defendants against her,
defendants' agents harassed him.

22. After Tower published plaintiff's book, Tower's publisher was
harassed by defendants and their agents.

23. After a review of plaintiff's book appeared in the American
Psychiatric Association News, "Rev. Kenneth J. Whitney, Deputy
Minister of Public Relations, U.S.," composed a letter for publication
stating that "...the Church of Scientology in England recently won a
lawsuit concerning an article by the same author..."

24. Defendants have named plaintiff as one of eighteen defendants in
a suit involving a book on scientology by Robert Kaufman, and further
attempted service on her on or about March 14, 1972, at 2:30 a.m. It
is falsely alleged in said suit that plaintiff convinced Kaufman to
write the said book.

25. Upon information and belief, the defendants and their groups have
commenced many lawsuits totaling more than 50 in the last two years in
this country and abroad for alleged libel, naming in addition to those
previously mentioned herein, The American Medical Association; the
National Educational Association; National Association of Mental
Health; Fairchild Publications for an article which appeared in Womens
Wear Daily; the Washington Post; Delacorte Press, and the author of a
book it published, Georg Malko; the publisher of "The Realist" for
stating that Sirhan Sirhan was a scientologist; the Sunday Times of
London; two members of Parliament in England, and Cyril Vosper, author
of a book on scientology, and New English Library.

26. Upon information and belief, defendants and their groups have
threatened lawsuits against, in addition to the above, The Chicago
Tribune, Life Magazine, Medical Economics, Parents Magazine, Todays
Health, The San Francisco Chronicle, Nation, and New York Daily News.

27. Defendants, as part of the pattern of harassment, have through
their agents posed as members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and have read to persons letters allegedly signed by then bureau
chief, J. Edgar Hoover.

28. Defendants, as part of their pattern of harassment, and their
attempt to still criticism, have stolen documents from files, books
critical of them from libraries, manuscripts from writers and
publishers, and have sought to dissuade libraries from ordering or
displaying books critical of them.

29. Defendants and their agents, servants and employees have engaged
in the following acts in various places in the world with the purpose
of harassing and intimidating plaintiff and in preventing her from
writing further about them, in addition to matters already pleaded;

a. wiretapping of plaintiff's phone.

b. following her, closely and obtrusively, and staking out her
apartment;

c. making obscene telephone calls, often timed to waken or frighten
plaintiff;

d. making visits to her apartment late at night, including attempted
service of process at 2:30 a.m. after also awakening a 72 year old
neighbor to ask question about her;

e. making attempts to date her as a means of gather information about
her;

f. making threats against others as a lesson to her;

g. attempting to intimidate her from giving a talk on scientology in
New York, serving her with process on way to lecture and harassing her
while the talk was being delivered;

h. service upon plaintiff in Scotland of a writ by David Gaiman, head
of scientology in England and Scotland, as agent for defendants,
knowing that it was illegal, and then calling it a "joke";

i. following plaintiff in Scotland; trying to interview her under
false pretenses; surrounding the hotel where she was staying,
interfering with her conducting business there and thereby preventing
her from carrying on pre-arranged business there and affecting her
ability to conduct future business with the same persons; telephoning
her incessantly; employing a photographer to take her picture and
follow her for three days; and trying under false pretenses to find
out what room she was staying in; all of which led to the intervention
of the head of the C.I.D. in Scotland, and all of which was done under
the direction of the said David Gaiman as agent for defendants;

j. engaging in other acts.

30. That since the time of the original commencement of this lawsuit,
on March 29, 1972, and continuing until the time of this supplementary
pleading, defendants and their agents have continued to harass,
intimidate and invade the privacy of plaintiff as alleged by the
various causes of action in this complaint, including engaging in the
following acts:

a. electronic surveillance;

b. close and obtrusive following, including on April 25, 1972, when
plaintiff was with a member of The New York State Department of
Mental Hospitals;

c. during the week of May 29, 1972, telephoned the superintendant
of plaintiff's apartment house in an attempt to find out who paid her
rent;

d. during the week of May 29, 1972, telephoned the landlord of
plaintiff's apartment house, representing themselves as a credit
bureau "involved in litigation," and falsely informed the landlord
that plaintiff's father was involved in legal troubles for having
written bad checks, and by this act deliberately and maliciously
attempted to malign plaintiff's father and plaintiff in the process;

e. on or about June 7, 1972, caused an advanced member and
agent of defendants' organizations, knows as Debbie Norwitz,
under the false pretense and misrepresentation of conducting a
questionnaire as part of a Master's Degree at Columbia University,
to visit and interview plaintiff's attorney, another lawyer in the
same suite of rooms as plaintiff's attorney, plaintiff's father,
various persons at the New York Times includin a Mr. Blair, one or
more persons at the Associated Press, and others;

f. as recently as May, 1972, caused a member and agent of
defendants' organizations, known as Tony Proletta, to telephone
plaintiff repeatedly, often late at night, falsely representing
himself as a person hostile to scientology and seeking information
for a book he was writing against scientology, for the purpose in fact
of gathering privileged and personal information about plaintiff;

g. in May, 1972, telephoned a friend of plaintiff's family in an
effort to learn about plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

31. Plaintiff's first cause of action against all defendants is for
invasion in various states and countries of her right to privacy,
based upon the conduct set forth above. Defendants intentionally have
intruded into the private life and affairs of plaintiff and into her
right to seclusion and solitude.

32. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
ridicule, embarassment, vexation, humiliation, mental distress, loss
of sleep and injury to a property interest inherently and inextricably
woven into plaintiff's personality, and plaintiff has further been put
into fear of the continuation of the said wrongful acts and their
extention to more violent means of intimidation and harassment, all to
her damage in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

33. Plaintiff's second cause of action against all defendants is for
harassment and intentional and reckless infliction of mental suffering
based upon the conduct of the defendants as set forth above.
Defendant and its agents, employees and servants committed these acts
pursuant to a calculated plan of harassing plaintiff and inflicting
mental and physical suffering upon her, and placing her into fright,
fear and shock. The aforesaid acts constituted extreme, outrageous,
atrocious and intolerable conduct, beyond the common standards of
human decency,causing severe emotional distress.

34. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
injury by severe mental and physical pain and suffering and the
consequences thereof, to her damage in the amount of ONE MILLION
($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

35. Plaintiff's third cause of action is against all defendants for
intentional interference with her constitutional rights of freedom of
speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment based upon
the conduct of the defendants as set forth above. Plaintiff's
inherent rights to freedom of speech and of the press have been
violated by defendants and she has been deprived by the deliberate
conduct and campaign of defendants against her and others to
intimidate and silence them.

36. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
damages in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

37. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action against all defendants is for
defamation, based upon the statements set forth above. Defendants
published and caused to be published these untrue statements with
malicious intent to injure the name and reputation of plaintiff as a
writer and person and her ability to earn a living thereby, and to
stifle freedom of speech. The defendants and their agents knew that
the statements were false and defamatory as to plaintiff and the
statements were made in utter disregard of the rights of plaintiff.

38. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
damages generally in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00)
DOLLARS, and further has lost earnings and incurred certain expenses,
as listed in paragraphs 16 through 20 (although such need not be
pleaded in this libel per se action), to her damage in the amount of
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($100,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

39. Plaintiff's fifth cause of action against all defendants is for
malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of process, based upon the
conduct of the defendants as set for above. [words illegible]
defendants cause and without hope of success and without intention to
follow through thereon; have threatened suits agaist her and others
maliciously with no intention of serving a complaint or gaining
jurisdiction over her. All of these acts have been done deliberately
and as part of a campaign of harassment, with the intent of injuring
plaintiff physically, mentally and economically.

40. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
damages in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

41. Plaintiff's sixth cause of action against all defendants is for
trespass, based upon the conduct of the defendants as set forth above.
Agents of the defendants did wilfully, maliciously and without legal
right trespass upon and do injury to the apartment and leashold of
plaintiff by plaing a wiretap and other illegal electronic
surveillance equipment therein, and did further trespass upon the
property of agents of plaintiff by false pretenses.

42. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
damage to her property and possession, in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND ($100,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

43. Plaintiff's seventh cause of action against all defendants is for
intentional interference with existing and prospective economic and
contractual relations, based upon the conduct set forth above.
Defendants have deliberately attempted to and have in fact discouraged
publishers from printing materials written or to be written by
plaintiff about scientology and other topics and to discourage others
to write about her and her publications in a praiseworthy tone.

44. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
economic loss in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
($100,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

45. Plaintiff's eighth cause of action against all defendants is for
fraud, based upon the false representations and false pretense
previously alleged, and especially in paragraph 30. Defendants,
through their agents and members, have deliberately sought to gather
information about plaintiff and those around her by giving false
pretexts and pretenses and making misrepresentations, upon which
defendants have intended that plaintiff and those around her rely and
upon which to their damage plaintiff and those around her have [words
illegible].

46. As a result of the aforesaid conduct, plaintiff has suffered
damaged in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

47. In each of the eight (8) causes of action set forth above,
plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in the amount of TEN MILLION
($10,000,000.00) DOLLARS, because of the particularly offensive,
deliberate, reckless and wanton acts of the defendants.

AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

48. Defendants have continued to engage in the wrongful conduct
toward plaintiff as alleged in the first eight (8) causes of action,
and will, upon information and belief, continue in the future to
engage in such conduct, causing plaintiff irreparable injury and
damage, for which no adequate remedy at law exists, whereby
relief by way of injunction is sought.

AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

49. Plaintiff's tenth cause of action against all defendants is for
violation of 18 U.S.C. 2520 based upon the illegal wiretapping
and similar acts alleged as to defendants.

50. As a result of the aforesaid conduct and violation of federal
statute, plaintiff demands compensatory damages as computed
by statute, punitive damages, reasonable [words illegible] all as
allowed by statute.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands of all defendants:

A. Compensatory damages in the amount of ONE MILLION
($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS each on the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action; ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
($100,000.00) DOLLARS each on the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh
Causes of Action;

B. Punitive damages in the amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000.00)
DOLLARS in total on all or any of the first Eight Cause of Action;

C. Damages allowed by statute pursuant to the Tenth Cause of Action:

D. An injunction restraining defendants in perpetuity from carrying
on the alleged wrongful acts and conduct, and for such other and
further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper;

E. The above together with interest, and the costs and disbursements
of this action.

DATED: June 21, 1972
New York, New York

Yours, etc.

PAUL D. RHEINGOLD
Attorney for Plaintiff
Office & P.O. Address
99 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016