Path: spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 From: ptsc Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: California vs Henson: extraordinary new motion Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:53:03 -0500 Organization: ARS: Perhaps The Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet Lines: 690 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-849.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: spln alt.religion.scientology:672986 [Reformatted slightly for readability.] From chriso@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk Sat Jan 27 21:44:40 2001 I must admit that I haven't been following Keith Henson's case very closely, but I've come across this quite extraordinary motion just recently posted by the State of California. It effectively strikes out in advance most lines of defence which Keith might employ, specifically with regard to Scientology's policies towards the treatment of its critics. The motion reads very much like something written by Scientology's attorneys. Indeed, I think this is *exactly* what it is. Note that on page 7 it includes the following: "Such an inquiry into an entirely collateral issue concerning religious beliefs and practices, particularly when directed to try to attack the credibility of the defendant, would be unlawful, for the reasons stated below." The defendant? I thought Keith Henson was the defendant? It looks like someone has been copying and pasting out of previous motions from a case where Scientology was a defendant - maybe Lisa McPherson? If anyone can identify the source, that would be most interesting. Anyway, here's the motion in its entirety. I'm sure you can find enough bones of contention in here to keep you all happy for a good few days. -------------------- GROVER TRASK District Attorney County of Riverside 910 N. State St. Hemet, CA 92543 Telephone: (909) 766-2370 State Bar No. 202293 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (Hemet) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO: HEM014371 Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY v. CONCERNING ALLEGED RELIGIOUS PRACTICE H. KEITH HENSON, Defendant. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The People are presenting this trial brief in an effort to limit the issues to present in this case. The underlying facts herein involve Defendant H. Keith Henson who is a Palo Alto, California resident, who has taken up posting on the Internet in a way which has frightened a number of people, including several complaining witnesses in the local Hemet area. 1 The Internet postings should be taken into account along with Defendant Henson's history of making and exploding bombs, and the fact he has filed for a patent in the Patent and Trademark Office in Washington D.C., in June 1990, for a patent which is a method of launching payloads from an airplane. Further, Henson has made threatening postings on the Internet particularly between the months of June 2000 to September 2000, knowing that members of the Church of Scientology International would see his postings and be frightened by them and be made paranoid by them. Defendant was arrested and arraigned on July 19, 2000 for violations of California Penal Code 422, 664/422 and 422.6. Defendant Henson committed these acts against individuals who are parishioners of the Scientology religion and who work on the premises at the Church of Scientology International, doing business as Golden Era Productions ("Golden Era"). Defendant, in fact, knew that they were Scientologists at the time and intentionally made threats due to their religion. Defendant may attempt to introduce evidence of Scientology beliefs and practices including the alleged practice of "fair game", however, the People hereby object to defendant's introduction of such evidence and further request an order, before jury selection or the commencement of trial, excluding such evidence upon the following grounds: 1. The introduction of evidence of purported Scientology beliefs or practices to attack the complaining witnesses' credibility is barred by California Evidence Code 789 2. Defendant's attempt to introduce evidence of any purported belief and practice in the Scientology religion is irrelevant and thus inadmissible under Evidence Code 350; 3. Any evidence of Scientology Beliefs and Practices must be excluded under Cal.Evid. Code 352 as its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that 2 its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. 4. Any evidence of the purported Scientology belief and Practice of "fair game" is too remote in time to be of any probative value and is thus inadmissible. 5. Admission of defendant's purported evidence would entangle the court in matters of ecclesiastical doctrine, and require it to determine the content of religious practice and belief, in violation of the religion clauses of The First Amendment The People of the State of California have moved pursuant to California Evidence Code 350 and 352 as well as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to preclude defendant from introducing evidence of or concerning a purported belief or practice of the Scientology religion referred to as "Fair Game." and from introducing evidence of or concerning any other purported belief or practice of the Scientology religion. The People expect that defendant will attempt to introduce certain writings of L. Ron Hubbard (e.g., the `Fair Game' policy)" on the subject of the credibility of Church staff members, who were the victims or complaining witnesses of defendant's criminal acts. Such evidence is specifically precluded by California Evidence Code (hereafter Cal.Evid.) 789. It also is not relevant and thus not admissible per Cal.Evid. 350. And, even if not strictly barred by evidence code sections 350 and 789, introduction of such evidence must be prohibited under 352 because its probative value, if any, is extremely marginal due to its remoteness in time and because it would foster undue prejudice against the complaining witnesses; it would confuse and mislead the jury; and it would require extensive trial of collateral issues, including presentation of additional witnesses and evidence on the subject 3 of religious belief and practice, resulting in undue delay, waste of time, and further prejudice and confusion. Finally, introduction of such evidence would result in unconstitutional judicial entanglement in matters of religious belief and practice, and would invite the court and jury to decide issues concerning the content and nature of religious belief and practice contrary to well-established doctrine under the First Amendment. It is expected that Defendant will attempt to introduce the purported Scientology belief or practice of "Fair Game," although there has not been such a belief or practice for at least 32 years. Declaration of Kurt Weiland, 3. The concept of "fair game" within the beliefs of Scientology was canceled by L. Ron Hubbard in 1968, precisely because the meaning and intent of the term was mischaracterized in a grossly negative fashion to attack the religion and its adherents unjustifiably. Id., 12. No reference to it is contained in any of the scriptures currently published or distributed by the Churches of Scientology. Id., 16 Moreover, even for the short time that there arguably was such a practice, it never carried the meaning or had the effect that defendant will attempt to attribute to it. Rather, the term was used in connection with the right of individuals to gain access to the internal Scientology justice and ethics procedures, which are used to resolve disputes between Scientologists. Id., 8. Thus, at the least, any attempt by defendant to introduce evidence of a purported Scientology religious belief or practice of "Fair Game" would precipitate an elaborate judicial inquiry into a wholly collateral issue, i.e., what are the beliefs and practices of the Scientology religion, which is in fact too remote in time to be of any relevance to the 4 instant action. [1] The Scientology ethics and justice system is a privilege and benefit for Scientologists. Scientologists can and do avail themselves of the Scientology ethics and justice system because they believe it is inexpensive, swift, sane, accurate and based solely on getting to the truth. One is judged by a committee of his peers whose only task is to get to the truth of disputes between Scientologists. Id., 16. Scientologists consider this ethics and justice system a major benefit derived from membership in their Church. To expel a person from Church membership and thereby withdraw the protection and availability of the Church's ethics and justice system is the harshest penalty in the Scientology religion. Id., 10. Defendant, however, will attempt to argue that "fair game" not only is still part of the religious beliefs of Scientology, but that it constitutes a belief and practice authorizing or directing tortious or deceitful acts, by reference to a 1967 writing of Mr. Hubbard. Defendant's characterization is directly contrary to the religion's own definition and explication of its own beliefs and practices. As set forth in the declaration of Kurt Weiland, a senior Church official, the 1967 passage, read in context with the entire body of Scientology scripture, simply denied recourse to Scientology's justice system for ex-Scientologists who had been ex-communicated from the Church. It in no way directed or authorized Scientologists to engage in deceitful, unlawful, tortious or criminal acts against [1] For the reasons stated, infra, such an inquiry, let alone any conclusions that a court or jury might draw from such an inquiry, would be both inappropriate and unconstitutional. 5 such individuals. Id., 11. It was, however, precisely because anti-Scientologists attempted to mischaracterize the use of the term that L. Ron Hubbard abolished its use as part of the Scientology religion in 1968. Id. Indeed, as the declaration of Kurt Weiland explains, the scriptures of Scientology are replete with admonitions to its adherents to build their lives on the foundations of honesty and integrity. As Mr. Hubbard stated in a technical bulletin titled "Auditor's[1] Rights Modified," written in 1972: "The road to truth is begun with honesty." This is a road that all Scientologists, by definition, consider that they are following. Id., 12. Mr. Hubbard's injunction to be truthful covers all aspects of an individual's an organization's activities. For example, he laid down a firm rule for Church of Scientology staff in official dealings: "Never use lies." ("The Missing Ingredient," [August 13, 1970]). In a policy directive entitled, "Safe Ground" (October 27, 1974), Mr. Hubbard reiterated this point: "1. NEVER SAY OR PUBLISH ANYTHING YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DOCUMENT; 2. ALWAYS DOCUMENT THE TRUTH TO OPPOSE LIES." Id., 14. This standard is not limited to simply those with whom a person works with directly but in fact all those with whom one may come in contact in the community and within society: A country has laws and regulations to coordinate its activities. [1] "auditor" is a Scientology minister who counsels parishioners. The term is derived from a Latin term meaning one who listens. Id., 13. 6 One does NOT seek to get around these or avoid these or find loopholes in them. This is COMPLICATED AND DISHONEST. It is MUCH simpler just to know and obey them. "Regulations and Laws, Obedience To," 27 October 1973. Declaration of Kurt Weiland, 14 Thus, a proper understanding of the religious beliefs of Scientology is that Scientologists should always act lawfully, honestly, and ethically, and that they should neither lie, cheat, or steal. Any attempt to present evidence to the contrary, based upon the revoked references to "fair game" in Mr. Hubbard's earlier writings, or otherwise, would require the complaining witnesses to present extensive evidence, such as that summarized above, and set forth in greater detail in the Declaration of Kurt Weiland, concerning the true beliefs and practices of Scientology. Such an inquiry into an entirely collateral issue concerning religious beliefs and practices, particularly when directed to try to attack the credibility of the defendant, would be unlawful, for the reasons stated below. II. ARGUMENT A. Introduction of Evidence of "Fair Game" to Attack Defendant's Credibility Is Barred By California Evidence Code 789 California Evidence Code 789 states: Evidence of his religious belief or lack thereof is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. 7 California Evidence Code 789 is virtually identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 610, and it has similar effect. On its face, Cal. Evid. Code 789 prohibits defendant from introducing evidence of what he may claim are Scientology beliefs and practices to attack the credibility of the complaining witnesses. Indeed, defendant does not even propose to introduce direct evidence of the complaining witnesses' own beliefs and practices. Rather, defendant intends to introduce evidence of what he claims are Scientology beliefs and practices, contrary to how the religion itself defines its beliefs and practices, and then to attribute defendant's version of Scientology beliefs to the complaining witnesses in an effort to destroy their credibility. That effort must fail. Cal. Evid. 789 prohibits any such effort to impeach a witness based upon his actual or purported religious beliefs. The fact that the religion "is not commonly shared does not prevent application of the rule." United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Moreover, "no distinction exists between a challenge to a witness's credibility on the ground of his or her religious beliefs and a challenge on the grounds of actions relating to those beliefs." McLaughlin, Weinstein `s Federal Evidence (2nd Ed. 2000) 610.02(2), p. 610-5 (citing United States v. Kalaydjian, 784 F.2d 53, SC (2nd Cir. 1986). Thus, for example, evidence may not be admitted to show that a witness shared a religious affiliation with a party,[1] or that a witness believed that participation in civil litigation violates biblical law.[2] In a case arising under an earlier similar version of a state [1] Malek v. Federal Ins. Co., 994 F.2d 49, 54-44 (2nd Cir. 1993). [2] Fireman`s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754, 761 (8th Cir. 1995). 8 evidence code, a state appellate court reversed a criminal conviction where the prosecution insisted that members of the defendant's religion - Hinduism - were prone to commit violent and mysterious murders. People v. Singh, 11 Cal. App.2d 244, 53 P.2d 403, 3308 (1936). Defendant may argue, however, that an exception to Cal.Evid. 789 may be created for the Scientology religion and its purported "fair game" policy, because, according to defendant, "fair game" constitutes a belief or practice that perjury should be committed. In this case, it of course is even more improper to impute to complaining witness, a member, a religious belief that his own religion and Church explicitly has denied and rejected. Indeed, to create a special exception to Cal. Evid. 789 for purported Scientology religious beliefs, especially where the Scientology religion categorically rejects defendant's expected description and characterization of those beliefs, would create an invidious discrimination against Scientology in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982); Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1993). Defendant would be permitted to incite and exploit potential religious prejudices of the jury, first by falsely characterizing Scientology religious beliefs, second by putting those beliefs on trial, and finally by attributing those purported beliefs to the complaining witnesses to destroy their character for truthfulness. Such a result is what Cal.Evid. 789 seeks to avoid. B. Evidence of Scientology Beliefs or Practices Is Not Relevant and Is Barred by California Evidence Code 350 Cal.Evid. 350 prohibits the use of irrelevant evidence "No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." This case is about whether or not Defendant Henson made a 9 threat or threats and caused those threatened to be put in sustained fear. This case is not about the religious beliefs and practices of the complaining witnesses. Nowhere in the code sections which defendant is charged with violating is there anything that would lead to a determination that the complaining witnesses' religious beliefs or practices should be examined. In fact, the introduction of aspects of the Scientology religion and any of its beliefs or practices does not "have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action" (Cal. Evid. 210), namely, that defendant made threats which put the complaining witnesses in fear. Thus, Scientology beliefs and practices are not relevant to this case and any attempt to introduce evidence of any purported belief and practice in the Scientology religion should be strictly prohibited. Defendant's attempt to introduce evidence of the existence of a purported "fair game" belief and practice in the Scientology religion is irrelevant because this case is not about the Scientology religion, but about Defendants threats. We again review the context of defendant's attempt to raise the issue. The Church of Scientology has stated for 32 years that is has no "fair game" belief, practice or policy. It has emphasized that for the brief period when its scriptures included that term, the belief and practice was limited to the question of the ability of certain individuals to invoke recourse to the Scientology justice and ethics system. It has stated that it is affirmatively the policy and practice of the religion for all Scientologists to act truthfully and lawfully. Evidence that 32 years ago a religious belief and policy denominated "fair game" existed which disqualified certain individuals from using the Scientology ethics and justice 10 system hardly is relevant to any conceivable issue in this. It does not "have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." Cal. Evid. 210, that defendant made threats which caused complaining witnesses to be in fear. Nor does it reflect in any manner whatsoever on any relevant collateral issue in the case, including the credibility of the complaining witnesses. The complaining witnesses are loyal followers of the religion, who believe and follow Church doctrine. Church doctrine explicitly and openly rejects defendant's claim that a "fair game" policy exists and that it mandates unlawful acts. Church belief and practice, to the contrary, directs Scientologists to act lawfully, ethically, and truthfully. Thus, even if there were evidence to support any of defendant's false characterization of Scientology practices, it would not be probative of the complaining witnesses' beliefs, since it would be contrary to how the Church consistently has taught and described Scientology beliefs to the complaining witnesses and to all Scientologists. It thus is not relevant to this case, and must be excluded. C. Defendant's Proposed "Fair Game" Evidence Must Be Excluded Under Cal.Evid. Code 352. Even if evidence is in some way arguably "relevant," it is not necessarily admissible. The Court "may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." Cal.Evid. 352. See also Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 824, 291, 143 Cal.Rptr. 496, 500 The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which 11 uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against [a party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, "prejudicial" is not synonymous with "damaging". People v. Yu 143 Cal.App.3d at 377, 191 Cal.Rptr. at 870, cert denied. 464 U.S. 1072, 104 S.Ct. 981 (1984), People v. Poplar (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1129, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 320. Cal. Evid. 352 is virtually identical to Federal rule of Evidence 403 and is also applied in a similar manner. See also United States v. Hilt (9th Cir. 1992) 981 F.2d 422, 424. "'Unfair prejudice' in the context of balancing evidence means 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." United States v. Blackstone, (9th Cir. 1995) 56 F.3d 1143, 1146, quoting Fed. R.Evid. 403 (which it notes is similar to Cal.Evid. 352), Notes of Advisory Committee. From everything that we already have stated, it is evident that defendant's propose "fair game" evidence must be excluded for all purposes under Cal.Evid. 352. First, as noted, the evidence is of no or at best extremely limited probative value. The issue in this case is whether or not defendant committed hate crimes against the complaining Witnesses. Testimony of an ex-Scientologist who herself has been involved in litigation against various Churches of Scientology, as a paid-for-hire witnesses, as to what the Church's purportedly secret policy of fair game really means (or any other policy for that matter) has nothing to do with any issue in this case. Moreover, its relevance to any question as to the credibility of the complaining witnesses is attenuated at best, as already set forth. Second, admission of the defendant's proposed evidence would inevitably lead to extended and highly contested trial on the entirely collateral issues of whether "fair game" 12 exists as a Church policy; what it meant in the past or means today; what the complaining witnesses knew or believed about its existence and meaning; and what attenuated conclusions can be drawn in this case from those facts. In short, defendant seeks nothing less than an inquest into the Scientology religion, and a determination that, as defendant asserts, Scientology is evil. He undoubtedly will attempt to show, through a paid anti-Scientology witness, one of whom he already has identified,[1] past acts of "fair game" to "prove" his characterization of the policy and practice. The People will then be required to defend the religion of the complaining witnesses to show that their beliefs require adherence to lawful and truthful actions.[2] Litigation of these collateral, but highly charged and emotional issues undoubtedly will take over the entire trial, overwhelming and obscuring the narrow issues which are relevant and should be dispositive. The probability is high, if not certain, that the complaining witnesses will suffer great and unfair prejudice, that the jury will be confused and mislead about the relevant issues, and that trial of the case will be significantly extended and delayed at great but needless cost to the County. Indeed, there can be no other purpose to defendant's attempt to introduce the evidence than to confuse and prejudice the jury and to attempt to prejudice the court. Defendant does not propose to [1] These witnesses include ex-Scientologist Stacy Young. [2] lndeed, the Court would have no choice but to permit the State to put on such evidence on behalf of the complaining witnesses, once it allows defendant to put on evidence that Scientologists have a belief and practice in a retributive and unlawful policy of "fair game." This would even further constitute an unconstitutional entanglement between church and state as the Court could not deprive the State and its complaining witnesses of the opportunity to counter defendant's "evidence." In this manner, the trial will be directed to, confused by and delayed by collateral issues. 13 introduce evidence probative of a genuine issue in this case; rather, he desperately is looking for some issue, any issue, to attempt to justify his introduction of highly inflammatory and irrelevant evidence. Under the circumstances, there is not even room for the exercise of discretion. Admission of the proposed evidence would be erroneous and unduly prejudicial as a matter of law. See, e.g., Nichols v. American Nat Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 884-85 (8th Cir. 1998) (abuse of discretion to admit evidence in Title VII case alleging harassment that plaintiff had undergone abortion contrary to the tenets of her religion: "The evidence exposed a very private part of Nichols' life and a type of experience which frequently involves a conflict in conscience. Such evidence tends to be highly prejudicial"); United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.3d at 842-43 (reversible error in mail and bankruptcy fraud prosecution to admit evidence that defendant failed to disclose his marriage of convenience to women he dated: "Any relevance this testimony may have had is easily outweighed by the unfair prejudicial effect it had on the jury's ability to focus on the issues relevant to the charges"). D. Evidence of the purported Scientology belief and Practice of "fair game" is too remote in time to be of any probative value and is thus inadmissible. As described above, the purported policy of "fair game" was canceled in 1968, over 32 years ago and thus is too remote in time to be of any probative value even if it did have the significance which Defendant attempts to attribute to it. In Olson v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (1995) 30 Cal.App.4th 816, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, the trial court disallowed evidence of an occurrence eight years prior to the incident as it was too remote and the Court of Appeals said "Considering the remoteness of the warning [8 years 14 prior] we cannot say that the exclusion of such evidence amounted to an abuse of discretion by the trial court." Olson, at 826, 35 Cal.Rptr. at 902. Similarly, in Guardianship OJ Simpson, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 914, 938, 79 Cal.Rptr. 389, 404, the court said that "The guardians were not allowed to introduce evidence of [O.J.] Simpson's violence against his first wife, Marguerite, during the period prior to 1975 [over 20 years prior to the murder of Nicole Simpson]. Because of the remoteness in time, the trial judge was within her discretion to exclude the evidence." See also, American Home Assurance Company v. American President Lines, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1994) 44 F.3d 774, 778-779, in which a conviction 12 years old was determined not to be probative partially due to its age. Thus, any purported evidence of "fair game" which was canceled as a policy 32 years ago, is not probative and should be inadmissible. E. Admission Of Defendant's Purported Evidence Would Entangle The Court In Matters Of Ecclesiastical Doctrine, And Require It To Determine The Content Of Religious Practice And Belief, In Violation Of The Religion Clauses Of The First Amendment As we have shown, defendant proposes not only to introduce evidence of what defendant claims to be Scientology religious belief and practice, but also to characterize and define that belief and practice in terms in direct contrast to the religion's own explication of its doctrine, beliefs and practices. Admission of defendant's proposed evidence, including any other purported Scientology belief or practice, would have two direct and unconstitutional results: 1. It immediately and inevitably would plunge the court and jury into an inquest into Scientology religious belief and practice. Defendant would introduce testimony through a 15 Scientology apostate (e.g., Stacy Young) to support his false characterization of Scientology beliefs and practice. Complaining witnesses would have no choice but to present extensive evidence to show that Scientology does not have a "fair game" policy; that the "fair game" policy that was repealed 32 years ago only related to the right of individuals to gain access to Scientology's justice and ethics system; that Scientology beliefs, as expounded by the Church, support and require truthful and lawful behavior; that Scientology doctrine vehemently opposes tortious or criminal conduct; and that, in any event, complaining witness's own religious beliefs did not support tortious or criminal conduct. Such a judicial inquiry, no matter what its result, itself constitutes an unconstitutional entanglement between church and state. The Supreme Court has warned against government inquiries, whether legislative or judicial, into matters of religious "discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law." Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevicli, 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976). The imposition of civil authority in matters of church policy and administration by itself may pose a substantial danger that the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs. Church of Scientology v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514, 1537 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus, the Supreme Court, in holding that the National Labor Relations Board could not exercise jurisdiction over a labor dispute between Catholic Church-owned parochial schools and lay teachers, emphasized that "it is not only the conclusions which may be reached by the Board which may impinge on rights guaranteed by the Religion Clauses, but also the very process 16 of inquiry leading to findings and conclusions." NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 502 (1979). See also Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets, 604 F.2d 73, 78 (1st Cir. 1979) (warning of government control of religious institutions through inquiry and compelled disclosure of matters relating to Catholic educational institutions). In this case, the "very process of inquiry" proposed by defendant would result in unconstitutional judicial inquisition into a religion. 2. Moreover, "the conclusions which may be reached," if defendant's assertions were to be accepted, would constitute a judicial redefinition of the content and meaning of the beliefs and practices of Scientology. Such conclusions surely are barred by the Religion Clauses. It is not for a secular court to engage in an explanation of religious scripture. "The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from ... determin[ing] matters at the very core of a religion - the interpretation of particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion." Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 450 (1968). Rather, the First Amendment requires courts to defer to the ecclesiastical position of the Church itself with respect to the meaning and application of religious doctrines. Neither the government nor its courts are free to inquire whether or not the religion's explication of its doctrines is the "correct" one. Such an inquiry, in itself, would violate the requirements of the First Amendment. Jones v. Wolf 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976). In the words of the New York Court of Appeals: Neither the courts nor the administrative agencies of the state or 17 its subdivisions may look behind the declared content of religious beliefs anymore than they may examine their validity.... It is for religious bodies themselves, rather than the courts or administrative agencies to define, by their teachings and activities, what their religion is. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity v. Tax Comm. of the City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 512 (1982); Accord, Doe v. Dunbar, 718 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("excessive governmental entanglement with religion will occur if a court is required to interpret church law, policies, or practices; therefore the First Amendment prohibits such an inquiry"). Even apart from any constitutional consideration, "[S]ound policy dictates that the denominations, and not the courts interpret their own body of church policy." Wheeler v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 378 Mass. 58, 64 (1979). Courts lack the expertise to engage in revisionist interpretations of religious doctrines. It is difficult to see how judicial interpretation would aid in determining how such doctrines are understood by church members, who look to their church, not to the courts, for scriptural guidance. Thus, the Court must reject defendant's demand that the Court undertake a searching and entangling inquiry into Scientology beliefs and practices, and make findings concerning the "true" meaning and content of Scientology doctrine directly contrary to the religion's own statement of what its religious beliefs and practices are. Such an inquiry and conclusions are never constitutionally permissible, as the cases discussed above clearly hold. They certainly cannot be justified to permit inquiry where the question raised is of no or extremely collateral relevance to any real issue in this case. 18 III. Conclusion Any attempted introduction of Scientology beliefs and practices is inadmissible on a number of grounds, including, irrelevance, prejudice and because it is likely to result in judicial entanglement, as described above. Accordingly, the People respectfully request that their motion to exclude the introduction of purported Scientology beliefs and practices, be granted. Dated: January 16, 2001 Respectfully submitted, GROVER TRASK District Attorney __________________ ROBERT K. SCHWARZ Deputy District Attorney -- | Chris Owen - chriso@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY | | http://www.ronthewarhero.org |