FINAL DRAFT

Research Assignment 4 Final Draft Unit 9 Crystal Morgan PA310: Tort Law Professor Sanok August 6, 2011

FINAL DRAFT

FACTS: The Sherman family consists of Rob Sherman Senior, Bunny Sherman, and their 15-yearold son Rob Sherman Junior. They allege that the Church of the Divine Light (herein Church) threatened and coerced Rob Jr. to not only attend their church but to the extreme measure of the minor not returning home to his parents. After a period of time and a few meetings Rob Jr. was confronted and threatened if he did not stay. Finally Rob Jr. acquiesced and joined the church. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman had limited communication from Rob Jr. but for letters. The letters included demands for money and Rob told his parents that he planned to stay with the Church. His parents devised a plan, agreed to give him the money he needed, kidnapped him and eventually Rob Jr. returned to his normal self. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman believe that the Church brainwashed their son as well as committed various torts against Rob Jr. and themselves. ISSUES: Whether a Church is protected under First Amendment Rights under the free exercise clause when deceptively coercing a person to join their religious group. Whether a Church is committing fraud when deceptively coercing a person to join their religious group. Whether a Church is brainwashing participants or are the people experiencing divination and evocation of faith. Whether an individual can bring a tort action for false imprisonment when no threat of physical harm was made, only the threat of religious damnation. Whether a Church may violate the Constitutional right to parent ones own children.

FINAL DRAFT

RULES: The Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: absolute protection for religious beliefs. Any claims due to the trickery to get Rob Jr. to join the church would be disallowed in a Court, as the statements would be considered, rooted in religions belief. Meroni v. Holy Spirit Assn for Unification, supra, 506 N.Y.S.2d at p. 177. In order for conduct to be considered so egregious that it would be construed as brainwashing there must be physical violence or mental torture present. It is not only a Constitutional Right to Parent, but also under numerous cases it has been found that a State must protect families. ANALYSIS: In the precedent setting case of Katz, the Court was asked to determine if an alleged religious conversion was induced by faith or by coercive persuasion. (Katz v. Superior Court, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at p. 987.) The Katz court had to decide whether a court could question the validity of a persons actions related to their faith because someone else said that person was brainwashed. (Ibid.) The above captioned case Rob Jr. alleges that he was coerced to stay with the Church, and Mr. and Mrs. Sherman feel their son was brainwashed. Another important case to note on the issue of brainwashing would be Meroni v. Holy Spirit Assn for Unification, supra, 506 N.Y.S.2d at p. 177. This Court found that in order for conduct to be considered so egregious that it would be construed as brainwashing there must be physical violence or mental torture present. Rob Jr. did not report any physical violence or mental torture.

FINAL DRAFT The brainwashing concept is controversial. Some highly respected authorities conclude brainwashing exists and is remarkably effective. (See, e.g., Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (1961); Schein, Coercive Persuasion (1961).) Some commentators

additionally conclude that certain religious groups use brainwashing techniques to recruit and [46 Cal.3d 1110] control members. (See, e.g., Delgado, Religious Totalism: Gentle and Ungentle Persuasion Under the First Amendment (1977) 51 So.Cal.L.Rev. 1, 3-9; Rudin & Rudin, Prison or Paradise? The New Religious Cults (1980) pp. 20-25; Clark et al., Destructive Cult Conversion: Theory, Research and Treatment (1979) pp. 1-15.) Courts have recognized the existence of brainwashing in religious settings. (See Peterson v. Sorlien, supra, 299 N.W.2d at p. 126; Meroni v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 125 Misc.2d 1061, 1067.) Rob Jr. did state that Tom Marsden, the organizer of the youth program stated, "If you leave, you will be thrown into the eternal fires of Hell, and you will not be allowed back." According to Fowler v. Rhode Island, supra, 345 U.S. at p. 70 [97 L.Ed. at p. 831] [court cannot regulate or control sermons]; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., supra, 535 F.Supp. at p. 1139.) The only threat that was made was one of damnation and not actual harm and the Court has found that there must be a fear of harm to constitute a claim of false imprisonment. This Supreme Court case would also bar any claims to Intentional Infliction of Emotional or Mental Distress for Rob Jr. against the accused Church. Another primary case in this area of law that is the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. This Court concluded that a church or a representative of such are not committing fraud when deceptively enticing a person to join their religious group. [T]he majority concedes, that the claimed deceptions, although secular on the surface, are clearly rooted in religious belief. Only operational activities of a church or grave abuses that endanger the public may be looked

FINAL DRAFT upon by a Court of law. [c]ompelling governmental interest supported by ample evidence can justify state regulation of religious practices. Therefore any claims due to the trickery to get

Rob Jr. to join the church would be disallowed in a Court, as the statements would be considered to be, rooted in religions belief. It is not only a Constitutional Right to Parent, but also under numerous cases it has been found that a State must protect families. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 [69 L.Ed. 1070, 1077-1078, 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468]. This example shows us that Mr. and Mrs. Sherman do have a claim due to the churchs fraud and deception. Yet under the Katz case, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman do not have a claim for the brainwashing induced by coercive indoctrination as this argument is also barred by the churchs First Amendment Rights. (See also, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-166. Since the family almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs significant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion (Enroth, Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults (1977) pp. 199-201), the state has a compelling interest in protecting families from suffering such impairments as a result of fraud and deception. Katz v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 952 [141 Cal.Rptr. 234], [T]he parents of Unification Church members brought an action for conservatorship: they claimed that their children were subjected to coercive persuasion and brainwashing through food and sleep deprivation, isolation, fear tactics, use of guilty feelings and indoctrination; they offered psychiatric and psychological expert evidence to establish such claims. The Katz court was unwilling to inquire into the merit of the assertions because it felt the evaluation of evidence relevant to whether the change in the individuals life style was effected by brainwashing or

FINAL DRAFT

religious faith, necessarily requires an investigation and questioning of the validity of that faith. (Id., at pp. 987-988.) The fact that Katz found brainwashing induced by coercive indoctrination or was it simply religious persuasion? That such question is not for mortal courts to resolve is unequivocally answered by Katz: No such proof or judicial inquiry is possible without questioning the persons underlying faith an inquiry which is absolutely forbidden by the First Amendment. As to any claims of False Imprisonment, the Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment protects the church from any claims as to such. See Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, No. 05-0916. (A Texas Supreme Court Case). False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. (Pen. Code, 236; see Parrott v. Bank of America 97 Cal.App.2d 14, 22 (1950) [definition of crime and tort the same].) CONCLUSIONS: Rob Sherman Junior does not have any legal causes of action against Church of the Divine Light. There was no fraud, false imprisonment, or emotional harm done due to the Churchs First Amendment Rights and therefore protections. This is titled the Free Exercise Clause. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman would have a right to bring issue based upon their Constitutional right to parent, but would not be able to successfully litigate issues of deception, brainwashing, and fraud.

FINAL DRAFT REFERENCES: Edwards, L.L., & Edwards, J.S., (2004), Tort Law for Legal Assistants 3d, Delmar Learning, Clifton, NY. Katz v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.3d 952, (1977). Meroni v. Holy Spirit Assn for Unification, 506 N.Y.S.2d, (1984). Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 46 Cal.3d 1092, 762 P.2d 46; 252 Cal.Rptr. 122, (1988). Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 [69 L.Ed. 1070, 1077-1078, 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468]. Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, No. 05-0916. (A Texas Supreme Court Case). Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, (1972).