Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity

Last updated
Molko v. Holy Spirit Association
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Full case nameMolko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity
Decided1988
Citation(s) 46 Cal.3d 1092 , 762 P.2d 46, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122
Transcript(s) Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJustice Stanley Mosk (opinion)

Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity was a legal case heard before the California Supreme Court, which issued its ruling in 1988.

Contents

Plaintiffs

David Molko and Tracy Leal, two former members of the Unification Church of the United States, were represented by Ford Greene before the California Supreme Court. The plaintiffs connected coercive persuasion to the legal concept of undue influence. [1] Molko's and Leal's case had been dismissed by San Francisco Superior Court judge Stuart Pollack and by a three judge appeals court before they appealed to the California Supreme Court. [2]

Expert testimony

A psychologist and a psychiatrist testified that the church's persuasion techniques rendered former members legally incapable of exercising their independent judgement, essentially brainwashing them. [3]

Court ruling

In 1988, the state high court held that religious organizations may be sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress when they use deception to cause candidates for recruitment to unwittingly expose themselves to brainwashing techniques. It also held that the members of the Unification Church who recruited Molko had lied by denying any religious connection to their recruitment pitch and, when they gained his trust, brainwashed him. In a legal opinion written by Justice Stanley Mosk regarding tactics religious groups use to attract followers, the court found that any burden on the free exercise of religion was outweighed by the state's interest in protecting against "fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion" because many people exposed to brainwashing techniques without their knowledge or consent would develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide. [1] The court also found that the plaintiffs, when church members, "were incapable of exercising their own will." [4]

In facts part of the ruling the court mentioned that both Molko and Leal, were forcibly abducted by deprogrammers hired by their parents from a public space while they were fundraising money for the Unification Church by selling flowers. [1]

Amicus brief

An amicus curiae brief was filed in favor of the plaintiffs by attorney Paul Morantz, who specialized in representing persons who claimed they were subject to brainwashing. [5] Morantz served as pro bono appellate counsel and also participated in oral arguments. [6]

An amicus curiae brief of the American Psychological Association (APA) stated that the coercive persuasion theory that the plaintiffs advanced is not a meaningful scientific concept. [7] In a petition to the court the petitioners stated, that in the context of the case, the "coercive persuasion" hypothesis is wholly divorced from its purported theoretical basis, the theory of coercive persuasion is not scientific, the methodological foundations for the theory of coercive persuasion does not exist and that the allegation of "coercive persuasion" on which the California Supreme Court relied has no specific legitimacy, but uses the language of science to cloak an attack on religious liberty. [8]

The APA's brief was later criticized by sociologist Benjamin Zablocki, who pointed out that the theory of coercive persuasion, which he called brainwashing, had neither been proved nor disproved by scientific consensus. [9]

Other issues and opinions

The court ruled that false imprisonment can exist even if the victim is not placed under arrest. [10] It also found that the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution does not bar an action for fraud against a religious organization when that action implicates action, not belief. [11] [12]

Law professor R. Kent Greenawalt argues against the court's ruling saying that religious individuals often subject themselves to conditions that may be psychologically harmful, that the defendants did know the identity of the group they were joining, and that courts would rule differently if a more established religion (he uses the Roman Catholic Church as an example) were involved. [13]

Outcome

The defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court which refused to review the decision of the California Supreme Court, and the case was settled out of court. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brainwashing</span> Concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled

Brainwashing is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject's ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds, as well as to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Margaret Singer</span> American psychologist and researcher (1921–2003)

Margaret Thaler Singer was an American clinical psychologist and researcher with her colleague Lyman Wynne on family communication. She was a prominent figure in the study of undue influence in social and religious contexts, and a proponent of the brainwashing theory of new religious movements.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase is legal Latin and the origin of the term has been dated to 1605–1615. The scope of amici curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment. The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute. Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ford Greene</span> American lawyer

Aylsworth Crawford Greene III – sometimes called Ford Greene – is an American attorney, political leader and three-time Mayor of San Anselmo, California. Greene is noted for having successfully conducted litigation against the Church of Scientology and the Unification Church of the United States. He is also a deprogrammer. Greene is serving his fourth-term as an elected San Anselmo town council member. He was voted to the position of Mayor in 2010, 2015, and 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas More Law Center</span> Christian conservative law firm in Michigan, US

The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to the Thomas More Law Center website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."

<i>Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America</i>

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America was a case involving the City of San Diego's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

Richard Jason Ofshe is an American sociologist and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his expert testimony relating to coercion in small groups, confessions, and interrogations.

The APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC/DITPACT) was formed at the request of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983. The APA asked Margaret Singer, a leading theorist in cults and coercive persuasion, to chair a task force to "expose cult methods and tactics". Some examples that led to the task force's creation were the Manson family murders, Patty Hearst kidnapping, and the Jonestown massacre.

Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, Ronald Banks, challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy of denying access to written material such as newspapers and magazines, to violent inmates, on the grounds that the policy was a violation of his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Morantz</span> American attorney and journalist (1945–2022)

Paul Robert Morantz was an American attorney and investigative journalist. He was known for taking legal cases alleging brainwashing by cults, self-help groups and for sexual misconduct by psychotherapists. His successful prosecution of Synanon led to an attempt against his life, by means of a rattlesnake.

Dick Anthony is a forensic psychologist noted for his writings on the validity of brainwashing as a determiner of behavior, a prolific researcher of the social and psychological aspects of involvement in new religious movements.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) has been a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1993 that directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel. BLAG can direct the General Counsel to participate in litigation or file an amicus curiae brief in cases involving the interests of the House or BLAG can call for legislation or a House resolution authorizing the General Counsel to represent the House itself. BLAG comprises five members of House leadership:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

Pasqua v. Council, 892 A.2d 663 was a landmark family court decision decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2006. The court ruled that indigent parents facing the serious threat of incarceration for nonpayment of child support were entitled to legal counsel.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 C3d 1092
  2. 1 2 Jenkins, Pamela (1996). Witnessing for Sociology: Sociologists in Court. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 120–128.
  3. ↑ Bullis, Ronald K. (1996). Spirituality in social work practice. p. 114.
  4. ↑ Bogue, Ronald; Marcel Cornis-Pope (1996). Violence and mediation in contemporary culture. p. 140.
  5. ↑ Morrantz, Paul (Nov 2010). "Escape From Unification Church" . Retrieved 30 July 2011.
  6. ↑ Pike, David (March 21, 2011). "Not all lawyers should be at the bottom of the sea… Paul Morantz, anti-cult litigator, is one of them…". Factnet. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
  7. ↑ No. SF 25038, Court of Appeal, No. A020935, San Francisco Superior Court No. 769-529
  8. ↑ Defendants petition to the court
  9. ↑ Zablocki, Benjamin David; Thomas Robbins (2001). Misunderstanding Cults. p. 168.
  10. ↑ Queen, David (2005). The Private Investigator's Legal Manual: California. p. 68.
  11. ↑ Hall, Kermit L. (2001). The Supreme Court in American society: equal justice under law. p. 465.
  12. ↑ Hall, Kermit L. (2000). Conscience and belief: the Supreme Court and religion. p. 365.,
  13. ↑ R. Kent Greenawalt, "Coercion and religious exercises", Challenges to Religious Liberty in the Twenty-First Century, Gerard V. Bradley editor, 2012, Cambridge University Press, pages 54-57
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.