SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. 117N

Date: September 26, 1986
HONORABLE: RONALD SWEARINGER JUDGE
R. GRUVER, Deputy Sheriff
E. ROBERTS, Deputy Clerk
E. SCHNEIDER Reporter

C 332 027

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM
VS.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Counsel for Plaintiff:
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:

Counsel for Defendant:



CHARLES 0'REILLY

GEORGE ROSENBERG
EARLE COOLEY
JOHN PETERSON

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS     MOTION (Page one of three)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A WAIVER OF UNDERTAKING
ON APPEAL CAME ON FOR HEARING AND IS DENIED.

The Court rules as follows:

          Defendant has contended that this court is empowered by
Section 995.240, Code of Civil Procedure, to waive or reduce
the money judgment bond requirement of Section 917.1, Code or
Civil Procedure. This contention ignores the specification
of Section 995.020 (a) as to the inapplicability of Section
995.240, Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent that it is in-
consistent with any statute of this state. Section 917.1 is
highly specific. In order to stay enforcement of a money
judgment, an undertaking is mandatory in twice the amount of
the judgment or one-and-a-half times if given by a surety.
This court is without any authority to waive or reduce under-
taking under Section 995.240.

          If the court had the power, it would exercise its discretion
under that Section by denying the motion for a number of reasons.
First, the court does not believe defendant's claim of relative
indigency. Proof has shown that it transferred virtually all
of its assets and functions out to other Scientology entities
subsequent to the filing of this action and as late as just before
a scheduled trial date in this case. If the defendant is indeed
indigent, it is an indigency of its own making. Proof has shown
that Scientology as an overall entity is comprised of numerous
operating entities, including defendant, and that they are all
inter-related, being parts of a monolithic whole. Transfers of
assets and functions from one entity to other entities are more
pro forma than actual. In the case of the transfers in question
here, they are seen as mere "jiggery pokery." The power to
transfer out to a sister entity is the power to transfer back in
"when the heat is off," so to speak. The claim of relative
indigency is not believed by the court and the court has had ample
opportunity to examine and consider the credibility of the
defendant during 5-1/2 months of trial and extended post-trial
proceedings.

    MINUTE ORDER MINUTES ENTERED
9-26-86
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. 117N
Date: September 26, 1986
HONORABLE: RONALD SWEARINGER JUDGE
R. GRUVER, Deputy Sheriff
E. ROBERTS, Deputy Clerk
E. SCHNEIDER Reporter

C 332 027

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM
VS.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Counsel for Plaintiff:
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:

Counsel for Defendant:



CHARLES 0'REILLY

GEORGE ROSENBERG
EARLE COOLEY
JOHN PETERSON

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS     MOTION   (Page two)

          Second, the claim that a failure to grant the relief
requested would deny parishioners of the defendant an opportunity
to observe religious practices is pure sham. Proof has shown
that the real estate, furnishings, fixtures and stock in trade
of Scientology are in possession and control of other Scientology
entities and not in the defendant, which is, as of this time,
merely a shadow of its former self and an entity whose sole
present function is to operate a single operation of Scientology
apparently known as the Office of Special Affairs.

          Third, a waiver of bond would be grossly unfair to the
plaintiff who, having obtained judgment, would be effectively
foreclosed from collecting on any portion of it should he prevail
on appeal. Any compromise of the bond requirement of Section
917.1, Code of Civil Procedure, would be exceedingly harmful
to his cause. The court is directed to such a consideration
by Section 952.240, Code of Civil Procedure.

          Finally, it is to be noted that the defendant may seek
relief pursuant to Section 923, Code of Civil Procedure, as to
its need for a waiver of undertaking and is therefore not
without a remedy to pursue.

          Parenthetically, it is to be noted that if the defendant's
financial condition is indeed as precarious as it claims it to
be, a levy of execution on the judgment herein would not produce
very much. If defendant is to be believed, it does not need an
undertaking to stave off execution since the defendant has little
that is not otherwise pledged or subject to Internal Revenue
Service and state agency seizure.

    MINUTE ORDER MINUTES ENTERED
9-26-86
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. 117N
Date: September 26, 1986
HONORABLE: RONALD SWEARINGER JUDGE
R. GRUVER, Deputy Sheriff
E. ROBERTS, Deputy Clerk
E. SCHNEIDER Reporter

C 332 027

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM
VS.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Counsel for Plaintiff:
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:

Counsel for Defendant:



CHARLES 0'REILLY

GEORGE ROSENBERG
EARLE COOLEY
JOHN PETERSON

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS     MOTION   (Page three)

          The court declines to extend the stay of execution pending
perfection of appeal that has been heretofore granted to
defendant pursuant to Section 918, Code of Civil Procedure.
That stay was granted many, many weeks ago to enable the
defendant to posture itself as to enforcement of the judgment
during the period of appeal and to preserve status quo while
post-trial motions were pending.

          Those motions have been disposed of by denial and the time
has come for defendant to perfect its appeal.

    MINUTE ORDER MINUTES ENTERED
9-26-86
COUNTY CLERK

 

Hub Law Offices 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California 94960-1949 415-258-0360 ford@fordgreene.com