Part of a public library containing court papers related to lawsuits involving Scientology in some way. Collected to help lawyers and critics of Scientology in future lawsuits from or against this cult. Please report back if this has been of help, or send new contributions to the collection. Thanks. Andreas Heldal-Lund (heldal@online.no)

                       UNITED STATES of America, Libelant,
     An ARTICLE OR DEVICE "HUBBARD ELECTROMETER" or "Hubbard E-Meter," etc.,
                Founding Church of Scientology et al., Claimants.
                                 No. D.C. 1-63.
                          United States District Court,
                              District of Columbia.
                                 July 30, 1971.
  Action on libel of information by the United States seeking condemnation of
 gadget and related writings.  The District Court, Gesell, J., held that
 writings which were distributed by religious institution to accompany auditing
 device, which were intended to promote use of the device by the public, and
 which contained false unqualified scientific claims without a religious overlay
 or suggestion were "labeling," within the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
 thus, the device was misbranded as a result of misrepresentation in failure of
 the labeling to bear adequate directions for its use, and its secular use,
 along with secular use of the writings, had to be condemned.  The Court further
 held that where auditing device, which was harmless in itself, was used
 by legitimate church to aid its ministers in communicating with adherents, the
 church could continue its use of the device, which was condemned for
 misbranding, provided it was used only in religious setting subject to explicit
 warning disclaimers on the device itself and on all labeling.
  Order accordingly.

 Auditing instrument held out as apparatus intended for use in the diagnosis,
 cure, medication and treatment of mental and physical illnesses was a
 "device" within meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, s 201(h), 21 U.S.C.A. s 321(h).
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and

 Books and other documents containing false scientific and nonreligious claims
 as to auditing device held out as apparatus intended for use in the diagnosis,
 cure, medication or treatment of disease, and used in various direct and
 indirect ways to promote the device, "accompanied" the device in meaning of
 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and had all the necessary elements of
 labeling specified in the Act.  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ss
 201(m), 304, 502, 21 U.S.C.A. ss 321(m), 334, 352.
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and

 Single false scientific nonreligious libel claim is sufficient to support
 condemnation of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, s 1 et seq., 21 U.S.C.A. s 301 et

 Writings which were distributed by religious institution to accompany auditing
 device, which were intended to promote use of the device by the public, and
 which contained false, unqualified scientific claims without a religious
 overlay or suggestion were "labeling," within the Federal Food, Drug, and
 Cosmetic Act;  thus, the device was misbranded as a result of misrepresentation
 in failure of the labeling to bear adequate directions for its use, and its
 secular use, along with secular use of the writings, had to be condemned.
 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, s 502(a), (f) (1), 21 U.S.C.A. s
 352(a), (f) (1).
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and

 Law designed to afford protection to the public against genuine evils must be
 used to regulate the activities of religion only if the regulation involved is
 the narrowest possible remedy to achieve the legitimate nonreligious end.

 Where auditing device, which was harmless in itself, was used by legitimate
 church to aid its ministers in communicating with adherents, the church could
 continue its use of the device, which was condemned for misbranding, provided
 it was used only in religious setting subject to explicit warning disclaimers
 on the device itself and on all labeling.  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
 Act, s 304(d), 21 U.S.C.A. s 334(d);  U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.
  *358 John Joseph Matonis, Washington, D. C., for Founding Church of
  Nathan Dodell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for the United States.

  GESELL, District Judge.
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
  This is an action by the United States seeking nationwide condemnation of a
 gadget known as an E-meter and related writings, by libel of information under
 the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. s 301 et seq.  The E-meter is
 claimed to be a device within the meaning of the *359 Act.  Misbranding and
 lack of adequate directions for use are alleged.  Claimants are the Founding
 Church of Scientology and various individuals.
  This suit was originally tried to a jury before another Judge of this Court
 and the conviction there obtained was reversed on appeal after a long trial
 because of certain First Amendment problems suggested by the instructions and
 evidentiary rulings.  Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 133
 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 409 F.2d 1146 (1969).  The present trial was conducted to the
 Court without a jury after a series of pretrials which narrowed the issues.
 The record consists of the transcript and exhibits taken at the prior trial
 with some additions and deletions, plus the testimony of one additional witness
 who testified further on religious aspects of the case.  Many of the background
 facts are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and since they were
 in the main not contested at the second trial they need not all be repeated
  The E-meter is essentially a simple galvanometer using two tin cans as
 electrodes.  It is crude, battery-powered, and designed to measure electrical
 skin resistance.  It is completely harmless and ineffective in itself.  A
 person using the meter for treatment holds the tin cans in his hands during an
 interview with the operator who is known as an auditor and who purports to read
 indicators from the galvanometer needle as it notes reactions to questions.
 Scientology is a so-called exact science which promotes auditing.  When
 practiced by trained or untrained persons, Scientology auditing is claimed to
 improve the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of
 the individual treated.
  L. Ron Hubbard, writing in a science fiction magazine in the 1940's, first
 advanced the extravagant false claims that various physical and mental
 illnesses could be cured by auditing.  He played a major part in developing
 Scientology.  Thereafter, commencing in the early 1950's numerous Scientology
 books and pamphlets were written explaining how various illnesses can be and
 had been cured through auditing.  These materials were widely distributed.
 Hubbard, who wrote much of the material, is a facile, prolific author and his
 quackery flourished throughout the United States and in various parts of the
 world.  He was supported by other pamphleteers and adherents who also promoted
 the practice of Scientology and touted its alleged benefits.
  Hubbard and his fellow Scientologists developed the notion of using an E-meter
 to aid auditing.  Substantial fees were charged for the meter and for auditing
 sessions using the meter.  They repeatedly and explicitly represented that such
 auditing effectuated cures of many physical and mental illnesses.  An
 individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach the intended
 goal of "clear" and was led to believe there was reliable scientific proof that
 once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would automatically be cured.
 Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All this was and is false-in short, a
 fraud.  Contrary to representations made, there is absolutely no scientific or
 medical basis in fact for the claimed cures attributed to E-meter auditing.
  Unfortunately the Government did not move to stop the practice of Scientology
 and a related "science" known as Dianetics when these activities first appeared
 and were gaining public acceptance.  Had it done so, this tedious litigation
 would not have been necessary. The Government did not sue to condemn the E-
 meter until the early 1960's, by which time a religious cult known as the
 Founding Church of Scientology had appeared.  This religion, formally organized
 in 1955, existed side-by-side with the secular practice of Scientology.  Its
 adherents embrace many of Hubbard's teachings and widely disseminate his
 writings.  The Church purports to believe that many illnesses may be cured
 through E-meter auditing by its trained ministers through an appeal to the
 spirit or soul of a man.  As a matter of formal doctrine, the Church professes
 to have *360 abandoned any contention that there is a scientific basis for
 claiming cures resulting from E-meter use.  The Church, however, continued
 widely to circulate Scientology literature such as Government's exhibits 16 and
 31, which hold out false scientific and medical promises of certain cure for
 many types of illnesses. [FN1]

      FN1. The issues have been tried as of January, 1963, the date of the
     libel.  Thus the findings as to Scientology literature and positions of the
     claimants do not necessarily reflect current conditions.

  In 1962, when the Government seized the E-meters involved in the present
 controversy, it took them from the premises of the Church, confiscating some E-
 meters which were actually then being used primarily by ministers of the Church
 to audit adherents or to train auditors for subsequent church activity.  Thus
 the Government put itself in the delicate position of moving against not only
 secular uses of the E-meter but other uses purporting to be religious, and the
 Court accordingly confronts the necessity of reconciling the requirements of
 the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act prohibiting misbranding and the requirements of
 the First Amendment protecting religious institutions and religious beliefs
 from governmental interference under the First Amendment.
  The Court of Appeals has ruled that the evidence at the prior trial and
 reintroduced at this trial established prima facie that the Founding Church of
 Scientology, the principal claimant here, is a bona fide religion and that the
 auditing practice of Scientology and accounts of it are religious doctrine.  No
 evidence to the contrary was offered by the Government on the second trial.
 Accordingly, for purposes of this particular case only, claimant must be deemed
 to have met its burden of establishing First Amendment standing for whatever
 significance the religious practice of Scientology may have on the outcome of
 this particular litigation.
  The Government considers the First Amendment issue wholly irrelevant and
 extraneous.  Claimant, on the other hand, relies heavily on the religious
 claim.  The positions of the parties are so completely different that neither
 even deigns to recognize any merit in the other.  The briefs and findings
 proposed by each side pass like two ships at night with not even a port or
 starboard light showing.  Yet the truth is not as absolute as either party
 contends.  Religious aspects of this controversy, once tactically conceded,
 cannot be ignored.  On the other hand, it is a gross exaggeration to insist
 that the energetic, persistent solicitation of E-meter-audited cures for a fee
 has all occurred in a spiritual setting without use of secular appeals and
 false scientific promises made in a wholly non-religious context.
  [1]  Turning to the precise issues presented, it must first be determined
 whether the E-meter is a device within the meaning of the Act (21 U.S.C. s
 321(h)).  It obviously meets the statutory definition of an apparatus or
 contrivance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation or treatment of
 disease.  Moreover, it is held out as such in the constant promotion of E-meter
 auditing, a process designed to effectuate cures of mental and physical
 illnesses.  Claimants contend that the E-meter is harmless in itself, cures
 nothing by itself, and therefore cannot be a device since those who use it
 appreciate its ineffectiveness and cannot therefore have the requisite intent.
 This begs the question.  The device plays a key part in both the secular and
 religious auditing process which is used and intended to be used in the cure,
 mitigation or treatment of disease.  It need not be the only agent in an
 allegedly curative process to be a device within the definition.  The E-meter
 is a device within the meaning of the Act.
  Over 100 E-meters were seized.  At the same time the Government seized some
 200 separate pieces of literature containing approximately 20,000 pages, much
 of which it now contends demonstrates misbranding of the device by
 misrepresentation *361 and lack of adequate directions for use under 21
 U.S.C. ss 334 and 352.
  The writings seized were located in a bookstore, or "Distribution Center,"
 separately incorporated but owned by the Church, with offices in the basement
 of the Church premises. [FN2]  The Center advertised and sold for profit a long
 list of Scientology, Dianetics and other writings concerned with auditing in
 book, pamphlet, newsletter and other forms.

      FN2. Claimants urge that this search and seizure was overly broad and
     contravenes the Fourth Amendment but this issue was resolved against this
     position by the Court of Appeals and need not be again considered.

  A few of these writings are primarily religious in nature.  Others contain
 medical or scientific claims in a partially religious context.  Most of the
 material, however, explains aspects of Scientology and Dianetics in purely
 matter-of-fact medical and scientific terms without any apparent religious
 reference.  While the Court of Appeals concluded that literature setting forth
 the theory of auditing, including the claims for curative efficacy contained
 therein, is religious doctrine and hence as a matter of law not labeling, it
 recognized this was so only if the person charged with misrepresentation
 explicitly held himself out as making religious as opposed to medical,
 scientific or otherwise secular claims.  The bulk of the material is replete
 with false medical and scientific claims devoid of any religious overlay or
 reference.  Two books which the Church especially recommended to interested
 participants, "Scientology:  The Fundamentals of Thought" (Government Ex. 31),
 and "The Problems of Work" (Government Ex. 103), are typical examples of books
 containing false scientific non-religious claims.  Examples of such claims
 found in these and a few other representative documents used in various direct
 and indirect ways to promote E-meter auditing are listed in Appendix A.
  [2]  Thus the literature has all the necessary elements of labeling
 specified in 21 U.S.C. s 321(m) since it "accompanied" the device within the
 meaning of the Act.  See Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 351, 69
 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948).
  [3]  Having in mind a jury trial, the Court of Appeals contemplated an item-
 by-item analysis of the writings alleged to be labeling in order to remove from
 jury inspection purely religious appeals, reserving a presentation of the other
 literature for determination under instructions differentiating the secular
 from the religious.  This exercise is, of course, unnecessary on a trial to the
 Court.  A single false scientific non-religious label claim is sufficient to
 support condemnation, and in fact there are many. Moreover, differentiation of
 individual documents as a practical matter is of little value when it comes to
 an overall resolution of the controversy.  Realistically, the writings cannot
 only be viewed separately.  They are available and distributed in infinite
 combinations.  Whole books are involved which often ramble, contradict and are
 constructed to make diversified appeals that are basically secular and directed
 to varying temperaments, ages and attitudes of potential readers.  Much of the
 material is skillful propaganda designed to make Scientology and E-meter
 auditing attractive in many varied, often inconsistent wrappings.
  The Food and Drug laws are designed to protect the public.  The literature
 disseminated by various Scientology groups is written for popular lay
 consumption.  The words and thrust of the writings must accordingly be so
 considered.  Claims as to the efficacy of the E-meter must be read to mean what
 they clearly purport to say to ordinary lay readers.  The Court notes that the
 task of determining whether a claim or representation is religious or non-
 religious, or whether a religious claim is genuine or merely "tacked on" to
 basically pseudo-scientific claims, is hardly less troublesome *362 than the
 task of determining whether a religious claim is true or false.  The Court has
 attempted to resolve the difficulty thus presented by the Court of Appeals by
 refusing to consider the truth or falsity of any claim which, in the
 understanding of the average reader, could be construed as resting on religious
 faith. All doubts on this issue have been resolved in favor of the Claimants.
 But the overall effect of the many separate writings and the writings as a
 whole cannot be seriously questioned.  Whether the documents are viewed singly
 or as a whole, the proof showed that many false scientific claims permeate the
 writings and that these are not even inferentially held out as religious,
 either in their sponsorship or context.
  It should be kept in mind at all times that the Church is but one of several
 groups engaged in the promotion of Scientology; others include the Hubbard
 Guidance Center, that offers non-religious processing and auditing to the
 public for a fee; Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI), a
 world-wide organization promoting Scientology among members of the organization
 who receive a monthly magazine ("Ability") and other benefits; and the
 Distribution Center, Inc., already mentioned.  The combined effort of all these
 activities is to persuade the public to come forward for auditing with an E-
 meter for a fee, and while some may be motivated or attracted by religious
 considerations, others who audit or are audited are not. [FN3]

      FN3. Ability, issue 14 (Ex. 9L, p. 14) states:  Scientology is going all
     out as a religion.  The religious aspect is highly functional, very true
     and is very-much-more successful ***  The public expects to have ministers
     around.  That's us folks.
     *** If you don't like religion for heaven's sakes call yourself a

  [4]  An individual was not required to be either a Church member or a
 Scientologist to be audited at cost of $500 for 25 hours, with state of "clear"
 guaranteed for $5,000.  The E-meter was available for sale to the public for a
 fee of $125.  The benefits of auditing were extravagantly advertised.  At the
 time this action was commenced, E-meters-perhaps as many as one-third the total
 supply-were being used by members of the public without any religious control
 or supervision. [FN4]  The writings were distributed to accompany the E-meter
 and intended to promote its use by members of the public; they were used by
 laymen for secular purposes; individually a great many contain false
 unqualified scientific claims without even a religious overlay or suggestion.
 Viewed as a whole the thrust of the writings is secular, not religious.  The
 writings are labeling within the meaning of the Act.  Thus, the E-meter is
 misbranded and its secular use must be condemned along with secular use of the
 offensive literature as labeling.  The misbranding results not only from
 misrepresentation by reason of 21 U.S.C. s 352(a) but because the labeling
 failed to bear adequate directions for use required by 21 U.S.C. s
 352(f) (1). [FN5]

      FN4. At the time of this action at least half the E-meters in use in the
     United States were being used by non-ordained lay personnel. Operators
     franchised by the Church who may or may not subscribe to its doctrines,
     provide secular auditing, retaining for themselves ninety percent of the
     fees collected and purport to send only ten percent to the Church.
     Claimants were unable to show that these franchised services were in any
     real sense religious missionary work in the sense that auditing was done by
     members of this group on a religious basis.

      FN5. Accompanying labeling must specify the conditions for which the
     device is intended and sufficient information under which the device can be
     used safely and effectively for the purposes for which it is intended to be
     used.  United States v. Shock, 379 F.2d 29 (8th Cir. 1967).  Adequate
     directions are literally lacking here.  It is impossible to write adequate
     directions for use of the E-meter by laymen.  Cf. United States v. Ellis
     Research Laboratories, 300 F.2d 550 (7th Cir. 1962).  The Church of
     Scientology of California v. Richardson, 437 F.2d 214 (9th Cir. 1971).

  *363 On the basis of these findings, the Government is entitled to some
 relief.  It is only when the Court confronts the question of appropriate remedy
 that serious difficulties arise.
  [5]  An initial issue presented is whether the normal Food and Drug
 remedies, 21 U.S.C. s 334, may under any circumstances be applied to the
 device when used by some as an "artifact" of a church.  A law designed to
 afford protection to the public against genuine evils may be used to regulate
 the activities of religion only if the regulation involved is the narrowest
 possible remedy to achieve the legitimate non-religious end, which in this case
 is only to protect the public against misrepresentation since the E-meter is
 harmless in itself. See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10
 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); Barnett v. Rodgers, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 296, 410 F.2d 995
  The Government argues that once a violation of the Act is established, the
 devices seized may be treated the same as any other misbranded device.  Since
 the bona fides of the religion remains unquestioned on this record, the
 Government's position is an oversimplification.  Here is a pseudo-science that
 has been adopted and adapted for religious purposes.  The literature held to
 make false representations, while in itself non-religious, nevertheless
 comprises for some, part of the writings, teachings, and history of a
 religion.  Those who belong to the Church and accept its beliefs assert that
 many illnesses may be alleviated by religious counseling designed to free the
 spirit of encumbrances.  They find in the rationale and procedures of
 Scientology satisfactory early explanations and techniques to implement what is
 essentially faith healing by use of the E-meter.  Thus they purport to read the
 purely secular writings of Scientology with semantic interpretations fostered
 by their evolving religious doctrine.  Purely scientific statements are given a
 theological slant by the initiated and the occasional theological indications
 in the writings are given enthusiastic exaggeration.  What the layman reads as
 straight science fiction becomes to the believer a bit of early imperfect
 scripture.  The result of all this is that what may appear to the layman as a
 factual scientific representation (clearly false) is not necessarily this at
 all when read by one who has embraced the doctrine of the Church.
  Accordingly, the Government's protestations that it is not interfering with
 religious practice when it seeks to condemn the E-meter and related literature
 must be qualified.  The Church is a religious institution protected by the
 First Amendment.  The E-meter is used by its ministers as part of the ritual
 and practice of the Church.  Serious interference indeed results if the Church
 is entirely prohibited from using the E-meter by condemnation or if the Court
 orders the Food and Drug Administration to oversee a general rewriting of all
 the writings the Church purveys.  Where there is a belief in a scientific fraud
 there is nonetheless an interference with the religion that entertains that
 belief if its writings are censored or suppressed.  Similarly, if a church uses
 a machine harmless in itself to aid its ministers in communicating with
 adherents, the destruction of that machine intrudes on religion. The dilemma
 cannot be resolved by attempting to isolate purely false scientific claims from
 claims that have sufficient religious content to be outside the Food and Drug
 laws.  There is a religious substance to everything when seen with the eyes of
 the believer.
  For these reasons, the Church may not be wholly prevented from practicing its
 faith or from seeking new adherents.  A decree of condemnation which ordered
 destruction of the device, with its necessary res judicata effect as to all E-
 meters in the country, would achieve this effect.  On the other hand, a
 condemnation decree which allowed the FDA to reform the writings as is done in
 the usual commercial drug misbranding case would give a Government agency
 excessive *364 power to interfere with the exercise of religion, fostering
 that Government "entanglement" with religion which has been recently condemned
 by the Supreme Court.  See, e. g., Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct.
 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).  Neither of these possible remedies is acceptable
 to the Court.
  Had the Government proceeded in equity to enjoin specific non-religious
 practices or representations which it believed to violate the Act, the Court
 could have curtailed the purely commercial use of the E-meter while leaving the
 Church free to practice its belief under limited circumstances.  An action in
 rem, however, acts only upon the device, and the Court cannot fashion a remedy
 in libel which distinguishes with particularity between religious and non-
 religious uses.  An equity proceeding is clearly the most satisfactory remedy
 in this and any similar future cases, and may in some instances be the only
 remedy which the Government may seek consistent with the First Amendment.
  [6]  Dismissal of this libel after eight years of legal proceedings is not
 justified on the grounds that the Government has not used the most appropriate
 remedy.  A decree of condemnation will therefore be entered, but the Church and
 others who base their use upon religious belief will be allowed to continue
 auditing practices upon specified conditions which allow the Food and Drug
 Administration as little discretion as possible to interfere in future
 activities of the religion.  Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. s 334 (d), upon the
 findings and conclusions contained in this Memorandum Opinion, relief in the
 following form shall be set out in an implementing order:
  All E-meters are condemned together with all writings seized.  The Government
 shall have its costs.
  The device and writings condemned shall be returned to the owners, upon
 execution of an appropriate bond, to be destroyed or brought into compliance
 with the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.  An E-meter shall be deemed to comply with
 the Act if and only if it is used, sold or distributed upon specified
  The device may be used or sold or distributed only for use in bona fide
 religious counseling.  No user, purchaser or distributee (other than the
 Founding Church of Scientology or an ordained practicing minister of the
 Church) shall be considered engaged in bona fide religious counseling unless
 and until such user, purchaser or distributee has filed an affidavit with the
 Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration stating the basis on which a
 claim of bona fide religious counseling is made, together with an undertaking
 to comply with all conditions of the judgment so long as the E-meter is used.
  The device should bear a prominent, clearly visible notice warning that any
 person using it for auditing or counseling of any kind is forbidden by law to
 represent that there is any medical or scientific basis for believing or
 asserting that the device is useful in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention
 of any disease.  It should be noted in the warning that the device has been
 condemned by a United States District Court for misrepresentation and
 misbranding under the Food and Drug laws, that use is permitted only as part of
 religious activity, and that the E-meter is not medically or scientifically
 capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.
  Each user, purchaser, and distributee of the E-meter shall sign a written
 statement that he has read such warning and understands its contents and such
 statements shall be preserved.
  Any and all literature which refers to the E-meter or to auditing, including
 advertisements, distributed directly or indirectly by the seller or distributor
 of the E-meter or by anyone utilizing or promoting the use of the E-meter,
 should bear a prominent notice printed in or permanently affixed to each item
 or such literature, stating that the device known as a Hubbard Electrometer, or
 E-meter, used in auditing, has been condemned by *365 a United States
 District Court on the grounds that the literature of Dianetics and Scientology
 contains false and misleading claims of a medical or scientific nature and that
 the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention
 of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any
 bodily function.  Where the notice is printed in or affixed to literature, it
 should appear either on the outside front cover or on the title page in letters
 no smaller than 11-point type.
  The E-meter should not be sold to any person or used in any counseling of any
 person except pursuant to a written contract, signed by the purchaser or
 counselee, which includes, among other things, a prominent notification as
 specified immediately above.
  The effect of this judgment will be to eliminate the E-meter as far as further
 secular use by Scientologists or others is concerned.  E-meter auditing will be
 permitted only in a religious setting subject to placing explicit warning
 disclaimers on the meter itself and on all labeling.  The Government has
 requested an opportunity to show that complete forfeiture and destruction of
 the E-meter is required, but the Court has concluded that however desirable
 this may be in the public interest, the Court is without power to so order in
 view of the protections afforded claimant and others similarly situated under
 the First Amendment.
  The foregoing shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of
 law.  The parties are directed to submit an appropriate form of order providing
 the relief indicated on or before September 1, 1971.
                                   APPENDIX A
  Representative Documents Found to be Non-Religious, and Samples of False or
 Misleading Claims Found Therein
   1.  Eight-page pamphlet, entitled "What is Scientology?"
   (Government Exhibit No. 16)
  "Scientology is today the only successfully validated psychotherapy in the
 world.  Tens of thousands of completely documented cases exist in the files of
 the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International.
  "The first science to put the cost of psycho-therapy within the range of any
 person's pocketbook.  A complete Freudian analysis costs $8000 to $15,000.
 Better results can be achieved in Scientology for $25 and, on a group basis
 for a few dollars."
  "The first science to make whole classes of backward children averagely bright
 using only drills the teacher can do a few minutes each day.
  "The first science to determine the basic cause of disease.
  "The first science to contain exact technology to routinely alleviate physical
 illnesses with complete predictable success.
  "The first science of mind to prove conclusively that physical illness can
 stem from mental disturbance, a fact which Freud held only as a theory, and
 only seldom demonstrated.
   2.  Twenty-four page pamphlet, entitled "Ability Issue 71:  Being Clear and
 How to Get There," by L. Ron Hubbard
   (Government Exhibit No. 9BA)
  "Scientologically, the optimum individual is called the clear.  One will hear
 much of that word, both as a noun and a verb, so it is well to spend time here
 at the outset setting forth exactly what can be called a clear, the goal of
 Scientology processing.
  "A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and
 repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenic (self-
 generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills.  These tests confirm the
 clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations.  Additional tests of his
 intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of
 *366 his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and
  "Further, these results can be obtained on a comparative basis. A neurotic
 individual, possessed also of psychosomatic ills, can be tested for those
 aberrations and illnesses demonstrating that they exist.  He can then be given
 Scientology processing to the end of clearing these neuroses and ills.
 Finally, he can be examined, with the above results.  This, in passing, is an
 experiment which has been performed many times with invariable results.  It is
 a matter of laboratory test that all individuals who have organically complete
 nervous systems respond in this fashion to Scientology clearing."
   (3) Hard back book, 452 pages, entitled "Dianetics:  The Modern Science of
 Mental Health," by L. Ron Hubbard.
  "Simple though it is, dianetics does and is these things:
   1.  It is an organized science of thought built on definite axioms:
 statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences.
   2.  It contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all
 inorganic mental ills and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with assurance of
 complete cure in unselected cases.
   3.  It produces a condition of ability and rationality for Man well in
 advance of the current norm, enhancing rather than destroying his vigor and
   4.  Dianetics gives a complete insight into the full potentialities of the
 mind, discovering them to be well in excess of past supposition.
   5.  The basic nature of man is discovered in dianetics rather than hazarded
 or postulated, since that basic nature can be brought into action in any
 individual completely.  And that basic nature is discovered to be good.
   6.  The single source of mental derangement is discovered and demonstrated,
 on a clinical or laboratory basis, by dianetics.
   7.  The extent, storage capacity and recallability of the human memory is
 finally established by dianetics.
   8.  The full recording abilities of the mind are discovered by dianetics with
 the conclusion that they are quite dissimilar to former suppositions.
   9.  Dianetics brings forth the non-germ theory of disease, complementing bio-
 chemistry and Pasteur's work on the germ theory to embrace the field.
   10.  With dianetics ends the "necessity" of destroying the brain by shock or
 surgery to effect "tractability" in mental patients and "adjust" them.
   11.  A workable explanation of the physiological effects of drugs and
 endocrine substances exists in dianetics and many problems posed by
 endocrinology are answered."
                                   "Chapter V
                             PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLNESS"
  "Psycho-somatic illnesses are those which have a mental origin but which are
 nevertheless organic.  Despite the fact that there existed no precise
 scientific proof of this before dianetics, an opinion as to their existence has
 been strong since the days of Greece, and in recent times various drug
 preparations have been concocted and sold which were supposed to overcome these
 sicknesses.  Some success was experienced, sufficient to warrant a great deal
 of work on the part of researchers.  Peptic ulcers, for instance, have yielded
 to persuasion and environmental change.  A recent drug called ACTH has had
 astonishing but wildly unpredictable results. Allergies have been found to
 yield more or less to things which depressed histamine in the body.
  "The problem of psycho-somatic illness is entirely embraced by dianetics, and
 by dianetic technique such illness has been eradicated entirely in every case."
  "On the physical therapy level anything as violent as surgery or exodontistry
 in the psycho-somatic plane is utter barbarism in the light of dianetics.
 "Toothache" is normally psycho-somatic. *367 Organic illnesses enough to
 fill several catalogues are psycho-somatic.  No recourse to surgery of any kind
 should be had until it is certain that the ailment is not psycho-somatic or
 that the illness will not diminish by itself if the potency of the reactive
 mind is reduced.  **"
   (4) Twelve-page pamphlet, entitled "Ability Issue 72"
   (Government Exhibit No. 114)