F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.

wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BARRY VAN SICKLE, ESQ., SBN 98645 1079 SUNRISE AVENUE, SUITE B-315 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE: (916) 549-8784 EMAIL: barryvansickle@comcast.net METZGER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ., SBN 116020 401 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4966 TELEPHONE: (562) 437-4499 TELECOPIER: (562) 436-1561 Attorneys for Plaintiff Laura Ann DeCrescenzo SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, aka LAURA A. DIECKMAN,

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) INTERNATIONAL, a corporate ) entity, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY ) CENTER, previously sued herein ) as Doe No. 1, a California ) corporation, AND DOES 2 - 20, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )

CASE NO. BC411018 Assigned to the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian, Dept. 41 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ASSERTING CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: (1) FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION; FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW; DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION; FALSE IMPRISONMENT; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 970 AND 1194; AND VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200

(2) (3)

(4) (5) (6) (7)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL [MADE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE O CIVIL PROCEDURE §§ 600 ET SEQ. AND PURSUANT TO RULE 38 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOULD THIS CASE EVER BE REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT] SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 through

Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, hereby alleges:

THE PARTIES

1.

At all material times hereto, Plaintiff, Laura Ann

DeCrescenzo, resided and worked in the State of California. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges

that Defendant, Church of Scientology International (“CSI”), is a California corporation, which at all material times hereto, was doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges

that Defendant, Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), previously sued herein as Doe No. 1, is a California corporation, which at all material times hereto, was doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4. 20 The true names and capacities of Defendants Does 2 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said

defendants by such fictitious names.

Plaintiff will amend this

complaint to state the true names and capacities of said fictitious defendants when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed

and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Does 2 through 20 are in some manner responsible for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. // // // // 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. From

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

approximately

1991

to

2004,

Plaintiff

was

employed by Defendant, CSI. lived at Defendant, CSI’s

During this time, Plaintiff worked and facilities located in Los Angeles,

California.

Plaintiff started working for Defendant, CSI, at age

twelve and continued working for Defendant, CSI, until age twentyfive. As alleged in detail below, during Plaintiff’s employment,

Defendant, CSI, deprived Plaintiff of her rights to privacy and liberty, intentionally caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress, and failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage or post required wage orders. 6. Plaintiff also worked for Defendant, RTC. Defendant,

RTC, was responsible for and directly oversaw a number of the policies and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. Moreover, one or

more top RTC executives were actively involved in drafting and using bogus forms, releases, and purported contracts to scare and

intimidate its employees, including Plaintiff, even though Defendant, RTC, knew that said forms and waivers were unenforceable and contrary to law. // // // // // // // // 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, she

became pregnant on one occasion in approximately 1996. Plaintiff was seventeen years old at the time she became pregnant. 8. Defendants forced Plaintiff to have an abortion by

threatening Plaintiff with losing her job, housing, and losing her husband if she did not have an abortion. Further, Defendants

threatened that upon losing her job, Plaintiff would owe Defendants a “Freeloader Debt,” which is a supposed debt that Plaintiff would owe Defendants for purported Scientology training and services. Plaintiff was subjected to these threats for two days straight. 9. At all material times hereto, Defendants have had an

internal policy of coercing and forcing their female employees, including Plaintiff, to have abortions, so as to maximize the workload from female employees and to avoid child care issues. 10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

coercion and threats of terminating Plaintiff’s job, threats that Plaintiff would never again see her husband, and threats that Plaintiff would incur a substantial debt, Plaintiff had an abortion in approximately 1996. 11. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in

deciding whether to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion. A woman’s right of privacy in deciding whether or not to bear 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

children

is

one

of

the

most

intimate it

and

fundamental from

of

all

constitutional

rights

because

follows

repeated

acknowledgments of the Supreme Court and other courts of this State of a right to privacy in matters related to marriage, family, and sex. 12. Defendants invaded Plaintiff’s right of privacy in

deciding whether to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion by forcing Plaintiff to have an abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk never seeing her husband again, and risk incurring a substantial debt. 13. Defendants’ conduct in forcing Plaintiff to have an

abortion was a serious invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy because it stripped Plaintiff of one of the most intimate and fundamental of all constitutional rights, which is a woman’s right to privacy in deciding whether or not to bear children. It is well-established

that this right of personal choice is central to a woman’s control not only of her own body, but also to the control of her social role and personal destiny. Particularly in the workplace, a woman has a

heightened right of privacy in deciding whether or not to bear children. 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s

conduct in forcing Plaintiff to have an abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk losing her husband, and risk incurring a substantial debt, Plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, depression, feelings of powerlessness, and anguish. // // 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

15.

Defendants’ conduct in forcing Plaintiff to have an

abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk losing her husband, and risk incurring a significant debt, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 16. Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in

a sum to be established according to proof. Further, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against forced abortions in violation of the right to privacy and reasonable attorney's fees according to proof. This

claim is made for the public good and to discourage this outrageous conduct from continuing in the future. 17. From approximately 1996 to 2004, Plaintiff could not

reasonably have discovered that she had a claim for forced abortion in violation of her constitutional right of privacy because Plaintiff was enmeshed in a confidential relationship with Defendants and was brainwashed by Defendants such that she had no comprehension of her legal rights. The confidential relationship that existed between

Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as the brainwashing to which Plaintiff was subjected, are demonstrated by the following: (A) Plaintiff was recruited by Defendants when she

was the tender age of nine while living in New Mexico, and moved away from her family to live and work at Defendants’ facilities in California when she was a mere twelve years old. During Defendants’

recruitment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was led to believe that her life at Defendants’ facilities would remain relatively normal -

specifically, Plaintiff believed that she would continue to get an education, that she would be allowed to visit her parents with ease, and that one day, she could have children and a family of her own. Plaintiff also believed that she 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT would receive training in

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Scientology Scientology.

and

would

be

allowed

to

move

“up

the

bridge”

of

Plaintiff therefore signed a "billion year contract"

with Defendants at age twelve. (B) Once Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, Defendants severely restricted Plaintiff’s access to the outside world. Plaintiff had limited and restricted access to email, telephones, the internet, or uncensored television. Defendants also opened, read, and censored all mail. (C) Even Plaintiff’s access to her parents was

restricted, as Plaintiff only was allowed to leave Defendants’ facilities upon receiving special permission from Defendants, which rarely was granted. Each time before Plaintiff left Defendants’

facilities and each time before Plaintiff returned to Defendants’ facilities, she was required to undergo a security checking procedure (known as a “sec check”). During a sec check, Plaintiff was, among

other things, interrogated by Defendants using a primitive lie detector known as an “e-meter.” The information that Plaintiff

disclosed during these interrogations was documented by written means and/or recorded by video or audio means. Sec checks are used to

gather and record confidential and embarrassing information, and to wear a worker’s resistance down by hours of repetitive and intrusive questioning. Plaintiff was subjected to sec checks on numerous other occasions during her employment with Defendants as well, as

Defendants deemed appropriate. // // // // 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 during her sophistication.

(D)

Plaintiff

had

little

formal

education

or

At the time Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, she had only a seventh grade education, and contrary to Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff received no formal education while living at Defendants’ facilities. (E) Plaintiff was entirely dependent on Defendants

for her sustenance, shelter, and income. (F) Defendants commanded a rigid work schedule from

Plaintiff; Plaintiff worked seven days a week, often for 100 or more hours, at below minimum wage. During Plaintiff’s entire employment

with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely and consistently was deprived of her sleep and required to stay up for days on end. (G) To punish Plaintiff for various purported wrongs employment, Project Defendants ("RPF") sent where Plaintiff Defendants to the

Rehabilitation

Force

forced

Plaintiff to work under harsh conditions and perform manual labor. At the RPF, Plaintiff also was not allowed to leave without special permission, had no freedom of movement, was almost constantly under guard and being watched, and was subjected to near total deprivation of personal liberties. Plaintiff was confined to the RPF for several years of her employment. (H) Defendants forbade Plaintiff from reading or thinking anything negative about the Church of Scientology. This was enforced through the isolation tactics detailed above, as well as through the constant threat of sec checks and other forms of punishment, such as the RPF. // // 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(I)

Plaintiff spent the entirety of her formative

years at Defendants’ facilities, from age twelve to age twenty-five, and was isolated from mainstream society during this entire period. (J) During her thirteen years at Defendants’ various facilities (from age twelve to age twenty-five), Plaintiff’s female co-workers regularly were ordered by Defendants to have abortions, and Plaintiff believed these abortions and Defendants’ ordering of these abortions were standard protocol. 18. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 19. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 20. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 21. From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Indeed,

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 22. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. // // // // 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

23.

During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, she

became pregnant on one occasion in approximately 1996. Plaintiff was seventeen years old at the time she became pregnant. 24. Defendants forced Plaintiff to have an abortion by

threatening Plaintiff with losing her job, housing, and losing her husband if she did not have an abortion. Further, Defendants

threatened that upon losing her job, Plaintiff would owe Defendants a “Freeloader Debt,” which is a supposed debt that Plaintiff would owe Defendants for purported Scientology training and services. Plaintiff was subjected to these threats for two days straight. 25. coercing their Defendants have an internal policy of forcing and female employees, including Plaintiff, to have

abortions, so as to maximize the workload from female employees and to avoid child care issues. // // 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

26.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

coercion and threats of terminating Plaintiff’s job, threats that Plaintiff lose her housing, threats that Plaintiff would never again see her husband, and threats that Plaintiff would incur a substantial debt, Plaintiff had an abortion in approximately 1996. 27. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in

deciding whether to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion. A woman’s right of privacy in deciding whether or not to bear children is one of the most intimate and fundamental of all privacy rights because it follows from repeated acknowledgments by the Supreme Court and courts of this State of a right to privacy in matters related to marriage, family, and sex. 28. Defendants intentionally intruded into Plaintiff’s

private affairs and concerns in deciding whether to continue her pregnancy or have an abortion by ordering Plaintiff to have an abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk losing her husband, and risk incurring a substantial debt. 29. Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s private

decision of whether to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A woman’s right

of privacy in deciding whether or not to bear children is one of the most intimate and fundamental of all privacy rights; this right is central to a woman’s control not only of her own body, but also to the control of her social role and personal destiny. Further, in the workplace, there is a heightened sense and expectation of privacy as to matters concerning family and sex. // // 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

conduct in forcing Plaintiff to have an abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk losing her husband, and risk incurring

substantial debt, Plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, depression, feelings of powerlessness, and anguish. 31. Defendants’ conduct in forcing Plaintiff to have an

abortion or risk losing her job and housing, risk losing her husband, and risk incurring significant debt was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 32. Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in

a sum to be established according to proof. 33. From approximately 1996 to 2004, Plaintiff could not

reasonably have discovered that she had a claim for forced abortion in violation of her common law right of privacy because Plaintiff was enmeshed in a confidential relationship with Defendants and was brainwashed by Defendants such that she had no comprehension of her legal rights. The confidential relationship that existed between

Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as the brainwashing to which Plaintiff was subjected, are demonstrated by the following: (A) Plaintiff was recruited by Defendants when she

was the tender age of nine while living in New Mexico, and moved away from her family to live and work at Defendants’ facilities in California when she was a mere twelve years old. During Defendants’

recruitment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was led to believe that her life at Defendants’ facilities would remain relatively normal -

specifically, Plaintiff believed that she would continue to get an education, that she would be allowed to visit her parents with ease, 14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and that one day, she could have children and a family of her own. Plaintiff Scientology Scientology. also and believed would be that she would to move receive “up the training bridge” in of

allowed

Plaintiff therefore signed a "billion year contract"

with Defendants at age twelve. (B) Once Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, Defendants severely restricted Plaintiff’s access to the outside world. Plaintiff had limited and restricted access to email, telephones, the internet, or uncensored television. opened, read, and censored all mail. (C) Even Plaintiff’s access to her parents was Defendants

restricted, as Plaintiff only was allowed to leave Defendants’ facilities upon receiving special permission from Defendants, which rarely was granted. Each time before Plaintiff left Defendants’

facilities and each time before Plaintiff returned to Defendants’ facilities, she was required to undergo a security checking procedure (known as a “sec check”). During a sec check, Plaintiff was, among

other things, interrogated by Defendants using a primitive lie detector known as an “e-meter.” The information that Plaintiff

disclosed during these interrogations was documented by written means and/or recorded by video or audio means. Sec checks are used to

gather and record confidential and embarrassing information, and to wear a worker’s resistance down by hours of repetitive and intrusive questioning. Plaintiff was subjected to sec checks on numerous other occasions during her employment with Defendants as well, as

Defendants deemed appropriate. // // 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 during her sophistication.

(D)

Plaintiff

had

little

formal

education

or

At the time Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, she had only a seventh grade education, and contrary to Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff received no formal education while living at Defendants’ facilities. (E) Plaintiff was entirely dependent on Defendants

for her sustenance, shelter, and income. (F) Defendants commanded a rigid work schedule from

Plaintiff; Plaintiff worked seven days a week, often for 100 or more hours, at below minimum wage. During Plaintiff’s entire employment

with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely and consistently was deprived of her sleep and required to stay up for days on end. (G) To punish Plaintiff for various purported wrongs employment, Project Defendants ("RPF") sent where Plaintiff Defendants to the

Rehabilitation

Force

forced

Plaintiff to work under harsh conditions and perform manual labor. At the RPF, Plaintiff also was not allowed to leave without special permission, had no freedom of movement, was almost constantly under guard and being watched, and was subjected to near total deprivation of personal liberties. Plaintiff was confined to the RPF for several years of her employment. (H) Defendants forbade Plaintiff from reading or thinking anything negative about the Church of Scientology. This was enforced through the isolation tactics detailed above, as well as through the constant threat of sec checks and other forms of punishment, such as the RPF. // // 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(I)

Plaintiff spent the entirety of her formative

years at Defendants’ facilities, from age twelve to age twenty-five, and was isolated from mainstream society during this entire period. (J) During her thirteen years at Defendants’ various facilities (from age twelve to age twenty-five), Plaintiff’s female co-workers regularly were ordered by Defendants to have abortions, and Plaintiff believed these abortions and Defendants’ ordering of these abortions were standard protocol. 34. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 35. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 36. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 37. From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. 18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Indeed,

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 38. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and // // // 19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

39. From approximately July 2001 to April 2004, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s constitutional right of liberty set forth in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution by confining Plaintiff to the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”) by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion. 40. In approximately July 2001, Plaintiff was informed by

Defendants that she was being sent to the RPF for having committed purported wrongs. At that time, Plaintiff refused to go to the RPF

and informed Defendants that she wanted to leave their facilities. Instead of allowing Plaintiff to leave, Defendants “handled”

Plaintiff and threatened that if she did not go to the RPF, Plaintiff would lose her job and housing, Plaintiff would incur substantial “Freeloader” debt, Plaintiff would no longer be able to associate with any of her friends and co-workers at Defendants’ facilities, and // // // 20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that

Defendants

would

disclose

embarrassing

information

about

Plaintiff that was obtained during sec checks. Defendants’ coercion and repeated threats went on for a period of a week or more, at which time, Plaintiff finally gave in and was transported to the RPF. 41. Once Plaintiff arrived at the RPF, she again decided Plaintiff was

that she did not want to be there and asked to leave.

not allowed to leave, and instead, Defendants made Plaintiff stay up for hours on end, and threatened, intimidated, and coerced Plaintiff into staying at the RPF. Defendants again threatened that Plaintiff

would lose her job and housing, incur substantial “Freeloader” debt, Plaintiff would no longer be able to associate with any of her friends and co-workers at Defendants’ facilities, and that Defendants would disclose embarrassing information about Plaintiff that was obtained during sec checks. 42. The RPF was brutal, and Plaintiff was forced to work

under harsh conditions and perform manual labor. Indeed, on at least one occasion, Plaintiff was instructed to clean a large trash dumpster with a toothbrush. When Plaintiff purportedly acted out in

the RPF, she was punished by being forced to run around the basement of the building where the RPF was located or do push-ups. 43. Plaintiff was typically guarded while in the RPF.

Indeed, Plaintiff was restricted to the building where the RPF was located, and was only allowed outside the building on authorized work cycles. When and if Plaintiff traveled from building to building, When

she was accompanied by a security guard or control group.

Plaintiff used the phone, her conversations typically were monitored by a security guard. // 21 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

44.

Plaintiff reasonably believed that if she exercised

her right of liberty and attempted to leave the RPF, Defendants would retaliate against Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff recalls having to sign a bond with Defendants, whereby Plaintiff would owe

Defendants one million dollars or ten million dollars for “each breach of security.” Moreover, given Defendants’ repeated threats,

Plaintiff reasonably believed that if she left the RPF, she would lose her job and housing, incur substantial “Freeloader” debt, would no longer be able to associate with any of her friends or co-workers at Defendants’ facilities, and that Defendants would disclose

embarrassing information about Plaintiff that was obtained during her sec checks. Plaintiff knew from experience that once someone left

Defendants’ facilities, she never again saw, heard from, or spoke to those individuals. 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

interference with Plaintiff’s constitutional right of liberty whereby Plaintiff was confined to the RPF for several years of her life as a result of Defendants’ repeated threats, intimidation, and coercion, Plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, depression, feelings of

powerlessness, and anguish. 46. Defendants’ conduct in interfering with Plaintiff’s

constitutional right of liberty by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 47. Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in

a sum to be established according to proof. Further, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against future confinement and deprivation of liberty 22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

by means of threats, coercion, and intimidation on the part of Defendants, and reasonable attorney's fees according to proof. This claim is made for the public good and to discourage this outrageous conduct from continuing in the future. 48. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 49. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. // 23 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

50.

Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 51. From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. Indeed,

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to 24 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.”

Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 52. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid. // // 25 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

Between

July

2001

and

April

2004,

Defendants

intentionally confined Plaintiff to the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”) by means of unreasonable duress. 54. In approximately July 2001, Plaintiff was informed

by Defendants that she was being sent to the RPF for having committed purported wrongs. At that time, Plaintiff refused to go to the RPF

and informed Defendants that she wanted to leave their facilities. Instead of allowing Plaintiff to leave, Defendants “handled”

Plaintiff and threatened that if she did not go to the RPF, Plaintiff would lose her job and housing, Plaintiff would incur substantial “Freeloader” debt, Plaintiff would no longer be able to associate with any of her friends and co-workers at Defendants’ facilities, and that Defendants would disclose embarrassing information about

Plaintiff that was obtained during sec checks. Defendants’ coercion and repeated threats went on for a period of a week or more, at which time, Plaintiff finally gave in and was transported to the RPF. 55. Once Plaintiff arrived at the RPF, she again decided Plaintiff was

that she did not want to be there and asked to leave.

not allowed to leave, and instead, Defendants made Plaintiff stay up for hours on end, and threatened, intimidated, and coerced Plaintiff into staying at the RPF. Defendants again threatened that Plaintiff

would lose her job and housing, incur substantial “Freeloader” debt, Plaintiff would no longer be able to associate with any of her 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

friends and co-workers at Defendants’ facilities, and that Defendants would disclose embarrassing information about Plaintiff that was obtained during sec checks. Although Plaintiff thereafter remained

at the RPF, Plaintiff was not capable of, and did not, voluntarily consent to her confinement at the RPF. 56. RPF. Plaintiff was watched almost constantly while at the

Indeed, Plaintiff was restricted to the building where the RPF

was located, and was only allowed outside the building on authorized work cycles. When and if Plaintiff traveled from building to

building, she was accompanied by a security guard, and when Plaintiff used the phone, her conversations were monitored by a security guard. Plaintiff was not permitted to speak to anyone, unless spoken to first. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

intentional confinement of Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, depression, feelings of powerlessness, and anguish. 58. Defendants’ conduct of intentionally confining

Plaintiff to the RPF without her consent was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 59. Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in

a sum to be established according to proof. 60. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 61. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 62. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

63.

From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. Indeed,

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 64. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she 29 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

65.

During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants from

approximately 1991 to 2004, Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress. // // // // 30 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

66.

Defendants’

conduct

that

was

intended

to

cause

Plaintiff severe emotional distress includes Defendants’ repeated interrogations of Plaintiff while performing purported “sec checks” and Defendants’ supposed punishment and rehabilitation of Plaintiff in the RPF. 67. As described in preceding paragraphs, security

checking or sec checking is a process whereby an employee, such as Plaintiff, is interrogated on a primitive lie detector known as an e-meter. This process is designed and employed to make sure that the worker has no thoughts of trying to escape or becoming a Scientology risk. Employees such as Plaintiff are told, and come to believe, Any such

that they can have no secrets from Defendants’ management.

secrets or bad thoughts will be exposed in "sec checks" on the e-meter. This process started for Plaintiff on or before her first

planned visit with her parents at age twelve and continued for her thirteen years of working for Defendants. 68. The sec checks performed by Defendants on Plaintiff Plaintiff was interrogated

were invasive, degrading, and abusive.

by Defendants for hours, occasionally day after day, and was forced and coerced into confessing embarrassing information. The

information that Plaintiff disclosed was then documented by written means and/or recorded by video or audio means. Defendants thereafter threatened Plaintiff with disclosing this embarrassing information when Defendants detected that Plaintiff wanted to leave their

facilities, was failing to comply with Defendants’ policies, or when Defendants felt that Plaintiff was a risk to Scientology. // // 31 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

69.

As described in preceding paragraphs, Plaintiff also

was forced to spend several years of her employment with Defendants in the RPF, from July 2001 to April 2004. In the RPF, Plaintiff was

forced to do manual labor and live under incredibly harsh conditions. Indeed, on at least one occasion, Plaintiff was instructed to clean a large trash dumpster with a toothbrush. When Plaintiff purportedly acted out in the RPF, she was punished by being forced to run around the basement of the building where the RPF was located or do pushups. In addition, Plaintiff's pay, which already was below minimum

wage, was docked by Defendants while she worked in the RPF. 70. Likewise, Plaintiff was watched almost constantly

while in the RPF. Plaintiff was restricted to the building where the RPF was located, and was only allowed outside the building on authorized work cycles. When and if Plaintiff traveled from building to building, she was accompanied by a security guard, and when Plaintiff used the phone, her conversations were monitored by a security guard. Plaintiff was not permitted to speak to anyone, This confinement and Defendants’ almost

unless spoken to first.

constant watch over Plaintiff lasted for over two and half years of the time that Plaintiff lived and worked at Defendants’ facilities. 71. Defendants’ conduct in subjecting Plaintiff to

lengthy, harassing, and degrading interrogations or “sec checks” was outrageous and was in reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. This conduct was

extreme and clearly exceeded the bounds of that usually tolerated in civilized society. Indeed, this type of conduct is not tolerated

when used by police departments, let alone, when used by employers. // 32 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

72.

Defendants’ conduct in subjecting Plaintiff to years

of life in the RPF also was outrageous and was in reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. The tasks that Defendants mandated Plaintiff complete and Defendants’ confinement and isolation was Plaintiff was extreme and clearly exceeded the bounds of that usually tolerated in civilized society. 73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

outrageous conduct and reckless disregard, Plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress, including anxiety, of embarrassment, and

humiliation, anguish.

shame,

depression,

feelings

powerlessness,

74. Defendants’ outrageous conduct and reckless disregard for Plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. 75. Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in

a sum to be established according to proof. 76. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 77. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. 33 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 78. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 79. From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of 34 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Scientology.

As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. Indeed,

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 80. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to 35 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities.

These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF WAGE AND HOUR LAWS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 970 AND 1194 (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

81.

From approximately 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff performed

work for Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, controlled wages, hours, and working conditions. 82. When Defendants solicited Plaintiff to work and live

at their facilities in approximately 1991, Defendants represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be paid for her work, that Plaintiff would receive up to three weeks vacation per year, that Plaintiff would be allowed to visit her parents once a month, that Plaintiff would work hours consistent with being a minor, and that Plaintiff would continue to get a formal education while working at Defendants’ facilities. // 36 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

83.

Defendants’ representations were not true.

During

Plaintiff’s work for Defendants from 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff was never given three weeks of vacation time per year, Plaintiff was not allowed to visit her parents once a month (indeed, Plaintiff’s access to her parents was severely restricted), Plaintiff routinely worked seven days a week for 100 or more hours (which is not consistent with the working hours of a minor), and Plaintiff did not receive any formal education. 84. Defendants knew at the time that they made the

aforementioned representations to Plaintiff in representations were not true. With respect

1991 that these to workers in

Plaintiff’s position, Defendants’ have an internal policy of limiting and restricting vacation time, limiting workers’ access to their parents and outside family, and of requiring these workers to consistently work seven days a week for 100 or more hours. Moreover, because Defendants command so many working hours of their employees and do not have a formal education system, Defendants knew that Plaintiff would not receive a formal education while under their employ. 85. Defendants further intended that Plaintiff would rely

on their representations regarding Plaintiff’s working conditions. This is demonstrated by the fact that Defendants solicited Plaintiff at the age of twelve to leave her family in New Mexico and move to California to live and work at Defendants’ facilities. // // // // 37 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and

86.

Plaintiff

reasonably

relied

on

Defendants’

representations and moved from New Mexico to California for the purpose of working for Defendants. It is logical for a twelve year

old to believe that she will be permitted three weeks of vacation time a year, that she will be allowed reasonable access to her parents, and that she will work a average work week consistent with being a minor, particularly when representations to that effect are made. Moreover, it is logical for a twelve year old to believe that

she will continue to receive an education when moving to work and live away from her family at a young age; a certain level of education is mandated by law. 87. As a direct and to Plaintiff proximate result of Defendants’ in soliciting Plaintiff as an

misrepresentations

employee, Plaintiff suffered lost income and education. 88. As a further direct and proximate result of

Defendants’ misrepresentations to Plaintiff in soliciting Plaintiff as an employee, Plaintiff suffers from emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, depression, feelings of powerlessness, and anguish. 89. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants’ aforementioned

representations was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm as Plaintiff would not have moved away from her home and family or foregone her formal education in the absence of relying on

Defendants’ representations. 89. education Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for her lost income and for her emotional distress in a sum to be

established according to proof. // 38 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

90.

Plaintiff

also

was

harmed

during

her

work

for

Defendants because she was paid less than the minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the minimum

wage during Plaintiff’s entire employment with Defendants, from 1991 to 2004. Further, during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, from 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff routinely worked overtime and Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for that overtime. 91. Plaintiff seeks to recover lost wages, with interest,

for all of the years that she worked for Defendants and was not paid minimum wage. 92. Plaintiff also seeks to recover overtime compensation, with interest, due her for all of her hours of unpaid overtime work for Defendants. 93. Plaintiff also seeks to recover penalties pursuant to

Labor Code Section 203 in an amount equivalent to wages from the date of the cessation of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants to the present date and to the date of judgment, because Defendants wilfully failed to pay Plaintiff wages owed to Plaintiff on the date of the cessation of her employment, have continued to fail to pay such wages to the present date, and will continue to fail to pay such wages to Plaintiff until judgment is rendered and paid in this action. 94. Plaintiff also seeks to recover reasonable attorney’s

fees according to proof pursuant to applicable provisions of the Labor Code. 95. From approximately 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff could not

reasonably have discovered that she had a claim against Defendants for Defendants’ false representations in soliciting Plaintiff’s employment and Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wage and overtime 39 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pay because Plaintiff was enmeshed in a confidential relationship with Defendants and was brainwashed by Defendants such that she had no comprehension of her legal rights. The confidential relationship

that existed between Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as the brainwashing to which Plaintiff was subjected, are demonstrated by the following: (A) Plaintiff was recruited by Defendants when she

was the tender age of nine while living in New Mexico, and moved away from her family to live and work at Defendants’ facilities in California when she was a mere twelve years old. During Defendants’

recruitment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was led to believe that her life at Defendants’ facilities would remain relatively normal -

specifically, Plaintiff believed that she would continue to get an education, that she would be allowed to visit her parents with ease, and that one day, she could have children and a family of her own. Plaintiff Scientology Scientology. also and believed would be that she would to move receive “up the training bridge” in of

allowed

Plaintiff therefore signed a "billion year contract"

with Defendants at age twelve. (B) Once Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, Defendants severely restricted Plaintiff’s access to the outside world. Plaintiff had limited and restricted access to email, telephones, the internet, or uncensored television. opened, read, and censored all mail. (C) Even Plaintiff’s access to her parents was Defendants

restricted, as Plaintiff only was allowed to leave Defendants’ facilities upon receiving special permission from Defendants, which rarely was granted. Each time before Plaintiff left Defendants’ 40 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

facilities and each time before Plaintiff returned to Defendants’ facilities, she was required to undergo a security checking procedure (known as a “sec check”). During a sec check, Plaintiff was, among

other things, interrogated by Defendants using a primitive lie detector known as an “e-meter.” The information that Plaintiff

disclosed during these interrogations was documented by written means and/or recorded by video or audio means. Sec checks are used to

gather and record confidential and embarrassing information, and to wear a worker’s resistance down by hours of repetitive and intrusive questioning. Plaintiff was subjected to sec checks on numerous other occasions during her employment with Defendants as well, as

Defendants deemed appropriate. (D) sophistication. Plaintiff had little formal education or

At the time Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, she had only a seventh grade education, and contrary to Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff received no formal education while living at Defendants’ facilities. (E) Plaintiff was entirely dependent on Defendants

for her sustenance, shelter, and income. (F) Defendants commanded a rigid work schedule from

Plaintiff; Plaintiff worked seven days a week, often for 100 or more hours, at below minimum wage. During Plaintiff’s entire employment

with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely and consistently was deprived of her sleep and required to stay up for days on end. (G) To punish Plaintiff for various purported wrongs during her employment, Project Defendants ("RPF") sent where Plaintiff Defendants to the

Rehabilitation

Force

forced

Plaintiff to work under harsh conditions and perform manual labor. 41 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

At the RPF, Plaintiff also was not allowed to leave without special permission, had no freedom of movement, was almost constantly under guard and being watched, and was subjected to near total deprivation of personal liberties. Plaintiff was confined to the RPF for several years of her employment. (H) Defendants forbade Plaintiff from reading or thinking anything negative about the Church of Scientology. This was enforced through the isolation tactics detailed above, as well as through the constant threat of sec checks and other forms of punishment, such as the RPF. (I) Plaintiff spent the entirety of her formative

years at Defendants’ facilities, from age twelve to age twenty-five, and was isolated from mainstream society during this entire period. 96. Further, from approximately 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff

could not reasonably have discovered that she had a claim against Defendants for Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay, because Defendants did not post the wage and hour notices that they legally were required to post in Plaintiff’s workplace. Without these wage and hour notices, Plaintiff did not have actual notice of her rights to minimum wage and her rights to overtime compensation. 97. In 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work

in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her to be released from the RPF multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay in

the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 42 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

98.

Upon

learning

of

Plaintiff’s

suicidal

actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 99. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave

Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. // // 43 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

100.

From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to

her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities and because of Defendants’ representations with respect to said documents. During this time,

2004 to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. Indeed,

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, CSI, approximately $120,000 for her

on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff

continued paying this purported “Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief in Defendants’ obligations. representations regarding her legal rights and

Moreover, Plaintiff continued to purchase the Church

of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 101. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she 44 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ. (By Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, Against All Named Defendants and Does 2-20)

102. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants from approximately 1991 to 2004, and upon Plaintiff’s termination of her employment with Defendants, Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices. // // 45 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 forcing

103. Defendants’ unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices include: (A) their Defendants’ internal policy of coercing to and have

female

employees,

including

Plaintiff,

abortions, so as to maximize the workload from female employees and to avoid child care issues. (B) Defendants’ repeated confinement of their

employees, including Plaintiff, to the RPF by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion. (C) Defendants’ practice of threatening to disclose

embarrassing and confidential information about their employees, including Plaintiff, when Defendants detect their employees want to leave their facilities or fail to comply with Defendants’ policies or orders. (D) Defendants’ practice of imposing substantial

“Freeloader Debts” on former employees, including Plaintiff, for purported on-the-job training, knowing that these purported debts are invalid and unenforceable. Defendant, CSI, imposed a $120,000 debt

on Plaintiff when she left Defendants’ facilities in 2004. Plaintiff paid this debt long after leaving Defendants’ facilities. (E) Defendants’ solicitation of employees, including

Plaintiff, through false representations regarding the workers’ access to their parents, schedule, and education that they will receive as employees when working and living at Defendants’

facilities. (F) Defendants’ policy of paying their employees,

including Plaintiff, less than the legal minimum wage. // 46 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unlawful, suffered

(G)

Defendants’

policy

of

requiring

employees,

including Plaintiff, to work more than eight hours a day and more than forty hours per week without paying these employees overtime compensation. (H) Defendants’ refusal to post Wage and Hour Notices

informing their employees of their rights as workers. (I) Defendants’ practice of coercing employees,

including Plaintiff, into signing documents upon their termination that purport to release all claims against Defendants, prevent employees from saying anything negative about Defendants, and purport to subject employees to significant penalties/fines if said agreements are not adhered to in full. 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and fraudulent income business and monies practices, which she Plaintiff paid to

unfair lost

employment

Defendants on her “freeloader debt.” 105. Defendants’ unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to sustain said economic losses. 106. Plaintiff seeks restitution for unpaid wages and the monies which she paid to Defendants on her “freeloader debt,” in a sum to be established according to proof, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., especially Business and Professions Code Section 17204. 107. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction against Defendants’ unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., especially Business and Professions Code Section 17203. 47 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

108. Plaintiff further seeks reasonable attorney's fees according to proof pursuant to the Labor Code and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 . This claim is

made for the public good and to discourage this outrageous conduct from continuing in the future. 109. From approximately 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered that she had a claim against Defendants for Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent business practices because Plaintiff was enmeshed in a confidential relationship with Defendants and was brainwashed by Defendants such that she had no comprehension of her legal rights. The confidential relationship that existed

between Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as the brainwashing to which Plaintiff was subjected, are demonstrated by the following: (A) Plaintiff was recruited by Defendants when she

was the tender age of nine while living in New Mexico, and moved away from her family to live and work at Defendants’ facilities in California when she was a mere twelve years old. During Defendants’

recruitment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was led to believe that her life at Defendants’ facilities would remain relatively normal -

specifically, Plaintiff believed that she would continue to get an education, that she would be allowed to visit her parents with ease, and that one day, she could have children and a family of her own. Plaintiff Scientology Scientology. also and believed would be that she would to move receive “up the training bridge” in of

allowed

Plaintiff therefore signed a "billion year contract"

with Defendants at age twelve. // // 48 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sophistication.

(B)

Once Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, Defendants severely restricted Plaintiff’s access to the outside world. Plaintiff had limited and restricted access to email, telephones, the internet, or uncensored television. opened, read, and censored all mail. (C) Even Plaintiff’s access to her parents was Defendants

restricted, as Plaintiff only was allowed to leave Defendants’ facilities upon receiving special permission from Defendants, which rarely was granted. Each time before Plaintiff left Defendants’

facilities and each time before Plaintiff returned to Defendants’ facilities, she was required to undergo a security checking procedure (known as a “sec check”). During a sec check, Plaintiff was, among

other things, interrogated by Defendants using a primitive lie detector known as an “e-meter.” The information that Plaintiff

disclosed during these interrogations was documented by written means and/or recorded by video or audio means. Sec checks are used to

gather and record confidential and embarrassing information, and to wear a worker’s resistance down by hours of repetitive and intrusive questioning. Plaintiff was subjected to sec checks on numerous other occasions during her employment with Defendants as well, as

Defendants deemed appropriate. (D) Plaintiff had little formal education or

At the time Plaintiff began living at Defendants’

facilities, she had only a seventh grade education, and contrary to Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff received no formal education while living at Defendants’ facilities. (E) Plaintiff was entirely dependent on Defendants

for her sustenance, shelter, and income. 49 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 during her

(F)

Defendants commanded a rigid work schedule from

Plaintiff; Plaintiff worked seven days a week, often for 100 or more hours, at below minimum wage. During Plaintiff’s entire employment

with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely and consistently was deprived of her sleep and required to stay up for days on end. (G) To punish Plaintiff for various purported wrongs employment, Project Defendants ("RPF") sent where Plaintiff Defendants to the

Rehabilitation

Force

forced

Plaintiff to work under harsh conditions and perform manual labor. At the RPF, Plaintiff also was not allowed to leave without special permission, had no freedom of movement, was almost constantly under guard and being watched, and was subjected to near total deprivation of personal liberties. Plaintiff was confined to the RPF for several years of her employment. (H) Defendants forbade Plaintiff from reading or thinking anything negative about the Church of Scientology. This was enforced through the isolation tactics detailed above, as well as through the constant threat of sec checks and other forms of punishment, such as the RPF. (I) Plaintiff spent the entirety of her formative

years at Defendants’ facilities, from age twelve to age twenty-five, and was isolated from mainstream society during this entire period. 110. Further, from approximately 1991 to 2004, Plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered that she had a claim against Defendants for Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent business practices of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime pay because Defendants did not post the wage and hour notices that they legally were required to post in Plaintiff’s workplace. 50 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Without these wage and

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

hour notices, Plaintiff did not have actual notice of her rights to minimum wage and her rights to overtime compensation. 111. As alleged in earlier paragraphs, in 2004, Plaintiff learned that after years of work in the RPF and after completing all of the tasks required of her multiple times over, Plaintiff would not be allowed to leave the RPF. Broken and fearful of a continued stay

in the RPF, Plaintiff could no longer tolerate living and working at Defendants’ facilities and determined that she had to escape. To get out of Defendants’ facilities and end her employment, Plaintiff faked suicide. 112. Upon learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal actions,

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff could leave their facilities and end her employment. However, before Plaintiff could leave Defendants’

facilities in 2004, Plaintiff was required to sign certain documents. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that by signing these documents, Plaintiff released any and all claims she had against Defendants and that these documents required Plaintiff to keep certain information “confidential,” and that if Plaintiff did not keep this information “confidential,” she would be subject to paying significant

penalties/fines. Defendants knew at the time that Plaintiff signed these documents that they were unenforceable and contrary to law. However, Defendants regularly use these types of forms and documents to scare and intimidate their employees into believing that they have no legal rights against Defendants, and intended that Plaintiff would rely on these documents in that fashion. 113. Plaintiff believed she would not be allowed to leave Defendants’ facilities in 2004 unless she signed these documents, and further believed that she had given up any and all claims she had 51 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

against Defendants by signing these documents (even though she remained unaware of these claims at that time). given copies of the documents that she signed. Plaintiff was never However, attached as

Exhibit “A” are a true and correct copies of documents signed by individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are reasonably similar to the documents that Plaintiff was coerced into signing by Defendants upon leaving their facilities. 114. From approximately 2004 to July 2008, Plaintiff, to her detriment, reasonably believed that she did not have any legal rights or claims against Defendants because of the documents that she signed upon leaving Defendants’ facilities. During this time, 2004

to 2008, Plaintiff remained a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology. As a follower, Plaintiff was forbidden from reading or

thinking anything negative about Scientology. Further, Plaintiff was threatened with rigorous sec checks, and was threatened with being deemed a "Suppressive Person" if she in any way was perceived to be an enemy of Scientology. As a "Suppressive Person," Plaintiff would

have been forbidden contact with her friends and family who remained at Defendants’ facilities and who continued practicing Scientology, and would have been subjected to harassment by Defendants. Indeed,

when Plaintiff left Defendants’ facilities in 2004, she was informed that she owed Defendant, Church of Scientology International,

approximately $120,000 for her on-the-job training since age twelve; this is commonly referred to by the Church of Scientology as a “Freedloader Debt.” Plaintiff continued paying this purported

“Freeloader Debt” well after leaving Defendants’ facilities in 2004 based upon her genuine belief 52 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT in Defendants’ representations

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

regarding her legal rights and obligations.

Moreover, Plaintiff

continued to purchase the Church of Scientology’s literature and assisted local missions in collecting “donations” for the Church of Scientology. 115. In approximately July 2008, when using a family

member’s computer, Plaintiff discovered a web page minimized on the screen that appeared to be an “Ex-Scientologist” message board. Plaintiff confronted her family member regarding this page, as she and her family members were forbidden by the Church of Scientology from reading or thinking anything negative about Scientology. Initially, her family member explained that this page was simply stumbled across by accident. However, within days, Plaintiff’s

relatives sat her down to explain that they disagreed with a number of things that had happened in Scientology and that happened to Plaintiff while she was living at Defendants’ facilities. These

family members then showed Plaintiff a number of internet message boards, where Plaintiff discovered the stories of friends who had lived and worked at the same facilities of Defendants as Plaintiff. It was only after listening to the concerns of her family members and reading the stories of her friends in July 2008 that Plaintiff realized that she might have legal claims against Defendants and that the documents and “confidentiality” agreements she was coerced into signing by Defendants in 2004 were potentially invalid. // // // // // 53 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATE: February 2, 2010 proof; 6.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. For general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum

jurisdictional amount of the court; 2. 3. 4. 5. For loss of earnings according to proof; For loss of education damages according to proof; For emotional distress damages according to proof; For unpaid wages, including interest, according to

For injunctive relief preventing forced abortions,

deprivation of liberty, and unfair and fraudulent business practices; 7. For restitution of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and monies that Plaintiff paid to Defendants pursuant to Labor Code § 1194 et al., and pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et al. 8. For civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203 et al. 9. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code

§ 218.5 and C.C.P. § 1021.5. 10. 11. 12. For pre- and post-judgment interest allowed by law; For Plaintiff's costs of suit incurred herein; and, For such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and proper.

METZGER LAW GROUP A Professional Law Corporation

____________________________________ RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo 54 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATE: February 2, 2010

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 600 et seq. (and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should this case ever be removed to federal court), Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues which may be tried to a jury.

METZGER LAW GROUP A Professional Law Corporation

____________________________________ RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Laura Ann DeCrescenzo

55 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 401 East Ocean Blvd., #800, Long Beach, CA 90802. On February 2, 2010, I served the foregoing document, described as: SUMMONS ON SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the parties to this action as follows: X (BY MAIL) I caused copies of such document, enclosed in sealed envelopes, to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach, California with postage thereon fully prepaid to the persons and addresses indicated on the attached list. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of any party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing set forth in this affidavit. (BY FACSIMILE) I served the foregoing document by faxing true copies thereof from facsimile number (562) 436-1561, to the facsimile numbers indicated on the attached list. Said document was transmitted by facsimile transmission, which was reported complete and without error. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such document by hand to the firms listed on the attached list where personal service is indicated. (BY E-MAIL) I delivered such document by electronic mail to the firms listed on the attached list. (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I caused such document to be delivered to the firms indicated on the attached list by Express Mail or by another express service carrier, by placing the document in an envelope designated by the carrier and addressed as indicated on the attached list, with the delivery fees provided for, and depositing same in a box or facility regularly maintained by that carrier or by delivering same to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the carrier to receive documents. X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court, at whose direction service was made. Executed on February 2, 2010, at Long Beach, California.

Nina S. Vidal, Declarant

56 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

F:\WP\Cases\9527\PLEADDOC\COMPLAIN\SAC - Revised.wpd

1 2

SERVICE LIST (DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology, Case No. BC411018) -o0o-

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Updated December 29, 2009 kk)

Barry Van Sickle, Esq. 1079 Sunrise Avenue, Suite B-315 Roseville, ca 95661 (Plaintiff) Anthony J. Oncidi, Esq. Harold M. Brody, Esq. Proskauer Rose 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 (Church of Scientology International) Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. Moxon & Kobrin 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (Church of Scientology International)