Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity

Molko v. Holy Spirit Association
Court	California Supreme Court
Full case name	Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity
Date decided	1988
Citation(s)	Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 C3d 1092
Transcript(s)	Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
Judge(s) sitting	Justice Stanley Mosk (opinion)

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

Plaintiffs

Lawyer Ford Greene represented two former members of the Unification Church, David Molko and Tracy Leal before the California Supreme Court.^[1] Coercive persuasion was connected by the plaintiffs to the legal concept of undue influence.^[1]

An Amicus brief was filed in favor of the Plaintiffs by attorney Paul Morantz, who specialized in representing persons who claimed they were subject to brainwashing.^[2] Morantz served as pro bono appellate counsel and also participated in oral arguments.^[3]

Court ruling

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

References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 C3d 1092
2. ^ Morrantz, Paul (Nov 2010). "Escape From Unification Church". http://www.paulmorantz.com/cult/escape-from-unification-church/. Retrieved 30 July 2011. 
3. ^ Pike, David (March 21, 2011). "Not all lawyers should be at the bottom of the sea… Paul Morantz, anti-cult litigator, is one of them…". Factnet. http://factnet.org/?p=703. Retrieved 30 July 2011. 

Further reading

• American Psychiatric Association (1989). Cults and new religious movements. p. 264. 
• Bogue, Ronald; Marcel Cornis-Pope (1996). Violence and mediation in contemporary culture. p. 140. 
• Bullis, Ronald K. (1996). Spirituality in social work practice. p. 114. 
• Cicchetti, Dante; Donald J. Cohen (2006). Developmental psychopathology. p. 693. 
• Greenawalt, Kent (2006). Religion and the Constitution: Volume 1: Free Exercise and Fairness. p. 451. 
• Hall, Kermit L. (2000). Conscience and belief: the Supreme Court and religion. p. 365. 
• Hall, Kermit L. (2001). The Supreme Court in American society: equal justice under law. p. 465. 
• Nurcombe, Barry; David F. Partlett (1994). Child mental health and the law. p. 605. 
• Queen, David (2005). The Private Investigator's Legal Manual: California. p. 68. 
• Zablocki, Benjamin David; Thomas Robbins (2001). Misunderstanding Cults. p. 168. 

External links

• Case citation, Lawlink
• Legal Analysis of Cultic Cases, International Cultic Studies Association