OPERATION CLAMBAKE: SCIENTOLOGY COURT FILES

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




               The CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF MINNESOTA, Appellant,
                                       v.
      MINNESOTA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION, et al., Respondents,
                     John LaBree, etc., et al., Defendants,
                    American Medical Association, Respondent.
                                   No. 47457.
                           Supreme Court of Minnesota.
                                 March 17, 1978.
  Religious organization brought action for libel against magazine publisher,
 its employees and author, whose magazine article pertained to such religion,
 and also sought to recover against association, which had supplied a copy of
 the article in response to a request, and to recover against others.  The
 District Court, Ramsey County, Harold W. Schultz, J., granted defendants
 summary judgment, and religious organization appealed.  The Supreme Court,
 Peterson, J., held that: (1) person claiming damages from mass-produced libel
 must bring his action against original publisher, its employees and author
 within two years of original publication; (2) action against magazine
 publisher, its employees and author was barred by two-year statute of
 limitations; (3) magazine article was defamatory on its face, and (4) acts of
 an organization and its officers, in merely supplying a copy of article in
 response to request, did not constitute republication of the article.
  Affirmed.

 [1] LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
 Person claiming damage from mass-produced libel must bring his action against
 original publisher, its employees and author within two years of original
 publication;  statute of limitations does not begin to run anew on
 republication.  M.S.A. s 541.07.

 [2] LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
 Action against magazine publisher, its employees and author of magazine article
 to recover for libelous statements allegedly made in such article was barred by
 two-year statute of limitations where, though the action was brought less than
 two years after an association sent State Department of Commerce a copy of such
 article, the action was brought more than two years after the article was first
 published.  M.S.A. s 541.07.

 [3] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 Words are "defamatory" when they tend to injure the plaintiff's reputation
 and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or degradation.
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and
 definitions.

 [4] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 In construing language of alleged libel as set forth in complaint, courts must
 give it its obvious and natural meaning.

 [5] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 Magazine article, which indicated that certain religion was not a bona fide
 religion or nonprofit organization, that it had seriously harmed health of
 persons seeking its aid and had induced mental illness and that churches of
 such religion had fraudulently and dishonestly obtained large sums of money for
 the founder's personal gain, was defamatory on its face.

 [6] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 Statements charging another with fraud or dishonesty are defamatory regardless
 of the terms in which they are couched.

 [7] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 "Publication" is a term of art in defamation law expressing one of the
 elements of that tort.
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and
 definitions.

 [8] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 Those who merely deliver or transmit defamatory material previously published
 by another will be considered to have published the material only if they knew,
 or had reason to know, that the material was false and defamatory.

 [9] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 Acts of organization and its officers, in merely supplying a copy of a
 previously published magazine article in response to a request, did not
 constitute "republication" of the article so as to permit any recovery
 against such organization and officers on theory that article was libelous.
 See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and
 definitions.
                                  *153 SYLLABUS
  1. Under Minn.St. 541.07, those who claim damage from mass-produced libel
 must bring an action against the original publisher, its employees, and the
 author within 2 years of the original publication.
  2. Where an organization and its officers do no more than supply a copy of a
 previously published article in response to a request, their acts are analogous
 to those of a library or news vendor and do not constitute republication of the
 article.
  Daniel Zeddies and William Starr, Minneapolis, for appellant.
  Geraghty, O'Loughlin & Kenney and David C. Hutchinson, St. Paul, for Minn. St.
 Med. Assoc.
  Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, Donald M. Jardine and Kent E. Charpentier, St. Paul,
 for Am. Med. Assoc.

  Heard before ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON and WAHL, JJ., and considered and decided by
 the court en banc.

  PETERSON, Justice.
  Plaintiff, The Church of Scientology of Minnesota, brought this action for
 libel and appeals from the summary judgment granted to all defendants.  We
 affirm as to some defendants on the ground that the action is barred by the
 statute of limitations and as to the remaining defendants on the ground that
 their acts do not constitute publication of a libel.
  The complaint alleges that Scientology is a religion which was founded in 1952
 by L. Ron Hubbard.  Hubbard is an advisor to Churches of Scientology, and his
 name and reputation have been closely identified with Scientology.  In March
 1974, the Office of Consumer Services of the Minnesota Department of Commerce
 requested information from defendant Minnesota State Medical Association (MSMA)
 concerning Scientology.  In response to this request, defendant Harold W.
 Brunn, acting in his capacity as executive secretary of MSMA,[FN1] sent the
 *154 office several newspaper clippings and a copy of an article written by
 defendant Ralph Lee Smith entitled "Scientology Menace to Mental Health."  This
 article had appeared in the December 1968 issue of Today's Health, a lay-
 oriented magazine which is published by defendant American Medical Association
 (AMA).[FN2]  MSMA also sent a copy of the article to "Action Line," a column in
 the St. Paul Dispatch newspaper, in response to its request, although it is
 unclear when this copy was sent.

      FN1. Harold W. Brunn is an official in both MSMA and the Minnesota State
     Medical Association Foundation.  Due to an excusable error, the complaint
     named the Foundation rather than MSMA as the organization responsible for
     sending the article to the Office of Consumer Affairs.  Plaintiff's motion
     to amend its complaint to correct the error was denied by the district
     court as moot when summary judgment was granted to defendants.  For
     purposes of this appeal, we will consider plaintiff's motion to have been
     granted since it was clearly proper under Rule 21, Rules of Civil
     Procedure.

      FN2. Plaintiff alleges that the circulation of Today's Health exceeds
     750,000 per issue and that statements made in Today's Health are widely
     believed by the general public to be true.

  Plaintiff alleges that the article in its entirety is false and defamatory but
 refers particularly to 11 portions of the article which by direct statement and
 implication convey the meaning that Scientology is not a bona fide religious or
 nonprofit organization, that Scientology has seriously harmed the health of
 persons seeking its aid and has induced mental illness, and that Churches of
 Scientology have fraudulently or dishonestly obtained large sums of money for
 Hubbard's personal gain.[FN3]  Plaintiff also alleges that each of the
 defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of the statements made in the
 article or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.[FN4]

      FN3. Plaintiff cites the following passages from the article: (1)
     "Scientology Menace to Mental Health," the article's title; (2) "dangerous
     cult," referring to Scientology; (3) "Scientology has grown into a very
     profitable world-wide enterprise . . . " and (4) "thrives on glowing
     promises that are heady stuff for the lonely, the weak, the confused, the
     ineffectual, and the mentally or emotionally ill"; (5) "Whatever the actual
     figures may be, it is clear that large numbers of persons are responding to
     Scientology's promise of a quick, easy road to mental and emotional health.
     Unfortunately, the road may lead not to health but to tragedy and disaster
     for themselves and their families"; (6) "Police records cite the case of
     one wealthy Floridian who spent some $28,000 on Scientology processing";
     (7) "The Scientology movement is coordinated and governed through the
     'Hubbard Communication Office World Wide' (HCO-WW) at Saint Hill.  This
     office distributes Hubbard's decision, policies, dicta, and accounts of
     such things as his visits to heaven.  It is also Hubbard's vigilant
     international collection agency, raking in a slice of the action wherever
     preclears are being processed"; (8) "Instead of discussing present reality,
     the auditor wishes to push the preclear into a world of fantasy," referring
     to persons receiving spiritual counseling; (9) "Sooner or later he begins
     to exhibit symptoms resembling those of schizophrenia.  These symptoms are
     encouraged * * * ," referring to persons receiving Scientology counseling;
     (10) " * * * Scientology keeps the patient in this illusory state and
     exploits it for profit," referring to alleged reverence towards persons
     directing the Scientology Centers, and toward L. Ron Hubbard; (11) "Before
     it finally goes the way of all cults, Scientology may leave behind a legacy
     of tragedy unmatched in the annals of fads and fallacies in mental health."

      FN4. Plaintiff has repeatedly alleged that statements made in the article
     are false.  Defendants have not alleged the truth of the statements as a
     defense, and in any event plaintiff's allegations of falsity must be
     accepted for purposes of defendants' motion for summary judgment.
     Gadach v. Benton County Co-op Assn., 236 Minn. 507, 53 N.W.2d 230
     (1952).

  The district court granted summary judgment to AMA, its employees, and the
 author on the ground that the action was barred by Minn.St. 541.07, the 2-
 year statute of limitations for libel and slander actions.  Summary judgment
 was granted to MSMA and its officers (the remaining defendants) on the grounds
 that the article was not defamatory, that these defendants had not republished
 the article, and that their actions were protected by both a qualified
 constitutional privilege and a common-law privilege.  On appeal, plaintiff
 argues that summary judgment was not proper on any of these grounds.
  1. We turn first to the question of whether the statute of limitations bars
 plaintiff's action against AMA, its employees, and the author.  In Wild v.
 Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 234 N.W.2d 775 (1975), appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 902,
 96 S.Ct. 1093, 47 L.Ed.2d 307 (1976), we held that the 2-year period of
 limitations begins to run when the allegedly defamatory material is published
 and will not be tolled simply because the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the
 publication.  In this case, plaintiff's action was *155 filed in October
 1975, more than 5 years after the article in question was first published.
 Thus, the action against the defendants involved in the first publication AMA,
 its employees, and the author is clearly barred unless for some reason the
 statute of limitations was tolled or began to run anew at a later date.
  Plaintiff contends that for purposes of suit against both AMA and MSMA the
 statute of limitations began to run anew in March 1974, when MSMA "republished"
 the article.  This is the so-called "multiple-publication rule" embodied in the
 common-law rule that each repetition of a libel constitutes a separate and
 distinct publication giving rise to a cause of action.[FN5]  In contrast,
 defendants urge us instead to adopt the so-called "single-publication rule"
 which originated in New York and has been adopted by several other
 jurisdictions and the American Law Institute.[FN6]  Under the "single-
 publication rule," the statute of limitations begins to run when a mass-
 produced newspaper, book, or magazine is first released to the public, and the
 statutory period for actions against the original publisher will not begin to
 run again as a result of subsequent incidental republications. Winrod v.
 Time, Inc., 334 Ill.App. 59, 78 N.E.2d 708 (1948); Polchlopek v. American
 News Co., Inc., 73 F.Supp. 309 (D.Mass.1947); Means v. MacFadden
 Publications, Inc., 25 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y.1939).

      FN5. E. g., see, Lewis v. Reader's Digest Assn. Inc., 162 Mont. 401,
     512 P.2d 702 (1973); Hartman v. American News Co., 69 F.Supp. 736
     (W.D.Wis.1947).

      FN6. Wolfson v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 254 App.Div. 211, 4 N.Y.S.2d
     640 (1938), affirmed, 279 N.Y. 716, 18 N.E.2d 676 (1939); Annotation,
     42 A.L.R.3d 807, 815; Restatement, Torts 2d, s 577A.

  [1][2] This court has never had occasion to consider which rule should be
 applied in Minnesota.[FN7]  Even if we were to assume that MSMA's acts
 constitute republication of the article, the present case persuades us that
 the "single-publication rule" is the better rule because it reflects the facts
 of modern-day mass publishing and duplicating and gives effect to the policy of
 repose underlying the statute of limitations.  Plaintiff has alleged that over
 750,000 copies of the article were published by AMA.  With this number of
 copies in existence, occasional republications inevitably occur.  If every such
 republication started anew the period for bringing actions against the original
 publisher, then the 2-year statute of limitations would be rendered a nullity.
 To avoid that unreasonable result, we hold that s 541.07 requires those who
 claim damage from mass-produced libel to bring their actions against the
 original publisher within 2 years of the original publication.  We accordingly
 affirm summary judgment in favor of AMA, its employees, and the author on the
 ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

      FN7. Plaintiff cites Zier v. Hoflin, 33 Minn. 66, 21 N.W. 862 (1885),
     but no statute of limitations issue was raised in that case.  Zier stands
     for the proposition that in assessing damages the factfinder may consider
     foreseeable republications of a libel which are the natural consequences of
     a defendant's original publication.

  2. Turning to plaintiff's action against MSMA and its officers, we need only
 consider whether the article is defamatory and whether MSMA and its officers
 published it.
  [3][4][5][6] Words are defamatory when they tend to injure the plaintiff's
 reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or
 degradation.  Gadach v. Benton County Co-op Assn., 236 Minn. 507, 53 N.W.2d
 230 (1952).  Words may be divided into those that cannot possibly have a
 defamatory meaning; those that are reasonably susceptible to a defamatory
 meaning as well as an innocent one; and those that are clearly defamatory on
 their face. Morey v. Barnes, 212 Minn. 153, 2 N.W.2d 829 (1942); 11A
 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) s 5509.  In construing the language of the alleged libel
 as set forth in the complaint, courts must give it its obvious and natural
 meaning.  Jones v. Monico, 276 Minn. 371, 150 N.W.2d 213 (1967).  Under
 these standards, the article in question is defamatory on its *156 face,
 since statements charging another with fraud or dishonesty are defamatory
 regardless of the terms in which they are couched.  Uhlman v. Farm, Stock
 and Home Co.,126 Minn. 239, 148 N.W. 102 (1914).
  [7][8] We turn then to the question of whether the acts of MSMA and its
 officers constitute republication of the article.  "Publication" is a term of
 art in defamation law expressing one of the elements of that tort.  Those who
 merely deliver or transmit defamatory material previously published by another
 will be considered to have published the material only if they knew, or had
 reason to know, that the material was false and defamatory.  See, Restatement,
 Torts 2d, s 581.  It is this rule that protects libraries and vendors of books,
 magazines, and newspapers.  Hartmann v. American News Co., 171 F.2d 581 (7
 Cir. 1948); Balabanoff v. Fossani, 192 Misc. 615, 81 N.Y.S.2d 732 (1948).
  [9] In this case, MSMA and its officers merely acted as a conduit between
 the original publisher and the parties who had requested information.  The
 article's original publisher was known to be reputable, therefore MSMA and its
 officers had no reason to believe that the article was false and defamatory.
 In these circumstances, the acts of MSMA and its officers were analogous to
 those of a library or news vendor and did not constitute publication.
  Because summary judgment for MSMA and its officers was proper on this ground,
 we need not reach defendants' claims to the protection of a qualified
 constitutional and a common-law privilege.
  We need not, furthermore, reach the critical question of who would have borne
 the burden of proving the truth or falsity of the article's statements had the
 case gone to trial.  Under the common law, it was consistently held that
 defamatory statements will be presumed false and that the defendant bears the
 burden of proving their truth as a defense.[FN8]  This view is consistent with
 the common law's concern for the plaintiff's reputation, and it recognizes the
 difficulty of proving a negative, such as the untruth of a statement.[FN9]
 However, the common-law view that the defendant bears the burden of proving the
 truth of the statement does not easily mesh with constitutional
 considerations.  The United States Supreme Court's decisions since New York
 Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), hold that
 a plaintiff must show fault by the defendant regarding the truth or falsity of
 the defamatory communication, and where the plaintiff is a public figure or
 public official, he must show that the defendant knew the communication was
 false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether it was false.[FN10]  For a
 public-figure or public-official plaintiff to meet these requirements, he must,
 as a practical matter, assume the burden of proving that the communication was
 false.  This is, of course, contrary to the common-law view.  The American Law
 Institute has expressly withheld an opinion on this problem.  Restatement,
 Torts 2d, s 613, Caveat and Comment j.  Since the present case does not require
 us to resolve this difficulty, we merely note its presence for future
 consideration.

      FN8. Wilcox v. Moore, 69 Minn. 49, 71 N.W. 917 (1897); Gadach v.
     Benton County Co-op Assn. supra; Prosser, Torts (4 ed.), s 116, and note
     10.

      FN9. As an illustration, were a storekeeper to bring an action based on a
     newspaper statement that he shortchanges his customers when he gets a
     chance, it would be extremely difficult for the storekeeper to prove that
     the statement was false.

      FN10. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41
     L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958,
     47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976).  The leading Minnesota case is Rose v. Koch, 278
     Minn. 235, 154 N.W.2d 409 (1967).  See, also, Anderson v. Kammeier,
     Minn., note 5, 262 N.W.2d 366, 372 (filed November 18, 1977); and Note,
     3 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 81 (1977).

  Affirmed.

  OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

End of file...