California
QUESTION #1
-----------
I am a member of a very large church in the greater LA area. Because I disagreed with the church leadership about an action they took regarding another person, I was sent a letter stating that I was no longer welcome and would be arrested for trespass if I attempted to attend church.
The general policy of the church allows public attendance without any membership requirements (I am a member however).
Do the church leaders have the legal right to have me arrested if I were to attend?
MY RESPONSE: Owners of property, whether church owners or otherwise, may at their discretion (like you can with your property) ban anyone they choose. They can have you arrested for trespass. This would be a criminal matter.
QUESTION #2
-----------
Regarding the other person, I am a witness and also have documentation to substantiate the slandering of the other person by church leadership. There is no planned legal action regarding the slander. Also, the slander was not part of an official church action, but rather is being done somewhat secretly by certain church leaders.
Since I can give witness testimony regarding this, and also have documentation to support this, I consider the actions of the church against me to be "intimidation of a witness". Does this raise issues of criminal wrongdoing by the church leadership?
MY RESPONSE:
In this scenario, this would be a Civil matter. Courts really dislike action taken as a result of church happenings, and tend to stay separated from church doctrine and matters occurring as a result of happenings within a church. It's the old Constitutional "Separation of Church and State". Courts very much tend to allow such matters to be resolved within the policies or doctrines of the church itself. There is no "intimidation of a witness" because there has been no lawsuit filed, or criminal complaint made.
In the absence of fraud or collusion, the interpretation of religious law by an accredited body is accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive, even if the decision affects the civil rights of a party and even if the decision is "arbitrary." [Sinai Memorial Chapel v Dudler (1991, 1st Dist) 231 Cal App 3d 190, 282 Cal Rptr 263 (religious cemetery corporation resolved conflict of religious law in refusing to allow engraved portrait on gravestone)]
Actions, although based on religious beliefs, may be tortious. [Stansfield v Starkey (1990, 2nd Dist) 220 Cal App 3d 59, 269 Cal Rptr 337] To be entitled to constitutional protection under the freedom of religion clauses, any course of conduct must satisfy the following requirements [Wollersheim v Church of Scientology (1989, 2nd Dist) 212 Cal App 3d 872, 260 Cal Rptr 331, motion gr 495 US 902, 109 L Ed 2d 284, 110 S Ct 1920 and cert den 495 US 910, 109 L Ed 2d 300, 110 S Ct 1937 and vacated on other grounds _________ US _________, 113 L Ed 2d 234, 111 S Ct 1298]:
(1). The system of thought to which the course of conduct relates must qualify as a religion, not a philosophy or science or personal preference;
(2). The course of conduct must qualify as an expression of that religion and not just an activity that religious people happen to be doing;
(3). The religious expression must not inflict so much harm that there is a compelling state interest in discouraging the practice which outweighs the values served by freedom of religion.
In addition, under special circumstances the court will ask whether the plaintiff participated in the course of conduct voluntarily or was coerced into continued participation through the threat of serious sanctions for leaving the religion. A course of conduct that may be constitutionally protected if practiced in a voluntary context may not be protected in a coercive environment. [Wollersheim v Church of Scientology (1989, 2nd Dist) 212 Cal App 3d 872, 260 Cal Rptr 331, motion gr 495 US 902, 109 L Ed 2d 284, 110 S Ct 1920 and cert den 495 US 910, 109 L Ed 2d 300, 110 S Ct 1937 and vacated on other grounds _________ US _________, 113 L Ed 2d 234, 111 S Ct 1298 (practices, including physical restraint, held coercive)]
Neither the Federal nor State Constitutions barred former church members from bringing a fraud action against the church for allegedly inducing them, by misrepresentation and concealment of the church’s identity, into unknowingly entering an atmosphere in which they were subjected to coercive pursuasion. [Molko v Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal 3d 1092, 252 Cal Rptr 122, 762 P2d 46, cert den 490 US 1084, 104 L Ed 2d 670, 109 S Ct 2110; compare Stansfield v Starkey (1990, 2nd Dist) 220 Cal App 3d 59, 269 Cal Rptr 337 (in action against church and some of its members alleging misrepresentations causing plaintiffs to join church and give money to it, alleged misreresentations including tax exempt status of church, charitable nature of church, and amount of compensation paid to founder of church were not sufficiently specific to state cause of action for fraud)]
Religious entities are constitutionally protected from lawsuits that might chill voluntary religious practices, such as preaching and confessions, that deliberately generate deep psychological discomfort as a means of motivation, notwithstanding that some psychologically weak people may incur emotional harm. Also, a religious group will not be held liable for negligent acts that inadvertently reveal confidential information, ruin a person’s business, disconnect a psychologically weak person from his or her family, or emotionally injure a member or former member of that religion. [Wollersheim v Church of Scientology (1989, 2nd Dist) 212 Cal App 3d 872, 260 Cal Rptr 331, motion gr 495 US 902, 109 L Ed 2d 284, 110 S Ct 1920 and cert den 495 US 910, 109 L Ed 2d 300, 110 S Ct 1937 and vacated on other grounds _________ US _________, 113 L Ed 2d 234, 111 S Ct 1298]
The threat of divine retribution for leaving a church is nonactionable. [Molko v Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal 3d 1092, 252 Cal Rptr 122, 762 P2d 46, cert den 490 US 1084, 104 L Ed 2d 670, 109 S Ct 2110] It is not settled whether members of a church have a constitutional right to "shun" heretics from that religion even though the heretics suffer emotional injury as a result. [See Paul v Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. (1987, CA9 Wash) 819 F2d 875, cert den 484 US 926, 98 L Ed 2d 249, 108 S Ct 289 (Jehovah’s Witnesses; shunning permitted); see contra Bear v Reformed Mennonite Church (1975) 462 Pa 330, 341 A2d 105 (Mennonites)]
A cause of action against a church by a former member for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to the discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limitations. When the plaintiff should have discovered all the elements of his or her cause of action is a jury question. [Wollersheim v Church of Scientology (1989, 2nd Dist) 212 Cal App 3d 872, 260 Cal Rptr 331, motion gr 495 US 902, 109 L Ed 2d 284, 110 S Ct 1920 and cert den 495 US 910, 109 L Ed 2d 300, 110 S Ct 1937 and vacated on other grounds _________ US _________, 113 L Ed 2d 234, 111 S Ct 1298]
Good luck to you.
IAAL
