Editing Cult Awareness Network (section)

==Reception==

The [[Jason Scott case]] in 1995 demonstrated the ongoing involvement of the "Old CAN" in [[deprogramming]] referrals.{{r|gallagher-melton|p=141}} Also, in 1993, the trial of deprogrammer [[Galen Kelly]] revealed that the "Old CAN" had, contrary to its stated policy, paid Kelly a monthly [[stipend]] during the 1990s.{{r|gallagher-melton|p=141}}

Sociologist [[Anson Shupe]], Susan E. Darnell, and [[Church of Scientology]] attorney [[Kendrick Moxon]] have alleged that the "Old CAN" could be described as a criminal organization operating in large part for the profit to certain actors, and that it cultivated a hypocritical and deceptive public persona.{{r|davis|page=40}} They alleged that despite public denials, the "Old CAN" operating policy included routine referrals to coercive deprogrammers, citing, among others, [[FBI]] [[wiretap]] evidence documenting frequent, casual contact between coercive deprogrammers and Cynthia Kisser, the executive director of the "Old CAN".{{r|davis|page=36}} They further allege [[money laundering]],{{r|davis|page=38–39}} and personal enrichment by some "Old CAN" officials,{{r|davis|page=40}} as well as the use of legal and illegal drugs by deprogrammers during deprogrammings, and occurrences of [[sexual intercourse]] between deprogrammers and deprogrammees.{{r|davis|page=24}} Shupe and Darnell expanded on these topics in their 2006 book ''Agents of Discord'', referencing their prior work with Kendrick Moxon.<ref>{{cite book | last = Shupe | first = Anson | author-link = Anson Shupe |author2=Darnell, Susan E. | title = Agents of Discord | publisher = [[Transaction Publishers]] | year = 2006 | location = New Brunswick, US; London | isbn = 978-0-7658-0323-8 }}</ref>

In chapter 8 of ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'', [[Anson D. Shupe|Shupe]], [[David G. Bromley|Bromley]], and Darnell state that the "Old CAN" countered fiscal challenges by soliciting donations for referrals whereby [[exit counsellor]]s or deprogrammers either made donations themselves, or had client families make donations to the "Old CAN", and that these donations made up as much as one-third of "Old CAN" revenues.{{r|oxford|p=196}} While the "Old CAN" was set up as a [[Tax exemption|tax-exempt]] organization serving educational purposes, coercive deprogramming referrals remained an integral part of its economy and response pattern, a contradiction that was concealed, but not resolved by the "Old CAN" publicly renouncing deprogramming while covertly engaging in referrals.{{r|oxford|p=200}} The authors state that ironically the "Old CAN" was finally "undone by the same kind of civil suit strategy it had employed against [new religious movements], in a case involving the same type of coercive practices it accused cults of employing, and with the result that its name and assets were purchased by members of one of its most bitter enemies", the Church of Scientology.{{r|oxford|p=200}}

=== Landmark Education ===
According to the (Old) Cult Awareness Network's executive director, [[Landmark Education]] and the [[Church of Scientology]] were the two groups for which CAN received the highest number of inquiries from concerned relatives – twenty-five per month per group.<ref name="jackson">{{cite news | last = Jackson | first = Steve | title = It Happens. When it comes to Landmark Education Corporation, There's no meeting of the Minds. | work = Westword | date = April 24, 1996 | url = https://www.westword.com/news/it-happens-5056220 | access-date = 2023-09-12}}</ref> In an interview, CAN's executive director emphasized that the label "[[cult]]" with regard to Landmark Education was not important; but rather greater scrutiny of its practices was needed.<ref name="jackson" /> Specifically, CAN stressed concerning characteristics, such as "the long hours during which the participant is in the organization's total control, receiving input from only one source, removed from any support system except for the seminar group itself".<ref name="jackson" /> In 1994, Landmark Education Corporation sued the Cult Awareness Network for 40 million [[United States dollar|USD]], claiming that CAN had labeled Landmark Education as a cult.<ref name="matthews">{{cite book | last = Matthews | first = William Joseph |author2=John H. Edgette |author3=Milton H. Erickson Foundation | title = Current Thinking and Research in Brief Therapy: Solutions, Strategies, Narratives | publisher = Psychology Press | year = 1997 | page = 53 | isbn = 978-0-87630-819-6}}</ref> The case itself involved a dispute over the legality and applicable usage of what William Joseph Matthews termed "cult indoctrination procedures".<ref name="matthews" /> CAN later settled and made a statement that it did not consider Landmark Education a cult, as part of the settlement agreement.<ref>{{cite news | last = Hukill | first = Tracy | title = The est of Friends | work = Metroactive | publisher = Metro Publishing Inc. | date = July 1998 | url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | access-date = 2007-10-28 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090123235400/http://metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | archive-date = 2009-01-23 }}</ref>

During the litigation proceedings between Landmark Education and the Cult Awareness Network, Landmark Education spent months attempting to compel legal [[journalist]] [[Steven Pressman]] to respond to deposition questions aimed at obtaining the [[Journalism sourcing|confidential sources]] he used for research on his book about [[Werner Erhard]], ''[[Outrageous Betrayal]]''.<ref name="skolnik">{{cite news | last = Skolnik | first = Peter L. |author2=Michael A. Norwick | title = Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive | work = Lowenstein Sandler PC | publisher = The Rick A. Ross Institute | date = February 2006 | url = https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html | access-date = 2023-09-12}}</ref> Though the deposition questions were brought under the pretext of compelling discovery for use in Landmark Education's lawsuit against CAN, Pressman concluded that the deposition questioning was mainly a form of harassment.<ref name="skolnik" /> The discovery commissioner who entered an interim order in the matter, commented that "it does not appear that the information sought [from Mr. Pressman] is directly relevant or goes to the heart of the [CAN] action, or that alternative sources have been exhausted or are inadequate".{{Citation needed|date=July 2022}} The action against Pressman was dropped after the Cult Awareness Network litigation was settled.<ref name="skolnik" />  As a result of the Cult Awareness Network settlement with Landmark Education, CAN agreed to cease selling copies of ''Outrageous Betrayal'' for at least five years. From the resolution of CAN's board of directors: "In the interests of settling a dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN emerges from bankruptcy".<ref>{{cite news | last = Svoboda | first = William | title = Certified Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. A California Not-for-Profit Corporation | work = Cult Awareness Network | date = 1997-11-03 | url = http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/canresolution.html }}{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> CAN's executive director maintained that the purpose of Landmark Education's lawsuits was not to recover lost funds, but to "gag critics".<ref name="jackson" /> Along with Scientology, Landmark Education was granted access to Cult Awareness Network's files, which contained phone records and data on individuals who had previously sought information on these groups.<ref>Beebe, Jim., "Court gives Landmark Education Corp. (LEC) access to Cult Awareness Network (CAN) files". March 1999.</ref><ref name="1997bankruptcy">{{cite news | last = [[United States Bankruptcy Court]] | title = U.S. Bankruptcy Court Opinions – In Re Cult Awareness Network, Inc., (N.D. Ill. 1997) | pages = Bankruptcy No. 95 B 22133 | date = 1997-03-14 }}</ref>

=== Church of Scientology's response ===
The Church of Scientology had long characterized the Cult Awareness Network as both an opponent of [[freedom of religion|religious freedom]] and a "[[hate group]]".<ref name="frantz">{{cite web | first = Douglas | last = Frantz | title = An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts | url = https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/an-ultra-aggressive-use-of-investigators-and-the-courts.html | website = [[The New York Times]] | date = March 9, 1997 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308060210/https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/an-ultra-aggressive-use-of-investigators-and-the-courts.html |archive-date=March 8, 2021 | access-date = 2007-10-30 }}</ref>  In 1990, a woman named Jolie Steckart, posing as Laura Terepin, applied to volunteer for the (original) Cult Awareness Network.<ref name="noah" /> [[Bob Minton]] later hired a [[private investigator]] to look into this, and in 1998 discovered that she was actually a "deep undercover agent", who was managed by David Lee, a private investigator hired by the [[Church of Scientology]].<ref name="noah">{{cite news | last = Noah | first = George | title = David Lee Exposed: The Real Story About John Fashanu's So Called Private Investigator | work = Nigeria Today Online | date = 27 August 2000 | url = http://www.xenutv.com/print/africa/nigeria-lee-082700.htm | access-date = 2007-10-28 }}</ref> Steckart had also attempted to infiltrate the Scientology-critical organization [[FACTNet]].<ref name="noah" />

In 1991, over fifty [[Scientologist]]s from across the [[United States]] filed [[civil suit]]s against the Cult Awareness Network, many of whom used the same [[carbon copy]] claims through influence from the [[Los Angeles, California]] law firm [[Bowles & Moxon]]. In addition, Scientologists filed dozens of [[discrimination]] complaints against CAN, with state [[human rights commission]]s in the United States. The Cult Awareness Network, which ran on a budget of 300,000 [[United States dollar|USD]] per year, was unable to cope with this amount of litigation. By 1994, it had been dropped by all of its [[Insurance|insurance companies]], and still owed tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.<ref name="frantz" /><ref name="amlawyer">{{cite news | last =Hansen | first =Susan | title =Did Scientology Strike Back? | work =[[American Lawyer]] |date=June 1997}}<!--https://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html--></ref> Kendrick Moxon, chief attorney for the Church of Scientology, had stated that the lawsuits were brought to address discrimination against individuals who wanted to reform the Cult Awareness Network.<ref name="frantz" /> These fifty individuals had all simultaneously tried to join the organization.<ref name="linnsemuels">{{cite news | first = Virginia | last = Linn |author2=Semuels, Alana | title = PostScript: When scientologists aren't so clear | url = http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05212/546007.stm | newspaper = [[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]] | date = 2005-07-31 | access-date = 2007-10-30 }}</ref> When the Cult Awareness Network's executive director turned down the applications for fear that the new Scientologist applicants would overtake control of CAN, they sued in separate lawsuits claiming [[religious discrimination]].<ref name="linnsemuels" /> Though Moxon handled the litigation for all of the lawsuits, the Church of Scientology maintained that it did not provide the financial backing for the suits.<ref name="morganhardball">{{cite news | first = Lucy | last = Morgan | title = Hardball: When Scientology goes to court, it likes to play rough – very rough. | url = http://www.sptimes.com/News/32899/TampaBay/Hardball.html | newspaper = [[St. Petersburg Times]] | date = 1998-01-28 | access-date = 2007-10-30 }}</ref> Moxon did acknowledge that his firm [[Moxon & Kobrin|Moxon & Bowles]] had represented the plaintiffs in the case at virtually no charge, and that Scientology churches "helped a little bit, but very little", with the litigation costs.<ref name="morgantobin" />

Daniel Leipold, the attorney who represented CAN in the suits, believed that the Church of Scientology did indeed have a role in the financial backing of the suits, stating, "for every nickel we spent, they spent at least a dollar".<ref name="morgantobin">{{cite news |url=https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1997/12/23/scientology-sponsored-suit-against-opponent/ |title=Scientology sponsored suit against opponent |first=Thomas C |last=Tobin |newspaper=[[St. Petersburg Times]] |date=December 23, 1997 }}</ref>
Leipold also stated that when he began to take statements from some of the Scientologist plaintiffs in the process of his defense of CAN, "[s]everal of the plaintiffs said they had not seen or signed the lawsuits, even though the court papers bore their signatures".<ref name="morgantobin" /> One Scientologist plaintiff told CAN attorneys that he could not recall how he initially got the contact information of CAN officials, or who had asked him to write to the organization.<ref name="morgantobin" /> Another Scientologist later fired his lawyer and asked a judge to dismiss his own case against CAN, saying that Eugene Ingram, a private investigator for the Church of Scientology, had paid him three hundred dollars to have lunch where he agreed to be a plaintiff and signed a blank page for Church of Scientology attorneys.<ref name="morgantobin" />  CAN attorney Leipold stated, "Scientology planned, instigated, coordinated and sponsored a plan to subject CAN to multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions in order to overwhelm and eliminate it or take it over and control it".<ref name="morgantobin" /> Frank Oliver, who was until 1993 an operative in the Church of Scientology's [[Office of Special Affairs]] division (OSA), asserted that his last assignment with the OSA branch was to assist Kendrick Moxon in developing a special unit to target the Cult Awareness Network.<ref name="ortega99">{{cite web |first=Tony |last=Ortega |author-link=Tony Ortega |title=Double Crossed |date=December 23, 1999 |work=[[Phoenix New Times]] |url=https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/double-crossed-6431852 <!--reprint version omits original photographs--> |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312025501/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-12-23/news/double-crossed/full |archive-date=March 12, 2007}}</ref> Oliver stated that this unit was tasked with recruiting plaintiffs to sue the Cult Awareness Network, with the intention that these lawsuits would put CAN out of business.<ref name="ortega99"/> In 1995, members of the Church of Scientology picketed the home of ex-Scientology staff members [[Robert Vaughn Young]] and Stacy Young. A Scientology spokeswoman called it "a peaceful First Amendment demonstration to protest the Youngs' involvement with the Cult Awareness Network".<ref>{{cite web | first = Jennifer | last = Bjorhus | title = Scientology Critics Claim Harassment For Using Internet | url = http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2138183&date=19950826| work = The Seattle Times | date = 1995-08-26 | access-date = 2008-10-14 }}</ref> In a 2005 interview with the ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'', a Church of Scientology spokesperson stated that the Church was not responsible for the litigation leading to CAN's bankruptcy.<ref name="linnsemuels" />

Church of Scientology leader [[David Miscavige]] appeared in his first ever interview with the media on the program ''[[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]]'' on February 14, 1992, and was interviewed by [[Ted Koppel]].<ref name="koppel">{{cite web | first = Ted | last = Koppel | title = Scientology Leader Gave ABC First-Ever Interview | url = https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2664713&page=1 | work = [[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]] | publisher = [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] | date = 1992-02-14 | access-date = 2007-10-30 }}</ref> Miscavige stated that he believed Scientology did not "lend itself well to the press", and he criticized a piece on Scientology that aired on ''Nightline'' shortly before his interview.<ref name="koppel" /> In his criticism of the piece, Miscavige asserted that ''Nightline'' correspondents had only interviewed members of CAN, stating, "For instance, something that isn't mentioned in there is that every single detractor on there is part of a religious hate group called Cult Awareness Network and their sister group called [[International Cultic Studies Association|American Family Foundation]]. Now, I don't know if you've heard of these people, but it's the same as the [[KKK]] would be with the [[Black people|blacks]]. I think if you interviewed a [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] and asked them to talk about the [[Jews]], you would get a similar result to what you have here."<ref name="koppel" /> Koppel then posited the notion that others critical of Scientology were less apt to come forward and speak publicly due to fears of potential recrimination from the Church.<ref name="koppel" /> In 1994, the Cult Awareness Network opened a counter-suit against the Church of Scientology, eleven individual Scientologists and the [[Los Angeles]] law firm of [[Bowles and Moxon]].<ref>{{cite news | title = Hot-line buyer has Scientology ties | work = [[Chicago Sun-Times]] | date = December 1, 1996 }}</ref>