UNITED STATES: PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT IN FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY V. LORD CROMER AND MR.

CROWE (Sovereign Immunity) Reviewed work(s): Source: International Legal Materials, Vol. 10, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER 1971), pp. 1051-1058 Published by: American Society of International Law Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20690796 . Accessed: 02/10/2012 23:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Legal Materials.

http://www.jstor.org

1051 UNITED IN SUPREME COURT IN FOUNDING STATES : PROCEEDINGS V. LORD CROMER AMD MR. CROWE* SCIENTOLOGY (Sovereign Immunity) CHURCH OF

in ?li*
october term, 970 No. 51 .original

FOUNDINGCHURCHOF SCIENTOLOGY
plaintiff, V.

HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CROMER

AND

MR. BRIANL. CROWE

defendants

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT

now the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 9, 3, through its coiinsel, Mr. John J. Matonis, to move this Honorable Court to grant leave to file the attached complaint. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: 1. This Honorable Court has original jurisdiction in this matter by virtue of the original jurisdiction grant of theCon stitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, to wit, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministeri and counsels... the Supreme Court shall have Original Jurisdiction." 2. Defendant, Lord Cromer is the Ambassador to the United States fromHer Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and Defen dant BrianCrowo Is theFirst Secretary for Informationattached to the Embassy of the United Kingdom inWashington, D.C. Comes

were for leave to file and the complaint *[The motion complaint filed on April with the Supreme Court As of September 7, 1971. 22, a response the defendants had not filed to the motion for 1971, to file a bill leave of complaint.]

1052 Plaintiff is a religious corporation located at 1812 19th Street,N.W., Washington, D.C., 20009. 4. The attached complaint alleges that Defendants com mitted libel and claims damages as a result of said libel. 3.

THEFOUNDING CHURCH SCIENTOLOGY OF

By its attorneys

MATONIS JOHN CHARLES KUBINSKI April 1970 JOEL REINER

COMPLAINT

1. Original jurisdiction for this action is founded under The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, as Ambassadors, other public minis follows, "In all cases affecting ters and counsels . . . The Supreme Court shall have Original
Jurisdiction."

Plaintiff is a religious corporation incorporated under 2. the Laws of theDistrict of Columbia, and is located at 1812 19th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. Defendant Cromer is the Am bassador to theUnited States fromHer Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Defendant Crowe is the First Secretary for Information at Her Majesty's Embassy inWashington. 3. Defendants on or about March 31, 1970, and at other times, published or caused to be published within theUnited States lettersand pamphlets containing untrue and defamatory statements about the religious principles of The Church of Scientology. These statements included representations that Plaintiffwas "not a religion at all" . . . "It is socially harmful and a menace to the public". In addition other derogatory statements such as "It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgracefulmotives to all who As a result of the above, Plaintiff suffered injuries, to wit, loss of parishioners, approbrium, reputation and income from contributions and pledges. 5. In addition, Plaintiff has also been injured in that its freedom to conduct services according to its religious prefer ences and its free exercise of religious doctrine has been 4.
threatened.. oppose." were published.

6.

were made

Defendant's utterences are such that it is clear that they

with actual malice.

7. Pk?ntiff is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of one million two hundred thousand dollars.

Plaintiff demands judgement in the 8. WHEREFORE, amount of one million dollars in compensatory damages and one million two hundred thousand dollars inpunitive damages. Plaintiff also demands a preliminaryand final.injunctionagainst further suchutterencesby Defendant and such other and further reliefas isjust. THEFOUNDING CHURCH SCIENTOLOGY OF
By its attorneys

MATONIS JOHN CHARLES KUB1NSKI April 1970 KREINER JOEL

|n

tU?
No. Founding Church

October Term, 1971

51, Original

Imid 4 (fpwA the

?ftstes

of Scientology, v.

plaintiff

Lord Crom er and His Excellency Mr. Brian L. Crowe, defendants MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES SUGGESTING IMMUNITY The Lord United Cromer States, on behalf of the defendants to the United (the British Ambassador

British

States) andMr. Crowe (the First Secretary of the

in Washington, D.C.), respectfully Embassy leave to file the suggests that this Court should deny original complaint in this case because the defendants,

of the United official diplomatic representatives of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are Kingdom 252. immune from suit under 22 U.S.C. 1. The Founding Church of Scientology filed a mo

as

to file an original complaint1 against Lord Cromer 1 Article III, section 2 of theConstitution grants this Court original jurisdiction "[i]n all cases affectingAmbassadors, * * *. 28 U.S.C. other publicMinisters and Consuls 1251(a) (2)

tion in this Court on April 7, 1971, seeking leave

provides that the Court shall have original jurisdiction of "[a] 11 or other public min actions or proceedings against ambassadors * * * not inconsistent with the law of of foreign states isters

nations."

1054 Crowe, alleging* that they uttered untrue statements regarding the Church and defamatory seeking $2,200,000 in compensatory and punitive dam ages. A copy of the motion and complaint were left or persons unknown on April and Mr.

7, 1971. On a notice April 18, 1971, plaintiff's attorneys mailed of suit and appearance forms to the Embassy. At the direction of the Court, the Clerk wrote Lord Cromer on June 15, 1971, requesting him to file a response to the motion

by a person

at the door of the British Embassy inWashington

of State, requested the United States to Department "draw the attention of the Clerk to the Supreme Court to the immunity from legal process in [the] United 2. It States Courts of Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador isters are and ofMr. Crowe."2 immune and public min from suit. 22 U.S.C. 252. That

1971, theBritish Embassy, by diplomatic note to the

by July 15, 1971. On June 22,

is settled that ambassadors

statute, which was first enacted in this country in 1790 and is consistent with generally accepted principles of international law and practice,3 provides: Whenever any writ or process is sued out or prosecuted by any person United States, or of a State, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassa dor or public minister of any foreign prince or State, authorized and received as such by the * * * is arrested or imprisoned or President his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or attached, such writ or process shall be deemed
void.

in any court of the

"to those actions which have as a direct objective the distraint, seizure or attachment of goods or chattels."

The immunity provided by Section 252 isnot limited

first enacted on April 30, 1790, 1 St at. in turn from the statute 7 Anne, C. 12. See In Re Bate, 135 U.S. 403, 420; 6Whiteman, Digest of Inter national Laro 403-412. The most recent international expression of the principle of diplomatic immunity is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Immunities, Articles Intercourse 22, 29-32. States has signed this See 55 Am. J. Intl. L. 1062. The United it has not yet ratified it. Approximately convention although 90 other nations have ratified the convention.

this memorandum. 3 The provision was 117, and was derived

2 A copy of this note is reproduced infra as Appendix A to

2d 496, 498 (C.A.D.C.). Diplomatie immunity traditionally has extended to all leg*il vpiOcess and has protected not only the ambas sador, but his subordinates, family, and servants as well. Ibid. See Hellenic Lines v. Moore, 345 F. 2d 978 ; (C.A.D.C.) MongiUo v. Vogel, 84 F. Siipp. 1007 (E.D. Pa.). plied alleged This broad and absolute in a immunity has been ap including 135 U.S. full variety of circumstances, libel and defamation. In Re Balz,

Carrera

. Carrera,

174 F.

1055

Court, 11 Stan. L. Rev. 665, 667-668. 3. Lord Cromer was received by the President on February Ambassador 8, 1971, and continues

Original Jurisdiction of theUnited States Supreme

as to

403; Arcaya v. Puez, 145 F. Siipp. 464 (S.D.N.Y.), affirmed, 244 F. 2d 958 (C.A. 2). See, also, Note, The

of State be accepted in that capacity. The Department was notified on October 4, 1968, that Mr. Crowe is Embassy. He continues to be accepted by the United States in that capacity.4 There is thus no question

the duly accredited First Secretary of the British

that both defendants are fully accredited diplomatic

and therefore entitled to immunity representatives from suit. It is true, of course, that the government of a dip can waive his immunity. See lomatic representative United States 6 Whiteman,

not waive

immunity. Accordingly, the attempted service of process5 should be deemed void and this Court should

the government of th? United Kingdom has indi cated,by itsnote to the Department ofState, that itdoes

v. Arizti, 229 F. Supp. 53 (S.D.N.Y.) ; 421-436. In this case, however, supra,

A of the United States, Certifications, by the Chief of Protocol status of Lord Cromer and Mr. Crowe are of the diplomatic and C to this memorandum. reproduced mfra as Appendices 5 The method by which the attempt to serve process evidently was made in this case?by leaving the motion and complaint at the front door with Rule

every 'officerconcerned in executing it, shall be deemed a violator * * * and shall be imprisoned for not more of the laws of nations than three.years, and fined at the discretion of the court."

of the Embassy?did not, in any event, comply 33 of the Rules of this Court. 22 U.S.C. 253 provides that "[w]henever any writ of process is sued out in violation of * * * section 252 every person by whom the same is obtained or whether as [a] party or as attorney or solicitor, and prosecuted,

1056
deny leave to file the complaint. submitted. Respectfully Erwin July 1971.

. Gmswold, Solicitor General.

APPENDIX A
Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy present their com and have the hon pliments to the State Department our to draw their attention to the following matter.

received from John Joseph Matonis, Attorney, for the Founding Church of Scientology, a copy of a Motion

In April 1971,Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy

Supreme Court of the United States, naming as de fendants Her Majesty's Ambassador and Mr. Brian L. First Secretary of the Embassy, and seeking Crowe, compensating and punitive damages from them in re spect of alleged utterances together with injunctions against further such utterances. The Embassy were advised at the time, in discussion with legal officers of the State Department, to make no response to this or to any other communications from the same source. Her Britannic Majesty's have now re Embassy ceived from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, a letter dated 15 June, 1971, a copy of which is attached, re questing that a response to the Motion be filed by 15 July, 1971. Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy re quest that the State Department draw the attention of the Clerk to the Supreme Court to the immunity from legal process inUnited States Courts ofHer Britannic Ambassador and ofMr. Crowe and confirm Majesty's

for Leave to File Complaint and Complaint in the

that it is unnecesaiy forHer Majesty's Embassy to

take action on the letter of 15 June. Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy avail themselves

of this opportunityto renew to the State Department

the assurances of their highest consideration. British Embassy, Washington

O.G., June 22,1971.

1057

APPENDIX
The
department

Chief
of

of Protocol
state, washington

the Earl of Cromer, according to the rec Honorable, ords of the Office of the Chief of Protocol, was re

This is to certify thatHis Excellency, the Right

ceived by the President of theUnited States as the Ambassador of theUnited Kingdom ofGreat Britain
and Northern States

to this date continued to be accepted by theUnited

in that capacity. /s/ Emil Mosragher, Jr., June 29,1971.

Ireland

on February

?, 1971, and has

APPENDIX C
The
department

Chief
of

of Protocol
state, washington

This is to certify that Mr. Brian L. Crowe, accord ing to the records of the Office of the Chief of Protocol, was notified to the Department of State as a duly accredited First Secretary of the British Embassy on October 4, 1968, and has to this date continued to be accepted by the United States in that capacity. /s/ Emil Jr., Mosbacher, June 29, 1971.

1058

SUPREME

COURT OrFlOE

OF OF

THE THE

UNITED CLERK

STATES

WASHINGTON,
?. robert s ? aver

O. C. 20S43

June 15,

1971

Kis

Cromer, Ambassador British 3100 Massachusetts

Earl

Excellency
of

The Right Honorable

P.C.,'K.c.M.G., Avenue, N. W.

the
M.B.eI

Washington,
re.:

;D. C.

20008

Church Founding Lord Cromer and .No. 51 Original_

of Scientology Crowe Brian l.

v.

Dear

Mr.

Ambassador:

a bill -to file ? complaint A motion for' leave on April was in the above Court filed in this 1971 7," that Our redords indicate entitled case. you were a copy of such motion. served with The file Court has a response office directed'this to this It motion. with to request be will

you your

to

appreciated office/oa

if you will
together

forward 60 printed
proof of

copies

of
this

response,

ar before

July! 15,

1971.

service,

to

Respectfully

yoursK

E.

Robert

S eaver,

ce:

John Joseph Matonis, Esq. N; W. 2620 "PV Street,

Washington, D. ?.