Plaintiffs repeatedly told Narconon that their drug-addicted son would not be a willing participant in the Narconon program, but they were assured multiple times by Narconon representatives who were former "students" of Narconon that Narconon knew how to handle him and keep him at the facility and in the program. After 5 days at Naronon, the son demanded that he be released, upon which Narconon had him driven to a nearby motel and left him there. Narconon StoneHawk refused to return any of the $25,000 which the plaintifs had paid for their son's attendance to Narconon. The counts included in the lawsuit were: I. Fraud in the Inducement II. Breach of Contract III. Unjust Enrichment IV. Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices
Plaintiff believed she was contacting Narcotics Anonymous because of the similarity of the name. She was not informed that it was not NA nor that Narconon was associated with Scientology. Once in the program, her son realized that it was not Narcotics Anonymous, but the Scientology-affiliated Narconon.
Plaintiffs Mr. & Mrs. Schram file lawsuit against Narconon Stone Hawk Rehabilitation Center of Battle Creek, Michigan to get a refund of monies paid for Mr. Schram because he was dismissed from the Narconon program without cause. Claims included deceptive trade practices; failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer; and for taking advantage of someone in a compromised or disabled condition unable to understand the language of an agreement; based upon cited Michigan laws. This case was settled and dismissed. Narconon Stone Hawk is no longer a licensed facility, its last owner Per Wickstrom runs other rehabs in Michigan, including A Forever Recovery, Best Drug Rehabilitation Services, and Tranquility Detox, all of which continue to use the Scientology based Narconon components.
This exceptionally disturbing case was filed in California Superior Court at Santa Cruz on June 9, 2004. The plaintiffs had contracted with Narconon to provide in-patient treatment for the wife. When the wife arrived at Narconon, she was put into detoxification at what was called the "withdrawal cabin" which was some distance from the main facility. While the plaintiff was sleeping, a staff member who was a former student and recent graduate of the program entered the cabin, insisted on giving her a "touch assist", and, after a chase that took place outdoors, ultimately raped her.
This case involves an employee of Narconon who was injured as a result of dangerous working conditions and premises while participating in Narconon's "Ethics Cycle" (punishment). Narconon had failed to provide Workers Compensation Insurance. Plaintiff also alleges he was assaulted and battered by another of Narconon's employees.
Deborah Khazei filed her lawsuit in The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Narconon of Northern California and First USA Bank , alleging fraud, misrepresentation, unauthorized transaction, breach of contract, and asking for compensatory damages for severe physical and emotional distress with a demand for return of monies paid for services not rendered. She filed this pro se in 2002 but later hired an attorney help her in negotiating and settling the case.
This is a civil lawsuit filed in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles regarding an assault by a co-worker at Narconon in Los Angeles, who also assaulted a student. Included in the charges are statements about Narconon not filing appropriate reports about incidents at the facility, which include a student being raped and a student being injected with heroin by a staff member. Disturbing complaint. The employee sued his employer Narconon, his supervisor Jeanne Trahant and the co-worker who assaulted him, Phil Armour. This involved the now defunct Narconon Los Angeles facility.
After a leave of absence from a California Narconon to attend the birth of his son, this plaintiff alleges that his personal belongings were removed from the facility without his permission. Later, after another home visit, he was informed that he could not return to the program. Repeated calls to inquire about the location of his belongings went unanswered, or were met with reassurances that his belongings were in storage and would be mailed to him, but never were.