33 Bond Street
New York, NY 10012
Re: Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief
Dear Mr. Gibney:
In the recent televised interviews or discussions about Going Clear, you and Lawrence Wright called out Scientologist celebrities Tom Cruise and John Travolta to get Scientology head David Miscavige to answer his accusers for his actions. From the TimesTalks discussion:
LW: And the reason we’re calling out Cruise and Travolta is that they have the capacity–
AG: –they have the power
LW: — to change it. You know, there are only two ways that you can address the abuses that are going on inside Scientology:
One is to re-examine the tax exemption. And the IRS was so thoroughly whipped in 1993 by the Church of Scientology that it may not have the nerve to go back and do that again.
But ah, some of those celebrity megaphones, if they were turned around in the other direction, they can make a difference. And they should make a difference.
Logan Hill: What do you think that they could do? What would you like to specifically hear them say?
LW: I’d like to hear Tom Cruise stand up and say it’s time for David Miscavige to answer his accusers.
Calling out Cruise and Travolta to stand up and say it’s time for Miscavige to answer his accusers is logical because Cruise and Travolta are celebs, and they have contact and influence with him. Now I am urging you, and Wright and Paul Haggis, to call out Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder to answer their accuser, me. What I am accusing them of includes, most crucially, crimes and torts they committed against me personally to unlawfully obtain the IRS tax exemption, which is clearly a focus of your film.
Rathbun and Rinder, under L. Ron Hubbard and Miscavige, fair gamed me more than they fair gamed any other person during their time as fair gamers for Scientology. If they fair gamed someone else more than me, they have never said, and I have never heard of that person. The one person they fair gamed somewhat equivalently was my attorney Michael Flynn. See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/
Since Rathbun and Rinder have apparently left the Scientology cult, and portray themselves as exposers of the Scientologists’ abuses and crimes, I have many times asked them to come forward and tell the truth about fair gaming me. I have asked them many times to come forward and tell the truth about what they did to me to obtain their cult’s unmerited tax exemption. 1. See, e.g., this 2009 letter to Rathbun regarding black propaganda to the IRS. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/304
Yet neither of them has answered me, their accuser, other than with contempt and further fair gaming.
You, Wright and Haggis are celebrities. You used Rathbun and Rinder for your film. You three celebs have contact and influence with them. You have the power and the capacity to make a difference, and you should, and not just to make these victimizers media stars. I would like to hear you, Wright and Haggis stand up and say it’s time for Rathbun and Rinder to answer their accuser, the person they most victimized, Gerry Armstrong.
My wife Caroline and I have assembled a lot material about the Scientologists’ deal with the IRS on our site called the “The Armstrong Op.” The op is a decades-long covert campaign against me, which reached to the top of the US Government and foreign governments, and underlies the IRS’s grant of tax exemption in 1993. http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/documents/irs
The op continues to this day, and Rathbun and Rinder have been operating to keep it working. They black PRed me in Rathbun’s book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, which Rinder edited, and continued the criminal frame-ups of Flynn and me, which are key to the “negotiations” with the IRS.
Please read my introduction to the Armstrong op, which goes into these negotiations, and touches on the “public policy” issue, which is essential to understanding the IRS deal, and remedying it. http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/about
Also please read this article I wrote recently on public policy as it applies in the Scientologists’ obtaining of tax exemption. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1298
From what you and others have said about your film being based on Wright’s book, and from what is in the book about the IRS deal, I assume that you do not address the public policy issue in the film. (I have not seen it, and because of the Scientologists’ actions I cannot safely enter the US at this time.) Wright does not address the issue in the book. He writes that “Rathbun and Miscavige commuted to Washington nearly every week, toting banker’s boxes stuffed with responses to the government’s queries.” (p. 231) Wright does not, however, say anything about what the responses were. He does not mention Flynn in the book, or anything about the Scientologists ever fair gaming me, or the connection between the Scientology v. Armstrong litigations and the IRS deal.
Public policy violations comprised one of two principal reasons for the IRS’s refusal of tax exemption until the 1993 deal, the other reason being inurement. The Scientologists “cured” their public policy problem with the IRS by, among other things, framing me and then lying about me, and other similarly placed Scientology victims. Lying to the US has to be against public policy, but it is what the IRS negotiated with the Scientologists. The IRS never gave me an opportunity to answer my Scientologist accusers, or victimizers. Tax exemption, religion status, and the new ally relationship with the US Government then enabled the Scientologists to commit public policy violations against more citizens with relative immunity.
Wright had to have known about the public policy issue and the content of the Scientologists responses to the IRS. In 2010, while he was working on his New Yorker article, I sent him an email, which stated:
When we talked yesterday, I mentioned the black PR on me in Scientology’s submissions to the IRS on which its 1993 tax exemption was granted. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/index.html
This email is pasted below for your reference.
During his researching and writing the article, I sent Wright a great amount of information and documents and spoke to him and New Yorker fact checkers several times. I made myself and my information available, and withheld nothing in any areas they asked about. Despite this, he treated me dishonestly in the article, and forwarded the Scientologists’ black PR and lies on me. He and The New Yorker would not correct the published untrue statements about me, but handed me and my request for correction off to the magazine’s attorney, who also dealt with me dishonestly. Obviously I do not have the resources to take on Condé Nast legally, and they knew it. It was heart-breaking. I have no doubt that his unfriendly attitude toward me continued through his book, and into his participation in your film.
More than a year ago, Spanky Taylor told me that you would be contacting me about the film. This made sense because of my long, intense relationship with Hubbard and the Scientologists, all their litigation with me, their fair gaming, the way my situation and legal cases fit in the Scientologists’ human rights issues, my victimization and present standing in the IRS deal, and the quantity of my material Wright used in his book. I expect that you too have been influenced against me by black propaganda, not because I wasn’t contacted about the film, but because of the apparent omission of the public policy violations issue in your treatment of the IRS deal, which, of course concerns my victimization. I have never seen the black PR on me that the Scientologists provided to Wright, which I am sure he provided to you. You are also obviously close to Rathbun and Rinder who had a hand in this black PR, and who still hate me and are protecting the IRS deal by not telling the truth about the public policy issue and their victimizing me.
If you, Wright and Haggis really want to get the US Government to re-examine the Scientologists’ tax exemption, get Rathbun and Rinder to tell the truth. I will know when they tell it because they have to tell it about me. The Scientologists did not make the IRS’s knees buckle. The IRS was not thoroughly whipped in 1993. The IRS and the involved Justice Department officials collaborated with the Scientologists, and they did so with full knowledge that they were victimizing the Scientologists’ victims, which cannot but be a grotesque violation of public policy.
Paul Haggis has stated in a number of places that he fights for the underdog, doesn’t like bullies, “The bigger the bully, the more I want to take them down.” The bullies here are the Scientologists, their lawyers, PIs, etc., and the US Government, and Rathbun and Rinder and their supporters. That is about as big a bunch of bullies as you can find. Against them, my wife and I are virtually alone, the most marginalized underdogs imaginable.
I hope he will take this to heart, and you, Wright and he will stand up to these bullies. Please study the materials relating to the IRS deal and the public policy issues that I have made available, and use your power, capacity and megaphones so Rathbun and Rinder know it’s time to answer their accusers, including, most immediately, me.
[address and phone number]
cc: Lawrence Wright
cc: Paul Haggis
cc: Mark Rathbun
cc: Mike Rinder
From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:58 AM
To: ‘Lawrence Wright’
Cc: ‘Jennifer Stahl’
Subject: A few other things
When we talked yesterday, I mentioned the black PR on me in Scientology’s submissions to the IRS on which its 1993 tax exemption was granted.
Also, if you have questions about my legal cases and status, here’s my archive: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/category/legal
I mentioned this injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a4/2623.php
and the Breckenridge decision: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/283.php
which was affirmed on appeal: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/3112.php
A sample communication to Scientologists providing my position regarding their contract and injunction against me: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/14
And this is interesting. An “independent,” who appears to copy posts and party line from Rathbun’s blog, just quoted a 1996 post to that contained Prouty’s 1987 letter to Michael Joseph, publishers of Bare-Faced Messiah. http://mylrh.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/lrh-military-info/
I mentioned that Prouty hadn’t been used in some years. But Tommy Davis I guess brings him up with you, and a Scientologist posts this on his blog.
Curiously, I had the same post on my site in the black PR section: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-milne-1996-03-19.html
This 1999 post to a.r.s. is a Prouty oddity: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/breaches-exhibit30.html That is one of 201 “breaches” of Scientology’s contract for which the cult sought $50,000 each in a 2002 lawsuit.
And a Freedom article from Fletch on me: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/freedom-1985-04-2.html
I hope all of this is making sense to you. I’m assuming that you know a lot about what’s happening in Scientologyland.
Search Results for: public policy
by Gerry Armstrong 1
Caroline on ESMB: Gerry concluded some time ago that the key to the IRS decision and its cancellation is the “public policy” issue, or actually public policy violations issue. This explains why neither Rathbun nor Rinder have told the truth about their fair gaming of Gerry, Mike Flynn, etc., and have not told the truth about false statements to and dealings with the IRS. From the Introduction to the Armstrong Operation: […]
Wildcat on ESMB: This is good information, thank you! Can you provide a link or clarification about the “public policy” issue? I’m not sure what that is, but am very interested to know more.
Public policy. That principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term “policy,” as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be “against public policy,” when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
To see how “public policy” fits into the Scientologists’ IRS scheme, start with the September 1984 judgment in Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of IRS.2
The US was very aware of the Scientologists’ public policy violations against government, organizations and individuals because of the documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids, and because of testimony of Exscientologists. A broad statement reflecting the US’s knowledge of such public policy violations is provided in the December 1980 Sentencing Memorandum in the US v. Jane Kember & Mo Budlong case.
Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter. In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.” They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).
Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants
The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants. If anything, these documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. [ ] The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA) which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. [cite] That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.” [cite] This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years. It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.
The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country. The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail. One can only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data. That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.
The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes. It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.” Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.
These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.
These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.3
In July 1987, the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 1984 judgment in CSC v. Commissioner. Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground of inurement to L. Ron Hubbard, it did not address the public policy issue.
We conclude that the Church failed to establish that “no part of the net earnings … inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Because we may affirm the Tax Court on this ground, we do not reach the questions of whether the Church operated for a substantial commercial purpose or whether it violated public policy. 4
Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court judgment only on the ground of inurement, it did not mean that the IRS could ignore the other grounds for denial of tax exemption if the Scientologists cured their inurement problem. Hubbard’s death solved inurement. The Scientologists solved their public policy problem by committing more public policy violations against the people who were already victims of the Scientologists’ public policy violations. For corrupt reasons, the US abetted the Scientologists, indeed required such public policy violations.
The Scientologists’ strategy, as has long been known, became to blame their Guardian’s Office for everything off-public policy the Scientologists had been caught doing, disband the GO as a rogue operation, and swear that public policy violations were no longer committed or permitted. The Scientologists, of course, first under Hubbard and then under Miscavige, continued violating public policy unabated, and probably even escalated public policy violating by having the GO to scapegoat.
The blaming of the GO, and the smearing of the Scientologists’ public policy violation victims by association with the GO, is a key theme in the Scientologists’ negotiated submissions to the IRS upon which tax exemption was granted in 1993. The Scientologists, and the IRS, had to deal with the public policy issue that is so prominent in the 1984 Tax Court judgment. These submissions, negotiated to demonstrate that public policy violations had ended with the GO, are actually irrefutable, and astonishing, proof that Scientologists continued violating public policy, directed by the very top leadership of Scientology. 5
There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.
Although in his 2013 book Memoirs Mark Rathbun did not confront his participation in the Scientology-IRS conspiracy, which defrauded Americans and criminally prejudiced the SP class, he did disclose a number of things that are useful in examining certain of the Scientologists’ fact statements in their IRS submissions. Comparing the public policy sections of these submissions with the US’s knowledge of public policy violations as shown in the 1980 US v. Kember sentencing memorandum, and analyzing both fact sets with what Rathbun has disclosed or what is known from other sources, would be a logical next step.
- Posted to gerryarmstrong.ca on 25 Jan, 2015. ↩
- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irslegal/240984.html ↩
- Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Usa-v-kember-budlong-sentencing-memo-1980-01-72.pdf ↩
- Source: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/823/823.F2d.1310.85-7324.html ↩
- See http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/documents/irs ↩
10(a). The Service has expressed its concerns relating to violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations. What assurances can the Service be provided that these violations are not continuing as of December 31, 1989, and that those who were involved in the commission of the acts described in the CSC case are no longer affiliated in any capacity or employed by the Church of Scientology, including any Scientology-related organisation?
The Service’s ongoing concerns about “violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations” appear to be based on the Tax Court’s decision in CSC. The misconduct that gave rise to the Tax Court’s public policy findings in CSC was the criminal misconduct of individuals within the Guardian’s Office. As discussed in detail in response to question 3(a), the Guardian’s Office has been disbanded, the principal wrongdoers removed from staff permanently barred from ever serving on staff of any Scientology church in any capacity, and other former GO staff with lesser involvement removed and retrained. The procedures instituted that prevent recurrence of misconduct by Church staff in their official capacity apply equally here — the legitimate functions of that office now are carried out under full and direct ecclesiastical supervision, and there are no organizations or groups performing church functions in the practice and propagation of the religion of Scientology or its affiliated social welfare and public benefit activities which can operate independently of CSI and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.1/
1/ Church of Spiritual Technology is autonomous from the CSI hierarchy. CST has its own unique activities and purposes which require it to be autonomous. CST’s autonomy does not create a risk of a recurrence of the Guardian Office misconduct, because CST is not involved in any way with the ministry of religious services to the public, the proselytization of the Scientology religion, or the performance of its social welfare and public benefit functions.
b. The term “Snow White” referred in the 1970s to a covert operation carried out by the Guardian’s Office under which illegal acts were perpetrated, including burglarising the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Is any operation known as “Snow white” still in existence? If not, please describe and document the method by which it ceased operations. If an operation under the name still exists, please describe the operation and provide supporting documentation. In addition, please describe any operation of whatever name that may be designed to achieve goals similar to the “Snow White” operation that existed in the 1970s.
As discussed in our responses to Questions 3(d) and l0(a), during the 1970s the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) carried out a series of operations to infiltrate government offices, including the National Office of the IRS, to obtain copies of documents concerning the Church. While the GO used various names to refer to those operations, we do not believe it ever used the name “Snow White” to designate those operations. However, we understand that the term Show White may have been misused within a program involving infiltration of government agencies. This may be the source of the misconception about this program conveyed by the Service’s question. The term “Snow White” correctly refers to a program written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 for the purpose of correcting false governmental reports about the Church of Scientology through strictly legal means.
Mr. Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program because several countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea had denied entry to their ports to the ship Apollo, which at that time housed the Church’s senior ecclesiastical management bodies, as a result of false reports concerning the Church that were being distributed primarily by certain governmental officials in England and the United States. Mr. Hubbard wanted to correct the record and to seek redress for religious persecution. Accordingly, Mr. Hubbard wrote:
To engage in various litigation in all countries affected so as to expose to view all such derogatory and false reports, to engage in further litigation in the countries originating such reports, to exhaust recourse in these countries and then finally to take the matter to the United Nations (that now being possible for an individual and a group) and to the European Commission on Human Rights, meanwhile uprooting and cancelling all such files and reports wherever found.
This program did not contemplate anything illegal whatsoever, and in fact expressly stated its “Ideal Scene” to be “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged . . ..” (Emphasis added).
An example illustrating the use of the Snow White Program, why it was necessary and its results, concerns the country of Portugal. Between 1969 and the first half of 1974 the Apollo frequently docked at ports in Portugal with no problems and good relations with the people and local governments. In July 1973 a rumor was first heard in the port of Oporto that the Apollo was a “CIA ship.” This same rumor had first surfaced at ports in Spain in 1972 and as a result of this and other false reports the ship had been denied entry into some Spanish ports. Although the rumor continued to surface in 1973 and 1974 in Portugal, the Apollo nonetheless continued to be welcome in Portuguese ports without major incident.
On October 3, 1974, when the Apollo was docked at the port of Funchal on the island of Madeira, Portugal, it was attacked by a large crowd throwing rocks and shouting “CIA ship.” The local police and army stood by and watched, doing nothing to hold the crowd back. As a result some Church staff aboard the ship were injured and property was damaged or destroyed. Cars and motorcycles belonging to the Church and Church staff were thrown off the dock into the bay. The ship crew had to fight off the attackers with fire hoses while the ship made an emergency departure to escape the violence, without being able to take on food, fuel or water. The Apollo and her crew were forced to wait miles offshore for over a day while order was restored so she could return to load fuel, food and water and sail to a safe country.
Documents obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information act pursuant to the Snow White Program, trace the “CIA ship” rumor to a State Department telex in April of 1972 sent to various European countries that contained this and other false reports. Following the Snow White Program procedure of locating and expunging false reports and seeking redress for religious persecution, a suit was filed in Lisbon by the company that owned the Apgllg, Operation Transport Corporation (“OTC”), against the government of Portugal seeking damages as a result of this riot. In June of 1985 the Administrative Court of Lisbon awarded damages to OTC finding that the riot in October of 1974 had been sparked by the CIA ship rumor, and that this rumor was false. These damages were sustained by an appellate court in 1987.
Based on these decisions and clearing up of the false
information originally generated by the U.S. government, in April of 1988 the Minister of Justice in Portugal officially authorized the registration of the Church of Scientology in Portugal, accomplishing the Snow White Program’s objective for that country. The principal activities in the United States under the Snow White Program have consisted of filing Freedom of Information Act requests with all Federal governmental agencies and public record requests at the state and local level, pursuing litigation to compel disclosure of records being withheld, and the filing and prosecution of a large lawsuit in 1978 against a number of federal government agencies for the purpose of expunging all false reports on the Church and Mr. Hubbard contained in their files. Other activities under the aegis of Snow White, both in the UZS. and abroad, had to do with investigating and exposing Interpol as an autonomous police agency serving as a conduit for false reports on the Church and others.
The Osler Decision:
The Service need not simply rely on our representations about the Snow White Program as we are providing a copy of the original program with this write-up as Exhibit 10-A. Additionally, Justice Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, reviewed this program in 1985 to determine whether an Ontario Provincial Police officer should be cross-examined on an affidavit he had sworn in support of a search warrant against a Church of Scientology in Canada. The officer had characterized the Snow White Program as calling for illegal actions.
In an opinion dated January 23, 1985, after reviewing the Snow White Program document and other related evidence, Justice Osler noted that
“. . . it is not without significance that the affidavit of Fletcher Prouty, appearing in Volume 8A of the record at tab KK, makes it appear that he formed the conclusion, as a highly placed official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States that since 1950 there has been a definite campaign of harrassment against this organization (Scientology) for nearly thirty years primarily by means of the dissemination of false and derogatory information around the world to create a climate in which adverse action would be taken.against the Church and its members. Defense against this type of activity was, of course, the stated objective of the SNOW WHITE program.
Decision of Supreme Court of Ontario, Osler, J., pp. 33-34.
Concluding that the document on its face called for actions to “legally” expunge files and that the word “legally” appeared to have been purposely left out of the officer’s affidavit, Justice Osler ordered that the cross-examination of the officer go forward. Following the cross-examination, on February 7, 1985, Justice Osler issued a second opinion stating that while he did not believe that the officer’s mischaracterization of the Snow White Program rose to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation, he did find that the officer had made “errors in judgment” in characterizing the program as calling for illegal actions.
Current Snow White Activities:
The Snow White program is not being executed today. It was a very specific program tailored to a particular state of affairs at the time it was written. However, over the years the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. So the term may be heard in connection with this activity from time to time. The Church’s legal bureau, working with Church counsel, utilize the Freedom. of Information Act and similar statutes around the world to locate false reports on Churches. When located they seek cooperation of the agencies involved in expunging and correcting such reports. These staff and attorneys carry out no activities that are in any way illegal, and neither does any other unit or function in the Church.
A copy of the Snow White Program as issued in 1973 is attached as Exhibit II-10-A.
Question 10 (c)
Please state whether, to the best of your knowledge and belief, there are any pending United States or state or local governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by a Scientology-related organization or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization. For purposes of this question, please include any information relating to any Class V Church or Mission without regard to whether such Church or Mission is required to be listed in your response to question 1. Please include any pending criminal charges (and/or any pending court action including relevant docket number(s) against such entity or individual. Include in the description the investigating agency and any knowledge and/or documents known by you, or in your possession, or known by a Scientology-related organization or in the possession of such an organization regarding the investigation (e.g., what the allegations are and the date the acts were allegedly committed). In addition, please list all positions held by the individual listed in response to this question in any Scientology-related organizations at the present time and at the time the activity in question allegedly occurred.
There are no known pending governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by any Scientology-related organizations or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization.
* * * * *
Question 10 (d)
d. Please provide a list of all civil or criminal litigation commenced on or after January 1, 1980 in which it is alleged that any Scientology-related organization (as that definition has been modified in c. above) or any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization, has violated any criminal law or has committed an intentional tort. The list should contain parties’ names, the docket number(s) of the litigation, the court in which the matter is or was pending, a short description of all claims (and any counterclaims) by the parties, including any additional facts you believe would be relevant to allow us to understand the bases of the suit, and the status of the action. The list need not contain litigation in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a named party.
Although only litigation that commenced on or after January 1, 1980 has been requested, background information is necessary to put those cases in context. In the 30 years prior to 1980 there were only a handful of alleged intentional tort cases in the United States. These were principally cases involving a disgruntled former member wishing a refund of his or her donations, and who included tort causes of action as a litigation tactic. Such cases were typically dismissed without a trial or settled for a refund of the donations made.
The response to Question 3 (d) describes in detail how during the 1970s the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) acted as an autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy.
Although these activities involved a very small number of Guardian’s Office staff members operating autonomously in violation of Church policy and the law, their actions provided ammunition for those who would attack the Church and damaged the Church’s credibility with courts and the government. The GO carried out several years of secretive, questionable and often illegal activities before they were exposed and stopped. Much of this was recorded in documents that were seized in FBI raids on GO offices and made publicly available during the criminal prosecutions of GO members. The Commodore’s Messenger Organization
CSI Prod 11-4-93
investigated and disbanded the GO in the early 1980s, dismissing a large number of GO members from Church staff along with a few GO sympathizers in Church management. The GO documents and the activities that they revealed, along with a small group of rabid apostates, came to the attention of Boston personal injury attorney Michael Flynn, who concluded that this combination made the Church an easy litigation target in cases which he hoped to position for large monetary settlements.
Flynn, whose practice had theretofore centered on medical malpractice, launched his litigation assault on the Church of Scientology in 1979. His formula, which he repeated in all of the cases he brought, was to: (1) locate someone who had left the Church, had been purged or who could be induced to leave the Church; (2) convince the person to file “cookie-cutter” fraud and emotional distress claims; and (3) commence an action through an inflammatory complaint, relying on documents from the Guardian’s Office to give an air of false credibility to the claims.
Flynn, however, did not sue the GO; instead, his targets were Churches of Scientology generally and L. Ron Hubbard. As part of his design, Flynn enlisted the aid of ousted GO sympathizers and former GO members as witnesses, thus enabling him to orchestrate a highly prejudicial portrayal of Scientology for judges and juries and for the media.
On a separate front, Flynn set out to create broader problems for the Church in the hope both of spreading Church resources thin and imparting a false air of credence to his civil claims. This he accomplished by instigating governmental investigations and attacks on the Church, often through IRS personnel who were more than willing to cooperate.
The Van Schaick Action
Flynn’s first step was to file a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1979, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.. No. 79-2491-G. In that action, Van Schaick, purporting to act as a supposed class representative, alleged an array of torts and sought $200 million in damages. However, no class certification was ever pursued by Flynn. Instead, he used the lurid allegations and huge prayer of the Van Schaick complaint as a tool for soliciting additional clients to sue the
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Church. Ultimately, Flynn recruited 28 plaintiffs to file virtually identical actions in various jurisdictions.
Flynn Associates Management Corporation
In 1980, Flynn created a corporate entity to promote his burgeoning business of suing the Church. Flynn Associates Management Corporation (“FAMCO”) was formed, in the words of a FAMCO document, to promote four basic goals:
- Closing Scientology organizations (Churches)
- Adverse media
- Adverse public reaction
- Federal and state attacks (on religion)
FAMCO was merely a front designed to generate money to finance Flynn’s litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme outlined in one FAMCO document actually promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares. FAMCO was essentially a franchising scheme through which Flynn solicited co-counsel in various other jurisdictions to join in the Church litigation through a fee-splitting system. Flynn’s plan was “. . . to position ourselves such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” He forecast “One thousand lawsuits (against the Church of Scientology) . . . by the end of 1981.” Flynn provided attorneys with “turn-key” lawsuits. He promised other attorneys that, “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery.”
Flynn’s Probate Gambit
A particularly outrageous tactic employed by Flynn was his attempt to steal Mr. Hubbard’s estate by inducing Mr. Hubbard’s estranged son, Ronald DeWolfe, to bring a probate action in November 1982, falsely alleging that Mr. Hubbard was missing and that DeWolfe should be appointed to control the estate. At the same time, of course, Flynn was representing a group of former Scientologists who had named Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in civil suits against the Church, alleging that Mr. Hubbard controlled the Church as its managing agent. Flynn thus achieved the unique distinction of going into one court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard controlled the day-to-day operations of the Church through a constant stream of orders to Mr. Miscavige, and then crossing the hall to another court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard was ill and dying and that he was being manipulated by his close advisors, especially Mr. Miscavige. By being willing to speak out of both sides of
CSI Prod 11-4-93
his mouth, Flynn was seeking to get rich by trying to gain control of the very estate he was simultaneously seeking to plunder./1
After Flynn’s probate action was dismissed on summary judgment in June of 1983, Flynn shifted gears and announced that his “real” purpose in bringing the probate action had been to force Mr. Hubbard out of seclusion so he could be served in Flynn’s other cases.
One of Flynn’s clients, Paulette Cooper, graphically described in an affidavit how Flynn detailed to her his strategy to “quickly and easily win” cases by “conducting an attack against Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard” by naming him as a defendant in her pending lawsuits. Flynn specifically told Cooper that he believed that “Hubbard would never appear” in those suits because “by approximately 1979, Mr. Hubbard had severed his ties with the
Church.” Flynn boasted that such a ploy would result in quick money judgments because the litigation could be “quickly terminated, either by obtaining a default judgment against Mr. Hubbard,” or by forcing “settle[ment] in order to protect Mr. Hubbard.” Cooper further affirmed that Flynn filed sworn statements by Cooper in her cases alleging Mr. Hubbard’s control when Cooper lacked any evidence whatsoever of the claim, “solely for strategic reasons in pursuit of default judgment.”
Government Support for the Flynn Campaign
As noted above, Flynn obtained government assistance to lend credence and momentum to his attacks and to bring additional pressure on the Church. Tactics, strategies and the goal of the destruction of the Scientology religion were shared and carried out by Flynn in coordination with some parts of the IRS and Department of Justice. The clearest examples of this collusion were in the fall and winter of 1984.
In August of 1984, in civil litigation between churches of Scientology and the IRS and other federal government agencies that had been in progress for some years, the government worked with Flynn in importing one of Flynn’s principal tactics into the Church’s government litigation, namely seeking the deposition of L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of the Church and then seeking dismissal or default as
1/ It was during that same time period that Charles Rumph of the IRS National Office told Mr. Miscavige that he lacked credibility because he was an “automaton” who only did and said what L. Ron Hubbard told him to do and say.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
a sanction if Mr. Hubbard failed to appear. The evidence used to support the government’s motions to compel those depositions were declarations by individuals who were clients of or had been witnesses for Flynn. Simultaneously, the government launched an “unclean hands” defense in these same suits based on allegations and claims that mirrored those that Flynn had asserted in his redundant lawsuits nationwide.
Two of the government’s principal declarants were Flynn’s client Laurel Sullivan and Flynn witness Dede Reisdorf. Sullivan had been removed from her position and later left the Church because she conspired with the GO to place GO members who had committed crimes in positions of corporate authority within the Church. She was a loser in the purge. Flynn provided her to the IRS who used her as a government witness represented by DOJ attorneys in Flynn litigation. Dede Reisdorf was also a GO sympathizer who was removed from her post in 1981 when she tried to block the investigation in the GO.
In March of 1985, based on the declarations of Sullivan and Reisdorf, Judge Joyce Hens Greene ordered the Church to produce Mr. Hubbard for deposition or face dismissal of a civil suit against the government which was in the process of exposing 20 years of false reports and harassment against Scientology and Scientologists. Unable to comply with the order as Mr. Hubbard was not running the Church or even accessible to anyone in the Church, the Church’s suit was dismissed in April of 1985 as a discovery sanction.
A few courts saw through the charade and refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. One such Judge was District Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer, who, on January 24, 1986, just hours before Mr. Hubbard’s passing, refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer held that, while Mr. Hubbard was “accorded reverence and respect by Scientologists,” he was not the managing agent of the Church corporations.
IRS CID Support of Flynn
It was during this same period that the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Los Angeles commenced a criminal investigation of L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and various churches of Scientology and other Scientologists. According to the testimony of CID Branch Chief Phillip Xanthos, the impetus for the investigation was a newspaper article detailing allegations made by Flynn and a number of his witnesses and clients. In fact, the majority of the individuals who were interviewed and used as informants by the CID in their investigation were from Flynn’s stable of
CSI Prod 11-4-93
witnesses and clients, among them Gerry Armstrong. In a late 1984 police-authorized video tape surveillance, Armstrong — a Sullivan ally who had made several attempts to join the GO’s intelligence office — was recorded plotting a take-over of the Church. The plan included planting phony documents that would then be seized in a CID raid, the filing of a new lawsuit by Flynn which was designed to wrest control of the Church from its legitimate leaders and to set up the sexual compromise and blackmail of a senior Scientologist.
Just as Flynn expressed his goal of destroying the Church in his original planning papers, in the Special Agents report prepared at the end of the CID investigation, the agents expressed the same aim — “the final halt” and the “ultimate disintegration” of the Church of Scientology.
Resolution of Flynn Cases:
Between 1980 and 1986, Flynn was either counsel of record, of counsel or coordinating counsel on 40 virtually identical lawsuits against the Church. Flynn’s plan to incite 1,000 lawsuits never came to fruition, and his plan to break the Church financially, failed. By 1986, only one of Flynn’s cases had gone to trial. That case, Stifler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, involved an altercation between Stifler and a Church disseminator in which Stifler claimed injuries.2/ He found his way to Michael Flynn and filed suit, alleging various tortious conduct on the part of the Church and sought $4,250,000 in damages. Flynn took the case to trial and Stifler was awarded the amount of his medical bills ($979) in a judgment against the individual Church member. There was no judgment or damages against either of the Churches.
Realizing his plan had failed, Flynn approached the Church in 1986 offering a settlement. The Church decided to pay nuisance value to get rid of the distraction created by these cases, begin a new era of expansion for Scientology and to settle matters with the IRS. The first two of these objectives were achieved and all of the Flynn-related cases, as listed below, were settled if they had not been previously dismissed already. A new era of expansion did begin for Scientology.
2/ The only other “Flynn” case that went to trial was Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, a suit the Church brought against Armstrong, over Armstrong’s theft of Church archival materials. Armstrong brought a counter-suit with intentional tort claims which was never tried and was part of the Flynn settlement.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
It also appeared that a settlement with the IRS would be possible, but after years of good faith efforts and cooperation by the Church in its efforts to settle with the IRS, agents in the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation Division and hardliners against Scientology in the National Office, such as Marcus Owens, sabotaged those efforts causing the negotiations to break down, as is covered in more detail later.
The following is the list of the Flynn-related suits that were either dismissed or settled: Gerald Armstrong v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., (cross-complaint), No. C 420 153, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Jose Baptista v. Church of Scientology Mission of Cambridge, No. Civ. 81010, Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Mark D. Barron v. Church of Scientology of Boston, No. 5110, Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Donald Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 81 Civ. 6864 (MJL), United States District Court Southern District of New York; Peggy Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York et al.; No. 81 Civ. 4688 (MJL) United States District Court Southern District of New York; Phillip Bride v. Church of Scientology of Portland, Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al.. No. A 8003-01189, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County; Eileen Brown for Kevin Brown v. Delphian Fdn., et al. No. 81-435 (FBL); United States District Court of New Jersey transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 28, 1982; Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 80-501-Civ-T-K, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology. No. 82-886-Civ-T-15 United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. 81- 3472-CA-OI, Circuit Court Seventh Judicial Circuit Volusia County; John G. Clark, Jr. v. L. Ron Hubbard No. 85-356-MCN, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Bent Corydon and Mary Corydon, Mark Lutovsky, Phil Black, Mark Chacon, Church of Sciologos v. Church of Scientology Mission of Riverside, et al., No. 154129, Superior Court of the State of California County of Riverside; Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al., No. 81 681 MC United States District Court, District of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn, Lucy Garritano, Steven Garritano, James Gervais and Peter Graves v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., (counter-claim), No. 40906 Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 54258, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, et al., CV 85-4853, United States District Court, Central District of California; Michael J. Flynn v. L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, No. 83-2642-C, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Carol A. and Paul Garrity v. Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and L. Ron Hubbard, CV 81-3260 RMT (JRX), United States District Court Central District of California; Hansen, Marjorie J. v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Church of Scientology of California, No. 47074, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Betsy Harper v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, No. 65262, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Ernest and Mary Adell Hartwell, v. Church of Scientology of California et al., No. 196800, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for County of Clark; Thomas Jefferson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-3261, United States District Court Central District of California; Deborah Ann Keck v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., CV-81-6060 R, United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dana Lockwood v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-4109 CBM, United States District Court Central District of California; Nancy and John McLean, v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 81-174-Civ-T-K United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division; Steven R. Pacca v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 12076-81, Supreme Court New York County; Jane Lee and Richard Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, CV 81-3259 CBM (KX), United States District Court Central District of California; Patrick R. Rosenkjar v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, and Mary Sue Hubbard, No. 81-1350, United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Martin Samuels, v. L. Ron Hubbard, A8311-07227, In the Circuit of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah; Howard D. Schomer v. L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. CV 84-8335, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; Michael W. Smith v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47236, Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts; Manfred Stansfield, Valerie Stansfield, Franklin Freedman et al. v. Norman Starkey, et al., No. CA 001 012, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles; Lawrence Stiffler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Roger Sylvester, No. 44706, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Gabor Szabo v. Church of Scientology of California and Vanguard
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Artists International, No. C 312 329, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Janet Troy v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 41073, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Kim L. Vashel v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47237, Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Margery Wakefield v. Church of Scientology of California, No. 82-1313 Civ-T-10 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. C 694401, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Other Categories of Cases:
Although the cases generated by Michael Flynn comprised the majority of tort litigation against the Church of Scientology between 1980 and 1986, there were some other cases that arose during the same period of time that were not entirely “Flynn” cases although they were generally of the same ilk. Flynn shared information, witnesses, tactics and sometimes acted as coordinating counsel for other attorneys involved in similar litigation against the Church. In other instances, while there was no apparent direct link between Flynn and a particular plaintiff or attorney in a suit, the similarity of claims and tactics suggests that these individuals or attorneys were copying Flynn’s strategy. The following cases fall into this category: Alberto Montoya v. L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology, et al., No. 450094, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; Joan Edin v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al., No. 287191, Rita Engelhardt B. v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 312 692, Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Each of those cases was dismissed.
There are a few cases where Flynn’s influence was felt that deserve separate discussion as they are cases that actually went to trial and were adjudicated.
The Christofferson case was actually originally filed in 1977, prior to the period covered by the Service’s question.
In 1977, after taking a few elementary courses at the Church of Scientology Mission of Portland and working for a short time at another organization, Julie Christofferson was kidnapped and, over a four day period, deprogrammed to give up her religion by convicted felon Ted Patrick. She was
CSI Prod 11-4-93
then turned over to attorneys by the anti-religion group involved so she could bring suit against the Church on a contingent fee basis.
At trial, Christofferson’s attorneys derided and distorted Scientology’s beliefs and practices to such an extent that the Oregon State Court of Appeals overturned the $2 million verdict, finding that Scientology is a religion and that the trial had been rife with First Amendment violations. Upon remand, Christofferson’s lawyers — by then FAMCO members — applied Flynn’s tactics and inflamed a jury into a $39 million verdict that led the trial court to declare a post-verdict mistrial in May of 1985. There never was another trial. The Christofferson case was part of the 1986 global settlement with Flynn.
Larry Wollersheim had been in and out of churches of Scientology for over a decade before he finally left for good in 1979. While in the Church he was continually in trouble over his unethical business practices. He filed suit against the Church for a variety of claims, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, No. C-332-027, in State Court in Los Angeles in 1980, represented by attorney Charles O’Reilly, a participant in the original FAMCO planning meetings.
During the five month trial in 1986, O’Reilly applied the FAMCO tactics and relied upon Flynn’s stable of witnesses and obtained an absurd verdict of $30,000,000.
While the Wollersheim case is still going through the appeals process, the jury verdict has been reduced to $2,500,000 from its original $30,000,000, and further appeals are pending.
GO Criminal Activity Fallout Litigation:
Another category of cases involved Guardian’s Office members or stemmed from GO illegal activities. This included, for example, proceedings to compel testimony before a grand jury convened in Florida to investigate GO activities and an action by the State of Florida to disbar Merrell Vannier, an attorney who was also a GO operative and who violated the canons of ethics as an attorney. It was this kind of activity that was rooted out and condemned in the disbanding of the GO. Nonetheless a certain amount of fall-out litigation from the years of GO criminality had to be expected. Cases falling into this category — i.e., cases which were not against the Church but which present allegations about the GO — are as follows: The Florida
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Bar v. Merrell G. Vannier,. No. 61,691, Supreme Court of Florida (Vannier was disbarred); Merrell and Francine Vannier v. Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 60 478, Supreme Court of California (Vannier lost an appeal against an extradition order); In re Charles Batdorf; United States v. Batdorf, No. 80 CV Misc (MM-188), United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Batdorf convicted); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Mitchell Hermann, Peggy Tyson, Richard Weigand, and Duke Snider), Nos. 80-5 Misc-T-H and 80-614 CIV-T-H, Municipal District State of Florida — Tampa Division (investigation dropped); United States v. Stephen E. Poludniak. Libby Wiegand, No. 80-00143 CR (1), United States District Court for the Second District of Missouri (defendants plead guilty).
The Mayo Cases:
Mayo was removed from a senior post in 1982 due to unethical conduct and the discovery that he had altered Scientology religious practice and Scriptures. Mayo then left the Church and along with a few other ex-Scientologists established the Church of the New Civilization, dba Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara, California, where he delivered his own version of Scientology religious services to ex-Scientologists. He also sought the defection of Church members in order to build his membership. Mayo then acquired copies of certain confidential advanced Scientology Scriptures which had been stolen by some of Mayo’s confederates from a Church facility in Denmark.
As a result, in 1985, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology of International and Church of Scientology of California sued David Mayo and others in a suit alleging RICO causes of action based on the conspiracy to acquire the secret confidential materials of the Scientology religion and use them for the economic advantage of Mayo’s organization and other related splinter groups. This litigation consists of the consolidated cases, including counter-claims, of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Dal. 1988), No. CV 85-711 JMI (Bx) and Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Wollersheim, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1985) No. CV 85-7197 JMI (Bx).
Although this litigation is still ongoing, Mayo’s Advanced Ability Center has long since ceased to operate and the various individuals who had been associated with it have for the most part scattered to different areas.
The IRS has been supportive of Mayo’s efforts. Mayo became an IRS informant during the CID investigation of the
CSI Prod 11-4-93
mid-80’s. Whereas Scientology organizations have been unable to obtain exempt status, the IRS granted exempt status to Church of the New Civilization – even though it had closed its operations and its sole remaining business was to contest this litigation. Further, much of this litigation is financed by wealthy psychiatrist Sarge Gerbode. In 1986, Gerbode formed a trust known as the “Friends of the First Amendment.” The IRS granted exempt status to this anti-Scientology fundraising entity, and Gerbode has funnelled in excess of $1.4 million dollars to fund Mayo’s litigation through that trust as charitable tax deductions for himself.
The Aznaran/Yanny Litigation:
Vicki Aznaran is the former President of Religious Technology Center and her husband, Richard, is a former Church staff member. Vicki was removed from her position by the Trustees of RTC in March 1987 as she had betrayed the trust of her position and was not acting in the best interests of the religion. By her own testimony, she first got in trouble when she sought to place an ex-GO criminal in RTC’s personnel department. Vicki and her husband then left the Church after Vicki’s removal.
Joseph Yanny served as an attorney for RTC and various churches from 1983 until November of 1987. His primary contact with the Church was with RTC and Vicki Aznaran, with whom he developed a close personal relationship.
After Vicki’s departure, the new officers of RTC examined Yanny’s performance, determined it to be sub-standard, and learned that he was a user of LSD. He was then discharged.
Upon his termination, a billing dispute erupted between Yanny and the Church, and Yanny enlisted the aid of the Aznarans in supporting him in his billing dispute and, in exchange, acted as de facto counsel for the Aznarans in helping them prepare and file a lawsuit against his former clients. The Aznaran suit, Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1988), No. CV 88-1786 JMI, was filed on April 1, 1988. Despite Vicki Aznaran’s high ecclesiastical position as the head of RTC for a number of years, her suit portrays her as a victim who didn’t know for all these years that she was really “brainwashed” and under “mind control” – plus the other stock inflammatory allegations that characterize this sort of litigation. It seeks $70,000,000 in damages and is still pending.
Shortly after the Aznaran complaint was filed, Yanny
CSI Prod 11-4-93
received from Vicki Aznaran a declaration by her as the former President of RTC supporting Yanny’s claim that a retainer he received in 1985 was “non-refundable.” Yanny used this declaration in his fee dispute over the retainer which is now in litigation along with claims against Yanny for his breach of his fiduciary duties.
Even before the Aznaran case was filed, Al Lipkin, one of the agents who conducted the IRS’s CID investigation in 1984 and 1985, was in contact with Yanny and the Aznarans. It was Lipkin who arranged for the Aznarans to be interviewed by Exempt Organizations agents from Los Angeles who were conducting an on-site review of Church records, ostensibly the final step in negotiations concerning tax exempt status for Scientology churches. The day after issuing summonses to the Aznarans to be interviewed and to produce documents relating to their lawsuit, the same agents issued document requests to Religious Technology Center asking RTC to produce Vicki Aznaran as a corporate officer of RTC.
While the allegations of the Aznaran complaint serves as the purported reason for the summonses and interview, in reality the taped interview was a contrived setting for an IRS/Aznaran diatribe against the Scientology religion and L. Ron Hubbard, with the IRS agents urging the Aznarans to press their litigation and the Aznarans urging that the tapes of the interview be furnished to Lipkin and LA IRS CID.
It was the Church’s discovery of this event which precipitated the breakdown of the earlier negotiations between the Church and the IRS.
Coincident with their interview with the IRS, the Aznaran’s personal tax problems evaporated and their private investigation business was retained by Guess? Jeans — the large jeans manufacturer that Al Lipkin befriended during an earlier IRS CID investigation (which also involved tampering with civil litigation and was the subject of a Congressional investigation).
The Aznaran suit is still pending at this time and has not yet gone to trial. Meanwhile Yanny has pursued an agenda to cause as much harm as possible to the Church by repeatedly betraying his fiduciary duties as former Church counsel by providing information concerning the Church to the Aznarans and a number of other litigants against the Church, as well as to the IRS and the FBI.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Other Current Litigation:
Several other suits are pending against Churches of Scientology that allege some form of tort claim. Although there are variations in the claims and different attorneys representing the plaintiffs, there is one common denominator underlying most of these suits: the influence of the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”).
CAN, which the IRS has recognized as exempt under section 50l (c) (3) as an educational organization, is in fact a bigoted hate group that targets and tries to destroy churches and religions. CAN’s principal activities are negative propaganda campaigns, covert dissemination of false information for purposes of subversion and acting as a referral service for deprogrammers on a fee sharing arrangement. Although complaints have been made to the IRS about CAN’s continued exempt status in light of its true activities, no action has been taken.
The Church of Scientology is presently CAN’S principal target for attack, and CAN’s favorite tactic is to spread false and defamatory information about the Church through all available means while holding itself out as an authority on the subject. When contacted by anyone with a complaint about the Church, CAN manipulates them to attack the Church either through the media or by referring them to an anti-Scientology attorney.
The majority of the suits against Churches of Scientology recently filed and presently pending, that have not been otherwise discussed above, fall into this category. None has gone to trial. The following are cases instigated or influenced by CAN either directly or as a result of one of CAN’s spread of false information: Terry Dixon v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Portland, et al., No. 9010-08200 Multnomah County – Circuit Court of Oregon (in arbitration); John Finucane, David Miller, Alexander Turbyne v. Emery Wilson Corporation, et al., No. C 045216, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (pending); Dorothy Fuller, an individual v. Applied Scholastics International, et al., No. 92K 11466, Municipal Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (just filed); Lisa Stuart Halverson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al., No. 92K11186, Municipal Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (settled); Thomas and Carol Hutchinson v. Church of Scientology of Georgia, et al., No. D90315, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia (pending); Mark Lewandowski v. Church of Scientology of Michigan, et al., No.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
91-421716-LZ, State of Michigan in the Oakland Circuit Court (pending); Peter and Francis Miller v. Church of Scientology et al., No. 027140, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (case abated re the Church and in arbitration re Sterling); Ted Patrick, et al. v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., State Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah (dismissed); Dee and Glover Rowe v. Church of Scientology of Orange County, et al., No. BC 038955, Superior Court of California (pending); Frank and Joan Sanchez v. Sterling Management Systems, et al., No. 91-224-CV, 4th Judiciary District Court San Miguel County, State of New Mexico (pending); Thomas Spencer v. The Church of Scientology, et al., BC 026740, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (settled); Irene Zaferes v. Church of Scientology, Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles (dismissed); Jo Ann Scrivano v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 87-1277, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (in discovery stage); Marissa Alimata and Richard Wolfson v. Church of Scientology of California, etc., et al., No. C 650 988, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (judgment entered for the Church).
Personal Injury, Medical-Related Suits:
Another category of lawsuits involve claims by individuals who have been injured on Church premises or in some way attributed responsibility to the Church for an injury or death. For example, in the Rabel case listed below, a stereo speaker accidentally fell out of the window of a Scientology mission and hit someone on the street below. The case was settled. The Arbuckle case was brought by the parents of an individual who died while a parishioner of a church of Scientology. Although his death from kidney failure was traceable to his use of steroids, the case was settled to avoid expense of litigation. Each of this group of cases was either settled or dismissed. Mira Chaikin v. Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. 81 Civ 7525, United States District Court of the Southern District of New York; Gary and Susan Silcock v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake, et al., No. C 86-7213, Third Judicial District Court for the Salt Lake County, Utah; Rimando, Pedro H. Irene Marshall v. The Church of Scientology of San Francisco, et al., No. C 669015, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Wendy and William Rabel v. Eric Rising, Jane Doe Rising, his wife; Church of Scientology Mission of University Way, et al., King County Superior Court, Washington State; Francine Necochea, a minor child, by her guardian Ad Litem
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Cecilia Garcia v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 165360, California Superior Court for the County of Riverside; Roxanne Friend v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. DC 018 003, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Bruce and Lynnel Arbuckle v. Skip Pagel M.D., Church of Scientology Celebrity Center Portland, et al., No. 8907-04119, Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court.
A final category of lawsuits includes cases that have arisen out of financial or property disputes or transactions involving individual Scientologists, their businesses or creditors or organizations or individuals that Churches of Scientology or related organizations have had financial dealings with. Often the Church is named in such cases simply as a perceived “deep pocket” or as a tactic to try to coerce a settlement. Such cases are typically dismissed or settled. These cases are as follows: In re Dynamic Publications Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maryland (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. A Brilliant Film Company, et al., No. 164213, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. Marvin Price, et al., No. 165165, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Peter Siegel v. Religious Technology Center, et al., CV 89-5471, United States District Court, Central District of California (pending); Steve Dunning v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. 060613, California Superior Court County of Los Angeles (dismissed with prejudice); Jeff and Arlene Dubron v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. NCC 29267B, Superior Court of California Burbank Division (settled); Sherry Fortune v. Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley, No. C 099061, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (dismissed as to the Church and settled as to Tingley); Vicki Adler v. American Sun, Inc., Church of Scientology of Los Angeles, SWC 81874, Torrance Superior Court of California (settled); Benham v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Dallas, No. 91-08216, 9th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (settled); Michael Burns v. The Recording Institute of Detroit, Inc., et al., No. 91-422334-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, State of Michigan (pending); Clay Eberle and Eberle & Jordan Law Firm v. Church of Scientology of California, No. NCC 166486, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles in the City of Glendale (dismissed in favor of the Church); Mario Metellus v. Church of Scientology of New York, Linda Barragan, No. 01133-89, Superior Court of the State of New York, County of New York (settled).
CSI Prod 11-4-93
The civil litigation campaign against the Church in the 1980’s was unscrupulous in its creation and execution. Using the crimes of the GO and the GO’s documents, Flynn and others have manufactured meritless claims and secured the survival of those claims against the very people and organizations which uncovered the GO’s crimes and harrassment, put an end to GO misconduct, and rid Scientology of the criminals who were responsible for the GO’s terrible legacy. In that regard, the unsettling truth is that what can correctly be characterised as the GO’s last operation, was the litigation campaign the GO criminals, Flynn and his confederates and their IRS allies launched against the people and organizations which put an end to the GO.
* * * *
CSI Prod 11-4-93
I’ve communicated publicly many times about Mike Rinder’s direct threat to me in 1994 that he and his group were going to keep black PRing me until I shut up. I’ve brought this up in emails and videos to him since he has been — the narrative goes — speaking up about Scientology cult criminality and abuses he knew about. Here is an excerpt from a letter to him in February last year:
I’ve written and spoken several times about a 1994 face-to-face confrontation you and I had, in which you threatened that until I shut up — meaning until I stopped telling the truth – you and your co conspirators were going to keep on black PRing me — meaning you were going to keep on lying about me, vilifying me, and destroying my credibility, relationships, opportunities and life. I even mentioned this incident in a letter to you soon after you started claiming and pretending you were no longer serving your conspiracy’s purposes:
I wanted to communicate civilly, because it is important to me that something be done about the Scientology v. Armstrong, et al. war. Lies maintain the war. You remember, I’m sure, when I spoke to you about your black PR, saying to me that you — meaning you, Miscavige, Scientology, the attorneys, the PIs, et al. — were going to keep right on black PRing me until I shut up.
Your statement has stuck with me all these years because it was so brazenly threatening. In fact, it was blackmail, a threat to my person to defame me and destroy my reputation and life, unless I complied with your demand, here that I stop telling the truth. Obviously I have not stopped telling the truth, and, true to your threat, you kept right on black PRing me. Because you remain an unrepentant black propagandist for your Scientology conspiracy, and because your black PR is intended to shudder me into silence or destroy me, you also remain a blackmailer, indeed an unrepentant blackmailer. What greater motivation for repentance? 1
True to his threat, Rinder has kept right on black PRing me into present time, years after he supposedly escaped from Scientology Duce David Miscavige’s service and control and began to portray himself as an opponent and exposer of Miscavige and his regime. Rinder could easily correct this but he has not. I have explained in earlier articles that his refusal to correct his black propaganda keeps its evil working.
I have also shown that with Rinder being touted as now telling the truth, now being compassionate, now helping his victims, now correcting the injustices or iniquities he perpetrated or had others perpetrate with and in Scientology, his refusal to now correct his black PR generates the false appearance that what he said and had said about me in the past was true then and is true now, and therefore needs no correction. There can be no doubt that this supports and forwards the Miscavigeite Scientologists’ black PR purposes.
If, by Rinder continuing the black PR, the lie can be generated, as he has done, that his victim deserves all the black PR and all the injustices heaped on him, then black PR can be made the truth, injustice can be made justice, destroying people can be made enlightened and laudable. Then one of Rinder’s victims like myself who calls the black PR black PR, calls injustice injustice, and calls destroying anyone criminal and an abomination, will be further black PRed as a liar, a whiner, a bit of a fruitcake, or psychotic. (From Rinder/Miscavige/Scientology’s submission to the IRS that bagged the cultists their tax exemption: “The exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic.”2
Since I am not those things, since Rinder’s black PR about me is not the truth, since the injustices he perpetrated against me are not just but are ongoing crimes, since destroying even truly horrid people is criminal, his refusal to actually tell the truth is cruel and cowardly, and it clearly serves the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes toward me.
In 1994, he was Commanding Officer of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs International (CO OSA Int). He would hold that post, according to published statements, until 2007. He was responsible, under Duce Miscavige, for Scientology investigations and intelligence operations targeting enemies or victims like me. Rinder was responsible for all Scientology black propaganda, and for all Scientology’s lawfare and other criminal activity around the world.
Before he was CO OSA Int, Rinder was CO OSA US, responsible for Scientology investigations and intelligence operations targeting enemies or victims like me, for all black propaganda and all lawfare across the US. I was living in the US and was his US target and victim during that period, and continued as his target for victimizing when he was CO OSA Int.
Throughout those years, Rinder was also a “corporate director” of the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the corporation called the “Mother Church,” which the Miscavige-headed conspiracy most uses to victimize its victims like me. As CSI’s director, Rinder had legal responsibilities and duties, and there could be no conflict of interest between his silencing and destroying people as CO OSA and what the “church” desired and commanded.
As OSA head, Rinder had thousands of posted juniors and paid and perverted wog or Scientologist colluders to victimize people like me. He paid millions of dollars to these Scientologists or wog colluders to silence or destroy us. He would have me threatened in many ways by many people over many years, but this in-my-face threat in 1994 was shocking and indelible, and so foolish of him.
During recent years, the public narrative has been spun, and is kept spinning, that Rinder has been speaking up and telling the truth about his experiences and knowledge of silencing or destroying persons like me, persons who told the truth about their experiences and knowledge of Scientology, its inventor and First Duce L. Ron Hubbard, and other Scientologists. I have shown publicly that Rinder has not done so at all. He has not done so even though his silence, and whatever lying he has done over many years, keep black PR, injustices and continuing crimes from being remedied.
I have made it publicly obvious that I have requested that he tell the truth about what he and his co-conspirators or co-colluders have done and are doing to silence or destroy me. I have made this easy for him because I have published a substantial outline of what I know he has done or had done and said or had said.3
As I have shown, the actions against me alone, by Rinder and his co-conspirators, constitute an ongoing criminal conspiracy against rights, and a fraud upon people everywhere. He has refused to communicate and tell the truth about what he did and had others do to me over more than twenty years. Yet telling the truth here of all places, where it is meaningful, has to be easy and pleasant.
As I have shown, Rinder continues, both by his actions and inaction, to serve the same purposes of the same organization he is supposedly speaking out about toward the same victim he victimized while officially posted in OSA, CSI and the Sea Organization (SO). In fact, the Scientology and the Aftermath production4 with Leah Remini can logically be viewed in that way. So far, with little give-away, this production has provided undue cover for Rinder, and forwarded the Scientologists and their colluders’ false narratives on key issues.
Whether Remini knows what she is doing is serving the Scientologists’ malign purposes is uncertain. It is certain, however, that Rinder knows. When they were both formally inside the Scientology cult, Rinder and his OSA underlings and others he controlled worked hard to keep other Scientologists, particularly their celebrities such as Remini, ignorant of the criminal conspiracy running the cult, whose malign purposes they all in some way served. Insiders, the conspirators like Rinder, kept the mass of Scientologists, presumably including Remini, ignorant of their victims, their crimes against their victims, their black PR of their victims, their hatred of their victims, their evil intentions toward their victims.
Rinder is doing the same now and having others do the same now: keeping people ignorant of his victims, his crimes against his victims, his black PR of his victims, his hatred of his victims, his evil intentions toward his victims, his Miscavige-headed conspiracy and his co-conspirators who directed all the victimizing. I represent his victims. I have unassailable standing because — if victimizing people can be quantified — he victimized and had me victimized more than any other wog he and his co-conspirators ever victimized. It is well known that I am his grossest victim ever, and no one else, to my knowledge, has spoken up to represent or defend his victims, like me.
In various Aftermath episodes, both Remini and Rinder have praised their interviewees for their courage in coming forward and telling their stories on the show of their victimization by the Scientologists. Remini and Rinder distinguish the participants in their series from the people who have pertinent testimony and do not come forward and do not tell their story on the show. The conclusion Remini and Rinder clearly want drawn is the absence of courage in anyone who didn’t appear on their program or was unwilling to appear on their program.
There are some knowing or ignorant cult supporters who have disseminated the idea that I was upset or jealous because Remini and Rinder had not included me and my story in their program, or even approached me about my story. This projected jealousy, I suppose, is supposed to explain why I had been asking Rinder not to keep screwing his courage to the sticking place in service of Miscavige, et al., but tell the easy and pleasant truth that would help his victims. I had been insisting, after all, they say, from years before the production started, that I have the grossest set of victimization facts in the Miscavige, Rinder, Remini era.
I have been interested in the Aftermath series, did watch most of what aired, and noted certain fact or position statements that I thought deserved attention, and I might go back to. Rinder was indeed my grossest victimizer, the program is about Scientology, which is, inter alia, what I am about, and I have a very dynamic legal and extralegal relationship with the Scientologists and their colluders. I did not, however, ever try to contact Remini or anyone connected to the production, or ever try, or even want, to be interviewed for it.
Although I suppose it would have been nice, a sign of respect or something, to have been asked to talk to Remini on camera about my Scientology-related experiences and knowledge, I would have declined if I had been asked. One of the producers asked me about some photos, and I helped as I could. As the Aftermath episodes progressed, I had to be grateful I had not asked or been asked to participate in an interview for the production. I had an earlier experience I’ve talked about when Rinder as CO OSA US had editing control of the video he had made of me.
In May 2018, my wife Caroline Letkeman wrote to the A&E attorneys credited in the Aftermath, Cameron A. Stracher and Kimberly Lord, about subliminal messaging in all the episodes:
Dear Mr. Stracher and Ms. Lord:
I was involved with Scientology as a Scientologist for twenty-four years. After my escape from both the corporation and the ideology in 1999, I have been studying Scientology from a critical perspective. I am married to Gerry Armstrong, who was also a Scientologist and has endured decades of legal and extralegal fair game at the personal hand of Mike Rinder, Mark Rathbun, L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige since Gerry’s own departure in 1981. Mike Rinder, as you know is a co-host and consulting producer for the Aftermath series.
I understand from the show credits that you are the legal counsel for the Aftermath series. I have a number of issues to communicate with you and Ms. Remini about her production, the first of which I will summarize here.
I have located subliminal messaging in every episode of the Aftermath series, and have posted my evidence and related scientific research papers on my website, here: http://scientology-research.org/malignant-persuasion/. The subliminal messaging involves emotionally charged profiling terms for the audience targeted by the producers of this series. On the above link you will find transcripts of the relevant excerpts.
Examples of the subliminal series are also present in a few of the free “bonus” videos that A&E makes available on their YouTube channel. Here are links to those videos and transcripts:
I am not a lawyer, but believe this law review article directly relates to the above issue: Historical and Legal Implications of Subliminal Messaging in the Multimedia: Unconscious Subjects (2012) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr/vol36/iss3/4/
Please have Ms. Remini contact me in writing about this matter. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this e-mail.
Caroline says that neither the A&E attorneys, nor anyone else on behalf of any of the entities or persons responsible for the production, nor Ms. Remini, has communicated back to her. Caroline says that it is apparent to her that the subliminal devices continue to be employed in the recent Fall 2018 episodes.
I would certainly have been willing to talk to Remini, or anyone else from her production company, or A & E, or Rinder, because I’m willing to talk to pretty well anyone who calls for any reasonably relevant reason. But being interviewed for her Aftermath program as long as Rinder is serving the Scientologists’ purposes toward me would be wrong.
Although Remini has expressed multiple times throughout the series that she didn’t know some fact or another about her fellow cultists’ antisocial activities and their victims, I have not accepted that she is unaware that Rinder has not told the truth about all this, about his conspiracy, his victims, his black PR, his ongoing crimes, or about his relationship with me. Just a few minutes of due diligence by her, by someone in her employ, by someone at A & E, et al., by one of their lawyers, etc., would have revealed everything she needed to acquire such an awareness, if she or any of them actually lacked it.
What seems most likely is that Remini has joined with Rinder and is knowingly participating, for whatever reason, in the campaign to keep people ignorant of her co-producer’s ongoing conspiracy against rights, his lawfare, his black PR, and the conspiracy’s biggest victim. She personally poured a million or so dollars into the cult over years to support my criminal victimization, and she personally used her celebrity to protect and gain acceptance for my criminal victimizers, the conspirators who ran her cult.
She has acted to keep people ignorant of the SP doctrine. Whether she is aware of this or not isn’t known. Rinder certainly knows it. She has kept the public ignorant of what really could be done to correct injustices and insanities she says she is trying to correct with her Aftermath production. She has kept people ignorant of what really could be done to correct the Scientologists’ unlawful and unlawfully obtained IRS tax exemption.
Significant correction of injustices, insanities, cruelties and enforced ignorance could be achieved very simply by making public and legally usable what her co-producer Mike Rinder has done and had others do to silence or destroy people or otherwise victimize people, most grossly, me. Remini has access to the facts and she has the wherewithal to make this happen. If Rinder still refuses to speak up and tell the truth, she can easily obtain from other sources, like me, the truth of what he should have spoken up about. She can easily make this truth public, make it usable, and get it used it to correct injustices, insanities, cruelties and enforced ignorance she claims she wants to correct.
One of Rinder’s supporters recently posted that he should not speak up and not tell the truth because what he did to me is so criminal he could be prosecuted, and supposedly put his wife and children at risk. This excuse has been given for him publicly a number of times that I’ve seen. I do not disagree that what he did, and is doing, is criminal and possibly prosecutable. His actions and his co-conspirators’ actions constitute ongoing violations of, inter alia crimina, 18 USC §§ 241, 242 and 371.
His co-conspirators or co-colluders include US Federal Government officials and entities, so the matter is complicated and requires mindful courage. I confidently violate the court injunction, judgments, jail sentences and fines that Rinder and his co-conspirators obtained against me in the US because I know these are unlawful, even by US law, and Rinder, et al. obtained them by unlawful means, with US Federal collusion.
I have, however, no interest whatsoever in prosecuting Rinder or having him prosecuted. I simply have requested over considerable time that he tell the relevant truth, which he knows. His refusal and his other actions that serve antisocial purposes against the Scientologists’ victims require a response so that people can hear the truth and have the informed opportunity to not be defrauded and not support demonstrated cruelty and cowardice.
In response to an FOIA request to the FBI, I received a document this past July showing that someone had false-reported me as possibly the Unabomber. The document the FBI produced to me is a memorandum dated May 5, 1995 evidencing the transmittal by some Supervisory Special Agent somewhere, of my name, and presumably my information, to the Unabomber Task Force (UTF) as a “possible suspect.”5
The only persons on planet earth who would have been actuated at that time to black PR me as possibly the Unabomber, and who had the opportunities and means to get an SSA to pass on the black PR to the UTF, were Rinder and his co-colluders. This op would have been in play not long after the time he threatened they were going to keep black PRing me until I shut up.
Falsely accusing their critics of bomb threats and even framing them has been a special action of the Scientologists positioned like Rinder for over forty years. The Scientologists sending themselves bomb threats to frame Paulette Cooper in the 1970’s is well known. It is also well known that through their lies, and their false sworn testimony about how scared they were of Keith Henson as a mad bomber, Rinder and his co-colluders orchestrated Henson’s criminal conviction in California, and then his violent, dangerous SWAT takedown in 2001, in Canada.
Harming or destroying me or shuddering me into silence with complex and continuous black propaganda just because the black propagandists hated me would be one thing. But black PRing me also had another sinister purpose: to undo the 1984 judgment against the Scientologists in their first lawsuit against me, Armstrong 1. This judgment, rendered by LA Superior Court Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., besides exonerating me, declared Scientology head Hubbard virtually a pathological liar, condemned the Scientologists’ practice of “culling” auditing folders, and confronted and articulated the Suppressive Person doctrine and its criminal application, which Hubbard euphemized as “fair game.” 6
Rinder and Leah Remini defend the SP doctrine on their Scientology and the Aftermath show. They misdefine what the doctrine is to make it sound reasonable to the uninformed. Through an interviewee they criticize the doctrine’s misapplication, not its content, its inherent and indefensible evil.
Other knowledgeable sources have told me over the years that the Scientology conspirators who run legal, PR, finance and intel personnel and operations had expressed among themselves their conviction that they “can’t live with” Judge Breckenridge’s Armstrong 1 judgment. The conspirators’ opportunities for their revivification by judicially overturning the judgment, however, were largely lost when the California Court of Appeal affirmed it in July 1991, and the California Supreme Court denied review in October 1991. These appellate rulings not only certified the judgment the conspirators said they couldn’t live with, but retarded them with more judicial rulings they couldn’t live with, including a devastating published legal precedent.
From 1991 and into 1995, and on May 5, 1995 when my name was forwarded to the UTF, I was working with attorney Ford Greene in San Anselmo, California. Rinder and his co-colluders knew this fact from the first day I started with Greene. The UTF was headquartered in San Francisco, a few minutes from Greene’s law office, where I was also then living. Here’s a video Rinder had his co-colluding PIs make of me on that date.7
In May 1978, when Ted Kaczynski began his bombing campaign in Chicago, Illinois, I was shooting movies with Scientology cultocrat Hubbard in La Quinta, California. In November 1979, when Kaczynski planted a bomb on an American Airlines jet flying from Chicago to Washington, DC, I was in charge of Hubbard’s Household Unit at Gilman Hot Springs, CA. In December 1985, when Kaczynski perpetrated his first murder, a computer store owner in Sacramento, California, I was paralegaling for Mike Flynn in Boston, Massachusetts. In October 1985, Rinder had me framed in Boston with the crime of impersonating an FBI agent, 18 USC § 912. In February 1987, when Kaczynski placed a bomb in a parking lot in Salt Lake City, Utah, I was in Oakland, California. Throughout his long campaign, which included at least sixteen bombings, our itineraries never intersected.
By the 1990’s, I had testified about my abodes and travels, and about the rest of my cult-related history, in numerous court cases, and to US Government agencies. Rinder and his co-colluders knew, beyond any argument, that I was not the Unabomber. Although instigating and perpetrating violence toward me, the Scientology colluders knew beyond argument that I was not violent. They knew they were black PRing me. Also beyond argument, fingering me as the Unabomber was not to assist law enforcement in the hunt for him, but to cause me undeserved trouble and put me in undeserved danger.
The IRS/US collusion with the Scientologists started at least by 1991, included the grant of tax exemption in October 1993, and continues to this day. The Miscavige Scientologists’ actions to silence or destroy me, and Flynn, my attorney, evidence massive, ongoing violations of public policy that made the tax exemption grant unlawful. This included the Scientologists’ false submissions to the IRS, which US Federal Government officials knew to be false. Indeed, as reported by Mark Rathbun, US officials required that the Scientologists’ submissions contain the false statements they contain.
With legally undeniable knowledge of the Scientologists’ lying and manifold civil rights and public policy violations, the US officials nevertheless colluded with the Scientologists against their victims, and had and have a gargantuan motivation themselves to have me silenced or destroyed.
In a declaration dated June 6, 1996 for a US Bankruptcy Court case that Rinder had filed against me, after bankrupting me with an unlawful and unlawfully obtained monetary judgment in California State Court, my friend and former attorney Michael Walton described an incident in the summer of 1994 where Rinder personally threatened him in order to get him to pressure me to do what the cultists’ wanted to get rid of Judge Breckenridge’s judgment. 8
Rinder, who, under Miscavige, ran all cult legal activities, had three cases filed against me in state court in 1992 and 1993, Armstrong 2, 3 and 4. In Armstrong 4, Rinder had Walton sued along with me on the false claim that a 1990 transfer I had made to Walton of my interest in a property in Marin County, California was fraudulent. There is no doubt that Rinder knew my transfer was legitimate, there was nothing fraudulent about it, and the lawsuit he had filed to take Walton’s home was itself fraudulent.
In his declaration for my bankruptcy proceeding, Walton stated these facts:
- Rinder contacted Walton twice in the summer of 1994 to discuss Armstrong 4.
- Before speaking to Rinder, Walton sought and obtained permission from Scientology attorney Laurie Bartilson.
- Rinder told Walton that “Scientology” was not interested in Walton’s money or taking away his residence, but what “Scientology” really wanted was to get out from under the Armstrong 1 judgment, also known as the “Breckenridge decision.”
- Rinder told Walton that the judgment was used to Scientology’s detriment every time Scientology was involved in litigation.
- Rinder said that “Scientology;” i.e., he and his co-colluders or co-conspirators, wanted me to sign a document recanting some of the testimony that was relied upon in the formulation of the Armstrong 1 judgment.
- Rinder told Walton that “Scientology” would provide me with certain information, which, according to Rinder, I then lacked, to cause me to reach a different conclusion and sign a document indicating my change of opinion about the Armstrong 1 judgment.
- Rinder said that since Walton was my good friend Walton could use his influence to convince me to sign such a document.
- Rinder indicated to Walton that “pressure” would continue to be put on me and upon Walton and Walton’s family until I signed such a document.
- Rinder stated to Walton that there was no way to make the “Fraudulent Transfer Action” go away absent my signing the “Scientologists’” document.
- Some days after the final conversation with Rinder, on or about September 12, 1994, Walton had a telephone conversation with attorney Bartilson in which she confirmed to him Rinder’s articulation of Scientology’s position, as provided in Walton’s declaration.
- During that conversation, Bartilson told Walton in a hostile and threatening manner that “Scientology” would never allow the Fraudulent Transfer Action to settle with respect to Walton and would only make things worse for him unless he would agree to “put pressure on your friend” (me) to capitulate in a separate breach of contract case that was then being litigated between the Scientologists and me.
- Walton told Bartilson he declined to attempt to put any kind of pressure on me.
- The next day Scientology named Walton’s wife as a DOE defendant in the Fraudulent Transfer Action.
Since then, while inside the Miscavige-headed Scientology cult or presenting as outside, Rinder has never identified any piece of relevant information that I did not have at the time of the Armstrong 1 trial and he later possessed. Neither Rinder nor any of his co-conspirators has ever provided me a shred of evidence that would have then caused me to recant my Armstrong 1 testimony, or reach a different conclusion about the Armstrong 1 judgment, and sign the Scientology conspirators’ document swearing to a change of opinion they wanted concerning the judgment. In fact, whatever evidence has been discovered or manufactured since my trial has confirmed my testimony, my conclusions and the judge’s conclusions, and revealed that Scientology is even worse than I thought.
The Scientology conspirators, which includes attorneys, were apparently convinced they needed a “new” basis to mount a “new” judicial assault on the Armstrong 1 judgment to somehow get out from under it. Rinder was menacing Walton to pressure me to provide the conspirators their postulated “new” basis. So far, to my knowledge, thirty-four years after the judgment, the conspirators have not mounted a direct legal challenge to it. They do, however, still keep the judgment’s eradication in their programs, and still attack it around the world on their PR and intelligence channels, and in their multifarious legal proceedings where it is cited. As I’ve shown, the conspirators also attack me, the subject of the judgment, on the same channels, for the same purpose, to get out from under it.
I’ve written and spoken quite a bit about the black PR and other false statements in the Scientologists’ submissions to the IRS that resulted in the 1993 IRS tax exemption grant. Recently, Rinder proclaimed that he oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS. See, e.g.,
Because he still serves the Miscavigeite Scientologists’ purposes, it is very possible that he is now lying about overseeing the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS on which the tax exemption is supposedly based. Nevertheless, accepting his word on this issue, he oversaw the preparation of this statement:
We have included some background information here and an epilogue to the decision in question. That is because the Service has continuously thrust the Armstrong case at us, demanding an explanation. The Armstrong case decision was so inflammatory and intemperate that it was used to stigmatize the Church in the legal arena and make other outrageous decisions possible. As we shall demonstrate below, all this decision ever involved was Armstrong’s state of mind, which subsequently obtained evidence proved conclusively to be one sordid, sado-masochistic nightmare. Furthermore, Armstrong’s state of mind horror stories have fallen on deaf ears in recent litigation. Relying on Armstrong or the Armstrong decision is wholly unjustified. 9
According to Rinder, he oversaw this statement’s preparation, and submitted it to the IRS in 1992, eight years after the Armstrong 1 judgment. He acknowledges that during that period, in the IRS’s long denial of tax exemption, the Service had continuously thrust the Armstrong case at the Miscavigeite Scientology cultists and their lawyers tasked with obtaining an exemption. What the IRS would have continuously thrust at the Miscavigeites was not the Armstrong case exactly, but the facts proven or adduced in Armstrong 1.
I’ve written and spoken publicly about finding online in 1997 a part of the 1992 Rinder-prepared submission to the IRS that contained the above statement. The black PR content was rendered particularly alarming because the Scientologists had not produced it to me in discovery in Armstrong 2, 3 or 4 then being litigated, despite court orders to produce any such materials. Under Duce Miscavige, Rinder, as CO OSA Int and CSI Director, controlled all these cases.
Finding the part of the Scientologists’ submission to the IRS brought my certainty that the Scientologists and their colluders would do anything into hyperawareness. They will do anything to protect their ill-gotten, undeserved IRS tax exemption. I immediately decided to leave the US for Canada, where I believed I would be much safer, and where I could speak up and oppose the Scientologists and their colluders’ lies, abuses and criminality and their unlawful court orders against me, which I have done.
In that the IRS, from 1984 to 1992, according to what Rinder oversaw, continuously demanded from the Miscavigeites an explanation of the Armstrong 1 facts, it is clear that either the Miscavigeites refused to give any explanation, or the explanation or explanations they gave were unacceptable to the relevant IRS officials and rejected. Since the Scientologists were publicly, widely and continuously providing an “explanation” for the judgment, which was much the same as Rinder’s “explanation” quoted above, it is highly unlikely they did not provide it continuously to the IRS from the moment the Service began continuously thrusting the Armstrong 1 facts at them, demanding an explanation. 10
It is extremely likely that the relevant IRS officials had, from 1984 to 1991, rejected the Scientologists’ “explanation” each time they provided it, because those officials knew it was a lie, knew the truth of the judgment, and knew the Miscavigeite Scientologists were violating public policy and did not deserve tax exemption. When the relevant US Federal Government officials commenced colluding with the Miscavigeites, however, and got rid of the IRS personnel who had been continuously demanding an explanation of the judgment and opposing tax exemption, the new IRS colluders negotiated the explanation, the preparation of which Rinder oversaw, he says.
His statement that all the Armstrong 1 judgment ever involved was my state of mind is patently false. Anyone reading the judgment would see Rinder’s statement is a lie. He knew it was a lie, the rest of the Scientologists and the lawyers interfacing with the IRS knew it was a lie, and the relevant officials in the relevant federal departments knew it was a lie.
There is no evidence Rinder and his co-conspirators subsequently obtained that proved conclusively, or not, that my state of mind was at any time one sordid, sado-masochistic nightmare. He knew he was lying. Every one of his co-conspirators knew he was lying. Every one of the relevant US Federal Government officials, who negotiated and insisted on this statement, knew it was a lie.
This is what Judge Breckenridge had actually stated in his judgment about my state of mind in the relevant period:
While defendant has asserted various theories of defense, the basic thrust of his testimony is that he did what he did, because he believed that his life, physical and mental well being, as well as that of his wife were threatened because the organization was aware of what he knew about the life of LRH, the secret machinations and financial activities of the Church, and his dedication to the truth. He believed that the only way he could defend himself, physically as well as from harassing lawsuits, was to take from Omar Garrison those materials which would support and corroborate everything that he had been saying within the Church about LRH and the Church, or refute the allegations made against him in the April 22 Suppressive Person Declare. He believed that the only way he could be sure that the documents would remain secure for his future use was to send them to his attorneys, and that to protect himself, he had to go public so as to minimize the risk that LRH, the Church, or any of their agents would do him physical harm.
This conduct if reasonably believed by the defendant and engaged in by him in good faith, finds support as a defense to the plaintiff’s charges in the Restatements of Agency, Torts, and case law.
Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to “fair game.” The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer’s custody. He may have indulged in overkill, in the sense that he took voluminous materials, some of which appear only marginally relevant to his defense. But he was not a lawyer and cannot be held to that precise standard of judgment. Further, at the time that he was accumulating the material, he was terrified and undergoing severe emotional turmoil.
From his extensive knowledge of the covert and intelligence operations carried out by the Church of Scientology of California against its enemies (suppressive persons), Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits.
In addition, Mr. Garrison became afraid for the security of the documents and believed that the intelligence network of the Church of Scientology would break and enter his home to retrieve them. Thus, Defendant Armstrong made copies of certain documents for Mr. Garrison and maintained them in a separate location.
It was thereafter, in the summer of 1982, that Defendant Armstrong asked Mr. Garrison for copies of documents to use in his defense and sent the documents to his attorneys, Michael Flynn and Contos & Bunch.
After the within suit was filed on August 2, 1982, Defendant Armstrong was the subject of harassment, including being followed and surveilled by individuals who admitted employment by Plaintiff; being assaulted by one of these individuals; being struck bodily by a car driven by one of these individuals; having two attempts made by said individuals apparently to involve Defendant Armstrong in a freeway automobile accident; having said individuals come onto Defendant Armstrong’s property, spy in his windows, create disturbances, and upset his neighbors. During trial when it appeared that Howard Schomer (a former Scientologist) might be called as a defense witness, the Church engaged in a somewhat sophisticated effort to suppress his testimony. It is not clear how the Church became aware of defense intentions to call Mr. Schomer as a witness, but it is abundantly clear they sought to entice him back into the fold and prevent his testimony.
Here is what in part the judge depended on to reach his decision, which became the judgment:
As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the Testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalci[ ], Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Howard Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive, and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence. Obviously, there are some discrepancies or variations in recollections, but these are the normal problems which arise from lapse of time, or from different people viewing matters or events from different perspectives. In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved with LRH, or Mary [Sue] Hubbard, or of the Scientology Organization, is on the one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH, and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description. Each has broken with the movement for a variety of reasons, but at the same time, each is, still bound by the knowledge that the Church has in its possession his or her most inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded in “pre-clear (P.C.) folders” or other security files of the organization, and that the Church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends. The record is replete with evidence of such abuse.
The Armstrong 1 judgment, which contained these statements about my state of mind, was affirmed on appeal in 1991. 11
Rinder’s statement in the Scientologists’ submission to the IRS, on which tax exemption is supposedly granted, that what I testified in Armstrong 1 concerning my state of mind at relevant times, and what Judge Breckenridge ruled about my state of mind, were my “state of mind horror stories,” was to satisfy the US Federal Government, as represented in this transaction, by the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, and the rest of the US Intelligence Community. These Federal Government entities and officials represent the American public. The same is true about every other lie, distortion or nastiness, the preparation of which Rinder oversaw. Whatever the Miscavigeites submitted to the IRS — the conduit to the rest of the US Intelligence Community/US Federal Government — had to be what these entities and officials demanded.
A pair of lawyers the Miscavigeites have possessed over many years, Anthony P. Bisceglie and William C. Walsh of the Washington, DC firm Bisceglie & Walsh, have a curious connection to the Unabomber Op. Walsh died this past September. I have very few pieces of the lies and other nastinesses Bisceglie, Walsh, Miscavige, et al. generated together, or what has been generated about them together. Having a sense of what they have done in their long collusion, I understand they would go to some effort to keep much of it hidden. As with all the Scientologists’ lawyers, pursuant to the “settlement agreement” they seek to enforce against me, Bisceglie and Walsh have for decades been contracted to suppress and destroy the human rights of the Scientologists’ victims.
The European Federation for Freedom of Belief, which is quite clearly a Scientology-affiliated entity, posted an obituary for Walsh that states:
18 October 1948 – 22 september 2018 […]
Bill was an energetic and passionate International Human Rights attorney who dedicated over 40 years to human rights matters, representing clients nationally and internationally in the US, Europe and in the International courts too.
Bill was a member of the U. S. State Department Advisory Working Group on Religious Freedom and Vice-chair of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Religion and Public Policy, an organisation that seeks to encourage open dialogue and shape public participation in policy of the global community of faith.12
The European Federation for Freedom of Belief, if it is a Scientology-affiliated entity as it evidences, it, and all of its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel are also contracted to suppress and destroy my human rights and the human rights of the class of persons acting in concert with me. As a Scientology-affiliated entity, the European Federation for Freedom of Belief and all its officers, directors, etc. have made themselves beneficiaries in this mass suppression and destruction of human rights.
Throughout Scientology’s existence, Hubbard, Miscavige and the Scientologists have hired all sorts “human rights attorneys;” but that only means attorneys who represent the Scientologists in legal matters in which human rights or civil rights are in some way issues. The “human rights” the Scientologists pay many millions every year to lawyers to obtain and defend, are the rights of the religious corporations, controlled by religious dictators, to defraud people, silence or destroy people, and crush the actual basic human rights, which are those of individuals, the Scientologists’ human victims. Consequently, the Scientologists do get involved in all kinds of human rights cases and seemingly ironically hire attorneys with human rights practices.
I have no doubt Walsh poisoned the State Department, and officials and courts and media wherever he went, about the Scientologists’ victims, the Suppressive Persons religious minority. To be a “human rights attorney” for the Scientologists it takes an understanding and acceptance of Scientology, some experience in the human rights area of law, and the satanic willingness to use the law on behalf of rich, secularly powerful, ill-intentioned cultists to victimize the less powerful, the already victimized.
In 2011, while pretending to be an opponent of the Miscavigeites but still serving their purposes toward their victims, Mark Rathbun blogged about Walsh:
Bill Walsh does little else than serve as a yes-man to David Miscavige. In fact, he nods in agreement so much that Mike Rinder and I have referred to him as a very expensive bobbing-head doll. With that in mind, consider this: Walsh was pulling in close to a 1/2 million dollars a year from Scientology Inc over multiple years. As late as 2007, an Office of Special Affairs financial planning document referred to Walsh’s nearly 1/2 million dollar a year production as “spectator work.”
I imagine spectator work for OSA is the stuff of intelligence reports.
The Scientologists’ online Freedom Magazine reported about Walsh’s participation in their effort to impugn the sources for the June 2009 Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg Times “Truth Rundown” articles, bully the writers Joe Childs and Tom Tobin, and prevent publication.
The First Meeting
May 28, 2009:
It is estimated Childs and Tobin have devoted some 500 hours to their sources since first contact. They have interviewed Rathbun in Texas, Rinder in Colorado and crisscrossed Florida to catch [Tom] DeVocht and [Amy] Scobee.
But now they sit at a rosewood and mahogany conference table in the Colonial Boardroom of Scientology’s Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater. Facing them are [cult attorney Monique] Yingling, [cult agent Tommy] Davis and [cult agent Jessica] Feshbach. Also present is Bill Walsh—the longest-serving Church counsel and internationally renowned human rights attorney. As with Yingling, Walsh previously tidied up messes left by Rathbun and Rinder. He was further tasked with mopping up in the wake of their removals and eventual departures.
In the eight days since Yingling and Davis set this meeting, the four Church representatives had compiled a minutely documented brief on S.P. Times sources. It is ten o’clock in the morning EST.14
The “minutely documented briefs” that Walsh helped compile were what are known as the Scientologists’ “black PR packs.” Black PR is the Scientology policy and practice of covertly and overtly, widely and relentlessly, cleverly and stupidly smearing their victims to destroy their reputations, credibility, relationships, opportunities and lives. Compiled black PR packs are weapons in the black PR arsenals of the Scientologists and their colluders like Walsh.
He can no longer correct the black PR he generated, the false narratives he forwarded in the Scientologists’ malign service. His black PR will go on, as he and his Scientology employers postulate, long past his death. William C. Walsh, Esquire’s legacy will be unrepentant black propagandist. Mike Rinder is still alive, so he can still correct the black PR he generated and had generated in service of Scientology and the Scientologists. Every other Scientologist or wog colluder, of course, from Miscavige on up or down, can do the same.
The Institute for Religion and Public Policy (IRPP), whose board of directors, according to the European Federation for Freedom of Belief, Walsh vice-chaired, also served the Scientologists’ malign purposes. The IRPP whitewashed the Scientologists’ teachings and antisocial actions victimizing SPs like me, and actively black PRed us. The founder and president of the IRPP Joseph K. Grieboski personally published a black PR piece on me in 2007. 15
The earliest document I have for Walsh is the 1986 DC Circuit opinion in Founding Church of Scientology v. William H. Webster, the FBI Director.
Bisceglie and Walsh were on the brief for Scientology. The appeal was from a District Court dismissal of the Scientologists’ 1978 case against Webster, and numerous other federal officials, because of the Scientologists’ failure to produce their managing agent Hubbard for a court-ordered deposition.
On August 21, 1984, the Government noticed Hubbard’s deposition as officer, director or managing agent. The June 20, 1984 Armstrong 1 decision, which was deemed the “statement of decision on July 20, 1984 and entered as the judgment on August 14, 1984, stated:
The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile. At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents. He has been referred to during the trial as a “genius,” a “revered person,” a man who was “viewed by his followers in awe.” Obviously, he is and has been a very complex person, and that complexity is further reflected in his alter ego, the Church of Scientology. Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, this court is satisfied that LRH runs the Church in all ways through the Sea Organization, his role of Commodore, and the Commodore’s Messengers.3 He has, of course, chosen to go into “seclusion,” but he maintains contact and control through the top messengers. Seclusion has its light and dark side too. It adds to his mystique, and yet shields him from accountability and subpoena or service of summons.
The DC Court of Appeals cited to my testimony about Hubbard’s control and to the Armstrong 1 judgment:
Beyond these declarations specifically cited by the District Court (J.A. [Joint Appendix] at 429), the Government submitted other declarations bearing on the question of Hubbard’s control. […] Gerald Armstrong, another associate, told of a 1980 meeting to make plans to conceal Hubbard’s acknowledged control over “all aspects of” the Church of Scientology of California. J.A. at 222.
Appellees presented substantial evidence that the arrangement by which Hubbard could communicate with the Church only at his initiative was in fact designed to shield Hubbard from legal process. See Declaration of Gerald Armstrong, J.A. 222;
Three decisions, relying on many of the same declarations and documentary evidence presented in this case, found that Hubbard could be deposed as a managing agent. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, No. C420153 (Cal.Super.Ct. July 20, 1984),
Fascinatingly, the Scientologists’ monstrous international and continuing campaign to impugn me as a witness and silence or destroy me with their unlawful, edited videos of me meeting on different occasions with their agents landed with FBI Director Webster. The Scientologists had revealed in the Christofferson v. Scientology trial in Portland, Oregon in April 1985 that they had made clandestine videos of these meetings. Rinder was their star actor in the videos, as well as co-producer. I recently wrote about what happened with me when the cult’s lawyer divulged this in court.16
By June 1985, Florida Senator Lawton Chiles had forwarded to Webster a bunch of the Scientologists’ letters urging government action about the videos, and Webster had responded to Chiles.
The videotape referenced by many of those who wrote to you on this subject has been provided by the Church as exhibits to various pleadings filed in litigation with the Department of Justice, and it fails to substantiate claims of a counterintelligence program directed against that group.
NOTE: Senator Chiles wrote to Judge Webster on behalf of 28 of his constituents seeking information concerning allegations that the Federal Government was attempting to discredit and disrupt the management of the Church of Scientology. Reply coordinated with SA [?] CID, and SA [?] LCD, who advised that the videotape referenced by many of the constituents was made by the Church of Scientology itself. Transcripts of it which were provided by the Church as exhibits to various pleadings filed in litigation with the Department of Justice fail to substantiate the claims of a counterintelligence program directed against them.17
In August 1985, Webster responded to California Representative Don Edwards, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
August 6, 1985
Honorable Don Edwards
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
House Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Chairman Edwards:
Your letter of June 3, 1985, requesting FBI review of allegations made by Reverend John Standard III, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Church of Scientology International, concerning “a bizarre multi-agency plan to disrupt the Church of Scientology has been brought to my attention.
The FBI has received other inquiries on this subject. I want to stress that the FBI is not involved solely or on conjunction with other Federal agencies in any attempt to destroy the Church of Scientology. In those cases where a violation of Federal law falling within the FBI’s jurisdiction has occurred, the FBI investigates such situations with complete fairness to all parties involved. The facts are then presented to the appropriate United States Attorney’s office which determines the prosecutive merits of the case.
The particular allegations made by Reverend Standard are based on conversations recorded during “secret” videotaping of a former Church member, Gerry Armstrong, whom Reverend Standard alleges is a “government covert operative.”
Gerry Armstrong, a former church member, has been interviewed numerous times by various Federal investigators and attorneys in connection with pending litigation in this and other Federal investigations. Partial transcripts of Mr. Armstrong’s videotaped conversations have been provided by the Church as an exhibit to various pleadings filed in litigation with the Department of Justice, and they fail to substantiate claims of a counter-intelligence program directed against that group. Conversely, review of the unexpurgated transcripts of those videotaped meetings referred to by Reverend Standard conclusively negates any inference of government conspiracy.
I hope this will be of assistance to you.
NOTE: Reverend John D. Standard III, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Church of Scientology International, wrote to Representative Rodino, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee alleging “a bizarre multi-agency plan to disrupt the Church of Scientology”, and requested Representative Don Edwards hold hearings on this matter. Representative Don Edwards requested the FBI review Reverend Standard’s allegations. Videotaped conversations of a former Church member, Gerry Armstrong allegedly establish the government-wide conspiracy and have been utilized as exhibits in various pleadings filed by the Church; however, the transcripts selectively omit a pertinent portion of the tape which conclusively negates any inference of government conspiracy. The context of this letter was taken, in part, from similar replies to congressional inquiries. This reply was coordinated with [?] Legal Counsel Division.
[Handwritten] Copies of the transcript of the videotaped conversations of former church member Gerry Armstrong were filed as an exhibit to a motion to vacate summary judgment entered on behalf of the defendants in Founding Church of Scientology v. Director FBI etc. (USDC, DOC, C.A. No. 78-0107). A review of these transcripts by DOJ attorneys and by SA [?] reveals several statements by Armstrong to the effect that the government is “not out to get” the Church of Scientology or any Scientologist. Copies of the full text are in possession of LCD and DOJ Federal Program Branch. 8/1/85 18
The cult’s operative is John D. Stanard, III, who also participated in the criminal framing of Mike Flynn.19
DC District Court no. 78-0107 is the case underlying the DC Circuit appeal cited above in which Bisceglie and Walsh participated. It is likely that they were attorneys of record when the Scientologists’ video transcripts that Director Webster refers to were filed in the case.
The Scientologists’ videos and their transcripts in reality are very high quality evidence of their own criminality. The Scientologists and their colluders say the videos are evidence of my criminality, but they are simply lying, as they commonly and per policy do. The relevant US officials all knew the videos were inarguable evidence in 1985 that the Scientologists were committing crimes, had not “turned over a new leaf” when the GO was renamed OSA, and were in clear and constant violation of public policy and could not be given tax exemption.
As the Webster letters state, in various pleadings filed with the Department of Justice the Scientologists and their colluders provided video transcripts as evidence of “a counterintelligence program directed against them,” a “government-wide conspiracy.” After review of the Scientologists’ “evidence,” Webster refuted their claims, and castigated the Scientologists and their colluders for selectively omitting from their transcripts “a pertinent portion of the tape which conclusively negates any inference of government conspiracy.”
The Scientologists and their colluders probably provided their transcripts and their videos in filings in hundreds of non-DOJ cases as claimed evidence of a government conspiracy, my participation in this conspiracy, my commission of crimes against the “church,” and my destruction of their rights. The Scientologists and their colluders have sent their selective transcripts, their edited videos and their false claims about what they show to government officials, to law enforcement, to media, to clergy and common citizens around the world. But it is all a big lie. It is the Scientologists’ crime, a gargantuan, ongoing frame-up.
There is no doubt that the IRS and other relevant US officials who read the Scientologists’ transcripts and viewed the videos recognized them as evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy violations, and would have, as Rinder complains in his IRS submission, continuously thrust their video operation back at them “demanding an explanation.” These officials would have rejected the Scientologists’ explanations, because they are lies and have always been lies. Then in 1991 and 1992, the new cadre of relevant officials, not only accepted the Scientologists’ lies about me and about their video operation, but required them to lie and to file their transcripts to support their lies.
Walsh wrote about me and the Scientologists’ video operation in a declaration dated February 8, 1994, which the Scientologists used in the case of CSI v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz in US District Court in Los Angeles:
1. I am over the age of eighteen and a citizen of the District of Columbia. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.
13. Flynn was also involved in assisting Gerry Armstrong, a Flynn client and government informant, who plotted a take-over of the Church. Armstrong’s plan included planting phony documents that would then be seized in a raid by federal agents.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.20
Walsh was lying for the Scientologists. He had no personal knowledge of anything he said about me in his declaration, and what he swore he had personal knowledge of is false. I never plotted a take-over of the church or cult or religion or anything. The cult’s agents, notably Rinder, who tricked me into trusting them as sincere and friendly, were actually plotting to destroy me.
Rinder, et al. communicated that they wanted replace Miscavige, end his regime’s lies, abuse and criminality, and reform their organization. So any takeover plot, even though fake, was the Scientologists’ own plot. I did provide the fake reformers, or fake ethical plotters, with a bare bones complaint Flynn drafted seeking a declaration of their rights, protection of their assets, and the determination of whether a constructive trust should be imposed.21 Only the plotters’ names, not mine, would be on their complaint, and only they would benefit from a successful “takeover” that would be theirs, not mine.
I had no plan to plant phony documents that would then be seized in a raid by federal agents. The fake plotters, who called themselves “Loyalists,” had all the plans. They came to me and asked for my help. My plan, if it can be called that at all, was for the Loyalists to tell the truth, document the truth, come forward and tell the truth to the Federal Officials I was in touch with, don’t be such cowards, tell the truth. That’s still my plan for the lying cowardly Scientologists and their lying cowardly colluders.
In response to statements in CSI v. Fishman that Miscavige, other Scientologists and their co-colluders like Walsh made about me and their video op, I wrote two declarations dated February 20 and 22, 1994.
There were many times during this period when I considered the possibility that I was walking into a trap. The thought arose in all my meetings with Kluge, and later with Mike Rinder, the second Loyalist I would meet. Their communications often didn’t jibe with what they or Sherman had said on earlier occasions, and sometimes they said things which were downright stupid. I had no way of originating a communication to them, had no telephone numbers, no locations, no names, and no idea what any of them did. They had my address, phone number, knew exactly what I did, and could call me any time they wanted. They told me almost nothing, and wanted to know everything I knew. They claimed I had to be kept in the dark because of their fear for their lives, and for that reason I went along with their, even to me, strange behavior.
While claiming that the Loyalists wanted to take legal action to bring about a safe transfer of power, both Sherman and Kluge also claimed that they didn’t know anything about legal matters, nor any of the organization’s litigations, and that there were other people higher up in the Loyalist network who were trained in legal, stayed abreast of the organization’s litigation battles, and had an understanding of the Loyalists’ legal options and an overview of their plan which Sherman and Kluge didn’t have. Coupled with their claimed need to keep me in the dark for fear of their lives, their assertions of ignorance of legal matters caused considerable frustration in me and in our communications. As a result, I requested in a number of communications to speak to their “best legal mind.”
Finally the Loyalists said that their legal expert would meet me and a rendezvous was set up, again in Griffith Park. The “legal expert” turned out to be Mike Rinder, a person I had known in the organization, who had held various lower level administrative posts. Rinder, it turned out, also professed ignorance of legal concepts, and my meetings and communications with him were even more frustrating. 22
At some point between May 5, 1995 when I was named as a possible Unabomber suspect and April 3, 1996 when Kaczynski was apprehended, long time cult colluder Anthony Bisceglie became, according to Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, “a critical intermediary for the FBI in the Unabomber case.” One story is that Bisceglie was a lawyer friend of a lawyer friend of Linda Kaczynski, the wife of David Kaczynski, Ted’s younger brother. David, apparently for various reasons, feared that Ted was the Unabomber. I have not read much about the case, but understand that Bisceglie contacted the FBI on behalf of David and Linda, and then got them to meet with the FBI.
It certainly could be pure coincidence that one of the Scientology colluders would falsely finger me as the Unabomber, and another colluder would be in on the identification of the actual Unabomber. Determining if this is more than a coincidence is probably impossible, and not important. It is darkly humorous that, according to reports, David Kaczynski didn’t want to report his brother to the FBI because deep down he knew Ted was the Unabomber, whereas the Scientology colluder wanted to report me because he or she knew deep down I wasn’t the Unabomber.
What is important in the relationship with Rinder and his co-conspirators or co-colluders is the knowledge, which they taught me, over many years and hard knocks, that they will do anything. This means that there is no lie they will not tell, no antisocial thing they will not do, no crime, including murder, they will not commit to achieve their goals. Rinder has acknowledged that this state of mind or mindset is what he and his co-colluders desired in their victims, like me. He has not yet acted to dispel that mindset. Indeed his actions and inactions since claiming to be correcting the wrongs he committed while formally in the Sea Org, validate my analysis and conclusion that he and his co-colluders will continue, in fact, to do anything.
They will do anything to protect their conspiracy, to keep their tax exemption, and get away with everything they’ve gotten away with. Rinder admitted in the Aftermath series that he and his co-colluders, the individuals in service of Scientology and Scientologists who are tasked with hating, silencing or destroying persons like me, “believe if they can get away with that sort of shit, that it puts you in the mindset of “My God, they’ll do anything!” Rinder has gotten away with all sorts of nasty, criminal shit against me alone. Many people have helped him get away with that nasty, criminal shit. Leah Remini, the other personnel involved in the Aftermath, and even the Emmy judges have helped Rinder get away with it.
US Government agencies and officials have helped the Scientologists inculcate the mindset in their victims of “My God, they’ll do anything!” The US gave the Scientologists IRS tax exemption, knowing it was to help them get away with what they’d gotten away with, nasty, criminal, rights-destroying actions against citizens. The documents linked to here or provided on my web sites show that US Federal officials colluded with the Scientologists against the Scientologists’ victims, and these officials have gotten away with that crime. The US has taught knowledgeable citizens like me that, my God they’ll do anything too.
- A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 2) (February 20, 2018) ↩
- CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question 10 (Civil litigation involving the Church) (November 23, 1992) ↩
- See http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/mike-rinder/ ↩
- IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6244192/ ↩
- FBI Memorandum: http://legal.gerryarmstrong.ca/1995/05/05/fbi-memorandum-unabomber-investigation-may-5-1995/ ↩
- The Breckenridge Decision: http://legal.gerryarmstrong.ca/1984/06/22/memorandum-of-intended-decision-june-22-1984/ ↩
- Scientology surveillance videos: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/scn-surveillance-videos.html ↩
- Declaration of Michael Walton (1996-06-06): http://legal.gerryarmstrong.ca/1996/06/06/declaration-of-michael-walton-in-support-of-gerald-armstrongs-objection-to-trustees-abandonment-of-estate-june-6-1996/ ↩
- From Introduction to the Armstrong Op: http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/about/ ↩
- See, e.g., this August 4, 1991 black PR handout over the name of cult attorney Earle C. Cooley, whom Rinder had hired and directed. ↩
- Appellate Opinion: http://legal.gerryarmstrong.ca/1991/07/29/opinion-july-29-1991/ ↩
- Obituary: William C. Walsh: https://freedomofbelief.net/articles/william-bill-c-walsh-obituary ↩
- Mark Rathbun article (2011-12-23): https://markrathbun.blog/2011/12/23/scientology-incs-lobbying-machine/ ↩
- Freedommag.org article: https://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/sptimes/merchants-of-chaos.html ↩
- Armstrong v. Grieboski: Defamation Analysis (January 12, 2012) ↩
- “Suicide Note”: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/suicide-note/ ↩
- Letter from FBI Director William Webster to Senator Lawton Chiles (1985-06) ↩
- Letter from FBI Director William Webster to Chairman, Subcommittee On Civil and Constitutional Rights, Don Edwards (1985-08-06) ↩
- Letter from John D. Stanard to FBI (1984-09-12) ↩
- Declaration of William C. Walsh (1994-02-08) ↩
- Draft complaint: https://mega.nz/#!OmZAwAbB!YeGXnGClpMFpjXbTBS-EjJkcIZ6NNn_gNJjci46gajc ↩
- Declarations of Gerry Armstrong (1994-02-20); (1994-02-22) ↩
Here is a page I posted January 25, 2015 that helps with how Public Policy applied to the Miscavige sect’s IRS tax exemption:
There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.1
And from a June 8, 2015 letter to Mark Rathbun:
As you well know, I have beseeched you fairly determinedly for several years to step up and tell what you know from your time in the Sea Org about fair gaming me, and people close to me, particularly Michael Flynn. Where your actions and information are extremely important is in the matter of what was done that violated public policy to obtain Scientology’s IRS tax exemption. This undeserved exemption has allowed the Scientologists to further violate public policy, and good people’s rights, with virtual impunity.
Alex Gibney has taken up the call to get the IRS to revoke the Scientologists’ undeserved tax exemption, and I am grateful for what he is doing. He did not, however, really address the public policy violations, in which you participated to get the tax exemption, and I wrote to him, as you also know, to urge you to address and tell the truth about this issue. I have now posted that letter. 23
What Rinder and his coconspirators did to frame Flynn and me proves they were actively violating public policy. What they filed with the IRS to get their undeserved tax exemption was itself in violation of public policy.
Rinder says: “Second thing the IRS did NOT know is how scientology is accumulating empty buildings. He claims that “the accumulation of empty buildings, if they are NOT used” violates the IRS’s rules for the tax exempt entities and “the IRS is blind to this scam.” This is another fake Rinder issue, and even if conceivably an issue, the buildings are not even empty, not even close to empty.
Rinder asks, as if he’s on to something important: “How about the lies that were told the IRS in the course of the proceedings?” He then provides an unimportant administrative lie, that the Miscavige sect violates its own the refund policy that Rinder provided in the submissions to the IRS he oversaw.
Rinder could easily provide a sworn statement to the relevant US Government departments that identifies, refutes and corrects the lies, the preparation of all of which he oversaw, including his lies about the Miscavigeites’ refund scam. There is no record that he has ever done so.
Where Rinder’s sworn statement would actually bring the US Government to address the unlawful grant of tax exemption to the Miscavige sect’s entities, and address other crimes and dangerous situations, is in identifying exactly what he did to silence or destroy wogs, drive wogs crazy, harm wags, obliterate wogs, and what he had others do to wogs to silence or destroy us, etc. He can state under oath how much he had paid to PIs, lawyers or other collaborators to silence or destroy, etc. decent truth-telling wogs, like my lawyer Michael Flynn and me. That enormous sum would be nice to know, but what is crucial is what Rinder did, what exactly the Scientologists’ enormous sums bought, regardless of how enormous those sums are. Rinder and his coconspirators criminally framed both Flynn and me.
Rinder has different excuses for why he has never told the truth about his and his coconspirators’ crimes and antisocial actions against truth-telling wogs, why he has refused to help his wog victims since claiming to be doing so, why he has pretended to be telling the truth, to be regenerate, to be doing what’s right. No matter what his excuses are, however, Rinder’s clear goal has been to keep the IRS tax exemption working; while keeping everyone thinking he’s doing otherwise.
And Mike: It’s been time to talk to me for years, and now there’s even more to talk about – rooms; elephants; your life hunting us for your demoniac conspiracy; why you strike back against the nudges, the prods to do the right thing; and how good it will be when you give it all up.