Affidavit of Helen Margaret Barlow (First) (February 7, 1994)

HM Barlow
First
Plaintiff
Sworn February 1994
1984 S. No. 1675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

B E T W E E N :

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ADVANCED ORGANIZATION

SAINT HILL EUROPE AND AFRICA             Plaintiff

-and-

(1) ROBIN SCOTT
(2) RON LAWLEY
(3) MORAG BELLMAINE
(4) STEVEN BISBEY
Defendants


AFFIDAVIT OF
HELEN MARGARET BARLOW 1


I, HELEN MARGARET BARLOW, Solicitor’s clerk with the firm of Allen, Ticehurst & Bird of 59-63 Railway Approach, East Grinstead, West Sussex RH19 1BT MAKE OATH and say as follows:

1. I am a solicitor’s clerk employed by the firm of Allen, Ticehurst & Bird which firm has, since 26th November 1993, had the conduct of these proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff in place of its former solicitors.

2. I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff in reply to:-

 

2

a. the Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on behalf of the First, Second and third Defendants on the 12th July 1993; and

b. the Seventh Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on 4th January 1994 on his own behalf as Second Defendant;

and

c. the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates won on 13th January 1994 on behalf of the Third and Fourth Defendants;  each of these Affidavits being in support of two applications, one by the First and Second Defendant, and the other by the Third and Fourth Defendants, for Orders that the Plaintiff do make and file an Affidavit pursuant to Order 24 rule 7 RSC and, in the case of the Second Defendant’s Seventh Affidavit, in support of an application by the First and Second Defendants for leave to amend their Defence.

3. All facts and matters deposed to by me herein are within my own knowledge save where otherwise appears. Where I depose to information obtained otherwise than from my own knowledge, I believe that information to be true. In making this Affidavit I have made enquiries of the Plaintiff and as appears below also of the United States attorneys of the Church of Scientology International in

3

relation to some of the allegations raised in the Defendant’s affidavit evidence.

4. At the outset I should inform this Honorable Court that while the Summons for the above mentioned Order was issued by the Second Defendant’s Solicitors on 12th November 1993, it was not until 11th January 1994 that their Summons (with a return date of 21st January 1994), and the Supplementary Affidavit of the Second Defendant in support thereof, were served ont his firm on behalf of the Plaintiff (by the Second Defendant through the post). Furthermore, the First and Third Defendants’ Solicitors issued their Summons on 14th January 1994 (again with a return date of 21st January 1994) but again it and the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates in support thereof were not served on the Plaintiff until 18th January 1994 although it was open to them to serve the same by facsimile on 14th January. While this is within the time required by Order 32 rule 3, it is well established that applicants who obtain fixed dates for hearings should notify the other parties forthwith and serve the Summons and supporting affidavits without delay. On 20th January 1994 I was telephoned by Mr. Harbinson of Elborne Mitchell (Solicitors for the Second Defendant) who agreed that the hearing of the summonses fixed for the next day be adjourned to be heard before the Judge in charge of the lists on a date to be fixed.

4

I would also point out to this Honourable Court that the Second Defendant in his two Affidavits has included a number of irrelevant, bald and offensive allegations of a serious nature which are not accepted by the Plaintiff. While these statements are irrelevant and I would ordinarily not even respond to them, they will receive brief address herein lest this Honourable Court grant them any credence in its consideration of these matters.

6. Turning now to the Affidavit of the Second Defendant sworn on 12th July 1993, I comment thereon as follows (references to paragraph numbers are to the numbered paragraphs of the said Affidavit):

7. I first make the general comment that the Second Defendant is clearly trying to fog the issues and avoid the true background to this action. The Defendants were involved in the theft and/or unlawful acquisition of advanced materials and procedures written by L Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion, and licensed for use by the Plaintiff, namely OT 5 or “NOTs” (hereinafter referred to as “the NOTs materials”). I should explain at this point that in the Scientology religion progression towards full spiritual awareness is achieved through completing various stages of counselling or “auditing”. (A full description of auditing can be found at p. 156 of the book “What is Scientology?” a copy of which is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 1”.) Those various stages are

5

often referred to by Scientologists as “the Bridge”, that is, a bridge to total freedom. Detailed information about “the Bridge” is found at p. 171 of Exhibit HMB 1, to which I would refer this Honourable Court. L Ron Hubbard’s written and spoken materials relating to the lower stages of the Bridge are freely published and available to all. However, the materials relating to the upper levels of the Bridge are kept confidential by the Church. The reason for this is that understanding of and ability to apply these materials are dependent upon having fully attained the earlier states of awareness and abilities attainable from auditing on the lower levels of the Bridge. Accordingly these materials are only released to those who have honestly attained all earlier states. The first three Defendants have admitted that they obtained the NOTs materials by subterfuge, travelling to the Plaintiff’s premises in Denmark disguised as senior executives in uniforms of the Sea Organisation (a religious order), which had been provided to the thieves by another conspirator. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 2” excerpts of a statement by one Nancy Carter relating to these matters. The First Defendant was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted for the theft in Copenhagen, Denmark. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 3” a true copy of a certified trnnslntion of that conviction.

6

In paragraph 2 the Second Defendant asserts that (1) L Ron Hubbard completely controlled all of the Scientology organisations throughout the world; and (2) that it follows that the 200 or more Churches or companion are really just one large organisation. No real evidence is adduced by the Second Defendant in support of these statements. The number of Churches and companies is incorrect. In 1992 the Churches, Missions, and related social reform organisations which follow the doctrines of Scientology numbered over 1,000. I refer this Honorable Court to p. 456 of Exhibit HMB 1, a copy demographic chart showing the number of Churches, Missions and so on at various points in time. Furthermore, these organisations are not “one large organisation”. It is true to say that Churches of Scientology are arranged in a hierarchial ecclesiastical structure, but the various Churches within that ecclesiastical hierarchy consist of separate non-profit religious corporations that are governed by their own independent boards of directors and officers, each corporation being fully responsible for its own activities. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 4” a copy of a booklet “Description of the Scientology Religion”, which is distributed by the United States Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) in response to questions asked about the Church; information on the various Churches and other corporations can be found on pages 4-7 of this booklet, to which I would refer this Honorable Court. I verily believe that this booklet was prepared in connection with

7

an exhaustive review of the United States Churches of Scientology conducted by the IRS. This review was done in the process of recognising the tax-exempt status of those Churches. The result of this review was that on 1st October 1993 letters of recognition were issued by the IRS  resulting in the tax exemption of 153 Scientology Churches and related social reform entities. These exemptions are not prospective; they contain no beginning date and therefore are retroactive to the earliest incorporation of each entity. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 5” copies of the individual exemption letter and group exemption letter issued to Church of Scientology International, the mother Church of the Scientology religion. In granting these exemptions, the IRS did an exhaustive review over a two year period of over 12 linear feet of records covering many years. The IRS required extensive responses to numerous detailed questions, ranging from questions regarding Church activities and financial affairs to civil litigation and various accusations by Church detractors. All of the detailed  questions asked by the IRS were answered. Their extensive queries into the financial structures of the Churches of Scientology hierarchy, the services they deliver, the organisation of each Church, the receipt and disbursement of donations, and myriad other detailed inquiries were fully satisfied in the process. The IRS did not conduct a milk-and-water enquiry – its questions were searching, it sought explanations of the most inflammatory accusations and “information” which

8

it could find regarding Scientology and its Churches. After receiving the responses, the IRS were satisfied that the Churches were organised and operated exclusively for charitable and religious purposes and therefore granted them tax exemption. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 6” a true copy of a declaration of Thomas L Spring, filed in consolidated cases of Religious Technology Center et al v. Scott et al No. CV 85-711 AWT (Bx) and Religious Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al No. CV 85-7197 AWT (bx) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which discusses these facts, arises out of the same theft of the NOTs materials, and in which the Defendants herein are also named as defendants. The inclusion of the description of the corporate structure and functions of various Scientology corporations in the booklet which the IRS is sending to all those making enquiry thereon is an obvious endorsement of the fact that the IRS’s investigation of the underlying facts proved nothing to the contrary. Furthermore, during the course of its enquiries, the IRS became acquainted with the source of, and the truth about, the considerable amount of false information concerning Scientology which had been disseminated in various parts of the world; in order to correct matters the IRS has sent a copy of the booklet, together with official covering letters, to all those countries to which such false information had been passed. More detailed information on the ecclesiastical hierarchy

9

of the Church of Scientology can be found in Chapter 21 of Exhibit HMB 1 at pp. 349-359.

9. The Second Defendant referes to Church of Spiritual Technology (“CST”). A short description of CST is found at page 8 of the booklet at Exhibit HMB 4. The Plaintiff is not aware of what documents CST may or may not have, and in any event any such documents are not in the Plaintiff’s possession, custody or power. Furthermore, as can be seen from Exhibit HMB 4 at page 8, CST, while a Church of Scientology, is not part of the Scientology hierarchy. Like other Churches of Scientology, it is a separate corporate entity. Unlike the majority of those churches, however, it is not involved in the delivery of religious services to the public, but has the exclusive function of acting as an archives for the preservation of the many religious writings and taped lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.

10. The Second Defendant refers in paragraph 2 to an Affidavit of one Gerald Armstrong, sworn over 11 years ago (not sworn in these proceedings). I am informed by the Plaintiff and verily believe that Gerald Armstrong (“Armstrong”) is an individual involved in litigation with Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology of California. Armstrong is a long-time attacker of the Scientology religion, who, since the time of  execution of the Affidavit referred to by the Second Defendant, testified in another case (Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne 

10

v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis et al Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704- 05184. His testimony in this case directly contradicts the proposition on which the Second Defendant relies in support of his assertion that L Ron Hubbard was a managing agent of the Plaintiff. The following excerpt from a video tape transcript, admitted into evidence in the above-referenced case, shows that Armstrong had no knowledge of who was running the Church or who its managing agent was. In the transcript, “G” is Armstrong, “M” is Mike Rinder, a Church executive in Los Angeles.

“G: It can be done during the chaos of whatever RTC, ASI’s got going. Who runs the organisation right now?

M: Which organisation?

G: All of it. Who runs it?

M: Well, it gets run through CMO Int.

G: And who are those people?

M: Well, you know, probably the same guys as when you were around.”

I am informed by the Church of Scientology International’s United States attorneys and verily believe that the videotape from which this transcript was made is a recording of a meeting set up by Armstrong after his sudden departure from the staff of Church of Scientology of California in late 1981. Armstrong had been in charge of a large quantity of personal and private documents belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. Part of Armstrong’s duties included research to support the work of an author who had been retained to write a biography of Mr. Hubbard. After

11

Armstrong’s departure, in the summer of 1982, the Church received evidence that Armstrong had stolen thousands of documents from those archives when he left the Church. Armstrong refused the demands of the Church’s Counsel that he return the documents. Litigation against Armstrong was thereafter filed to recover the documents, while Armstrong pursued a plan to infiltrate and take over the Church. The meeting recorded in the videotape excerpted above was part of Armstrong’s conspiracy. Armstrong had contacted Church staff members who, while pretending to work with Armstrong, actually remained loyal to the Church. They received permission from the Los Angeles Police Department to tape this meeting. The videotape further shows that Armstrong intended to (1) recruit additional persons to create “as much shit for the organisation as possible”; (2) foster this plan by creating sham lawsuits against the Church; (3) seed the Church’s files with forged and ” incriminating” documents which would then be seized in a raid by the IRS as part of its investigations. He claimed the ability to create documents with relative ease because “he did it for a living”; (4) take control of the Church after such a raid; and (5) lie under oath to prevent discovery and to protect his co-conspirators, as evidenced by his statements that “we don’t have to prove a goddam thing. We don’t have to prove shit; we just have to allege it” and that if he is deposed “no-one will ever get any names, any communications, any times, any dates or anything out of me, that’s just the way it is.” There is now produced and 

12

shown to me marked “HMB 7” a copy of the pertinent extracts from that tape transcript. 2More recently Armstrong has been quoted in the press, expressing his opposition to the use of currency as the basis of the economy, as the self-proclaimed founder of the “Organisation of United Renunciants”. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 8” a copy of a newspaper article containing information on Mr Armstrong’s latest activities, including a nude photograph of Mr Armstrong. 3

11. I am informed by the Plaintiff and verily believe that L Ron Hubbard ran the early Dianetics and Scientology organisations until 1966, when he retired from running them on a day to day basis and turned this function over to Scientology Church executives; and that he continued to take an interest in the Church’s expansion and advised on administrative matters when specifically asked for advice but he mainly spent his time researching the upper levels of Scientology and codifying the technology. I refer this Honourable Court to pp. 633-645 of Exhibit HMB 1 which givens information relating to that period of L. Ron Hubbard’s life. The Second Defendant’s claims that Mr Hubbard controlled the Church of Scientology and received inurement of millions of dollars of funds from the Church was exposed as false by the IRS. If such allegations had not been proven false in the IRS’s extensive and exhaustive enquiry which went back a number of years before L Ron Hubbard’s death, the IRS would never have granted exemption

13

to those Churches. I would also refer this Honourable Court to the declaration of Thomas L Spring which appears at Exhibit HMB 6 hereto.

12. The Second Defendant also refers to Issue 15 of “Impact” magazine, published by the International Association of Scientologists in 1987, which he asserts states “who the current real leaders of the church are” and that “these people control ALL of Scientology worldwide” without adducing any evidence in support of this statement. I have already deposed as to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and would simply reiterate that it is the boards of directors or equivalent of the Church corporations which control those corporations and their activities. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 9” a copy of a booklet “The Corporations of Scientology” which gives further information about the various corporations which make up the Church of Scientology hierarchy. This booklet does not discuss CST because it is not part of the hierarchy and has no role in it.

13. Save as detailed below, much of the documentation sought by the Defendants to be disclosed is not and has not been in the possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff. This is not to say necessarily that all such documents are not or never have been in the custody, possession or power of other Churches, Missions and related social reform organisations. The Plaintiff has no right (whether legal

14

or moral) to call for documents or information from Church of Scientology International or any other Church following the doctrines of Scientology.

14. In paragraph 3 the Second Defendant asserts that the documents referred to in paragraph 1 of his Affidavit relate to the matters in question in these proceedings. I will deal with these in turn:

15

a. All issue of the Rehabilitation Project Force

There is no reference in any of the Defendant’s pleadings to the Rehabilitation Project Force. In any event, this broad request is not limited in time and these documents are not relevant to the matters in question in these proceedings.

b. The Sea Organisation billion year contract

Undue influence is not pleaded by the Defendants and this document is not relevant to the matters in question in these proceedings.

c. L Ron Hubbard correspondence

These documents are not and never have been in the possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no genuine documents as are described exist or have ever existed.

d. Plaintiff’s current price list

Fraud has not been pleaded by the Defendants; this document is not therefore relevant to the matters in question in these proceedings. The Plaintiff has had in its possession, custody or power the list of fixed donations required for its services dated 1983 which may be relevant on quantum.

16

e. Impact magazine Issue 15

This document is not relevant to the matters in question in these proceedings but the Plaintiff does not object to disclosing it. I would however draw the attention of this Honourable Court to the fact that this document is already in the possession of the Second Defendant, excerpts being exhibited to this Affidavit.

f. Tapes made by David Mayo and L Ron Hubbard

These documents are not and never have been in the Plaintiff’s possession, custody or power. Furthermore the Second Defendant makes bald and contentious allegations of fraud which are not contained in the pleadings. The characterisation of these materials by the Second Defendant as “pernicious nonsense” and “mumbo- jumbo” is a complete volte-face on his part. In their Defence, the Defendants admitted that the copies of the NOTs documents forming the subject-matter of the balance of these proceedings were taken for their own purposes and that these purposes were “the furtherance of dissident groups of scientologistws [sic] not associated with but hostile to the Plaintiffs and purporting to be able to teach and counsel at all levels, including advanced levels of Scientology”. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 10” copies of two magasines distributed by a group of which the Second and Third Defendant formed

17

part and which contain price lists for services being provided by that group using these materials, thus demonstrating that their present pejorative characterisations of these materials are calculated solely with a view to avoiding liability for their actions. Further, the status of the materials as a trade secret has been recognised. For example in Bridge Publications Inc. v. Vien 827 E.Supp, 629, 632 (S.D.Cal. 1993) a copy of which is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 11” the Court found that “as a matter of law, plaintiffs’ ‘Advanced Technology’ qualifies as a trade secret …” which was defined by the Court as “information which has independent economic value from not being generally known, the secrecy of which has been reasonably protected, or reasonably attempted to be protected.” The NOTs materials are part of the ‘Advanced Technology’. The same view was expressed by the Court in Religious Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al to which I have referred in paragraph 8 above. The Court stated regarding the NOTs materials that “the body of material that is at issue here clearly meets the definition of a trade secret and of a set of trade secrets … I am probably also convinced that these are sacred scriptures viewed from the standpoint of those persons who are Scientologists.” There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 12” a true copy of the transcript of the hearing which contains this

18

statement at page 382:20-25 and additional supporting statements at page 384:5-19. With regard to David Mayo, claims that he was badly treated and that he is an authority who needs to examine these materials, I  am informed by the Church of Scientology International’s United States attorneys and verily believe that David Mayo is an individual who was living in the United States in 1983 who received materials stolen from the Church and subsequently altered them for his own financial gain, through the delivery of Church of Scientology services by a group of which he was part. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 13” a copy of that group’s price list. It is clear from that group’s returns of income in the United States that his group made nearly $2,000,000 from their delivery of these services. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 14” true copies of such returns for the years 1983-1985.

The Court in the United States found that Mayo’s claim, namely that he had written the materials and did not need to have stolen materials to prepare an altered version of them, was not credible. There is now produced and shown to me marked “HMB 15” a true copy of the published declaration, pages 517 and 518 of which I would refer this Honourable Court.

19

g. Sunshine Rundown, OT 2 and OT 3

These documents are not the subject matter of these proceedings and are not relevant to any of the matters in questions in these proceedings.

h. Tapes of MCCS meetings

These documents are not and never have been in the Plaintiff’s possession, custody or power. I am informed by the Church of Scientology International’s ‘United States attorneys and verily believe that these tapes were recorded in connection with a project which was never implemented. They have no bearing on the current corporate structure. I have already referred this Honourable Court to the booklet “Corporations of Scientology”, found at Exhibit HMB 9 hereto, which does set out the current corporate structure for the Church of Scientology hierarchy.

i. Mission Corporate Category Sort out plan

The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these documents in its possession, custody or power.

j. Commodore’s Messenger Logs

The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these documents in its possession, custody or power.

20

k. Steven Bisby personnel files

The Plaintiff does not now nor never has had these documents in its possession, custody and power.

l. NOTs bulletins

Although the Plaintiff has the original documents, the copy documents the subject matter of the balance of these proceedings are held by Messrs Alan Taylor & Co. pursuant to the order of Mr Justice Boreham dated 29th March 1984. The Plaintiff would be most concerned to ensure that these copy documents are not put into the hands of the Defendants in view of the history of the Defendants’ role in taking and use of such documents without authority as appears from the Statement of Claim.

15. Turning now to the Second Defendant’s Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 4th January 1994, and I would stress that this Affidavit was sworn on his own behalf and not on behalf of any other Defendant herein, none of the documents listed in paragraph 1 are the subject of an application by the First or Second Defendant, or indeed any Defendant, presently before this Honourable Court.

16. Furthermore, none of these documents are relevant to the matters in question in these proceedings, specifically:

21

a. The Second Defendant claims (in the second sub-paragraph under paragraph 4) that it is “our contention” that interference with the Plaintiff is trifling as they have no ownership of any property that ” we” are accused of interfering with. This is not what the Defendants have pleaded. On the contrary, by paragraph 1 of their Defence the Defendants have admitted and averred that the Plaintiff was the owner and/or entitled to the immediate possession of the original documents the subject-matter of these proceedings (ie the NOTs materials). The First, Second and Third Defendants herein have already admitted the wrongful conversion of these materials and on 14th July 1984 judgment was entered against them for damages to be assessed for wrongful interference with an Order for costs. At the same time, Mr Justice Kennedy ordered that the Defendants do deliver up the original NOTs materials stolen from the Plaintiff’s premises in Copenhagen.

b. The Second Defendant also seems to assert, in the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 of his Affidavit, that the Plaintiff has no cause of action. No application has been made to strike out these proceedings on that ground. This assertion is in the circumstances of these proceedings ridiculous. I would also refer this Honourable Court to the Affidavit of Edith Maria Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 and in particular

22

Exhibit EL 4 thereto which is a licence in favour of the Plaintiff in relation to inter alia the NOTs materials.

c. I deal with the application by the third and Fourth Defendants for an Order that the Plaintiff give security for costs in a separate Affidavit and would simply herein refer this Honourable Court to pp. xx – xxi of Exhibit HMB 1 and in particular the photograph marked ” Copenhagen, Denmark” which shows one of the large buildings owned by the Plaintiff.

d. There is no pleading on the part of any of the Defendants that there was no consideration provided by the Plaintiff in return for any undertakings the Defendants may have made. Neither do the Defendants plead fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Plaintiff.

e. In relation to document 1(f), this is already in evidence as exhibit EM 4 to the Affidavit of Edith May Loringett as stated in paragraph (b) above.

17. In relation to any failure to provide discovery, as I have already deposed in paragraph 1 hereof, this firm was instructed in place of the Plaintiff’s former solicitors on 26th November last and I am unable to comment on matters prior to that date. However, it appears that none of the

23

parties have complied with the directions herein and steps are now being taken to remedy this so far as the Plaintiff is concerned.

18. The Second Defendant makes a gratuitous reference to an application on the Defendants’ part to strike these proceedings out for want of prosecution alleging inexcusable delay. The Second Defendant is perfectly well aware that the Defendants’ application was dismissed and costs were awarded against the Defendants and it is quite improper for him to reiterate these allegations when the matter has already been the subject of  interlocutory proceedings.

19. Finally, the First and Second Defendants are seeking to amend his pleading. This application was made by Summons dated 3rd February 1994. The trial of this action is fixed for 21st February 1994, just two weeks hence. The Defence in this action was served on 3rd March 1992 and the First and Second Defendants have had therefore considerable opportunity to amend their pleading since that date. It is manifestly an injustice that the Plaintiff should now be required to deal with what is an entirely new issue at this late stage in the proceedings and I would therefore humbly request this Honourable Court not to grant the First and Second Defendants leave to amend their Defence.

 

24

20. Turning now to the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates, Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Defendants herein, I would comment as follows:

21. In relation to paragraph 2 of Mr Bates’ said Affidavit, I have already adequately dealt with these matters above.

22. In regard to the personnel, ethics and auditing files of the Third and Fourth Defendants, these are not now and have never been in the possession of the Plaintiff. Neither have the Defendants nor any of them ever been contractually bound, punished or treated in any way by the Plaintiff. Until the First, Second and Third Defendants by subterfuge wrongfully converted the NOTs materials to their own use they were not known to the Plaintiff and I refer this Honourable Court to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Edith Maria Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 in this regard.

23. I therefore humbly request this Honourable Court not to make the Orders sought by the Defendants herein.

SWORN at 1/2 Judges Terrace
East Grinstead West Sussex
This seventh day of February 1994

Before me,

[signed]

A Solicitor

Notes